Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Design 101...

... That's what the City Commission and city staff need, and the Shain Park(ing) discussions and actions starkly illustrate it.

Monday night, the commission approved (5-2, with dissents from McKeon and Thorsby) the following:

"Resolution directing staff to proceed with the Shain Park/Parking Lot #7 Underground Parking Structure timelines dated January, 2005, pursuing the creation of conceptual drawings for both components of this project, with the intent to conduct an election of the purchase of G.O. bonds for the parking structure component in February, 2006. Further, authorizing Walker Parking Consultants to assist the Engineering Division in the preparation of conceptual drawings for the parking structure project at Lot #7, for a total of $30,000.00, to be charged to the Parking Lot #7 Capital Outlay account...

"Further, that the Architectural Review Committee be involved with project from the beginning including but not limited to the development of the rfp. Also that a citizens' committee be organized at an early stage of the process to be determined by staff with a recommendation to the commission at a subsequent meeting."

The discussion was interesting -- amusing, some might say-- and certainly lacked leadership from any quarter. Check it out in reruns on Comcast Channel 15 on any of the following:

2/8: 6:00 PM
2/9: 10:00 PM
2/11: 1:00 PM
2/12: 5:00 PM
2/13: 5:00 PM
2/14: 4:00 PM
2/25: 6:00 PM
2/26: 3:00 PM
2/27: 3:00 PM

Roger Gienapp has added to a drumbeat urging a coherent design process (hell, a mere understanding would be nice!) in a new post on the Buzz forum. Click here to check it out.

Roger is right. And no, Roger, you aren't alone. What you are saying is crystal clear to anyone who understands, for example, the difference between an engineer and an architect. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone sitting up there at the commission table, or, more essential and reasonable, backing them up on staff, who is intimately familiar and experienced with the design process and willing to guide it. Dembiec and O'Meara, able engineers, should admit to their creative limitations.

Before they authorized hiring anyone, we thought the commission should have engaged in a thorough and detailed discussion of the design process -- not just of timelines, but of the players and their roles. Design 101, in other words. In this regard, the Architectural Review Committee is a valuable resource, and it appears the commission recognized this by amending the suggested resolution to include the ARC.

But it still seems they didn't understand the design process BEFORE moving ahead and hiring consultants. Lamentably, they simply relied on the engineering department's recommendations. Choosing the right consultants, we think, is a process in itself.

We remain extremely skeptical of leaving it to the engineers to guide the design process, and suspect that a few commissioners, as well as many members of the public, are still somewhat confused about the process that is being followed. The discussion Monday night illustrated that.

Walker may ultimately be right for the job. But hiring them outside the context of a coherent design process that everybody on commission and staff understands and buys into? NOT!