### ODT Online Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Stadium trusses schedule set back
By Chris Morris
Work to fit giant steel roof trusses to the Forsyth Barr Stadium is months behind schedule, but Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) chairman Malcolm Farry insists the setback is not critical. Mr Farry yesterday confirmed the first of five arch trusses – part of the roof steelwork linking the north and south stands – was not expected to be hoisted into position until next week.
Read more
****
### ODT Online Sat, 31 Jul 2010
Already planning stadium centenary
By Chris Morris
It might still be a year away from completion, but those building the Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin are already planning 100 years ahead. Members of the Dunedin Venues Management Ltd board – who together are tasked with overseeing the completed venue’s operations – visited the stadium site yesterday to mark an impending milestone.
Read more
Post by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
There are 5 arch trusses to be lifted, but they can only build 2 at a time because of space limitations. There have been delays with the welding and inspection of welding as this has to be done at height it is not straightforward. The lifts require 3 days and weather windows are difficult to come by.
Gear up for Carisbrook for RWC 2011, that is where games will be played.
What do you mean by “as this has to be done at height” – is that the welding or the inspection – and why have there been delays – surely this was known before or is there a new method being used?
Weather has not been a problem to date – but Anonymous is suggesting weather might be a problem? Is this rain, wind or something else. I know I live a few kms away but this has to have been one of the best winters for building for years – so what conditions are needed? If they are running late is it the possibility of equinoxal winds in September that you are referring to Anonymous?
From Forsyth Barr Stadium site, response by webmaster to a question about what is behind and ahead – last Wednesday, “Hayden we don’t have this detail as we are not a part of the construction team. We do know that the people down at site are working their hardest to ensure the stadium is completed on time – 1 Aug 2011. They have been lucky with winter as we haven’t really lost any days to bad weather conditions. Two of the five arch trusses are nearly ready to go up and pitch construction will be kicking off before the end of the year.”
Wednesday at 9:18am ·
So if we haven’t lost time to weather what is the problem?
I guess councillors will have interesting construction questions to raise at the F&S Committee meeting on Monday.
Raising a truss of this scale, to meet the structural components it spans, will require the welding and inspection to be done at height. The words in situ apply for the welding, it’s a 360 degree operation – but hey, we haven’t seen the detail drawings for the connections.
Reading the CST report to the Council for Monday, everything in the garden is lovely.
Reading the story in the ODT the piles of effluent are getting higher.
Hearing about the “approaches” to the DCC for more money, the effluent is getting more aromatic by the day.
Can we rely on the DCC Councillors to get behind the BS, the spin, the smoke and mirrors, to find out the truth? Do the current mob want us to find out before voting starts?
What do you think?
Russell, I think there will be raised voices and lots of pretend massage.
Kate
Have the councillors been given a copy of the critical path by the CST? This may clarify things and help stop speculation.
My understanding from the ODT story is that there was a very specific programme of progress delivered to the DCC and while the CST reports to Council have been overwhelmingly glowing and consistent in saying that all is going according to plan, the most cursory look by any bypasser to the site would reveal that this is a nonsense.
The question to ask is just how much longer can the rosy reports by the CST be given any credence? Surely to goodness when the evidence is there for anyone to see should the report by the CST even be accepted by the Council? Answer – possibly because it’s all been organised beforehand?
As others on other sites have mentioned as well as contributors to this site – the new rugby stadium is most likely not going to be ready for any RWC matches. But Mr Farry and the CST who the DCC have entered into an arrangement with, still say that it will be, and it will be delivered on budget. We now know that the list of exclusions are significant and are not covered by the GMP and so the budget promise looks as unlikely as the delivery promise.
Will Chin, Walls, Brown, Guest, Weatherall, Bezett, Collins, Acklin, Hudson and co want this to be known prior to people voting in October? Even more importantly, what will others do to ensure that the truth will out?
I notice one of the search engine terms used to access this site today was “dunedin stadium sinking”.
There have been rumours in abundance this week and last that something isn’t quite right on site with regard to the piles. I have absolutely no evidence to share on that being a problem. But why is this one so persistent – has it been re-jogged by the pile driving for the university’s phase one building?
You begin to wonder how much of this talk is generated by people on or off the building site to see how far and fast a story travels. You have to hope it’s baseless.
The trouble, with all the solemn promises that have been given over the last three years or so, is that when new promises are made like ‘on time and on budget’ no one believes the CST and its Chairman anymore. It’s a kind of ‘crying wolf’ type situation. Credibility is lost. That’s why it is now so tough on these characters to get people on board. All they are left with is a hopeful return to the negativity label accusation. This is in itself negative as people are effectively being accused of being ungrateful for saying ENOUGH. It worked back in 2007, but now people can see for themselves the fraudulent claims. They see we now have a 17,242 permanent seat stadium shell that others will hopefully fit out. Trouble is no one wants to – the latest being the Otago Polytechnic this week announcing it is not interested in basing their Sport and Adventure outfit there. They can’t even get the toilets sorted out in the west stand. Yet, even now, we have the true believers on council who think the ratepayers are happy to throw more money in to make the stadium work.
It is notable that the Stadium people have been very careful about what they are saying about progress. It is very sparse on specific claims of running to schedule. The only claims relate to the end target for completion.
However, on 10 June, in the ODT article: ‘Stadium: Irish Rugby impressed by progress’ the following passage appeared: “Carmody told the Otago Daily Times he was impressed with progress and was told construction was running to schedule and expected to be completed in time for the tournament.”
I presume that Carmody must have been told this by someone fairly high up within the CST/Arrow/Hawkins/DCC/DVML management monstrosity.
As it was published by the ODT, this report must be true – and is only some seven weeks old. To have fallen three months behind with the Stadium’s schedule of construction in just seven weeks is a remarkable achievement. In fact it can only be achieved via time compression/reversal.
Mr Farry could have done this by accelerating the entire Stadium to beyond the speed of light for a period of time, or by adding Dr Who and his useful gadgets to his stable of backers.
It is of course unthinkable that Mr Carmody and the rest of this community could have been deliberately misled by the mountains of integrity who front this project, or that the Otago Daily Times might have committed an act of shoddy reporting. We therefore have to accept that the CST have entered the fourth dimension.
The discovery of time travel, or the capture of Dr Who, by the CST (as an outcome of the Stadium project where they are acting as an agent for the DCC) is therefore a critical opportunity for this City, and they are to be heartily congratulated for it.
The intellectual property of such technology will of course accrue to the DCC. Our learned councillors may decide to sell it, to travel back some three years themselves and have a rethink of this entire project or to remove themselves entirely to the planet Tharg some three million years into the future. I am not sure which one would benefit this community the most – You decide!
Rob, that was the most fitting tribute. Thank-you.
Peter I looked that up a few weeks ago – I do not have a recent one and am uncertain that it is relevant and it is of course on grey paper.
Kate,
The welding and inspection of welds on the arch trusses was done at height (in situ) – the top of the arch truss is about 20m up. So you need a hoist and personnel cleared for height work and it takes longer. Each section has to be welded in turn. Any mistakes are harder to rectify at height.
Regarding the lift: the lift of each arch truss will extend over 3 days. It requires a clear weather window over an extended period – no or little wind and preferably no rain. It also requires no work to be ongoing in a large part of the site as the lift is transverse to the stadium access and will block vehicular and personnel access along what used to be Awatea St. They will be done from the West end first.
Regardless of what Mr Farry says, the lift of the arch trusses is on the critical path. While he may be correct that other work can be done in place of the lifting work, this does not affect the critical path outcome. The only way to recover the time is to add more resource to complete work more quickly. This will incur additional expense.
In reality, there is no way that the construction can be both on-time and within budget on completion. Hard questions need to be addressed to the project team regarding the status of work on the critical path and the net effect on both project schedule and budget:
– what is the projected completion date as of 31/07/2010?
– does the construction on the projected completion date include all elements under the GMP contract?
– if not, what elements are now out of scope?
– when did they become classified as “out of scope”?
– who approved this?
– are there any additional costs associated with these elements “out of scope”?
– are any of these elements essential to the operation of the facility for RWC 2011?
– if so, then who is responsible for bearing these costs?
…etc…
Regarding the sinking piles, when the north stand piles were done, the concrete cutting contractor had to go back several times to cut the tops off the piles to get correct height as there was an extended period of settlement.
Further, I know there were disputes between the steelwork contractor and the design team regarding changes required to the steelwork due to design “faults” discovered during construction.
Anonymous, wouldn’t I love an independent project manager and construction expert to audit this project now on behalf of Dunedin City Council, as a check on risk and liability.
July 2010 = highest number of views per month since the What if? Stadium of Dunedin… blog began in January 2008.
Anonymous
It is only a rumour, but I’ve heard that the piles on the South Stand, facing the Leith, have sunk 19cm or 19 inches-not sure which-but from what you know is this likely to have happened at the initial pile driving stage (so it’s old news and since ‘rectified’) or is this a recent, ongoing development?
Anonymous thanks for your response. So I gather that all these processes are normal and would have been planned for, they just do not appear to be running quite to schedule, and while some delays might be able to be organised, at some stage the delay will have to change the other building progress.
Kate
While it is to be expected that some delays will occur with some aspects of the construction, any delays on the actual critical path itself will affect the completion date.
From your response it seems the critical path information in the grey papers is even unclear for you and your fellow councillors.
