Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Except these problems exist and need to be addressed regardless of the development plan being discussed. Hence, out of scope for the construction project in question. You may identify them as potential assumptions, but to say they are part of the scope to build this project is bull####. It would be like someone buying North Hill Mall and wanting to redevelop that space then telling the group they are responsible for improvement costs to 16th avenue, something that has been an issue for decades and a well known problem for the City. That isn't how things are done. That is how you guarantee projects don't get kicked off.
|
They are not out of scope at all. Yes, the scope itself is somewhat non-differentiating, but the timing of that scope is drastically different for CalgaryNEXT vs future development. Surely you get that. Therefore it absolutely needs to be considered (I mean, unless you believe the time value of money is zero and have access to a couple billion dollar line of credit at 0%). The ancillary projects are absolutely in scope.
Hell, even if they were identical you still come up with a complete scope basis which includes all tie-ins. On that there is no debate. That's good asset development. Then debate who pays for which part, but to say that only paying attention to scope inside your own
perceived boundary limits is good asset development practice is 100% unequivocally incorrect.
On the North Hill example, ya if someone bought it and wanted to accelerate the city's plans to fix the surrounding infrastructure by a decade or two you're damn right that should be considered when evaluating the merits of the plan. And heck, at least in that case the developer is paying for the land and would own it.