HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1988Drafted - Not Aonroved
MINUTES
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Presiding Official:
Others Present:
Summary of Action:
Meeting of July b, 1988
7:30 p.m.
Aldermen Collens, Feldman, Julier, Rainey, and Rudy
Alderman Morton
Alderman Collens, Chair
Richard Lanyon, Mary Anne Cappo, Ann Kepler,
Doris Wolin, Donald Wright, Joel M. Asprooth
The Chair welcomed the members of the Committee to the initial meeting and also
took note of the fact that there were a number of members of the Library Board
present, as well as the Library Director.
1. Review of Charqe to Committee - The Chair reviewed the charge to the
Committee from the Mayor, as outlined in the memorandum of June 13, 1988, noting
that the Committee had been asked to address all remaining issues to come before
the Council concerning the construction of a new Main Library (with the exception
of financing), as well as any new issues that may come up during the course of
consideration. She estimated that the Committee would have a fairly substantial
workload for the next two to three months, and then the pace of activity would
lessen. The Chair noted that Alderman Morton was out of town but would be in
attendance at the next meeting.
The Chair also called the attention of the Committee to a second reference from
the Mayor described in a memorandum dated July 1, 1988. This reference involved a
recommendation made to the City Council by the Administration h Public Works
Committee to separate the Levy Center from the Main Library project. The Chair
suggested to the Committee that this matter be treated as one of the remaining
questions from the memorandum of March 22, 1988 from the staff concerning the next
steps to be taken on the Main Library project.
2. Review of Remaining Issues Outlined in March 22, 19BB Memorandum - The
Chair then asked the Committee to turn to the memorandum of March 22, 1988, which
had been sent to the Administration & Public Works Committee when that Committee
was considering the steps to be taken by the City Council in croceeding with the
Main Library project. In particular, the Chair called t0- attention of the
Committee to the list of six site criteria shown at the top page 2 of that
memorandum, which the staff suggested were appropriate in identifying a site
configuration for the Main Library project. These six criteria were:
1. The site should allow for at least 100,000 square feet of Library space on
the present site.
2. The site should not involve any Woman's Club property.
3. The site should leave the existing alley in place.
Main Library Project
Minutes of 7/6/88 Meeting -2 -
4. The site should retain the set -back an Orrington Avenue and retain side yards
if possible.
5. The site should maximize off-street parking.
6. The site should not exceed three floors, two floors preferred.
Alderman Rudy stated that he was not convinced that it was necessary to limit the
Library to two to three floors. He stated his strong opinion that the existing
set -backs along Orrington Avenue and Church Street should be maintained. He also
stated that he was convinced that it would be necessary to vary from the set -back
requirements an the east and north sides of the project. He said that a 13-Foot
set -back an the north side of the existing Library site and a 5-Foot set -back on
the east side of the existing Library site would allow the construction of a three
and one-half story Library while still maintaining existing set -backs on Church
Street and Arrington Avenue.
Alderman Rainey noted that the issue of the number of floors of a new Library
refers only to the current site without any consideration of involving property on
the other side of the alley. She suggested that the Committee defer any decision
on that criteria until they had addressed the issue of whether or not the Library
project should span the alley. Alderman Rainey stated her opinion that the other
five criteria seem appropriate.
Following this discussion, the Chair noted for the record that there was
concurrence among the Committee members that the first five of the aforementioned
criteria were agreed upon, and that the Committee would defer further action an
the sixth criteria to a later date. The Chair suggested that the Committee focus,
for the time being, an the question of the incorporation of the Levy Center into
the Main Library project. The Chair noted that the issue was not necessarily
whether the Levy Center should be constructed in the same building as the Main
Library, but whether it could be developed across the alley and perhaps) in some
way be connected to the Main Library.
Alderman Feldman stated he was not certain why the Levy Center issue and a
decision regarding the new location of the Levy Center had to be tied to the
Library project. He stated his opinion that the Levy Center decision should be
made later after the remaining issues concerning the Librar" project had been
settled. The Chair stated that the reason the two issues were tied together now
was that the City Council, in approving the location of the Library at the
current site, included in that site the parking lot across tre alley from the
Library, which is owned by the City. She stated that, if the Council wished to
preserve that parking lot site as a potential location for a relocated Levy
Center, the Council would have to alter the Library site configuration to
eliminate that parking lot.
Alderman Feldman stated that he believed the goal of this effort should be to
select the best possible site for the Main Library project and, it some property
is left over for another project, that would be fine. He stated teat ne was aware
of some interest on the City Council in examining the possibiiit} of using the
Chicago Avenue parking lot as a primary site for the plain Library constructed in a
four to five -story configuration.