Well! What an interesting thread. If only half is true, this is turning into the biggest ‘cock up since Pearl Harbour’. Kate, by now you and your colleagues must be realising how badly you have all let the citizens down by not, step by step challenging the preposterous claims, counter claims and obfuscations put to you over this whole sorry saga. The CST, the CEO, the Mayor and the inner coterie of councillors have, unchallenged, gotten us into this mess and no-one comes out blameless. Even ‘teflon’ Richard is trying to put himself at arms length by claiming he was ambivalent about the project from the start. Rob’s suggestion that Tharg my be a good place for the lot of you. Actually, I think it is too close.
The way that most construction programmes are presented these days, the critical path items (that is, those items of work which follow one another and have zero time float) are not easy to identify. Unless you are the person who prepared the programme. It is not reasonable to expect a “non construction” person to know which items would normally be critical path items. So it’s a little unfair to blame councillors on that issue. It is, however, reasonable to expect that the person presenting the programme clearly identify those items to the appropriate stakeholders. It is more likely that did not happen.
Phil
This construction person, who is in the know concerning the critical path, seems to be a shadow figure kept out of the public eye. Malcolm Farry, a non construction person whose professional background is a dentist, speaks for him and others. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate that the councillors themselves insist on being briefed by the person in the know concerning the critical path?
I’m going to back up a few posts and respond to the dreamers who still think the correct course of action is to halt construction. That’s just nuts and demonstrates a lack of grasp of the reality of the situation. Should anyone be stupid enough to invoke such a course of action, I’d be tempted to offer my services to Hawkins free of charge. Just for the sheer fun of the process. First up, we’ll have full payment for all work completed to date. As will all my subcontractors. Then we’ll have full payment for any purchased or ordered materials. I’ll be claiming for loss of profit for the estimated final cost, including any and all expected variations. I’ll also be claiming for loss of income during the same period, as I’ve turned down other contracts. As will all my subcontractors. On top of all that, I’ll be adding in an administration fee for winding up the contract early. Finally, I might even be brave enough to throw in a claim for a lack of good faith bargaining. As will my subcontractors. And then we’ll index the whole thing. At the end of it all, I’ll walk away with more money than I would have received had I completed the project, and I’ve just managed to unload 100% of the risk. A contractor’s dream come true.
The designers and project managers will also have claims to match the contractor. And the university is likely to submit a claim for the costs incurred for their proposed stadium buildings.
Rightly or wrongly, it’s being built. Accept it, and figure out a way to deal with it. Constant bashing of the past serves only to identify those who have no idea nor desire about how to move forward. Which is the reality today.
Alright Phil – the desire to shut the whole thing down is completely unrealistic, a nice dream only.
We’re surely just so sick of the whole CST connivings we’d rather have it blasted off the site and they along with it. It’s only human.
Any ideas on how the councillors deal with it, given where it’s at now – most if not all are not au fait with the processes and contractual matters for a large build. How do they get on top of it – who advises them appropriately?
Meanwhile over at SkyscraperCity, UglyBob is naming names…. not with complete accuracy it turns out, but we are NOT naming names and stations in reply.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=61244077#post61244077
He says:
The usual anti-stadium suspects are putting the boot in over the truss delays at the What If blog along with various allegations/rumours of structural issues.
https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/…#comment-12233
(guide to some posters over there: Elizabeth=Elizabeth Kerr joint site administrator, former chair [NZHPT Otago Branch] and STS member before its internal schism; Russell Garbutt former [chairman] of Sport Otago and long time critic of DCC’s support for Otago Rugby Union, friend of Rob Hamlin; Calvin Oaten, long time commentator on Council finances and Council critic; Peter=Peter Atwooll, husband of Bev Butler and STS committee member; Rob=assuming Rob Hamlin, Otago Uni marketing lecturer opposed to stadium from outset; Kate=Kate Wilson, City Councillor from Greater Dunedin grouping and opponent of public funding to stadium, Phil=assuming Phil Cole, member of Sustainable Dunedin; Richard=Richard Walls, City Councillor and Chair Dunedin City Council Finance and Strategy Committee).
****
{from the What if? editors: UglyBob has just added a caveat to his post}
UglyBob:
Caveat: It would seem my above list is not completely accurate. It is not my intent to ‘out people’ as most of those posters make no secret of their identities; merely trying to provide information for outsiders looking in (and I would fall into that category to a significant extent) to make an informed interpretation of the discussion.
UglyBob (29 July 2010, 8:43 AM) summarises from the latest stakeholders report to DCC Finance and Strategy Committee:
Stadium Progress
South Stand
* Last of bleacher raker beam installed as part of infill of crane bay
* Final piles to the crane bay cut down
* Level 1 – small amount of blockwork to complete at western end, timber linings to internal walls started, services 1st fix 80% complete
* Level 2 – stair 1 and 2 installed, fire, plumbing and HVAC 1st fix nearing completion and metal cladding to grids 5-8 and 11-14 complete
* Level 2A – fire installation 1st fix complete
* Level 3 – HVAC continuing, timber framing to bowl glazing underway
* Level 4 – bowl glazing support window nearing completion
* Level 5 – service plinths being poured
Façade
* All stair structures erected to full height
* Structural cladding to stair 3 nearing completion
North Stand
* Concession blockwork nearing completion
* K brace grouting underway
* Cladding supports to rear façade installed
East Stand
* Ground beams poured
* Under slab services underway
West Stand
* Site clearing also complete
* West end of site is being cleared ready for University piling works to commence. Coordinated access for the piling contractor underway
Peter, when you go to a medical specialist, do you know what questions to ask? Usually not. You rely, and rightly so, on the specialist to give you the information you require. The Councillors, have made some dumb decisions on this project, in my opinion. But not knowing to ask about a critical path and its implications is not one of those decisions. I agree with you that it’s the reporting process that has fallen down. Yet again. And the blame for that lies, again, with the CST. Who, it seems to me, are way out of their depth in trying to control this phase.
Phil
I would have thought that asking questions on the critical path and its implications would be a crucial question to ask.
Phil – many people, not in the construction business, deal with large projects – we all build and use pert or gantt charts and can read other people’s – we update them when we meet or miss deadlines and use them to monitor our day to day progress.
I’m sure Hawkins are doing the same, probably using the same tools we all use – there’s no reason why they can’t release their current charts and have other people who aren’t in the building industry read and understand them
Phil is correct – halting construction now is not an option.
What should be done is to let things run their course to delivery date. Then the balance shifts away from the contractors back to the client.
In the meantime, any scope creep should be resisted and a careful eye kept on the items constantly being moved out of GMP scope. The hard questions on the critical path and GMP items must be asked and answered.
On the South stand pile issue, I have no further information.
Anonymous. I suppose the big unknown at this stage is whether whoever is elected on the next council is collectively capable of ensuring this closer scrutiny.
Peter. I’m picking Monday’s meeting will push for closer scrutiny, it’s a long time until October. You have the likes of senior councillors Colin Weatherall, Syd Brown and Richard Walls who, in the end, are not going to let a chance pass by to get critical path explained/examined. (and that wasn’t from the believe it or not file)
Other councillors are beaming in, should be a fascinating meeting – not sure I can make it yet.
View of stadium
More bad news for the Stadium this weekend with Otago getting thrashed by lowly Counties-Manukau. It is going to be very hard for Otago to finish in the top seven and stay in the first division now. The crowds are not going to flock to the Stadium to watch second division rugby.
{Score: 29-13 -Eds}
Elizabeth. It will be interesting to see how questioning they really are and whether they are reported in the press. A bit of pre election posturing seems likely.
“A bit of pre election posturing seems likely.”
I hope so Peter, haha – now’s the time!
How nice of UglyBob to get so many things wrong and how typical of the ugly proponent scene to remain anonymous. Is hypocritical a word that springs to mind?
Reminds me of the formal proponent organisation set up with all the luminaries that has quietly altered its membership list and has not functioned in any required fashion under the terms of the Incorporated Societies Act since inception. It’s the way it works folks!!!
But let’s return to Phil and others’ observations.
Some real – not hypothetical – questions that have not been answered by those Councillors who have consistently voted against the new rugby stadium need answering now that even more worrying issues have been raised by the news of 3 month delays in major deadlines or critical points in construction.
Behind these questions are some really basic points which may or may not separate you from other hopefuls.
At what point does it all become too much? How much more money will you allow to be pumped into the project in either scope creep, having to pay for excluded items, or operating subsidies? We have learned that the CST may or may not have already come to the DCC bowl to ask for more – probably last Monday. How much more is too much?
The other thing is remaining silent is not an option really. I have not had my interpretation of collective responsibility questioned in that it can only be applied to appointed entities such as a Cabinet in a Government. There is no such thing for elected respresentation – there is only elector responsibility. So who is demanding confidentiality in information that has a direct bearing on ratepayers?
Phil, you pose the interesting point that you would love the amusement of acting for Hawkins etc if the decision was made to stop construction.
Have you done any maths or calculations based on the payment of the GMP to the contractor and just walking away from it? Seems to me that that would be potentially cheaper than having to find more money for creep, excluded items and operational losses including maintenance as well as all the salaries for all the people employed to find clients for it.
It may be a more expensive thing than the teeth on the foreshore which are designed to rot and decay, but it would indeed be a significant memorial to a period in this City’s history marked by deceit and incompetence.
