Compromises might be made for the Thunder Bay Art Gallery
Rising material costs could change the design of the new waterfront gallery.
Construction of the Thunder Bay Art Gallery continues, but some changes might be needed as the cost of building it continues to rise.
According to the art gallery’s executive director, Matthew Hills, the rising cost of construction might require the gallery to change some of its design plans.
“We’re at a point now where we’re considering and having to make hard decisions about the overall design and operations of the building. As a group, we’re looking at compromises and flexibilities, and some of the value-engineering processes that come out of the construction management model are being examined.
“We have the right people at the table in Colliers and Tom Jones Construction to help us figure out how to realize the gallery and its full potential that our community in Thunder Bay deserves.”
He said the board is exploring all possibilities when it comes to how they might have to cut costs.
“We have not determined exactly what we’ll do. We’re just at a point of both actively fundraising and seeking support in the community to realize the full vision of the gallery, but also examining various scenarios and ways to ensure value and cost efficiency in relation to the budget.
“So we’re exploring everything and I can’t speak specifically to any details.”
Hills specified that delays in construction likely won’t affect the budget, but the rising cost of materials will be the bigger concern.
“It’s really fantastic to see some of the steel beams that are custom-designed for that roof. They really hint at the overall design and how responsive it is to the shoreline of Lake Superior. You can start to see as you drive along Sleeping Giant Parkway some of the profile and space that the gallery will have in that new location.”
Hills is excited to have more room to store and grow its collection and to have more space for programming.
“Our school programs and camp programs are oversubscribed. We have to turn kids away that want opportunities to be learning and working with art.
“This new facility represents three times the space for us and we’re really excited to realize that and to start to address some of the needs in the communities and the ways that we work so successfully here.”
Costs to build the gallery were last reported at $57 million with hopes the gallery will open in early 2026. – tbnewswatch.com
article website here
MIGHT be made or WILL be made? Sounds more like WILL be made to me. Unless the taxpayer comes riding in on his/her/? white horse to save the day, which just may happen. Taxpayer dollars are sourced from a bottomless pit of cash. Especially if there is an election in the near future.
If there are features that can be eliminated to lower costs, why were they included in the design in the first place? Had the Thunder Bay Art Gallery been playing with their own cash instead of cash that was “donated” by taxpayers, I am sure they would have been much more frugal when it came to design and features.
I am sure that some features cannot be eliminated. Some of the Federal grant dollars are tied to the net carbon neutral/reducing emissions program. That increased the cost of construction and involved some design changes.
Fund raising for this project is almost non-existent. Its obvious that this project was going to be almost all taxpayer funded.
I have said it before and I will say it again, the former Eaton’s Building was the perfect place for this. It is a very large building located amongst shops, bars and restaurants. The area is serviced by several bus routes. The waterfront location is serviced by zero bus routes> There is a large parkade less than a block away from the former Eaton’s Building.
I am sure that purchase price plus renovation costs would have been a fraction of the $57 million the waterfront option is costing. Everyone would have benefited. Taxpayers, business owners, art gallery people. The only loser would be the City of Thunder Bay. They would lose out on the taxes that property presently produces. The entire project is a joke. Little to no public support. Almost completely funded by governments.
The decision was completely political. Plain and simple. What was good for the people and businesses did not matter. It never does.