Main Library Project
Minutes of 7/6/88 Meeting --3-
Alderman Feldman acknowledged the fact that the memorandum sent to the Committee
from the Library Board of Directors addressed the issue of the use of that site
for the Main Library, but he stated his opinion that the information contained in
that memo was insufficient in this regard.
Alderman Rudy stated that he would view the Chicago Avenue parking lot site as
potential Future expansion space For the Library and as a potential site for the
relocated Levy Center. He stated that he was prepared to say that the City should
initially look only at the current site for the Library (that is, the current
Library site west of the alley). He stated he felt it was important to preserve
the space on the other side of the alley as potential Library expansion space, and
that including expansion space in this project should be a priority.
Alderman Rainey asked whether it was true that in order to construct the new Main
Library on the current site it would be necessary to relocate the Library
operation temporarily. The Chair responded that it was not necessarily true,
since the Library could be built in two phases, moving the Library operation twice
during the course of the project.
Alderman Juliar stated that he was most concerned with finding the best site for
the Library and constructing the best Library building possible. He noted that
the Focus had been narrowed to the current site and the Chicago Avenue parking
lot. He stated that he was not certain why the Levy Center should be excluded
From the current site. He stated his belief that the Chicago Avenue parking lot
property should be preserved as part of the overall site, but he indicated he did
not believe it should be earmarked for one use or the other at this time.
Alderman Feldman suggested that the Committee should undertake a Full discussion
of the Chicago Avenue site as a potential location for the Main Library and the
question of how many floors the Main Library can be operated on efficiently.
Alderman Rudy noted that one reason for retaining the current site 'as opposed to
using the Chicago Avenue site alone) for the Main Library is that the current site
is larger than the Chicago avenue site. The size of the lot is an important
Factor if there is a need t❑ minimize the number of floors for the Library
building. Alderman Rudy stated his belief that the Library Board needed to
explain to the Committee in greater detail the reason and necessity For limiting
the number of floors in the new Library. He reiterated his belief that it is
important to maintain the existing set -backs on Church Street and Brrington
Avenue.
The Chair asked that specific dimensions of the two sites and a further more
detailed explanation of the Library operation, as it relates to the number of
stores in the Library, be provided. After some discussion, the Committee agreed
that it would schedule discussion of the question of Library functions as they
relate to the number of stories in the Library First, and then later determine
whether there was a need to engage architectural services to evaluate the two
sites.
Alderman Feldman asked that the discussion of Library functions in relation to the
number of floors include information as to what additional sta" :,ould be required
if the Library were operated on more than two or three floors. 're staf` and
members of the Library Board agreed to provide the informatior reca.dinq L.nrary
operations versus number of floors for the next meeting, and to hatie the necessary
individuals present to discuss the matter at that meeting.
Main Library Project
Minutes of 7/6/88 Meeting -4-
The Chair asked that the Committee turn its attention again to the question of the
Levy Center as a part of the Library project. She noted that certain of the
alternatives included in the report of the site expansion investigation and
feasibility study, performed by Green & Associates, involved putting the Levy
Center on an upper story of the Library building with some arrangement for a
street level entrance. She asked the opinion of the Committee members in this
matter.
Alderman Rudy stated his opinion that the two facilities could not be built
together due to timing issues and financing requirements. Alderman Rainey stated
her belief that this Committee should determine whether the Levy Center is or is
not to be part of the Library project and, if not, the Committee should discuss it
no further. Alderman Juliar stated that he believed that it would not be feasible
to incorporate the Library and the Levy Center in the same building, but stated
that he did not want to entirely dismiss that possibility at this time. Alderman
Feldman questioned whether or not the issue could be deferred until other
questions had been discussed and resolved.
Alderman Rainey asked if there were any Committee members who supported building
the Library alone on the current site with the possible addition of an extension
across the alley. Aldermen Rudy, Collens, and Juliar all indicated support for
this concept. After some further discussion, it was moved by Alderman Rainey,
seconded by Alderman Rudy, that it was the position of the Committee that the Levy
Center could not be incorporated into the Library building on the current site (at
Church Street and Arrington Avenue) alone. The Committee supported this motion
unanimously.
Alderman Rudy then explained to the Committee members that he had made a
preliminary comparison of the two sites (Church/Orrington vs. the Chicago Avenue
parking lot), and spoke briefly regarding the size and mass of building that could
be constructed on each. He reiterated his opinion that maintenance of the
existing south and west side yards on the Church/Orrington site should be the goal
of the Council in any project on that site. After some discussion, the Chair
asked that, for the next meeting, the staff provide site dimensions for the two
properties, as well as a calculation of building foot print, given existing
constraints and constraints discussed at the meeting that evening.