Phil
From what you are saying does this make the stadium more ‘sustainable’ for Dunedin?
What is reported in the press does not always necessarily reflect what happens nor do the editors always publish all that the journalists’ report
What is reported in the press may not be possible because of the way in which the business of the City is conducted – in closed session. I really wonder how many of these closed sessions are truly warranted – and remember they are done on the recommendation of the CEO in the main.
I look forward to reading about the type of questions that will be asked at tomorrow’s meeting and the answers provided.
See Lindsay Smith 2 hours ago at Facebook The DCC has lost the plot.
“Great to see the ODT pick up on my Letter to the Editor with their front page story on the stadium timetable. Although they didn’t publish the letter, their story did confirm my belief that the project was at least three months behind schedule.
I did pose two other questions which they didn’t answer. Why do the Stakeholder reports to DCC no longer show a progress chart? The last time the Stakeholder Progress Report showed such a chart was in October 2009 and looking at that report I struggle to see how Mr Farry can catch up three months backlog in the 12 months remaining.
Subsequent reports just say everything is on track and on budget when that clearly is not the case.
The ODT also did not answer the most important question I raised – Who is paying for the extra work which will be needed to meet the schedule and 2011 Rugby Word Cup? Can the DCC absolutely assure us that we will not have to pay one cent more that the $198.3m already committed? I am still waiting for the answer.
This lack of transparency is just one of the reasons I’m standing for Council this year.”
The amount of closed sessions need to be reduced under a new council. There may be occasions of genuine ‘commercial sensitivity’. However many feel this excuse has been abused, particularly with the stadium. Quite simply, where information is hidden for tactical reasons, to further the agenda of vested interests, there is ‘something rotten in the state of Dunedin’.
On the welding, Elizabeth. It a single V butt weld with a backing strip. This in itself is DUMB. Backing strips are meant to make it easier for welding, they don’t, in fact it goes the other way. They cause a whole bunch of problems.
Then we have the application of said welding. I’ve been driving past watching this daily while it was happening. What a joke. The people doing the welding have been set up to fail. The fail rate I believe is sitting around 60-70%. That’s massive!
What are council having to say about that? What are they doing about that? I’m not sure what code they’re welding to, AS/NZS 1554 I would guess. But I do know with piping codes if a weld fails twice it’s a cutout.
Phil. Too late to can it now. But if they did they could because Hawkins have broken the contract by not making specified targets…..
Oh, and just to add, I would expect them to do at least one butt a day, in fact two a day they should be cruising, even at height. But that’s not what I’ve been seeing.
Wirehunt, thanks, that gives a couple of councillors a few more questions for tomorrow’s meeting!?
Today What if? has surpassed this year’s highest weekly total by 491 views, and it’s only 10.41 pm. And it’s a Sunday.
To continue to allow more ratepayers’ money to be sucked into this black hole would be madness. Freeze any more funds and allow the backers to pay the shortfall otherwise they will be guilty of not finishing their pet project by default.
Gee, if I’m filling in for Phil Cole then I’d better sharpen up my comments. Sorry to disappoint there, Bob. Sounds like desperate times over there.
wirehunt, your experience squares with mine on-site.
Project needs to run to contract dates, then dispute the contract.
Council needs to take back ownership from CST. It is not possible for Council to enforce terms against Hawkins while CST is acting with delegated authority.
Russell, I don’t think that the stadium can generate a profit. Not a true profit. Not without hiding loan repayments and overheads under various shells. That’s the core issue for many of us. It can never pay for itself as a standalone entity. And I don’t believe that it falls into the same category as community housing, community pools, or libraries, which I’m more than happy to have running at a loss. So, I’m right with you on that score. The point of my exercise earlier (and I didn’t intend to sound so jovial) was to demonstrate that stopping the construction phase of the project would not reduce any of the expenses nor debt incurred as a result of construction. Either way, we still have to pay between 200 and 300 million dollars all up, depending on who’s figures are shouting the loudest today. Once it’s built, maybe the smart option is to immediately close it. Instead of having it lose money every time it’s used. I don’t know about that one. The way I’m viewing it today is that I truely hope it can at least pay for its direct operating costs. I think that’s about as far as my wish list can realistically extend, and it’s a bit of a stretch at that.
Thanks for the info regarding the welding, Wirehunt. I’m surprised to hear that there is so many critical site welds being performed on-site. As you’ll know, site welding is about double the cost and risk of shop-welding. The numbers that you’re talking about sound rather incredible, and I believe your estimated failure rates. Sounds like a major logistical misjudgement on the part of the structural steel designers. There should be as few site welds as possible.
I noticed another comment regarding the critical path issue. I’ll only add that Councillors are not experienced in dealing with large projects. At least, not in their role as Councillors. They have council staff who do that for them. So, I’ll repeat that I don’t think they have erred in not asking which items of work were the most critical for time. They should not need to ask that. There is a project management company employed specifically to take care of that, and it is the responsibility of the PM to be proactive in providing all the relevant information to the client in a format that the client can understand. If the Councillors had those skills, then they wouldn’t need a PM.
Today’s meeting may be a very interesting one, but I don’t know how many people listen to ZB local news – probably not many judging by what is dished up – but the big news or issues for them seems to be the CCTV cameras or wheelie bins. There is not one investigative piece of journalism left in local radio.
A project manager should be telling their clients the real oil, but I return to my earlier comment. In the middle of things we have a private, non-publically accountable, trust set up by a person who has a long record of assuring the public that the stadium would be privately funded, wouldn’t cost a penny more than $188m, would be world class quality, would have 30,000 plus seats, would be delivered on time and on budget, would run at a profit every year including depreciation and interest, and would be multipurpose.
We have a Council who, one way or another, have accepted all those things while at the same time have been shown that all the assurances and reports don’t actually mean anything. It’s not privately funded, its costing about $350m and counting, it is not world class quality, it will only have about half the capacity of permanent seats that was promised, it looks certain that for a multitude of reasons it won’t be finished on time, nor on budget, and it will run at an enormous ongoing loss causing other core infrastructure projects to have to fall beside the wayside.
All in the name of what?
I think it will be interesting indeed to see just how all the Councillors perform today and I suggest that many people will decide how they will vote upcoming candidates on what they hear from today’s meeting.
Same person who, on losing his mayoral bid, announced to the media that he was quitting the city and would never be returning.
I guess the lure of a free corporate box can change one’s ideals.
Phil
I wouldn’t expect councillors to come to grips with the technical aspects concerning the critical path, but isn’t it possible for the lay person/councillor to be given a general understanding of stadium progress to hand, under the critical path, in a way that is clear? After all, a lot of information must come across the council table, in such a form, to enable councillors to at least try to understand what is happening. Well, you would hope so.
As I said, we will await with interest. I suppose people from far and wide will also be watching including UglyBob also known as Stekelmoll on other sites – how is the weather in Wellington? Paying any Dunedin rates?
Hi there Russell! It was a sunny morning but becoming overcast. Must be a cold front from down South; I can feel something distinctly frosty…
For the record, no I am not currently a Dunedin ratepayer although I have every intention of being one in the future. Yes I also use Stekelmoll as a username on the ODT online site; no secret there as I’ve openly stated it in response to Ian Smith on one occasion. UglyBob as a username on SkyscraperCity predates any political embroilment with stadium issues et al and just reflects standard practice on that site. At any rate, I’m just a bloke sitting in Wellington, who was born in Dunedin and lived in the city for 30 years, who still regards it as his home town and takes an active interest in its affairs and future development. I’ve never had any public profile or held high position.
Phil: sorry for the confusion and bad form on my part to make assumptions on who individuals are; things are not desperate at all on the other site. In fact the Dunedin threads continue to get amongst the highest number of views on the NZ regional cities part of SSC and despite the gloom that sometimes seems apparent from Dunedinites there is plenty of positive stuff happening in the city.
Anyway folks, adieu. Russell, you’re quite right I will be keeping an eye or ear out (maybe both) for the outcome of the Finance and Strategy committee.
It’s probably the cold reality starting to arrive Uglybob.
I’ve lived in Dunedin for well over 50 years and still believe that it is one of the better places to live for a number of reasons, but when coming to fill out the recent resident’s survey, came to realise that most of the things that made it good had been made possible by people working for the community quite a long time ago.
Apart from the Harbour Cone acquisition, most of the things that people have caused to happen, happened ages ago. The Botanic Gardens, Woodhaugh, Ross Creek, the Town Belt date from the very early days. The impressive buildings fall into a similar category – the Railway Station, the Courts, the Town Hall, many of the head office commercial buildings, churches, the University etc.
What you don’t see from your distance are the rapid deterioration in basic core services and infrastructure. City roading, parking strategies, public transport and the like. What you also don’t see are the current rate rises and worse, the projected rate rises, putting current debt onto the credit card. I assume you also don’t see the wink wink way in which City business is conducted.
Probably in line with a lot of other Councils around the country, the prospect of being a Councillor does not necessarily attract the most highly qualified, the most astute, the most skilled or the most visionary. In Dunedin’s case I think it fair to say that the kindest thing to say is that most have gone well past their use-by date. Their sense of entitlement of being there is way greater than their actual performance.
The new rugby stadium is the most “concrete” display of a number of factors, but ignoring everything else, the sheer incompetence of the ability to analyse the business decision to build it must be the crowing achievement of the few Councillors on the DCC and the ORC that pushed it through – hence my suggestion to use it as a memorial to their deceit, conceit and incompetence.
