Roofers are going to keep themselves busy at the Pavilion.
Over the past few days I started thinking about why ‘engineering services’ alone would cost $78,000 for roof replacement. These are JUST plans, not actual replacement costs. Remember the window replacement bid fiasco? Or how the tuck and point job was getting messed up by a local contractor and an out of state contractor had to be brought in to fix the mess?
Then I started to get even more curious when Councilor Staggers made the comments about ‘the several fixes’ the Pavilion roof has gotten over the years, and I personally recall when I worked there about the leaky roof.
Make no mistake, the roof probably needs to be replaced, and when we are spending $78,000 just for engineering, it must be pretty serious.
I talked to a local contractor this morning and asked what their thoughts are on a project like this. They said that the leaky roof doesn’t surprise them, because as they understand, they had to join a new roof with the old roof on all 4 sides (remember the only part that was gutted was the center for the Great Hall). He said you would automatically have issues right off the bat, joining an almost 100 year old roof with a new roof, also take into account, it’s a flat roof, so during the winter/spring when thawing and freezing occurs, ice dams most likely happen at the openings of the downspouts.
He said the project will probably get even more expensive if they replace the balustrades (those buldgy pedestal thingies on the edge of the roof) with fiberglass replicas. I guess the terracota balustrade should be replaced because they could crack and break due to their age and fall on people below.
That wouldn’t be good.
Make no mistake, the Pavilion roof replacement is probably long overdue, but like the siding on the Events Center, it should have been done right to begin with. Can’t wait for the maintenance bids to start coming in on the Events Center in the next 10-14 years. Grab your ankles folks, this is gonna hurt.
Did they even bid out the project to the local A&E firms or is this another just hand it to them, they need a job? Then watch some yahoo outfit like Mortenson get it because they do roofing and siding right like they did at the EC (LOL), Dalsin should be filing lawsuits on MMM and Fiddle Faddle to get this resolved. This is not good for the taxpayer if this continues.
FYI – there is no such thing as a “flat” roof. They all have some slope(s).
Really, Ruf?! Get the F’ck out of here! ;(
Roof lines modified by construction, roofing material changes, ice dams, aged timber sagging and so many more things as a building ages cause roofs to flatten out or pool water.
The listed changes cause roofs which may have had some slope once upon a time to no longer shed water properly. So there are roofs which become flattened.
The 78k is sounding like there’s subroof issues. Is there water damage? Was there structure redesign for the 100 year old roof support? No doubt there were short cuts to keep reconstruction cost down and increase the profit for the subcontractor. For the EC it was cheaper siding and less design for flooring. Here, is it because of roofing shortcuts?
If existing parts of this roof were done prior to 1997 or so there would be the need to install over flow roof drains and to be careful to not create dust etc if old insulation has asbestos the job could easily climb to 1.5 million or so. The one big item will be to restore or design for crickets,roof drains and insulation products. A&E May design but if fiddle faddle has to control constructive change orders then tax payer will get screwed again.
[…] As I mentioned in March, this was going to cost the city a pretty penny; […]