3. Discussion of Library Board Memorandum concerninq Architectural Competition
and Temporary Relocation - The Chair asked that the Committee direct its
attention to the memorandum from the President of the Library Board dated Jul%, 1,
1988 concerning interim Library service, selection or an architect for the Library
project, and use of the Chicago Avenue parking lot for the Ma:r -ibrary.
With respect to the issue of temporary relocation of the Library function Curing
construction, Alderman Rudy noted that the Committee mould need to know the inpact
of continued operation at the present site during construction on the ultimate
building design plan. He noted that such information would only be available
after the proposed design competition when the various alternative designs are
available. He suggested that the design competition could be structurec to
request a design which involved no temporary relocation, as wel: as one which was
hased on the assumption that the Library function would be relocated during
construction.
RIF' 11pI'IIITIMF rR 1711 lI I I
Main Library Project
Minutes of 7/6/88 Meeting -5-
Alderman Feldman suggested that it might be possible to build a structure an the
Chicago Avenue parking lot, use it as a temporary Library during construction, and
then put it to another use when the new Library is constructed.
After some further discussion, the Chair asked for concurrence of the Committee
with the following statement: "Unless there is a design or cost consideration
which is not now apparent, and unless an acceptable relocation site becomes
available, Library services during the period of construction of a new Main
Library should be provided at the Church/Orrington site." The Committee members
indicated unanimous agreement with this statement.
With respect to the issue of selection of an architect for the Library project,
Alderman Feldman asked the Library Board members present to advise the Committee
of the actual net difference in cost between the competition and a more
conventional architect selection process. President Lanyon of the Library Board
informed the Committee that the consultant engaged by the Board in this matter has
indicated his opinion that the competition would, in fact, cost less than a
conventional method of selecting an architect and developing a schematic design.
Mr. Lanyon also noted that the American Institute of Architects publishes a manual
on architectural competitions, which could be made available to the Committee. He
noted that the consultant engaged by the Library Board projects that there would
be at least 300 submissions for a competition on this project.
Alderman Rainey asked what other Libraries in the area (besides the Chicago Public
Library) had used the architectural competition process as has been suggested by
the Library Board in Evanston. Library Director Wright indicated that no
Libraries in northern Illinois outside of Chicago had used this method. Alderman
Rainey asked that the Library Board obtain information on other moderately -sized
cities comparable to Evanston that had used this method.
The Chair recognized Mr. Richard Cook, an architect who was present in the
audience during the Committee meeting. Mr. Cook expressed his opinion regarding
the architectural competition process, speaking against the efficacy of such a
competition as a means of selecting an architect and obtaining a Library design.
Alderman Feldman asked the Library Board to provide some additional information on
the cost of undertaking a design competition. Alderman Rainey asked that the
Board also address the question of what it is that the City and the Library will
gain from a design competition that is different from the more conventional method
of selecting an architect. Mr. Lanyon responded that the Board would bring back
more information regarding the architectural competition process, and would also
incite its consultant to meet with the Committee to discuss `.he costs of an
architectural design process, the differences between such a arocess and a more
conventional method of selecting an architect, and to explain the role of the
Board and the consultant in such a process.
The Chair recognized Mr. Roland Lieber, an architect who was also present in the
audience at the Committee meeting that evening. Mr. Lieber confirmed that, as had
been suggested earlier in the discussion, an architect submitting a proposal in a
design competition would likely incur 100'a to 15% of the total architectural fee
for the project as a cost of submitting such a proposal. He suggested that the
Library might find smaller architectural offices affiliating riith one another in
order to submit proposals which were creative, but might also find that these
joint ventures of smaller architectural offices did not have the necessary
capacity to actually carry through the work.
I
Main Library Project
Minutes of 7/6/88 Meeting
-6-
Following this discussion, the Chair noted that this matter would be discussed
again by the Committee once additional information was available.
4. Discussion of Chamber of Commerce Memorandum of June 7, 1988 - The Chair
noted that the Committee had received copies of a memorandum to the Mayor and
members of the City Council from the President of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce
suggesting that the Council give serious consideration to the construction of
residential apartments on top a new Library structure at Church Street and
Orrington Avenue. She called upon Mr. Ira Golan, Executive Vice President of the
Chamber who was present that evening, to explain the Chamber's suggestion.
Mr. Golan noted that the Board of the Chamber felt that it was important that the
City assure that the property at Church and Orrington is developed to the highest
and best use within existing zoning conditions, and that the City maximize
property tax revenues from any development on the site. He noted that the
addition of apartments at this location would surely generate substantial
additional tax revenues to the City. Finally, he noted that such a mixed -use
development could provide expansion space for the Library if such space is needed
in the future.