In recent years there has been significant investment in Dunedin infrastructure.
Waste and Water: completion of the Mt Grand Reservoir, Northern Water Pipeline, Tahuna outfall extension and the current work on a secondary treatment plant. I’m aware that by virtue of its age Dunedin has a huge issue with water and waste infrastructure and the $1billion indicative spend forecast in the 3 Waters Strategy will present great challenges.
Electricity: Security of electricity supply should be enhanced by TrustPower with the Mahinerangi Windfarm and work at Deep Stream.
Rail and Roading: the Fairfield bypass has been completed in the last decade; the Caversham bypass will commence in coming financial year; SH88 work is underway; Peninsula roads are being widened and cycleways put in place on both sides of the harbour. KiwiRail is replacing rail bridges on the way to the Port to include provision for a cycleway, realigning part of the track to Port Chalmers and undertaking key maintenance. Fonterra’s development on the Taieri and its railspur provides the possible start of an inland port.
Port Otago: investment in a new container crane and application for resource consents for deepwater port activities to ensure Dunedin remains a significant export port in NZ.
ICT capability: Delta continues work on the flute network and the DCC Digital Strategy is out for consultation. Telecom/Chorus continue extending broadband services available in the city.
Public transport: the ORC has increased the number of bus services and commenced the replacement and building of new shelters.
I would never claim that things are perfect but that’s an awful lot of activity either recently completed or currently underway.
{UglyBob hardly ever misses a beat! -Eds}
If only DCC tweeted from its meetings – the F&S Committee meeting is already in progress, and here we are stuck at our computing desks, afar in silence.
Dear Sean (DCC webmaster) – if you’re following, how long until council meetings get tweeted? Here’s hoping it’s soonish for the new council after the October elections. Let’s start off smart.
Regards, Elizabeth
Ah Elizabeth – how most of the Council wish they could remain in splendid isolation – particularly during these times of stormy passage. But not to fear, Richard will make sure that no real hard questions get answered anyway.
Thanks Elizabeth
The Comm team is preparing a strategy for this at the moment. Not too far away :) …
cheers
Sean
I think that tweeting requires an editorial point of view when selecting highlights. Instead why don’t you web cast them live, then throw the results up on youtube
Not sure what DCC’s new marketing and communications strategy covers but at present there’s a small hurdle of how sound recorders and cameras are permitted for use in meetings of the council’s formal committees – no sound recording, for example.
Note the irony that a person can attend the public sessions in the gallery and witness any discussion or circus, but how the same is newscast suffers controls.
If the members of the New Zealand Parliamentary debating chamber can go live, so can the good councillors of Dunedin City Council.
Good question Elizabeth and thanks Sean for prompt answer (re tweeting). Hopefully this will be seen as an opportunity for transparency and participation rather than marketing. Some absorbing questions will arise – should, for example, people be able to prompt the asking of questions during meetings? (via a Councillor). The question of editorial control becomes interesting when members of the public and Councillors can all be using the same meeting/topic hashtag.
Good point Sam. Possibly, the marketing side hasn’t really got a look in while council protocols, speaking rights, standing orders and more are worked through by the DCC Comm team for the introduction of social media.
As the press reported lately, Northland is already tweeting its council meetings…I imagine it might be the governance support staff that get the job, they have between them a wealth of experience in remaining neutral and ‘minimal’ for meeting reportage, according to guidelines for minuting meetings.
As always, the public should address questions to council representatives in a timely way before meetings not of necessity during – but it all depends on the meeting agenda, the type of business for discussion and the particular dynamics of the meeting.
Elizabeth – remember how Parliamentarians dealt with TV coverage of the debating chamber? The list of stipulations was enormous and now the whole thing is controlled by themselves.
Control is one of the tools used by people that don’t want openness. The way that this Council controls is through closed session, grey papers and secrecy. Those are the overt methods, but also covert methods are used such as the charade of community consultation. We look as if we are listening, but we’re not.
I wonder who is going to tell us all what has transpired at the F and S meeting – or is it all secret?
Russell – we were typing simultaneously I think.
You’re right, control does not fly out the window. A bit like the blackbird caught inside The Governor’s cafe last week, the poor thing had to stay there hovering and perching for 6 hours because the business wouldn’t shut to effect its escape (“oh, we left the door open a couple of times”…). I arrived about half an hour before official closing but had I been any earlier I would’ve called SPCA and shut the lot down myself.
I’ve had an informal phone call about the F&S meeting today and have invited people present to post here tonight. Critical path and “communication” were discussed, I hear. And more.
“I’ve had an informal phone call about the F&S meeting today and have invited people present to post here tonight. Critical path and “communication” were discussed, I hear. And more.”
And more! Yes, indeed. And there will be more than a few ‘red faces’ of some contributing on here given the answers to the questions!
Especially in regard to the trusses!
Do tell, Richard. I have been at work all day!
Let’s see what the ODT Report tomorrow … and (maybe) D-Scene on Wednesday.
Great! You admit there is something to report! We’re not called What if? for nuthin’.
I don’t think there will be many red faces Richard. DCC received a report in October 2009 with a critical path timeline. Neither the CEO of DCC nor the Mayor, nor the Chair of CST advised anyone that it is not the current timeline, nor has anyone publicly given another one out although that is coming.
The red faces in that regard should be all of Councils for again not getting information out to people effectively and timely.
Mr Farry made comments on the welds totally discrediting any disparaging comments about the quality of any of the work. Maybe the red face is wirehunt.
The other advice was that the stadium will be built to time and within budget, maybe the red face will clash with red hair?
But I think in all other respects the questions that were asked showed that the inconsistent type of reporting – some by Arrow, some by CST, using different graphs and traffic lights, is largely the reason for people not understanding how the stadium they are having built for them with their money, will come within the timeframes and budget given the advice we have supplied. If I employed a project manager to oversee my project and report to me in such a manner yes I too would be annoyed. And Richard I am happy to share in embarrassment that here we have some people wanting to know what is happening and we can’t get them consistent reports. A simple online timetable with changes tracked as things happen wouldn’t be that hard really and a positive way of CST showing progress.
There were some interesting questions that Dave Cull posed about delays in steel and ramifications on potential cost claims. Malcolm said that there were discussions but equally there were many things (none given up as example) of things that are ahead of time and under cost and that he is sure that it will be delivered on time, and (on prompting) within budget.
I have some notes that I will delve into later – and I think there might be one or two offerings from others.
Fliss was keen to follow up on the private funding and the potential that it will be more than budgeted. She wanted DCC to determine now that that will go to offset rates. Malcolm wants it to go to upgrade things to a better quality. Syd wanted to ensure we had the money before we debated it, and the CEO or Richard suggested that would be a matter for discussion in about a year.
Like I said being blonde doesn’t help and a bit of sunburn is nearly cancerous. I can always wear sunglasses if the stadium swans across the line sooner than the Gannt charts show. Hi UglyBob!
The only embarrassment is the size of the debt created by council’s funding of the stadium, not sure what the advice is for that even if the building makes it to RWC 2011 (IT WON’T). I’ll ask CST, they’re good for advice.
Interestingly the trusses that are being built at the moment are 1 and 5, so the whole order of events has changed. These are the most complex, 2, 3 and 4, should according to Malcolm be quicker to put together.
I am hopeful that Malcolm will take the opportunity of supplying the new Gannt report early (not wait until next F&S) and with details of all the building that they are ahead of time plus the few that they are behind on and the critical timeframes.
Malcolm is Santa. Good luck to him and all who sail in her. Pity about Rudolph.
We had a verbal report on capitalisation of interest, again if we need such a report it just confirms as I said at the meeting that we are not reporting the information with appropriate clarity, it is not the readers’ fault. (I also acknowledge that there are many readers who can understand the information without such extra data)
I am glad.
The stadium will be built on time and in budget.
There are no significant delays.
All the welding is good.
Some parts of the project are even ahead of schedule.
The reporting, although inconsistent, is correct and accurate.
The critical path timeline is unchanged for nearly a year.
There might even be additional private funding that could offset rates.
In short, the garden is rosy. Flourishing even.
*ring ring*
Hello?
Tui who?
You want what back?
Your marketing campaign…?
Oh, right.
Oddly one Councillor attacked us for asking questions at all!
noted by three sources, Kate
naturally he would be affronted by so many questions, he still has $60m to dish up from somewhere for the project
this makes Malcolm only a stand-in Santa
Kate – interesting observations, and of course Richard is not supplying much at all.
Some obvious questions that flow from your notes and posts from the meeting.
Was there any form of approach made to any members of the DCC either in Governance or Management by members of the CST last week that in any way circumvented the process of DCC business and accountability? And how would you know the truth?
Is the last timeline that has been presented to the Mayor, the CEO or the CST publicly available and are there any discepancies between what members of the DCC have, and what the public has?
What exactly does on time and on budget mean? What is excluded from the GMP and at what price and when will those exclusions be delivered?
Do you really believe that the reports that you and your fellow Councillors have received from the CST are accurate and reflect reality?
What on earth does Fliss mean by private funding? The rest of us know that the private funding is simply cheap operational funding received in advance which will reduce operational income in the future. There is no private construction funding for the stadium. Sorry, $30 received so far.
