Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[trout]

Heres a very interesting article relating to over expenditure on a council new build project:

 

Overspend

 

Now, if anyone really thinks that any large building project can actually come in on target - read that article again and again!

 

It is fact that any build will always have unforseen issues that bump up the supposed final capped projected costs!

[Muppet]

It is fact that any build will always have unforseen issues that bump up the supposed final capped projected costs!

 

I'm not arguing with anything you said, but any Capital project should also have a contingency sum included to cover just those sorts of things.

 

This means the overspend is over and above the contingency.

[trout]

Forgive me if I misunderstand the meaning of capped - but are you then stating that contingency should not be included in the projected cap?

 

If not you're setting yourself up to have a contingency that won't then be measured against the projected costs unless you add said contingency at the end of the build to give the "actual" build costs.

[trout]

It is fact that any build will always have unforseen issues that bump up the supposed final capped projected costs!

 

I'm not arguing with anything you said, but any Capital project should also have a contingency sum included to cover just those sorts of things.

 

This means the overspend is over and above the contingency.

 

I just re-read what you wrote ...

 

Yes, you are saying that contingency is added to the projected cost and cap - and that overspend is that over and above this....

 

... this is my moot point ... that all new builds that I know of in recent years - whether they were £100,000 or £500,000,000 have gone over and above any projected cap inclusive of contingency funding!!

 

I guess I'm attempting to garner some thought on the whole consultation process - and that people are always rather optimistic that these things will come in on target and on price!

[Muppet]

Thats right. I suppose any project that uses the contingency is technically overspent, because it's over and above the planned cost. Only when the budget goes above that would anyone get to hear of an overspend, but by that time it's really a substantial overspend.

 

How's this for a scheme?? Why not take the contingency fund at the end of the project and give half to the customer, half to the Contractor as a bonus? That way the Contractor has some incentive not to spend the contingency. As it is the more he can get the customer to spend, the more profit he makes.

 

Just one of my madcap ideas, but I bet it would bring a lot of projects in on budget.

[DavieG]

Trust me - a huge majority DON'T want it but cannot or will not say so.

 

Sorry but I have to ask why not? There have / are plenty of opportlunities to do so. for instance I was in the Lounge last night (yes I'm still allowed in) and their petition was on the wall and there was one signature on it.

 

An arbitary, one off and ad-hoc straw poll on the street with a few folk - sorry but what would that prove in the long run. Every day you do it it would be different I'm sure.

[JustMe]

Best way to get a contract completed on time and on budget is to have evrything within that contract expressed in unambiguous terms before anyone gets on site. Of course when spending public money fair competition rules from the EU have meant that specifics in a contract (such as saying Dulux paint rather than another brand) have to be worded in such a way as not to exclude another product which makes it harder to make the specification clear from the start.

 

Another reason for time slippage is availability of whatever has been specified. Seen this happen when the firm I worked for down south won a contract with a 12 week completion date only to find that (in this case) valves that were specified had a 26 week waiting list for delivery. Thats what happens when people producing a specification do not bother checking on the details of what they specify and of course that meant the contract was not completed on time.

 

Given the recent clangers of spending a million to get the library moved to an unsuitable building and the claim that precious documents can not be on the ground floor due to the risk of flooding is it not perhaps sensible for the new venue project to be supervised at every stage by people who can spot problems early on and do something to solve them.

 

I am starting to wonder about the library being part of the new venue. Would mean some building services could be shared and would mean that facilities such as a cafe could serve users of the library as well as the music/cinema section.

 

AH!.....a fantasy.....too sensible for our "leaders".

[DavieG]

Given the recent clangers of spending a million to get the library moved to an unsuitable building and the claim that precious documents can not be on the ground floor due to the risk of flooding is it not perhaps sensible for the new venue project to be supervised at every stage by people who can spot problems early on and do something to solve them.

 

This is already part of the plan. Lead consultants will be appointed shortly who will be a mixture of people including architects etc.

 

I am starting to wonder about the library being part of the new venue. Would mean some building services could be shared and would mean that facilities such as a cafe could serve users of the library as well as the music/cinema section.

 

AH!.....a fantasy.....too sensible for our "leaders".

 

Not at all and I think its a great idea. The only problem is size. The currently available site is pretty limited believe it or not (SLAP own the side we have been provided with - but others own other ground around it I believe) Its even a problem to some extend as regards existing plans - but good idea as I say.

[dB]

Trust me - a huge majority DON'T want it but cannot or will not say so.

 

Sorry but I have to ask why not? There have / are plenty of opportlunities to do so. for instance I was in the Lounge last night (yes I'm still allowed in) and their petition was on the wall and there was one signature on it.

 

An arbitary, one off and ad-hoc straw poll on the street with a few folk - sorry but what would that prove in the long run. Every day you do it it would be different I'm sure.

 

 

Of course any poll done depends who is asked. I have heard that one of Ron Inglis's research methods was to ask film-goers at the Garrison if they would like a new cinema. Hardly a Shetland-wide representation I would say. It's a bit like asking kids at a football pitch if they would like an astroturf park.

 

I take your point on ad-hoc polls but I didn't advocate just visiting the "street" in my post.

 

Here's an idea. The SIC could hold a referendum to find out what EVERYONE in Shetland wants. After all, everyone in Shetland will be paying for it.

