SandBox Comments: Glenwood Springs Post Independent "Design concerns stall library, parking projects"

John Stroud:
"“When you first came before us, we were unanimous is saying that we wanted to see a historic design for this building,” Councilman Todd Leahy said of the library project. “Unfortunately, I don't see it here...."
(Read more?  Click title)

The commentary on this one will be very interesting. 


Gamba and Leahy are correct.  But then again, it should be no surprise given the architects on the project.  The end results we've seen all along are their style.  And they have the rep in the industry of pretty fiercely protecting that style, regardless of what the client wants.  That statement can be backed up simply by doing a project check on them.


Mayor Steckler is correct.  The folks are fed up with these kinds of delays.  Especially over the library.  What's noteworthy is that the Mayor somehow left out the two years worth of delays that council put the library district through when the library first came to the city and expressed their desire for partnership.  He also quickly forgot the uncalled for and highly inappropriate reprimanding done by old council, especially former Mayor Christensen and Councilman Sturges when the library showed the backbone via Charlie Wilman to stand up to our council and point out that they would be just as happy in The Meadows.  Now that, is what they folks are most likely to get up in arms about now.  Not the delays that Leahy and Gamba are rightfully taking now.


It does look like a warehouse and the design stands out like a sore thumb.  We may be forced by the city's lack of design foresight to live with the look of The Ghettos development in West Glenwood, but there is no way we should be stuck with similar style in the heart of downtown.


Besides, Gamba is correct.  Anyone in design or construction can see the easy fixes.  The real problem is obvious.  The city has not told the architects who's really in charge.


And that is probably the direction that at least the construction set is going to follow in commentary.  This conversation of direction to architects should have been done a few years ago in due diligence.  This should never have gotten this far and that is not a city problem or fault.


It is a construction management issue.


The issue of 'why' we have these kinds of delays happening so often in our city  process is  another bit of angst that has been around for many a year.  The problem is how the council forces these projects to go through their twice per month meetings.  None of our codes coordinate with each other, building and planning is not in tune with city council and never has been.  To jam these kinds of detail oriented discussions into a free-for-all and 'mandatory' performance in front of council twice per month, on an already filled agenda is inadequate.  There's a reason that the professional and reputable construction industry  spends more time in pre-build and planning stages than in the actual building itself.


That is where all the problems are dealt with and all decisions are made.  That end result is what goes out to public scrutiny.  Not the cart before the horse.


With that said, a special thank you goes out to Todd Leahy and Mike Gamba for doing their jobs.  Which is to speak up for the folks.  The buzz around has been that the design of both buildings is 'ugly'. How nice it is to finally have 'construction guys' who know what they're seeing, what they're doing and what it takes to build sitting up on that council dais.
  
"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."