Quite clear from the reports that it was Michael Guest getting stroppy with all these pesky questions being asked. Dear dear, never mind.
Sounds like Malcolm Farry is not happy with people asking him to account – it’s our money, not yours Malcolm, so get used to it.
No worries about the mix-up, UglyBob. I’ve been compared to worse over the years. I confess to making the odd journey over to Skyscraper from time to time. Not just to the stadium thread, but to others of interest to me. There appears to be a different demographic to this site, in terms of ages, experiences and locations. Which, in turn, throws a different light onto discussions. With the 2 sites in operation I think that there is a good overall representation of those interested in Dunedin and its future direction.
Over at the ‘Dunedin social housing’ thread Peter asked:
2010/07/30 at 11:28 pm
“Kate
Has the working party found that $20m to defray the DCC ratepayer contribution of $91.4m? This was one of the conditions for the project to go ahead. This initiative seems to have vanished into the ether.”
I wondered if anybody asked that today? Is the working party still meeting? How often? Is it reporting to F&S and are there any minutes to read?
The working party could think of it this way: the university decides it wants 25 new professorships or whatever so it goes right out internationally (with a lot of preparatory homework first), talks to successful alumnae or business people with an affinity in the field of interest and seeks to actively build relationships with them as potential targetted benefactors, upfront. In reasonable short order, the deed is done and a long relationship is entered into signed on the dotted line with all due acknowledgement and regular follow-up communication.
So no-one worked connections for the $20 million at Otara, Shanghai, en route to Timbuktu ?
No red face here Kate.
I know some of the pipe fitters, oops sorry, some of the structural fitters in Chch, same for the welders up there along with a boss or two.
Been told about the drawings too…
Can’t anyone tell me who is doing the inspection?
713 views today until midnight.
Not bad for what Richard might describe as a low news day, or was that waiting for ODT to tell Councillors what is is they decided in their own meeting. Doesn’t matter.
Kate: sorry, your notes are suspect and others may have a differing opinion on some of your interpretation.
“… and the CEO or Richard suggested that would be a matter for discussion in about a year.” It was the CEO who made the comment.
I am not going to debate matters with you here, you are a council colleague after all. Some omissions though from your notes.
You fail to mention that the Critical Path Timeline of October was the CSCT’s not the CONTRACTOR’S and, at my invitation, Malcolm willingly agreed to get the information to us as quickly as possible.
You fail to mention that under the CONTRACTOR’s TIMELINE (page 5 of the report), the first arch truss is only 12 days or so late in being hoisted and the reasons why.
You fail to mention the checks and balances involved in the welding process, especially the required inspections.
You fail to mention the reasons why the format of reporting, e.g. the traffic lights and CASH FLOW graph have been dropped.
And, of course, that Athol said that explaining the capitalisation of interest is technically quite difficult in terms of the Annual Plan but “could be better”.
And so on.
Thanks Richard – what we do here is try to build pictures with what everyone has available; real and imagined is par for course. Now we have your notes and kate’s so the picture firms. All good.
Asks Russell of Kate: “Was there any form of approach made to any members of the DCC either in Governance or Management by members of the CST last week that in any way circumvented the process of DCC business and accountability? And how would you know the truth?”
The last question says more about the questioner than anything else.
As for the first part, I simply repeat what I have posted on another thread: “Further to my post of yesterday. As indicated, I raised the matter at today’s meeting of Finance and Strategy.
Confirmed. No approach. No meeting.”
Ugly Bob,
No worries, no offence taken…for the record, I must say that I have agreed with most (if not all) of what the other ‘Phil’ has been saying – probably because we both have the same first name and both work in the construction industry (I think ‘Phil’ does by what he says) – sorry, ‘Phil’, if you don’t!
Too busy with trying to investigate the pros and cons of trying to get a Cable Car re-introduced along High Street to contribute my two-penneth worth, but quite happy for ‘Phil’ to speak for me!!
Phil Cole – not exaggerating, every second day I’m hearing people say the words “Cable Car” with yes, a sense of anticipation – I think you’ve made the two words infectious. Great work!
oh Great, Phil. Talk about putting pressure on me.
Richard I had other things to do last night so was only dabbling with this – I never said it was a complete picture. I think it was fair report of parts of it and not negative, I was hoping to get some other comments from either of the audience to respond to but alas it didn’t come
Russell the timeline we have is the October 2009 one which was before all the contractors had been appointed. It has not occurred to anyone else to supply us another one. As Richard said Malcolm is going to supply that and as I said he agreed to do that before reporting the next F&S meeting. Unfortunately there seems to be a concern that supplying this information or any information is a threat or an inconvenience – while I see all the people interested in this and other sites and see it as a guide to those people as to what is happening and quite a positive move by CST. I do expect it to change at times and that isn’t a bad thing it might just mean other things have happened quicker or certain skill mixes become available cheaply.
The difficulty you and your mates face, Richard, is that the reassurances over the years are wearing thin and a credibility problem has been created.
1. The stadium ‘will not be a cent over $188m’. Now ‘officially’ $198m. What is the latest update on this, Richard?
2. ‘No stone will be left unturned before we approach the ratepayers’.
3. The private sector funding will ‘exceed all expectations’.
4. ‘The stadium is not a stadium.’ ( It’s ‘multi use’.)
5. ‘The exclusions are not exclusions’.
6. ‘Lines in the sand’ to meet conditions. Then over ridden.
7. The Working Party to find $20m to defray the DCC ratepayer input of $91.4m. Poof! Gone in a puff of smoke, it seems.
8. ‘We are on time and on budget’.
And you wonder why people don’t believe you and your mates anymore?
I have read the ODT report. It reports a whitewash with no substantive information. Hardly anything to cause red faces here.
Your turn, Richard. What substantive information about the critical path was discussed yesterday that was not along the lines of “You have asked about delays? What information do you have?”.
Refer to the hard questions above:
– what is the projected completion date as of 31/07/2010?
– does the construction on the projected completion date include all elements under the GMP contract?
– if not, what elements are now out of scope?
– when did they become classified as “out of scope”?
– who approved this?
– are there any additional costs associated with these elements “out of scope”?
– are any of these elements essential to the operation of the facility for RWC 2011?
– if so, then who is responsible for bearing these costs?
Straight answer to these please:
– as of F&S meeting yesterday, what is the completion date ?
– what is the GMP cost ?
– what items have been excluded from GMP since the last CST progress report?
Look at the tone of Richard’s responses and the underlying stance we have seen portrayed so regularly on this, and other sites. Now they extend to Kate – and I see no reason why she should be deferential to Richard’s view of the world.
As for the “confirmation” that no approaches have been made – all you can say Richard is that there have been none that you are aware of. You are not omnipotent and all-knowing, unless of course I’ve missed something.
I would hope that CST are reporting regularly to the Mayor and CEO at the DCC. How often that happens and to what timeframes and when we are not understandably involved.
Someone asked me this morning and presumably there’s a sensible answer, but if they’re building 1 and 5, and have no room to build 2, 3, 4, what are they going to do with 5 (or is it 1?) in the meantime?
Sam – someone said the University isn’t keen to store any stadium trusses on its patch…
What do we think will happen to the critical path while musical chairs are played? The old Titanic joke in regards to the stadium keeps getting more float by the day.
I am told that preparations are underway for the lift today. If you look at the stadium camera (the site one) on the DCC web site, it appears to show the crane support boards in place for a track to lift.
{Forsyth Barr Stadium Webcam http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/webcams/stadium-cam -Eds}
The logical thing would be to put up the western one, then build 2, 3 and 4 and get them up and then put the eastern one. But in the meantime, the already constructed eastern one just sits there and takes up their construction room.
Hmmm – did someone think or assume that they had the use of other land to put their bits on? Wonder if someone is already saying that this is the reason for a delay in progress? But if it was the case, then this would be in the CST report to Council and so it can’t be……
Maybe 1 and 5 can go up and the others are carried over or under them? Seems rather difficult – 2 could be done but the last one would be tight. But as I haven’t the experience of the contractors …..
Hi,
I do the webcams for the DCC and CST covering the stadium. There’s two on that page linked above – the lower one will be the better view of the truss being brought on site and the upper one for the actual lift.
I am hoping that Sean will bring the new one online before the lift :-) I should also have the wireless one back up by then too. I requested permission to put this on the truss for the lift, but for some reason this request was denied…
The placement of the camera inside the site is on the scaffolding towards the eastern end of the North stand. I put it there following advice from the Hawkins team that the eastern end truss would be the last to be lifted in place. I have not been advised of any change to that schedule.
Regards,
Stu
Stu Paul le Comte was looking at a photo series on the stadium but has recently been denied access that he was getting as DVML or CST are doing their own. Hope they are as talented as Paul – pity not to allow a lift cam would be really cool. Paul if I have that story wrong please correct me.
The arch truss from the North end is being walked onto the site over the next 3 days, with lift to follow.
The new camera view from Waverley is live on the DCC website http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/webcams/stadium-cam
Tweet:
@ForBarrStadium Check out webcam on the DCC website – lifting of the 1st #archtruss http://bit.ly/9YY8uv
### ODT Online Wed, 04/08/2010 – 8:56pm.
Comment by Roller on Not only, but also…
Some of the pile-driving on Awatea Street has been additional stabilising of the stadium. I’m sure Mr. Farry will explain all in a future press release.
