Could it get any worse?
Critics call the Canada Pavilion for the 2010 Games rushed, ugly and badly managed. They might be able to add "illegal" to their list.
A vital piece of provincial legislation that helps ensure building safety could have been overlooked in the construction process. And the Architectural Institute of British Columbia isn't ruling out penalties for the transgressors.
"You've got three levels of government that ignored a law of the land as far as we can tell," the AIBC's director of professional conduct and illegal practice Thomas Lutes told the Tyee Tuesday.
The AIBC was established under the 1920 Architects Act, a provincial statute that remains in force to this day. Under the act, construction projects must hire an architect registered in B.C. for buildings of a certain size and occupancy, Lutes said.
The provision ensures someone competent watches over building safety, aesthetics and compliance to city bylaws, among other duties. As far as the AIBC can tell, no architect oversaw the $9.2 million Canada Pavilion.
Someone competent would have been good.
The more I think about this, the more I think it could be the tipping point for ordinary, non-political Canadians.
While many of us are engaged and
But everybody can recognize butt-ugly when they see it.
And not just butt-ugly, but expensive, insulting, embarrassing, out-sourced, late, and maybe illegal.
As Christopher Hume so scathingly points out, it is a metaphorical insult to all Canadians
I challenge you. Send that link to a non-political -- maybe even Conservative -- friend or relation and ask them what they think. (Read the comments there too. Canucks are PISSED.)
h/t for The Tyee link to Aunt Bertha in the comments.
And thanks to Alison at The Galloping Beaver, from whom I borrowed that photo. (I couldn't copy it off the Star link.)
ADDED: From Joy in the comments: And perhaps the wiring wasn't properly inspected.