Since the defeat of the $22 million bond referendum last October and the decision to basically start from scratch, scrap all the Dattner conceptual plans, pledge to only build within the existing footprint (and not a foot more!), and the formation of yet another committee charged with standing in for the “public” on forging a path forward, the Great Neck Library’s Building Committee has been working hard. That is not in question.
But so far, things are panning out pretty much as I predicted it would.
And in the end, I am predicting, the plan for the library renovation will come out pretty much as the minimalist plan that Dattner had offered, but when all the costs are calculated, we will pay nearly as much as for the larger plan that was defeated, even though we are virtually guaranteed to have a smaller building than now.
Members of the committee – who include professionals who are graciously donating their time and expertise – strongly object that my prediction will not come true.
But I am also two for two: the committee has already obtained an extension from July to September for reporting its recommendations and a budget, and now, the library is in the midst of issuing a new RFP for a new architect.
That will make No. 5.
The library identified 13 architectural firms that have public library experience to receive the RFP (versus 20 the last time). Dattner, I understand, will be able to bid, but I highly doubt that they will after the extraordinary snub they have received, and even if they do, the library committee has convinced themselves that Dattner has “lost its enthusiasm” for the project (And who could blame them?).
The committee made the decision to seek other architects after Dattner apparently came back with a fee to go forward with “Phase 2” that the committee felt was too high price.
The committee is contending that this does not amount to “going back to square one” or even a step backward. They contend that this is an RFP for Phase 2, and that the work that Dattner and the environmental consultant, the lawyers, the zoning and all the expenses that have been expended to get permits and approvals, etc. etc. etc. (and on and on and on), will not be wasted. (We are talking tens of thousands of dollars worth).
(I can’t help but hear ringing in my ears the outrage that Ralene Adler expressed after plan No. 3 was blocked by the town, for the wasted taxpayer money, which led to plan No. 4.)
“Everything that past architects have provided is now our product, we are the owners of that, and will be available to future – studies, environmental, zoning plans, traffic study, site plans, all available that we have,” board President Varda Solomon stated at the June 19 board meeting.
“This puts us exactly where it was from day one, because all our other contracts with Park East [the construction manager] and Dattner were phase one and there was a provision for phase two, where another RFP would have occurred,” added trustee Josie Pizer. “This doesn’t stop us. This gives us a broader view, more informed and enlightened.”
“We are unable to move forward in the charge the board gave us which was to come up with a budget and a concept,” commented board member Marietta DiCamillo who chairs the building committee. “Because [Dattner’s] bid [for the next phase] came in so high, we have to go out and bid the job. The committee has also expressed concern over the timing but the architects and the professionals on the building committee said this shouldn’t put us much further behind.”
Have I mentioned they are also going out for a new RFP for a construction manager [Park East, selected through RFP process, is out] and an independent cost estimator.
The difference now is that when they put out the RFP for an architect, they will not make the same (now fatal) mistake (or rather mistakes, since this is, after all, the fifth try at the brass ring) as they made when Dattner Associates won its RFP: in that RFP, the board at the time intentionally left out a budget amount for the project, in order to get an unvarnished plan that would incorporate the “wish list” that had been so meticulously and arduously prepared after deliberations of that flavor-of-the-month ad-hoc committee, focus groups, public meetings, even a “visioning” experience organized by the Town of North Hempstead after it rather arbitrarily refused to issue the necessary variances for Plan #3 (“Visioning” is a little like EST, if your memory goes back that far).
This latest, newest ad hoc committee of the “public” is expected to be more successful because it incorporates professionals who are graciously volunteering their time and expertise (not known why the professionals did not come forward during the two or three years that Plan #4 was going through its process).
Even more importantly for the ultimate adoption of a plan, any plan, it is led and dominated by the very people who have been fighting so hard against all previous plans for Main Library (whether it was an expansion, rebuilding, renovation or refurbishing) going back to 1995, but for all these years have fought so ardently and won major renovations and expansions and improvements of the branches.
This committee has been working from the framework they were trapped into at that first meeting after the defeat of the referendum: promising absolutely to abandon every previous plan and to work within the existing footprint and not a square foot more!
And, oh yes, to do it at a fraction of the price tag of the defeated plan.
It reminds me of the “Apollo 13” movie when the world’s scientists and engineers were desperately trying to figure out how to put a square object into a round hole in build a new filter system out of existing parts on the stricken space capsule before the astronauts died of CO-2 poisoning.
This committee has been doing its work not in secret, but hardly anyone shows up to hear the process or deliberations, and there have been NO presentations in public about how the deliberations are going so far.