{In other words it wasn’t all just pile driving for the university’s phase one building. -Eds}
I drove home in the dark tonight and out my [rear] window was an amazing light in the sky. I seriously looked like Dunedin must have been on fire, such was the intensity of the light.
Elizabeth there are two comments on this on the ODT thread – one saying it is for the Stadium, one for the University. Neither gives any indication of how they know or their credentials. This is an interesting site but we do need to try and lift the site from conjecture to fact.
I got home, people are still blogging from Dunedin, there is nothing on the news and I can’t smell smoke – maybe Dunedin isn’t on fire after all – maybe it is the light reflecting on cloud and fog.
I can in all good meaning think something from what I see, but factual analysis is sometimes needed – although again I would suggest that if we had a critical path this would assist to resolve these issues.
If Roller saw pile driving on the site, my question would be is some piling needed for the process of putting up the trusses which is obviously happening soon – or something along those lines. Or have I missed something and Roller has identified himself on the site as someone working on the site and fully informed.
One of the pile driving comments at ODT Online is by EJ Kerr (my good self by name) in reply to Roller, and Stekelmoll in reply also. In my case I had been talking to Property Services about pile driving. And Stekelmoll is always well informed. BUT Roller came back saying “stadium” so maybe Roller is right – let’s find out rather than play with downplaying conjecture. Huh.
Don’t mean to be rude Kate, not at all – this isn’t a site for Greater Dunedin or an individual to say it should be this or that. We don’t intend to live up to anybody else’s formal expectations. That’s not what What if?’s ever been about. Sorry pal. Look for the aurora maybe – truth in the skies.
Keep reading Malcolm Farry dispatches to find out about the pile driving – or ring him, you’re a Councillor.
{EJ Kerr had nothing to say it wasn’t pile driving at the stadium because she doesn’t work there. -Eds}
Whoops It seriously….
Piling is for the foundation for the University building.
Well there’s the answer. Done! Thanks Anonymous. My photo excursion via webcam today didn’t see any piles going in to twang the truss lift. That’s for sure.
Kate me ol’ flower, all you had to do was mention the sound of pile driving (been issuing for a fortnight in low wind conditions) and ask Malcolm how it was going, to which he would say it’s on the university’s building site. Easy.
At the mention of a blog he would have hung up on ya.
Point taken Ed, was thinking you would normally post both blogs that gave contrary views. But certainly your decision.
No I dont think it was the aurora – too foggy – or did you see it I know we should be able to sometime?
Actually did ring Malcolm tonight! But I don’t think I can ask him which blog is correct everytime contrary views come up. Without credentials and supporting information they are meaningless, in fact can be used as Richard did on Monday to discredit every observer on this site.
I am sure you have heard of Peter and the Wolf, I am not sure anyone would recognise a wolf anymore on the unsubstantiated rumours surrounding this.
The question came to my notice after my phone call! I have heard the pile driving on the hockey sidelines – drives me nuts. very happy to live away from it. Actually couldn’t see where it was though myself. Off to count sheep, in my dreams and then while scanning!
### ODT Online Thu, 5 Aug 2010
Truss moved for placement
By Chris Morris
The first of five giant steel roof trusses is on the move at the Forsyth Barr Stadium, albeit months after it was due to be installed. The 101m-long, 220-tonne truss was hoisted into the air by cranes at the stadium site yesterday morning, lifting it from a support frame used in its assembly, before being lowered back to near ground level.
Read more
[Deal agreed to stop stadium leaks -Eds]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10665605
interesting link
[Stadium built without basic facilities -Eds]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10665467
and one we already have read about.
I’ve read the Deaths column in the ODT, I was not in so have had my usual brekkie and now turn to “catching up”
Kate: “Without credentials and supporting information they are meaningless, in fact can be used as Richard did on Monday to discredit every observer on this site.”
I have just picked up on this and am surprised, even disappointed.
At Monday’s meeting of Finance and Strategy, I picked up on a post that a council candidate, Lindsay Smith, had posted on a Facebook Page.
Malcolm Farry confused it with a separate email message, signed by another person but essentially a cut ‘n paste of what Mr Smith had posted.
Uncannily so. I did not know until the next day that Mr Smith was a candidate on the Greater Dunedin ticket which explained why it reflected Dave and, to some extent, your opinions on the subject! That seems to have made you ‘a wee bit techy’ because you are, of course, on the same team. Oh well, to be expected, I guess, given the election campaign. All beating the same drum does make you are sound (and look) like ‘a political party’!!
(Count backward from 10).
I also commented that the ‘critical path’ you and Dave were referring to at the meeting was – from what I knew as a layman – something else. Phil later posted (late on Monday or sometime Tuesday) comments describing it as ‘a construction programme’. And he knows more than most of us given his experience.
Four of the questions I put to Malcolm originated from some objective posts made on ‘What If’.
I hardly think that discredits any “observers on this site”. (By observers, I assume you mean contributors)?
As for the request to Malcolm for the construction program (or whatever it is) to be updated by the CST etc, well that came from me as Chair.
Phil’s post the next day prompted me to refine/enhance that request. A report will come to the next meeting of Finance and Strategy on 13 September.
What I do not know is how detailed it can be given that commercial matters come into the mix.
Unlike the traditional management of major projects such as this, the Project Development Team has control of the site, not Hawkins. Phil will almost certainly know the ramifications of that and the difference it can make especially in regard to cost management etc.
Cheers!
And the second truss is up and in position. Four to go!
Richard, I was heading out to the Ecosanctuary with our NZIA architects jury late morning and caught the truss hovering while people on site seemed to be at lunch… by the time we got back into town ten minutes ago it was being tied to the south stand but not yet to the north stand. It’s 3 more trusses isn’t it, 5 in total?
The assembly isn’t the nicest of structural ‘shapes’ from a formal design point of view. Kind of odd-chaotic.
At Facebook’s The DCC has lost the plot.
Kate Louise Anderson The trickle down effect?
I was shocked the other day in a conversation with a visiting Australian woman eager to tell me how exciting it was for her husbands business to be given a roofing contract for “the rugby world cup stadium”. She said “eight of our boys are here already”. Also she was excited to be coming back to… NZ in about a month’s time to go skiing. She loves Queenstown etc etc
The idea that the stadium would provide local employment during its construction was not including some roofing contracts it seems. How much local employment has the stadium ‘generated’ does anyone know? Should I be considering the Dunedin community ‘lucky’ to have new punters entering our economic ‘food chain’, such as Australian roofer’s wives skiing in Queenstown?
(9 hours ago)
### ODT Online on Thu, 14 Oct 2010
Stadium to be trussed by Christmas
By Chris Morris
Good progress towards completing the roof of the Forsyth Barr Stadium means the $198 million venue is “starting to feel like a stadium”, Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry said.
Read more
Tweet:
@UglyBobNZ Maintenance Manager position at FB Stadium advertised: http://www.selectp.co.nz/baserecruitment/base-nz/forms/JobDetail.php?recordID=38238
Second truss of five is up. We got some awesome close-up shots as it was lifted past the onsite camera. Timelapse footage will be on the Forsyth Barr Stadium Facebook page later.
You are right, Elizabeth. I have six fingers today!
Useful for totting up costs – sort of built-in inflation.
Well, one assumes that ‘roofing’ refers to the installation of the EFTE which is a job for the EFTE specialists. I will check.
On the wider comment of local employment, it is as has been regularly reported, very high. And, given the predicament of the construction industry elsewhere as reported by NZIER last week, it is reasonable to say that the construction programme Council had planned before the recession, has played an important part in that.
As an example, getting a sub-contract to install services in the stadium “came in” almost the same day the owner was faced with the prospect of putting 10 employees of. That information from the relieved owner himself to me.
It will be interesting to see the possible effect of the Canterbury earthquake on local construction here in Dunedin, generally, and the stadium, in particular. There will be, I’d imagine, a lot of longer term work up there for workers, who may be attracted to this work, in place of shorter term contract work and lower wages here.
A reasonable assumption but why would those living in Dunedin, leave ‘home and hearth’, uproot families and go to Christchurch when there is work here.
Given the NZIER report of last week, one could assume that construction workers would more likely come from further north where there is little work offering. And those who are married, would probably work ‘away from home’.
“As an example, getting a sub-contract to install services in the stadium “came in” almost the same day the owner was faced with the prospect of putting 10 employees off.”
That’s pretty much every day in Dunedin, though.
I guess there is more mobility for workers who are single, but even married couples ‘split’ for work options. Not that wonderful for those with families.It happens,unfortunately.
‘Anonymous’ : maybe with the construction indsutry in general EVERYWHERE but certainly not with the particular firm I mentioned given its extensive domestic customer base.
Sorry, and with respect, appear to be flailing in the dark about what DCC has “actually” brought to the construction industry via the stadium build. Phil addressed this very question weeks ago. No time to hunt it, have to work…
Re the Kate Louise Anderson post on ‘Facebook’. As I assumed, the ETFE material for the roof requires a very specialist team, separately contracted and the price includes erection and guarantee.
So much for another attempt at ‘mischievous sabotage’.
Older threads:
18.8.09 Stadium jobs assertion
2.7.09 600 jobs. 35,000 seats. Yeah right.
Tweet:
@ForBarrStadium 3rd arch truss is in place!!