Alderman Rudy expressed his opinion that, if the City were to develop the
Church-Orrington site as a mixed public -private development, there would surely
have to be Zoning Board and City Council action to permit such a development, and
he believed that such a requirement should be avoided. He stated he did not
believe the City was at the point where we have to undertake the type of
development suggested by the Chamber of Commerce, given that there are other
places to develop housing within the City. Alderman Juliar indicated that he was
not supportive of the Chamber of Commerce proposal. Alderman Feldman stated his
opinion that the alternative suggested by the Chamber was not acceptable, although
he stated his appreciation for the effort and time the Chamber had put into this
matter. He stated again that he felt that a new Public Library building is a
statement about the community and the values of the community, and that it would
be a great mistake to combine it with other uses. Alderman Rainey stated her
opinion that, if the Library were to be developed as part of a mixed -use project,
she would have preferred to proceed with a joint development in the Research Park
incorporating the Library into a public parking garage project, under which
circumstances the current library site could be sold. Given that the Council had
rejected that alternative, she saw no reason to pursue a mixed -use development at
the current site.
The Chair noted that she had asked a number of other Aldermen not on the Committee
their opinions in this matter, and she informed the Committee "iat she had Found
no support for this idea on the City Council. Following tn:�_ discussion, the
Committee agreed unanimously to proceed no further with the suggestion of the
Chamber of Commerce Board concerning a mixed -use development en the Public Library
site.
5. Next Meetinq Date - The Committee agreed to meet again on July 28, 198B at
7:30 p.m., at which time they would again discuss the issues ostiined in the March
22, 1988 memorandum and the responses to the questions raised that e�eninq
concerning function of the Library in a multi -story configuration, and the use of
an architectural competition process.
The Committee adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
JMA:ct
Re ully submitted,
Joe Asprooth
City Manager
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
MINUTES
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
Wednesday, July 28, 1988
Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Collens, Feldman, Juliar, Morton, Rainey, and Rudy
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Collens, Chair
STAFF: Carter
OTHERS PRESENT: Joel Asprooth, Don Wright, Richard Lanyon, Jay Carow, Doris
Wolin, Ann Kepler, Robert Rohlf, Shel Newburger, and Ann
Dienner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 6, 1988
Aid. Jullar moved approval of the July 6, 1988 minutes as written. Seconded by Aid. Rudy.
Motion approved. No nays.
DISCUSSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SITE SIZE AND LIBRARY SPACE NEEDS
Aid. Collens explained the shortened agenda and noted that Mr. Wright's memo of July 21 was
responding both to the question of space needs and the role of the consultant in the design
competition. After reviewing the extensive materials, she felt there would be oniv time to
discuss one of these items. She suggested that the Committee first look at the possible foot
print sizes which could be fit on the sites under consideration which included: present site;
Chicago avenue site; or a combination of the two. Once the site constraints were understood,
the Committee could then turn to the library representatives for a response as to •.vtiat they
could do within these configurations. She felt it would be more fr°fitful to work from the
existing constraints rather than from some idealized site. She asked ;Sr. Carter to review for
the Committee the site diagrams, constraints, and alternatives.
Aid. Morton asked whether the library had been asked which site they prefer. Aic. Collens
responded that the board was on record as preferring the main library site. but the Committee
had not directly discussed this with them.
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - July 28, 1988
Page Two
Mr. Carter used a map of the area including the two sites to demonstrate their basic dimensions
and limitations. On the main library site, he noted an area representing the footprint of a
building which would result from the application of present yard requirements of the zoning
ordinance. This would yield an approximate 27,000 square foot area. There were two problems
with this footprint: 1) a limited amount of floor area per floor and; 2) the foreclosure of doing a
phased construction because of insufficient room in the rear yard. He made reference to Aid.
Rudy's earlier concept of maintaining present building lines on the northwest and south sides,
but extending the rear building line within five feet of the alley results in a footprint of
approximately 29,000 to 30,000 square feet and allowing rear yard space for phased
construction. Mr. Carter suggested a further alternative of building the new library to the -
property line along Church Street similar to the buildings on the other side. This would yield an
additional 3,000 square feet making it possible to reach the 100,000 square feet goal of the
library within three floors. Under Aid. Rudy's proposal the library could be built within three
and one-half floors. Going to the Chicago Avenue site, he noted the different dimensions which
would yield a long and narrow footprint of only 16,000 square feet per floor, resulting in a six
floor building to achieve the 100,000 square foot goal. He felt it was necessary to maintain the
side yards to keep from crowding adjacent development, but indicated a few more feet could be
gained by building close to the rear property line as was suggested on the main library site. This
would create a footprint of approximately 19,000 square feet. He noted that the main options
were one of building a three-story building on the present site or a six -story building on the
Chicago Avenue site and noted that the six -story building might result in an inappropriate
division of functions of the various library services. He did not feel it was a great merit in
joining the two sites.
