My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:48:22 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:10:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10326
Title
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
Company
Transit Board
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
' <br />, Should the project be stopped and rethought in order to bring it into budget as requested <br />by some of the press in the fall of 1997? <br />' To be "within budget," the county's part of Courthouse Square (about 112,000 sq. ft of <br />space) cannot cost more than the rent equivalent of $1.20 per sq. ft. per month. The Transit <br />District's part of the project must be financed within its budget and Federal Transit <br />' Administration grants. Any private commercial space that is built must be built with private <br />funds. <br />~ The project was sto,~ed in Jul,y 1997 and has alread~undergone a substantial review <br />During the early summer of 1997, R.G. Andersen-Wyckoff from the Transit District and Randy <br />~ Curtis, Marion County's General Services Director, worked with outside consultants and others <br />to assure that the prc; °ct would remain within budget parameters set by the Transit District and <br />Marion County. On July 28, 1997, Curtis issued a memorandum to the development team <br />~ "to give special attention to design issues, value engineering and policy issues <br />that may assist us in reducing the project costs. If we fail to achieve this goal, the <br />' county may jeopardize our start-up date as well as our permanent financing. " <br />Curtis and Andersen-Wyckoff inet with the development team (Arbuckle-Costic Architects, <br />' Pence-Kelly General Contractors, and Melvin Mark). They directed that no further billable hours <br />should be spent on anything except approved redesign options. That action resulted in the <br />~ current design proposal. The redesign is more efficient, more cost-effective and to some more <br />aesthetically pleasing. This took place three months prior to coverage in the local press. Curtis <br />of the County outlined the benefits of the redesign: <br />' 1. Less financial risk for County. <br />2. Construction costs have been reduced <br />3. Shorter construction schedule <br />~ 4. More efficient floor plans <br />5. More options for private development <br />6. On-street pazking count has increased <br />, 7. Hearing room is moved to first floor increasing accessibility and lowering security <br />risks <br />8. Hatfield Plaza is retained with lower development costs to provide public space <br />' 9. Better financing options for private development <br />10. Pedestrian circulation around the mall is improved <br />' 11. Air flow and noise abatement is improved <br />12. Better security around the mall <br />~ (Support information: Tab 'n <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.