I see from an article in this morning’s ODT, that despite the new rugby stadium being built on an area subject to liquefaction, that it will be OK because “the piles penetrate 20m into bedrock”.
This is an astounding claim.
For a pile to be inserted into bedrock to this distance would require a drilling operation, and it is my clear understanding that no such drilling ocurred on the site at all. We all saw the videos on the ODT website of a number of piles which sank to their full length without driving.
I have no doubt that Richard Walls will be able to confirm a number of things in order to “put things straight” so maybe he can tell us all the following:
1 What is the depth of bedrock below the site?
2 Where can a geological cross-section of the site be obtained – or has he seen one?
3 Was any pile on the site inserted 20m into bedrock?
4 Was the ODT story a misunderstanding?
I’m pretty sure that the piling system used friction piles, which means they were rammed down into the ground until the friction around the pile stopped it from sinking. A standard method. Rather than the boring and placing of piles method, which the report would suggest. Maybe the report is just poorly written (again) and means that the piles were rammed down 20 metres until they reached the bedrock ? That would make more sense.
Phil – several of the piles just vanished because the amount of friction was less than the weight of the pile. How that was fixed I have no idea, but no doubt that Richard Walls will be only too keen to answer the serious questions on the matter I posted above.
Yes, its my understanding they were a combination of friction piles which were driven and bedded to the rock strata below. The advantages of both worlds, lateral stability from the friction of the sensitive material and longitudinal stability from reaching the lower rock level. Russell, given the length of the piles it is easy and somewhat logical to assume the bedrock level is where the piles stopped moving :). I also think, as Phil has suggested, the wording of the article should have been driven 20m TO bedrock, not into. I remember reading one of the claims from STS, (SortTS) and now afternoon Coffee Camp, given as an absolute truth, that the piles would sink without trace. I’ve yet to see that. If this were true the stands would already be sinking by now wouldn’t they ?
Johnson, never saw that claim, but it is certainly true that the ODT had video on its site of at least a couple of the piles which sunk to their full length without driving.
I seem to recall that when the College of Ed car park building was put up adjacent to where the rugby stadium is that they couldn’t find bedrock, but rather some big boulders. Hence my serious question – where is the geological profile of site? So much better to have some authoratitive data so that rumours or BS can be put to bed.
According to the GMP contract the geotechnical work was done by Tonkin and Taylor. The firm has done many high profile projects including Te Papa in Wgtn and AMI Stadium in Chch.
Some of the footage was a little misleading, and the project team didn’t help matters by not offering an explanation for the footage. Some piles hit soft spots, and sunk further than was intended. They are wasted piles in terms of load bearing. There was something in the contract that mentioned about the contractor only being liable for piles which actually held in place correctly. Any extra piles that were to be required as a result of sunken piles would be claimed as an extra costs. I think the term used was “piling risk”, which was carried by the client. I don’t know how many of these extra piles were required.
The other part of the issue, and this is where the footage may have been misleading was that some of the piles were driven in sections. Obviously they weren’t all delivered to site being 20+m long. Being friction piles, you wouldn’t know how long each pile needed to be until they were rammed. So often a section of pile was rammed first, which would have sunken from view. Another section of pile would then have been rammed into the same hole, on top of the first section. And so forth. Until the combination stopped sinking and the top of the final section of pile was sticking out of the ground. I’m not a big fan of this method as it creates a lateral weakness that can’t be observed, but it is not that uncommon in practice.
The “lost” piles, assuming they they haven’t sunk to China, do assist with ground stability. They will provide ground resistance for other piles placed nearby. They did this at the Wellington stadium. The ground was not naturally sufficient loadbearing on that site. So they placed several hundred small piles around the location points for the main loadbearing piles. The smaller piles didn’t support any weight, but gave the soft ground something to push against when the main piles were rammed. So, hopefully not completely wasted.
This is where we fitfully note the end of Mr Farry’s ability to communicate the project where perhaps a better commentator might be available. Phil, you got a suit and a mike? :D
Phil
An interesting response – can I assume that if a friction pile is inserted and doesn’t stop going down then the next one is just placed on top of it rather than being joined to it?
If this indeed the case, then during liquefaction there is nothing to prevent the unjoined piles from becoming disconnected. And since we know that this area of land is really a morass of sediment from centuries of Waters of Leith activity, then liquefaction is a high risk during any form of significant earthquake.
Seems like the multi positioning of small piles is really just like trying to fill a mud pool with a lot of concrete straws.
And are the Tonkin and Taylor geo profiles in the public domain?
That’s why I get a bit more nervous with that type of piling method, Russell. Even though it’s a relatively standard practice. And, to be fair, I’ve never heard of one failing. But you are right in saying that, if one section is already below ground level then there is no way of securing the next section to the one below. And the joint section is not visible. If you not EXACTLY right in placing the pile section above, or if the section below skews, then the whole centre of gravity of the structure changes. And you’d never know. I much prefer big chunky things that I can see.
Your assessment of the small multi pile approach adopted in Wellington is fairly accurate. Basically they created an artifically stable platform in which to place the loadbearing piles.
It’s going back a while now but, if memory serves me correctly, the strengthening piles were more like columns of compacted stones placed into bored holes. There was something in the order of 3 or 4 thousand of these columns placed over the loadbearing part of the site. I recall that the risk of liquefaction was one of the reaons behind adopting this method.
Amazing the junk I have lying around here. Going back through some old NZIQS documentation I note that the stone column ground stabilising method employed in Wellington was also used (by the same contractor) for the construction of the new stand in Christchurch. It was also offered up early on as a solution by the design team for the Dunedin stadium, due to concerns that a suitable loadbearing depth, or bedrock, may not be attained over the entire site. And to reduce the effects of liquefaction, should it occur. I don’t know if the recommendation was carried through into the final design, but I’m sure someone would have reported seeing a couple of thousand holes being bored.
Uh oh. Maybe not Phil with a mike, or a suit.
You might technically reveal not enough stabilisation…would hate the thing to go the way of Canterbury.
Phil – thanks for that response. The other thing that needs to be answered I suppose in the event of liquefaction is I assume that the concrete retaining walls of the Waters of Leith are not particularly tied back into the sediment behind them. At the moment it seems to me that the pool of sediment is contained between Palmers quarry and the concrete waterway of the Leith. In other words, a bit like a saucepan of sediment.
If/when a quake occurs and if these concrete walls collapse into the waterway, then I would assume that the sediment behind them would start to flow. If that happened, what in your view, would happen to the array of piles driven into the sediment and supporting the structure of the two stands?
Russell – did you read the engineering evidence presented at the Stadium Plan Change?
Elizabeth
No, I can’t recall that I did – is it available?
There were two engineers giving expert evidence for DCC at the Plan Change 8 – Stadium hearing; their written evidence will be available from DCC on request. In the evidence the subject of the walls of Leith came up in relation to lateral anchors, and more…
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/district-plan/district-plan-changes/plan-changes/stadium
Click to access PC8-Stadium-decision-final-jan09.pdf
The Plan Change decision refers to the two engineers by name:
Mr David Hamilton (Consultant Hydrologist) and Mr Rod McLeod (Consultant Geotechnical Engineer).
At page 27 [78] the decision says:
• Engineering risk
Issues in respect of this matter have been covered in the evidence of Messrs Hamilton and McLeod. From a planning perspective there remains little comment beyond noting that I am satisfied that the effects of these issues have been adequately considered and mitigated
We agree with Mr Freeland that the expert evidence provided dealt suitably with these issues.
An interesting discussion, and a very enjoyable one. I should say that, the professional engineering consultants involved are a bit bigger than the CST and are unlikely to have compromised their designs in order to fit inside a plucked out of the air budget. They have their professional careers, their registrations, and their public liability insurances to consider. As technical work like this is beyond the ability of a council Building Inspector to assess, the consultants are legally liable for the quality and suitability of the finished product. They carry 100% of the risk. So, I have no doubt that, when it comes to specialist engineering design, everything has been carried out as it should be. Although maybe not as the client would like it to be.
Phil; would those same professional obligations apply to the St Clair sea wall? If so, then the DCC people have let the ratepayers down seriously by not insisting on the designers putting right the faults, which are so obviously those of design.
### ODT Online Wed, 8 Sep 2010
Third steel truss in position, two to go
By Chris Morris
The third giant steel roof truss has been lifted into position at the Forsyth Barr Stadium site in Dunedin, leaving just two more to go. The 105m-long truss – weighing 129 tonnes – was hoisted by cranes yesterday morning, after being moved into position late last week, a Dunedin Venues Management Ltd spokeswoman said.
Read more
The seawall is a different issue, Calvin. DWK made a major design error, and should be held accountable for that. For some reason, they have not been. I suspect (without knowing) that, unlike major structural work projects, DWK were not required to submit a PS1 or PS4 producer statement certificate to Building Control as part of the consent process. Which would have meant that they assumed all risks and responsibilities for the design and construction of the seawall. Rather, that Building Control themselves carried out the monitoring inspections, and signed off on the work as complete. Possibly because it was a simple enough project on the surface. As opposed to the structural design work required for a building, which is beyond Building Control skill levels. If that is the case, then DWK have been removed from legal liability, but probably not from a duty of care case. Which may be why it’s still bouncing around. Like the Leaky Homes issue.
If the stadium falls over because of a design error, then those designers should be held accountable also, as they are taking on the role of a Building Inspector as well as designer. I haven’t seen anything that suggests this will happen.