Mr. ,Newberger asked if such a division would not ease the construction of the library in phases.
Mr. Carter agreed that technically that could be done, but deferred to the library experts as to
whether or not that could effectively be done.
Aid. Feldman asked what it meant for a building to be three and one-half floors high, did the
half floor mean that only about half that space would be occupied by a structure at that level
and why that would be done instead of building a full floor? Aid. Rudy responded it was to
control the cost rather than to construct surplus space. Aid. Feldman asked what difference it
made if a library was built in two, four, six levels etc.? Chairman Collens responded that that
was the question before the committee tonight and invited Don Wright to speak to that point.
.fir. Wright responded that, ideally, the library should be built in two to three floors, but
deferred to Mr. Rohlf to address that point. ,1.1r. Wright would then respond by reviewing the
program statement and whether the library could be accommodated in 30,000 square foot floor
plans. He would demonstrate how important it was to keep certain library services together
from both a cost point of view and a users point of view. Mr. Rohlf stated that Evanston was
not in a unique situation, that he encountered many similar site problems in built-up
communities across the country. He said that he was a strong advocate of the service floor
being as large as it could, up to 50,000 square feet, beyond that point it becomes difficult for
the user. He felt there were three issues involved and that most important of these was the
issue of service. How do you best give service in a building? How many different places should
you give that service? And how many floors should it be given on? What is best for the user of
the facility for which we are building) We are building for someone to go in and use the library
with effectiveness; effectiveness of their own time, and effectiveness of getting what they
want. Related to that is the question of complexity of information overlap. :As the great
variety of information available to libraries becomes segmented, one finds it more and more
difficult to locate information. Patrons can find themselves going to many ciNerer,t locations
to get the answer to a simple question.
Spedial Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - 7uly 28, 1988
Page Three
He referred to the Chicago Library and the way that they have honeycombed the service desks
as something that would be very confusing to the user. He felt we were dealing with a
microcosm of the same problem here and expressed the hope that the building would be better
designed by keeping the users needs foremost. The third issue is one of cost. It is closely
related to the multiplication floors and the splitting up of services. This generates additional
personnel costs which will go up each year. He felt Mr. Wright's figures of $62,400 per year for
each additional service desk was conservative. His experience was that it took two and one-half
full time equivalent employees to staff a service desk full time during the normal operating
hours of the library. He had reviewed some cities in similar circumstances who had created
difficulties for themselves by creating too many service desks as a result of their design and
seriously running up their costs. He mentioned St. Paul,Minnesota and San Jose California.
Chairman Collens asked for clarification of what constitutes a service desk. He replied that it
was one where information could be supplied on the function being served, such as a desk for
periodicals. Aid. Collens clarified that if the main functions weren't split between floors, then
there would not be a need for additional service desks. She clarified that there were no
functions in the present library that had more than one service desk. In drawing on his
experience, Mr. Rohif felt that there is a floor range which is efficient from the users paint of
view that argues against splitting functions. His preference would be to have a site with a
minimum of 40,000 square feet, but recognized that present constraints would not allow that.
We would probably half to operate with a 30,000 to 34,000 square foot floor areas.
Aid. Rainey asked Mr. Rohlf to break down in percentages, for Evanston's use, the amount of
the area for primary public use, secondary public use and administrative. Mr. Rohif responded
that if he were designing the system he would have added 10,000 or 11,000 square feet to level
one by pulling the reader's information/guidance and fiction out of the second level, thus
bumping the first level up to about 37,000 square feet. That in turn would reduce the second
level down to about 41,000. He would have the "popular" library on the first floor and the
reference services on the second floor. He acknowledged that this was an ideal arrangement
and probably didn't fit the site constraint.
Aid. Morton asked about the method of passage between floors, would there be elevators, stairs,
or escalators? Mr. Rohif made a point that escalators are extreme!•: expensive and inefficient
for libraries. He recommended very apparent stairs and very apparent elevators.
Aid. Feldman acknowledged Mr. Rohlf's professional judgement on levels of service and costs
and asked him to relate these to the various footprints under consideration. He asked
specifically what we would be giving up in terms of the values 10r. Rohif had identified. For
example, how many service desks would be required on the present :ibrary site and how many
would be required on the Chicago Avenue site? Would their be collec,:cn split' How would this
compare to the present number of service desks?
