A development proposal has come in front of our City Council recently to build a fairly significant residential complex involving multiple high-rise apartment towers in an existing neighborhood.
The focus of most of the concerns raised by residents and our council has been around the end state and the impacts such a complex will pose on traffic, shadowing, infrastructure and so on.
However, the engineering company representing the developers/investors has been unable/unwilling to provide a ROM/high-level estimate for schedule or cost for this project, nor have they articulated any of the project risks which they are concerned about and how they'd address those. They have also not provided any firm guidance around the phasing of the construction of the different buildings.
So, how comfortable would you be as a stakeholder being presented with a future end state but with no insights as to how that end state is achieved.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Kiron, I definitely wouldn't be comfortable with this situation at all. There should be more transparency and those info you are requesting are basic information that should be disclosed. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Hi Kiron,
If the council and/or board overseeing these discussions has ultimate consent/approval authorization over this proposal, then my thoughts may flow to the following:
[A] If the due diligence process has “stopped” due to these questions not being answered:
- [1] The engineering company lacks knowledge of project details and is stonewalling to prevent exposure to this fact, as they do not want to lose this opportunity.
- [2] The engineering company is subpar for a project of this type and lacks internal capabilities to address these questions professionally.
[B] If the due diligence process is “continuing” without regard to the answering of these questions:
- [1] The council and/or board lacks a professional understanding of their obligations and duties.
- [2] Ethical concern: Influential member(s) of the council and/or board have a personal interest in this proposal moving forward and cannot afford to have critical (i.e., proposal-stopping) concerns brought to light.
As it relates to [B.2]; No, I’m not conspiracy-minded, but when you pay attention to city politics, especially those of the big-city variety, you cannot ignore the possibility of “pay to play” scenarios.
So, for the reasons above and others, I would NOT be comfortable with this.
George Saving Changes...
William M Hayden JrAdjunct Assistant Professor| University at Buffalo, School of Management, Operations Management & StrategyBuffalo, Ny, United States
Two thoughts surfaced:
1. Require an open, public hearing wherein attendees may review, ask questions, and provide concerns and alternatives, or,
2. Follow the money.
Cheers,
Bill Saving Changes...
Community Champion