The Dunedin stadium project carries a higher level of structural risk than the stadiums in Wellington and Christchurch, because of the roof. The other stadiums were able to use lightweight concrete structural design. Because the structures only had to support themselves. This significantly lightened the load on the foundations, which was important in areas where the ground was not ideally suited for a heavy weight structure. Dunedin should have ideally followed the same principle, but would not have been able to, due to the building skeleton having to be stronger in order to support the additional loading from a prestressed roof structure. So it’s going to weigh more than the other stadiums. But that’s been known from the start, so no surprise for the structural designers.
While I was thinking about this, I remember a comment in the media about how parts of the stadium were to be handed over to the client when completed. I’m not sure that’s such a smart move, long term. It used to be the case where one could apply for a partial completion certificate, to allow a part of a building to be signed off and occupied while other parts were still under construction. I haven’t applied for one for a while, but I thought that option had now been removed, and that the building must be entirely certified before any completion certificate is issued. Building Control can issue a “Right to Occupy” certificate, allowing people to occupy certain areas. But, because there is no code compliance completion certificate, the client is using an area still covered under the construction contract. Which therefore hands the risk in that area back to the client. Defects liabilities and guarantees start to get a bit grey in colour. I would rather see the whole project handed over in one hit.
Phil; “DWK made a major design error.” So why are they seemingly off the hook? Have they simply out bullied Graeme Hall and his cohorts? What also of the ramp? Will it ever be put right? A lot of unanswered questions here which I have posed more than once to Graeme Hall only to be fobbed off. Altogether a rubbish performance by rubbish people.
I can certainly understand the frustration, Calvin. If this was a contract that required producer statements from the designer to be submitted to Building Control, certifying that the design and construction met the required standard, then there shouldn’t be a problem. It’s up to DWK (assuming they were the sole designers) to fix it. If, however, Building Control approved the design themselves, and carried out the inspection checks themselves, then the responsibility falls onto Building Control. If CARS also had design input, together with DWK, then it’s a joint failure. Obviously it’s something pretty messy to be hanging around so long.
DWK is an established consultancy, but they aren’t that big that they can really hold any power over DCC. Most of their work these days is (or was) designing housing subdivisions in the USA. That may well have dried up somewhat in recent times, so they might be a bit more willing to see this resolved. I think that they might have some of the design work at Tahuna also.
Who left? Why did he leave?
This is a an advert for a new position of “Head Janitor”, not a vacancy created by someone leaving.
That will make life considerably easier for the Maintenance Manager at City Property, who currently has responsibility for maintenance works for all those buildings under the umbrella of DVML. Together with their current project to dispose of much of their commercial property portfolio (in order to inject quick cash back into the DCC purse), they might find themselves overstaffed there shortly.
Seems a little silly (and not terribly cost effective) to employ a second person when there is already someone paid to carry out the same role for the same properties. DVML might have a different name to DCC, but the funding for both positions is derived from the same source. Could DVML not have simply contracted that work back to CP, who have the historical practical knowledge of all those buildings (excluding the stadium of course)? A more efficient alternative, in my opinion.
Nice of you to be concerned about a possible waste of money, Phil, but don’t worry- DVML are not paying for it. We are.
Seriously though, how does the Mayor and councillors keep tabs on employment positions being advertised by different departments when such positions might be superfluous? Can we expect them to? ‘Sinking lid’ for ’employment creep’ seems to be one possible solution, but Dave Cull seems to be ruling this out, for now, in today’s ODT interview.
I realise that the job description talks only about the stadium, but the reality is that there is not enough work to make that a full time position. So I would expect the duties to extend to cover the other buildings under the DVML umbrella. The stadium is large, but it’s still nothing more than a very basic concrete shell. The first year, everything is under guarantee. So nothing needed there except for a phone call if something breaks. After the first year, service level agreements for mechanical systems, electrical systems, BWOF, etc, will take over. So they’re all taken care of. Likewise cleaning, that will be covered by a service agreement. Nothing to manage there. Once 5 and 10 year planned maintenance plans have been prepared and actioned, the only “maintenance” work required is to phone a contractor if something breaks or gets damaged. Which the office staff could do.
Pretty cruisy job, I might apply for it myself.
Just a little side note. I looked at a couple of web camera photos the other day. From the clock on the camera, they were taken in the middle of the afternoon. It was pleasing to see the lower North stand allowing sunlight to cast across the pitch. Which was pretty good, I thought. Given the time of the year.
Then I looked across at the seating area in the high South stand, and noted that it was bathed in direct sunlight. Nice and warm, but is the lower North stand with its transparent roof going to lead to everyone sitting in the South stand staring straight into the glare of the low sun on a Saturday afternoon?
It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has stood in that area during that time, it might have just been a bad photo.
It’s hard to follow the employment programme at DCC, Peter. Whenever Jim Harland looks like getting into trouble, he makes a big song and dance about how employment numbers within DCC haven’t increased. But you have to look in the murky waters behind that statement.
Building Control has increased by almost 20 extra staff. God only knows why, it’s nothing to do with the new Building Act regulations which actually DECREASES the number of inspections needed. There’s half a dozen new planners, more Environmental Health officers, the same for computer programmers, managers and team leaders falling over each other, the list goes on. And yet no-one has been fired. The world’s greatest zero increase trick?
Almost. No, all you have to do is to sell off the engineering arm of DCC (City Consultants) and you lose 40+ people from the payroll list. Employ 30 more people, and it looks like you’ve decreased your employment numbers by 10. In theory you have. Almost the perfect crime.
The only flaw in the plan is that you now have to contract back those 40+ people you sold off, to carry out the engineering work required by the city. At an inflated contracting price, naturally. But, as they don’t show up as staff members, you’ve ticked that key performance indicator box and are ready to spend that fat bonus.
Hi Phil,
I was onsite yesterday mid-afternoon. A few observations from my experience with the cameras.
– the absolute best view (in my opinion) of the pitch will be from the North stand about halfway up, either on the West 22 or the halfway line (for sentimental reasons, I’ll be getting my season tickets for the closest seats to the current webcam position :-))
– the Plaza camera looking East is the absolute worst mid-morning through to early afternoon, being badly affected by direct sunlight
– I walked direct down the mid-line of the pitch around 2pm – I could see no significant difference in the depth of my shadow cast between the currently uncovered areas and the roofed areas
– there is very strong reflection/glare from the roof visible from outside but inside the lighting is more diffuse
– I’ve previously posted a timelapse video showing that there is almost complete light coverage of the pitch area between June-September
– avoiding the southerly is not going to be the biggest problem. Working on the North stand was difficult due to the strong nor-easter and down at pitch level there was still strong wind east-west along the pitch; however both ends are yet to be enclosed
– even the few (6 or so) lights in place for security provide adequate lighting for the webcam to function normally after nightfall (prior to these being activated we fell back to night vision mode). The sports lighting from the trusses will be excellent.
So for the few mid-afternoon games we will get, take your sunnies for the South stand :-)
The webcam is currently turned round to face the East stand construction due to the scaffolding tower constructed on the North stand for the arch truss/roof work.
As an aside, the webcams have found enormous popularity, as well as being used by the general Internet audience through the DCC Web site, they are used to track progress by Hawkins, the original architects, Naylor Love and (shortly) by an organisation planning a Major Event in 2011.
Cheaper, and more comfortable, to watch the games on Sky TV at home with people you’d prefer to be with.
east-west, essentially straight down the pitch from the harbour. {Fixed. -Eds}
@Peter- tell that to my 4-year old.
Stu
I can see your point – a chance to get away for a while for a break.
Inclined to agree with you, Stu. The smaller North stand looks like the place to be, not the larger South stand. Which most people will pick up on after their first daytime visit. That will probably mean that we will be restricted to evening starts for any events of note, ie rugby test matches.
Stu says: “…and (shortly) by an organisation planning a Major Event in 2011.”
Gosh darn, that could be the opening of the stadium and/or RWC 2011… How much are we up for to subsidise the stupendous occasion I wonder (although Mr Davies did ask for another handout last Annual Plan round to get the events programme in motion – put it this way, how much more does he need???). I’ll not be there or at home watching it on Sky, other things to do.
@Elizabeth,
No, not ratepayer money this time (well, not the part I’m involved with). This is someone outside the city paying for something produced here…which is the point of it all :)
As for opening day, I have no choice – I have a very engaged 4-year-old boy who knows the construction inside-out, monitors it every day and knows exactly what every member of his family has done on site…
Ah, happy to hear that, Stu. Previous intel from the ‘industry’, had DVML thinking to offer substantial underwriting to those interested (maybe) in coming here with their event(s).
You’re a positive part of the overall development, can’t take that away from you and wouldn’t think of doing so – sounds like you’ve got a very keen apprentice in the making :)
The stadium is not for me, however. The last councils of DCC and ORC effectively removed any future support from me, it was a bad trip. And the new councils are yet to show their colours.
Sorry, Stu, I can’t share any of your excitement for any ‘wow factor’ with this stadium given the way the whole project has been instigated from the beginning, and manipulated all along the way, to serve the interests of a greedy few, who deceitfully present it as a facility for all when we know it is purely for powerful rugby mates and their hangers on. The stadium bond issue is testimony of the greed and deceit that has divided our community. I know of many people who have vowed never to enter the stadium.