Mr. Wright was called upon to make his part of the presentation dealing with the relationship of
services and the floor area available. He stated that he would respond to the question about
whether this statement could work on 30,000 square foot floors. He reiterated that the building
program statement itself represented an ideal. He defined the ideal library as one which would
be easy for the user to use, efficiently staffed, and one that the peop:e in the community would
really want to use. He stressed that a great deal of time had gone into ceveloping that building
program statement and one of the guiding principles had been to make=ertain 'hat some future
library board 25 years from now is not faced with the same prcb:eT we have today. The
building program statement had been honed quite a bit and staff and ,"e Joar_ �,Pra comfortable
with it. He rut up a series of charts illustrating the grouping of fun::,3r,5 ar.c refining service
levels. He emphasized that this was a different program statement t`,an that is currently found
in the library.
IT
II III 11; 1'I} I�'I I! RI�� I�IIP��II III li 1 1 �I��wIR�'� I� III�I I I II II }I RI! N N;P
1
Special Committee on the Main LIbrary Project
Minutes - July 28, 1988
Page Four
In consulting with architects that day, he found that 30,000 square floors do not represent
30,000 square feet of usable space, it's more like 25,000 square feet. On the first floor were
arranged the high volume traffic and sole use services. These functions would include: an
entrance/lobby; an information desk; and circulation/registration; audio-visual; childrens room;
meeting room; and maintenance/garage. He explained the rationale for each of these for first
level uses. He grouped the next two levels together because they were integral adult services.
One function is reader information and guidance, including the collection to which that desk is
directing people and helping them use. The second function was one of reference, periodicals
and microfilm. This was a more quiet area of the library, one for study and research. In
combination, these two functions take about 52,000 square feet. He was hoping that an
architect could divide these two levels into two floors in an arrangement which would be a
workable one. The fourth level was identified as containing technical services, business office
and staff. These functions would take a little over 9,000 square feet. Another 8,000 to 10,000
square feet would be required for mechanical functions. These functions are not directly
related to one another and could conveniently fit in elsewhere. These could be accommodated
in the penthouse or fourth floor if necessary. This type of configuration would only add one
more service desk. He felt that the configuration was a usable one, but, was concerned about
the impact of having less usable floor space because of building requirements on each floor.
This arrangement would not work without splitting some functions.
Aid. Juliar asked if there was a way to break up the service area on reference with putting it on
a fourth floor and serving it by some kind of mechanical means or delivery system so that you
wouldn't have to have several service desks? Mr. Wright responded that it would require
someone to locate material, but it could be considered. Aid. Rudy commented on the cost of
mechanical serving device and Aid. Juliar wondered if such cost might not be offset by a
reduction in personnel cost.
In going back to comment on the square footages, Ald. Rudy asked about the fifteen per cent
which would be added to the square foot of each floors, thus increasing the need to about 32,000
square feet per floor. Aid. ;Niorton commented on the need for adequate staff in the use of
reference materials. She also asked about what was included in the adult collection. Mr. Wright
responded that it included both fiction and nonfiction. Those functions could be split if
necessary, but they did not want to start planning from that assumption. She inquired about the
possible advantages of a direct access to the third floor for convenience and Mr. Wright noted
there might be some disadvantages as far as security is concerned.
Aid. Feldman asked for clarification; was Mr. Wright indicating that they would need 33,000
square feet per floor and four floors under program statement. Mr. Wright answered in the
affirmative.
Mr. Asprooth asked how many present service desks there were and response was six. Under the
proposed scheme there would be seven service desks and any split in functions would probably,
result in additional service desks. Mr. Asprooth asked what would happen if the gross floor
allowance were 16,000 or 19,000 square free exclusive of the architectural requirements? What
would the first floor have to look like? Mr. Wright responded that he did not do calculations on
the Chicago Avenue site. The problem with the site is not only with the size of the floor but the
long and narrow configuration making the configuration of the service areas di::icult.
Spedial Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - July 28, 1933
Page Five
Aid. Juliar asked what were the trends In technology which might impact the size and staffing
of the Iibrary, will something happen to drastically increase or decrease the size requirements?
Mr. Wright responded that his experience to date indicated that there would be more space
required because of the reader equipment and its space requirements. It was a transfer of space
from storage reductions to increased requirements for equipment space. Mr. Rohlf confirmed
Mr. Wright's experience and stated that there was a decrease in the size of the material but the
apparatus was getting larger resulting in strange space trade off. Overall, the amount of space
required for a person at a reader station has definitely increased from a previous standard of
twenty-five square feet to now thirty-five square feet.