The committee has actually made critical decisions – reflected in the RFP -that will shape the plans (once again, not making the same mistake of being open-ended). In effect, the public will be presented with a fait accompli.
At the last Library board meeting, when the trustees voted to accept the committee’s wording of the RFP and the decision to issue it, there was no public discussion of how the plans are shaping up.
But I learned that there is an actual list that the committee has made of how much space to allocate for each department and service.
Wow. That is basically the concept for a “new” (or rather “renovated”) library: you just tell the architect to draw around those dimensions.
I will share with you what I learned, from the list DiCamillo handed me:
Meeting spaces: Areas increased in size: community room (1765 to 1900), multipurpose room (450 to 900), group study (465 to 600, consisting of 4 rooms accommodating 4-6 people); community room storage (new, 200). Staying the same: Lobby/exhibit (825), snack bar (380). Total increases 3885 to 4805.
Adult Services: Increased: Reference Workroom (315 to 375, 7 workstations and shelving). New: Reference seating (350). Reduced: History collection (380 to 250; a computer station); Reference Collection (1500 to 1000, based on target collection size); reference seating, 1,880 to 1,550 (provides flexibility in seating type). Stays same: Reference Services desk (135, 2 workstations and book carts). Total is reduced from 4536 to 3660.
Adult Circulation Collection: Reduced: Adult collection (9,180 to 8,000). Stays same: Seating (660, provides flexibility in seating type). Total is reduced 9,840 to 8,660.
Audio Visual: Increased: AV Desk (65 to 75, 1 workstation adn book carts); workroom (80 to 170, 3 workstations and shelving). Reduced: AV viewing (1,270 to 1,000). Eliminated: office (90). Total reduced 1,505 to 1,245.
Levels: Added: Storage (250). Stays same: Levels area (3080), control room (180). Total increases from 3,260 to 3,510.
Young Adults: Added: Service Desk (50 (1 work station and book carts); YA/Teens seating/study (500, 20 spaces); Increased: YA/Teens collection: (415 to 500, but this is still to be confirmed). Total increases from 415 to 1,050.
Children’s: Increased: Children’s seating area (860 to 1000), Children’s Collection (1,305 to 2,500), computer area (140 to 300, potential for growth in # of computers); children’s services workroom (110 to 200, 4 workstations). Added: Program room storage (120). Stays same: Children’s Desk (115, 2 workstations and book carts). Total increases from 2530 to 4235).
Lobby/vestibule is reduced from 590 to 500 (includes info desk).
Circulation: Circulation desk (reduced 630 to 500, consisting of 4 workstations and book cars); office (stays 105). Total is reduced from 735 to 605.
Administration: Library director office same (185). Areas increased: Assistant Director (150; Administrative Assistant, 95-12), conference area (150), staff lounge (410 to 600); supply storage (100). Reduced: staff pantry (65 to 50); Eliminated space (relocated to Station Branch): staff meeting room (160), business director (210); business office (290), records storage. Total decreases 1,415 to 1,365 sq ft.
Maintenance and Support: Increased: workshop (245 to 250), supply storage (185 to 200), toilets (815 to 850); staying the same (janitor’s closets (40), mechanical equipment rooms (2435), garage (729). Eliminated: office (80). Total reduces from 4,529 to 4,504.
Technical Services: Eliminated: Technical services work room (1,350 ft recovered by combining tech services work room, storage and book room into single space). Reduced: Publicity and Programming office (260 to 150, 2 workstations). Stays same: book room (2,285, 8 workstations and book carts), computer and server room (210, 4 workstations). Total reduces from 4,105 to 2645.
In sum, areas that are increased in size include Meeting Space, Young Adults, Children’s Area, Levels.
Areas that are reduced are Administration (moving business office functions) and Technical services.
The total interior space for the library is reduced 1,000 sq. ft., from 43,749 to 42,785; the gross size (representing the corridors, building structure, exterior envelope) is reduced from 47,125 to 46,208).
These space allocations may seem reasonable but there is no comparison presented to actual usage and demand, or what is typical of other 21st century libraries.
There is a philosophical decision to reduce the size of the collection and to allocate space based on more and more materials being virtual.
I note particularly the increased space for Children’s section, creation of a Young Adults area; some increased space for Community Room and Levels which have been constant themes. But has there been enough allocation for community room, meeting rooms, study rooms? Is Levels – this most remarkable young people’s program – big enough?
When I ask, I am told that the building size is the building size, and that’s that. In fact, there is less space because of the need to adhere to new codes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that hadn’t existed when the building was constructed, in 1970.