 

Just a thought

[shetlander]

Given that some thought and it wont work. Moving SIC jobs to rural areas will mean SIC staff commuting to those areas. And even if they dont choose to commute I fear that it would be hard for SIC to recruit staff with the qualifications and experience the council would want.

 

Ah, so by decentralising jobs to locations outwith Lerwick people living there would have to endure a commute or move to take advantage of them. Erm, isn't that what folk from places like the North Mainland or North Isles are having to do just now? And why shouldn't people outwith Lerwick and the central belt (proportional to the population at least) have the qualifications or experience the Council would want? I'm sure many existing SIC staff either live a fair distance from Lerwick and have to commute there or have had to move to the town to be nearer their work.

 

Of course Lerwick should remain the hub of the Council's operations and decentralising some positions isn't going to be feasible. However, Brae for example is more accessible to around a third of the population of Shetland than Lerwick (both in the interest of access to jobs and Council services too). I realise there are personnel implications but in theory there is no reason why some jobs couldn't be moved there with more localised positions going to places like Sandwick, Aith, Yell, Unst etc. Yes, it may take combining specialities within Council departments and having area as opposed to speciality based jobs but it could be done if the political will is there.

 

In my experience of working in Councils on the Mainland, I can't think of any with the same level of centralisation than is the case with the SIC - and in many of those cases, the location of Council headquarters are within easier reach of their wider areas than is the case with Lerwick in relation to some parts of Shetland. It often amuses me that Councillors harp on about the need for bodies like the Scottish Executive to decentralise jobs to places like Shetland (well - Lerwick) but seem reluctant to apply the same logic to their own operations.

[DavieG]

Here's an idea. The SIC could hold a referendum to find out what EVERYONE in Shetland wants. After all, everyone in Shetland will be paying for it.

 

Just a thought

And not a new one either if you read back in this thread. I have also pointed out in these where I think a referendum would not necessarily give us the answers we might need i.e. if say 8000 voted for it but say 10,000 voted against it would it not be built, given that 8000 prresumably potential users could be construed a good audience potential in its own right and others would inevitably change their minds when and if the building were provided.

 

Equally we all pay for all services whether we will personally ever use them of not - just life. I dont use many of the services available on the mainland but I dont get a tax rebate for living in Shetland.

 

If what you suggest were to become the norm where would the referendum process stop? Would we have one for every major project simply because not everyone agreed with it personally.

 

As to Ron Inglis methods - be fair, he targeted many 'soical outlets' and very different audiences (nncluding ones in rural areas etc) during the consultation period simply because that's where larger groups of people tended to gather at one time, and equally the questions were not as simple or loaded at you seek to imply either. The Garrison visit you seem to like coming back to for some reason was only one very small element of a much larger process.

[Njugle]

Here's one for the consultants - Bingo seems to be hugely popular nowadays, equip the CMV as a 600 seat bingo hall for week-nights and you could have a nice little side-line.

 

Taking the idea a bit further, as we are increasingly becoming popular to the wealthy Scandinavian holiday set, further equip the CMV as a casino, get them in, fill them with drink and extract the cash. It works elsewhere.

[DavieG]

Here's one for the consultants - Bingo seems to be hugely popular nowadays, equip the CMV as a 600 seat bingo hall for week-nights and you could have a nice little side-line.

 

Taking the idea a bit further, as we are increasingly becoming popular to the wealthy Scandinavian holiday set, further equip the CMV as a casino, get them in, fill them with drink and extract the cash. It works elsewhere.

 

Just because its not perhaps been considered in terms of the current business plan doesn't mean it can't be ruled in at any time. Any social or developmental element that suits the purpose of the building and the needs of community could and no doubt will be considered - while of course taking into account existing pvovision etc.

[DavieG]

Of course any poll done depends who is asked. I have heard that one of Ron Inglis's research methods was to ask film-goers at the Garrison if they would like a new cinema. Hardly a Shetland-wide representation I would say. It's a bit like asking kids at a football pitch if they would like an astroturf park.

 

Just one interesting side thought on this one given the perspective you highlight. How come if everyone visiting the Garriison when Ron Inglis did his survey (and he was there on more than one occasion of course) was happy with the existing / overall service provided, and given you also suggest a huge majority are also against this project (its been suggested as many 20 - 1 against) did he get the "yes we want it" nod to the level you yourself suggest he obtained?

 

Given what you have suggested I would have though he would have got a resounding "no", seeing as the bigger percentage of those taking part in the survey (yes it was also much wider than just the one question you have chosen to focus on - much of it a full written questionairre) were also adults and not kids as you again seem to suggest.

[DavieG]

[

 

Only jesting - I reckon about 20 to 1 in favour of NOT going ahead of the people I speak to.

 

 

Finally, just out of interest again if as you suggest questioning audiences attending the Garrison was 'loaded' so to speak - where and with whom did you carry out your survey (that gave the figure of 20 - 1 against) what was the question asked and did those you questioned have the full picture of what the whole project was about?

 

Surveys are fickle things I agree but you cant ridicule one done formally and then say that what you did, presumably readomly and unsubstantiated (especially as you are obviously hoping for a negative response), has any more relevance.

 

Its a bit like the question at the start of this forum where the cost of the new facility is cited as £7 but no cost, or anything else for that matter, is put on the alternative. Its just assumed it will be cheaper without further detail and any meat on the bones of the counter arguement so to speak. Hardly purposeful I feel.