Aid. Juliar cited the cooperation between libraries in the metropolitan area and the system of
sharing which had developed. He asked whether or not a large regional, central supply area
could reduce the size of the collection for satellite libraries. Mr. Fright responded that the
statewide relationship that has already been established between libraries has enabled them to
put a cap on the local collection. A new library collection 'of 450,000 volumes has been
established as the maximum. Of the forty-three libraries in the system, twenty-six are now
on-line and we can find out if a book is on the shelf from them. The user can then either go to
that library or have it delivered to Evanston. additional technological equipment is being
installed to tap into the network. The availability of other libraries collections has been taken
into consideration of the development plans of the library.
Aid. Collens in referring to the long -endorsed need for flexibility, asked where the flexibility
was in this plan and what we were doing to assure its accomplishment. fir. Wright stated that
they had planned in the areas identified for the services to take advantage of a program that
will advance the library into that time when the exchange between libraries would be highly
facilitated. Mr. Carow commented that from an architectural standpoint, the smaller the
floors, the less flexibility.
Mr. l.anyon commented that he was concerned, looking at the site diagrams on the wall, that the
committee would tell the board that they have 30,000 square feet per floor on four levels and to
go home and design the library. What ,Mr. Wright had presented was merely one concept. He
noted that the board had been wrestling with the site problem for many years. He expressed
their concern for having a quality design which has flexibility. He felt there was a need to keep
options open to keep flexibility. He noted that Mr. Wright's presentation represented a very
tight, packed design with no space for amenities, open interior space which would give people a
comfortable feeling about being there. He noted a number of options such as the building in the
various yards, bridging the alley and even acquiring additional property. While the latter had
been eliminated by the Council, he felt all options should be looker at to come up with an
optimum library. He noted that the options were not merely technical. tut had both economic
and political implications. He reiterated that all the options _,.ould be kept open in
consideration of a design for new library.
Aid. Collens indicated that his statement may be in conflict with the mission of the Committee
which is to get some of these options eliminated and to get the library project moving. The
longer all the options are kept open, the longer the library will be ceiayed. Aid. Juliar asked
about basement space and Mr. l.anyon responded that they had assume: the lower level parking
would be for library use. aid. Juliar speculated about the possibilit.. of putting 30,CGG square
feet under ground. He expressed the hope that the basement remain flexible space for possible
future use.
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - July 28, 1988
Page Six
Mr. Asprooth described the current status of the parking on the site and noted that library
patrons have to compete for those spaces with other users. Even with the construction of a new
parking garage, he noted that these spaces were supposed to meet an already existing unmet
demand. He felt it was important to serve the library patrons with some off street parking. He
discussed the concept of putting parking underneath in a way that would allow some visibility to
the street.
Ald. Rudy asked for clarification on whether the footprint proposed would be acceptable
including the amount of area required for building features. Mr. Lanyon responded that it was
probably premature to make that determination. The point is that concept would result In a -
very packed layout. Aid. Rudy wanted to know whether the proper square footage could be
achieved on the site. Mr. Lanyon suggested that the tradeoffs of the different setbacks be
examined. He suggested that they look at the Church Street setback as well as one on the north
by the Northwestern apartments.
Aid. Morton asked about the possibility of a first floor setback with an extension over that at
the upper levels. Aid. Rudy stated he would rather find other ways of increasing the site such as
spanning the alley. He acknowledged that would be an architectural challenge.
Aid. Juliar inquired as to the use of the parking spaces beneath the library and concluded that
the new parking garage could accommodate those non library users and that the space would be
better utilized by the library.
Aid. Rainey asked Mr. Rohlf to make a comparison between the St. Paul Library use and that of
Fvanston's. The number of volumes circulated, the number of information questions and the
square footage of each. Aid. Feldman commented that it was apparent from Mr. Wright's
presentation that there are significant probiems with the Chicago Avenue site. Following the
formula, there would only be about 13,000 square feet per floor on that site. He felt it was
important for the record of deliberation which the Committee is building to have the same kind
of analysis as well as provided for the main library site. This would enable the problems to be
easily seen or it might show other alternatives. If there is good and sufficient reason to end
deliberation on that site, he would like to have the evidence.
Ald. Morton asked about a clarification on the alternatives of expanding into some of the side
yards. Chairman Collens responded that on the two alternatives there might be a total increase
of 7,000 square feet per floor.
Aid. Rainey asked about the total number of present volumes and the response was 350,000 with
a projected growth of another 100,000 volumes. She asked about the number of volumes we
have now and the number on which a cap would be placed. fir. Wright responded tact the cap on
the total library collection would be approximately 100,000 more volumes than we nave now.