But that’s the point. We had an opportunity to make the building size more accommodating to our needs. Now the question I raise is whether there will actually be the cost-savings that seemed to be the biggest factor in the referendum’s defeat in a new design that shrinks the building.
And what about flexibility? Flexibility is regarded as crucial in order to allow the building to be adaptable over the decades. This is a word that is used often, but will the space constraints, and the existing structure of the building – the fact that the book stacks hold up the mezzanine – allow it?
So the committee is deciding the space allocations and also putting out an RFP with parameters for budget. But there are other pre-determinants to whatever “changes” or “improvements” to the building will be: the imperative to replace failing systems and infrastructure of the aging building, like the cooling tower. Logic and commonsense would suggest that systems should be replaced all at once with a new design, but that is no longer possible.
I had to pigeon-hole Marietta DiCamillo to get a sense of the new timetable: the RFP for an architect for Phase 2 is due back August 1; a decision will be made “no later than October 1” but she expects the selection to be sooner than that (the architect will need 4-8 weeks to come up with the plans). Then an RFP will be issued for a construction manager (Park East is out); unclear whether there will also be a project manager. An independent cost estimator also needs to be selected through an RFP process.
The Library has already issued an RFP to environmental companies (for asbestos abatement and other hazard removal like PCBs, lead); three companies have responded, and now the Library has sent an additional questionnaire to make sure the responses for the proposals were consistent.
It is significant to note that this RFP for an architect avoids the fatal mistake of the prior RFP (that got us Dattner Associates): in the prior go-around, there was an intentional choice not to include a budget. This time, though the RFP does not include a budget target, the interview process will revolve around a budget, which we understand is less than half the dollar figure of the failed referendum ($22.4 million, for those who forgot).
A substantially “new” 43,000 square foot building for the 21st Century for around $10 million?
It can be done, I am told: Shelter Rock Library accomplished a major make-over for less than $10 million, working within its existing footprint, including creating a real second floor (I am told that we might be able to modify our mezzanine for a different purpose).
Shelter Rock Library’s story is actually eerily similar to Great Neck’s. It was originally constructed around the same time – in the 1960s (boy, that generation was something!). But, unlike Great Neck’s library, it underwent a “modest” renovation in 1994 (around the same time it was proposed that our library undergo a renovation, which was nixed). Then, the good people of Albertson decided they wanted a real 21st Century library, and went through years of study, analysis, public meetings, much as Great Neck has done since 1995.
Shelter Rock Library serves a population of 27,000 (compared to 43,000 in Great Neck), and the library is about half the size of Great Neck’s, at 23,787 square feet of space. They held public hearings during 2007, and selected the architect, Beatty, Harvey & Associates (Todd Harvey was the architect on our branch renovations who did one of the early concepts for Main but who was kicked out by the same group that is looking to change architects again). Originally, the plan for the renovation would have doubled its size, but the Town of North Hempstead “discouraged” that; they did get 730 sq ft. extra by turning an atrium into a second floor. The Shelter Rock Library board passed resolution (not a referendum) for a $6.6 million bond in 2008 (the actual cost is higher). The renovation opened Labor Day, 2011.
Let’s see: $6.6 million in 2008 for 23,000 sq. ft. and Great Neck expects to renovate 46,000 sq. feet for $10 million in 2013?
(Actually, Dattner had a plan that merely involved renovation, at $13.5 million, and the difference with the more ambitious $21 million plan amounted to $30/year in property tax. And H2M2 had a plan for a “minimalist” 49,000 sq. ft, rebuild for $8.5 million in 2003. But here we are, starting from scratch.)
DiCamillo promised a fast-track and also that the committee and the board would be meeting through the summer. The next building committee meeting is scheduled for July 19 (7:30 p.m).
At the July 19 meeting, representatives from LIPA and NYPA will come to discuss about options the renovated library building can take advantage of to achieve energy savings and rebates.
The goal, I am told, is for a major renovation that is beautiful, that people really see an improved, “like-new” building.
I remain skeptical – not that this hard-working, well-meaning committee won’t find a satisfactory solution (there are many different solutions), but that after all the extra time and added expense (as much as they protest that the prior expenditures were not “wasted” and have application to whatever the new plan will be), and with the costs of construction likely to rise from their historic lows (a perfect storm of unimaginably low interest rates, hungry construction companies, and less competing demand for building materials). And that their ability to be innovative (even to create a “green” building) will be more and more constrained.
In effect, we will be going to bid after the 2012 presidential election. I am predicting that the economy will rebound mightily with building projects no matter who becomes President.
There never was a requirement that the library board put the bond to a public referendum, and I am betting they won’t hold one on the new plan.
