voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Swisscrete
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Swisscrete

Published: Friday, July 13, 2007 6:47 PM PDT



First things first: Library Week has turned out to be a little more difficult than I had thought. But there are advantages to being the boss. I hereby declare that Library Week is now Library Fortnight.

So we have another week. Keep sending in your suggestions on what I should look into and where I might find it.

Now, back to Library Fortnight.

In late 2005, the last time the city produced an estimate of how much it would cost to build a new main library, library boosters announced that they had mitigated some of the increased cost of construction materials with "value engineering." For example, they'd come up with a new kind of concrete that would save them $1.7 million.

Its name? Swisscrete, we here at the voiceofsandiego.org headquarters joked.

I know, we're clever.

It touched on a bigger issue though. There's a feeling that library boosters just want to get the thing built no matter what. The last evaluation in 2005, for example, revealed that planners had decided to save money by not completing the sixth and seventh floors of the building. They have also flirted with the idea of deferring construction of the auditorium -- one of the components necessary to get the full effect of the other purpose for the library: to create a community gathering place.

So I asked Darren Greenhalgh, the city engineer formerly in charge of the library project, if there were still other savings opportunities. They wouldn't decide to leave out bookshelves or anything, would they? Are we going to see any other changes to mitigate sticker shock on this thing?

"There's always choices that could be made. I would not expect to find million dollar items anymore," Greenhalgh said. "We will always look for things to change that may lower the cost of the facility without taking away from the usability or longevity of it."

Ron Rudolph, the library general contractor from Turner Construction, had some more specific thoughts.

He said they could still change the quality of glass they use (there are 105,000 square feet of aluminum and glass windows going into the building).

"Every element of the building could be looked at again for value engineering alternatives without affecting the quality of the building," Rudolph said.

But this begs the question: If it's cheaper and it doesn't lower the quality of the building, why wouldn't you just do it this way anyways?

Rudolph dropped another idea he said would probably not be that welcome.

The city could decide to make the building less "green." Right now, the plans for the new library are rated a Silver by LEED standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. That means, it will be built like this building.

In an email after we talked, Rudolph wrote me this:

This sometimes adds 1-3 % of additional initial costs to a building but is typically paid back within 5 years, or sooner and greatly reduces the future utility and maintenance costs for maintaining and managing the building.

After I nail down the costs of concrete, which I think will be a great indicator of the inflation of the cost of the new main library plans, I'll be done with that phase of Library Fortnight.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




7 Comments so far on this story...

SLOP see my post on the other part of your column. Just lay it out: you don't think spending money on a library is worth it. It's OK; you ask for directness in officials, so please give your readers the same. Please don't hide behind the "spin" of 'I support libraries and a new one but we can't afford it' or 'I'd support it if someone (officials) would just tell me what it costs' If you are for a new DT library then I believe you have to commit to it as a concept THEN you can say, I reserve the right to not support or (indeed) oppose a high cost proposal, or palace, or whatever. Building big, complex projects is complicated, sophisticated stuff. LA and the SF Bay area have lots of experience; we don't. It's why we lag behind them.

Posted by Southof8 | reply to this comment
July 13, 2007 8:10 am

South of 8: Nobody can make a decision about whether they support building a new main library downtown until they know what it costs and what they'd have to give up to get it. That's what I'm trying to find out. You have to be able to judge it against other priorities. Are we going to do a new tax? Cut services? Do you normally decide to commit to buying a certain type of car before you evaluate how much money you have and how much that car costs? And as far as supporting it "in concept" and then reserving the right to bail. Well, it's just too late for that. Go ahead and assume I supported it in concept, reserved my right to be skeptical and am now fully exploiting that provision in my commitment because of the obfuscations and untruths presented about the projects cost.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
July 13, 2007 8:25 am

S of 8: I believe that Scott is slowly building to his conclusion about the library. Who knows maybe swisscrete is this revolutionary concept that builders have been ignoring for decades. More and More I have seen a tone develop on these boards that everytime someone disagrees with someones viewpoint the person gets attacked not the issue. I think that is lame and very exemplary of what is wrong with San Diego Politics. We can't debate issues so we debate people. I know I have fallen victim to this but I am renewing my commitment to not doing it anymore. Anyways, good luck finding out more about the library scott. An issue I think is worth debating. Oh yeah, I don't necessarily think we lack experience building big things... Qualcom, Petco, SR56, pt. loma sewer plant and the alvarado water station and many other things are plenty big.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
July 13, 2007 10:44 pm

The Feb 3rd 1998 City Council meeting minutes show that the council agreed to the following: "Authorizing the City Manager or designee, to execute an agreement with Quigley, SMWM, TS&A Collaborative, to provide all remaining architectural and engineering services required to complete the design of the New Main Library, with the services not to exceed 9.9 percent of the approved total Project budget and contingent upon certification by the City Auditor that funds are available." So, every time the cost of the project goes up, the Architect and Engineers get a raise. Hmm

Posted by joeuser | reply to this comment
July 13, 2007 11:14 pm

Library Fortnight? What are you, Co-Boss, taking a leaf from the playbook of those well-connected, silent and inactive Central Library fundraisers -- postponing, extending, dodging the hard work? Will that be 14 business days, 14 consecutive days, 14 random days of research over a longer period of time, 14 columns on the subject? I just want to nail down what you have promised us in the same way you profess to want to establish the real costs of a new main library. And just as there need to be, yes, bookshelves in the Central Library, an auditorium, windows that open, sufficient book storage and parking, and a revised contract for the dome-promoting architect, we need follow-through from you on this important subject. If you can't deliver, don't get our hopes up by announcing a bogus "Library Week."

Posted by Francine Foraday | reply to this comment
July 14, 2007 2:35 am

I think this is less about the Main Library and more about business as usual in the City where promises are made, lies delivered, and the citizens are expected to conveniently forget history and then are handed a huge bill for the mistakes of the administrators. For things to change, the public needs (a) to have better choices in representatives, (b) actually vote, and (c) pay attention to what is going on instead of reacting to poor decsions after the fact. The mayor should clear house where staff and commissions aren't doing their jobs, and reward (not punish) staff who speak with honestly. Nothing will change as long as the majority suffers silently with the decisions of a minority with a vested interest in ill doing. "It doesn't matter how good an egg looks. If it smells, there's something wrong." Dieckhoff's Law

Posted by Leanne | reply to this comment
July 15, 2007 7:27 pm

Okay Scott, I have to weigh back in due to this last segment. I am not aware of the term "swissconcrete" being used with the Library,and the value engineering actually consisted of replacing "white cement" with another type that still produced a very light color, reduced costs, and was acceptable to the architects. In addition, I never suggested reducing the Green components of the building. This was a factoid that was presented that did create a premium to the cost, but is defensible in its use due to lower maintenance costs in the future, in addition to responding to a "Green" society. Finally, if buildings were designed to meet the lowest possible cost, this would be an ugly world indeed.

Posted by Ron Rudolph | reply to this comment
July 15, 2007 9:16 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
13181c0

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.