Aid. Rainey clarified that the present planning was for a library with a cap on the t::al volumes
we now have based on the availability of volumes from a regional library system.
Mr. Newberger stressed the need to to build interior library space which wculd be flexible. The
100,000 square feet may be adequate, twenty to thirty years from now if we nave tre flexibility
of adjusting this space by changes in function. He felt that looking at the fcotcrints, :he answer
to their problem was one suggested in the Green report, that is, to ask the '•t crnan's Club to
move over to the parking lot and rebuild the library on a larger site. He felt that t�ere might be
advantages which we could offer to the Womans Club to make this more at:rac,".e.
Spedial Committee on the tMain Library Project
Minutes - July 28, 1988
Page Seven
Ms. Dienner responded on behalf of the Woman's Club stating that there was a great many
problems with this suggestion, that it was a very large building and it would be quite expensive
to move. She did not think it was a real answer to the problem.
Chairman Collens asked the Committee if there was anyone who wanted to participate in this
debate and whether there was anyone who was as convinced as Mr. Newberger that this was
direction the Committee should be going. Aid. Juliar commented that he felt Mr. Newberger
had the right idea, but did not know whether it was feasible. He did think it would be both to
the City's advantage and the Woman's Club's advantage to get rid of the small house just west
of the Woman's Club. He stated that in his opinion, these options should not be foreclosed.
Chairman Collens commented that the options had been foreclosed by the Council and that the
question was whether the Committee wanted to go back to the Council and ask them to reopen
them. Aid. Juiiar asked whether there could be a small fact finding commission to approach the
Woman's Club to see if there is any room for negotiation. Chairman Collens responded that this
had been done and there was no interest on the part of the Club.
In response to a question from Ald. Morton about the possibility of the house, Ms. Dienner
responded that the Woman's Club wished to keep it to preserve the integrity of the site. She
went on to give other explanations of the Woman's Club position.
Aid. Rainey commented that if the discussion on alternative sites is going to be reopened she
would like to discuss what she felt was the most logical spot in the entire community, a vacant
lot where there is plenty of room for a library to be built from scratch. That property being
only two blocks from the present site. This site could accommodate 50,000 square feet per floor
without any difficulty. Chairman Collens indicated she had no intention of reopening the
discussion on other alternative sites and that it was only under discussion because of a question
from Mr. !Newberger. Committee members debated their reasons for considering one
alternative and not the other.
Chairman Collens requested that the Committee go back to the two sites being discussed that
evening, the Chicago Avenue site and the main library site. She had hoped to select one this
evening, but recognized Aid. Feldman's request for additional information. She asked if it would
be possible to close off the option of the two sites combined" She asked the Library Board if
they had evaluated this option.
Mr. Carow responded on behalf of the Board that they had evaluated this proposal. The first
disadvantage was the sixteen foot high passage way which would be required in order to allow
the proper clearance. In evaluating the different functions that might go over on that site, they
concluded that there was no great advantage to them and a great deal of awkwardness when it
came to trying to accommodate one of the main services. The library toarc cid not have any
interest to pursue it.
Ald. Rainey moved that the Committee delete the concept of spanning the allay and connecting
the library building on two sites. Seconded by Morton. Motion passed. No `ays.
Chairman Collens discussed the Chicago Avenue site from another perspec:ive. She questioned
whether we wanted another tall building sitting on that site; the difficuit;es of heavier traffic
flow on Chicago Avenue; the question of where the parking would go; ana ')ow -xould a crop -off
be handled.
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - July 28, I988
Page Eight
She expressed the hope that before the next meeting they would have the analysis of the
Chicago Avenue site as requested. And, at that meeting they would be able to come to some
conclusion on one or the other site. There are remaining questions about phasing and
construction and what are committee's direction is on the yards as well as other site issues. She
expressed a hope to get further into the design competition materials.
Mr. Lanyon asked for further clarification on the various foot print and set backs. He asked how
much space might be gained by splitting the set back on the north side. This would give
approximately 1,600 additional square feet per floor. Shaving other yards and set backs was also
discussed. Mr. Rohlf observed that the set back across Church Street is to the lot line and.
questioned how valuable the set back was in relationship to library needs. Aid. Rudy pointed out
that the entire block containing library had the set back. Mr. Carow noted that part of the
Woman's Club was within eight feet of the property line on Church Street. Chairman Collens
announced that there would be further discussion on the set back issues at the next meeting.
She requested that the Committee set dates for their next meetings. It was agreed to meet at
7:30 on August 18th and a tentative agreement was set for Thursday, September I st.
Meeting adjourned approximately 10:00 p.m.
STAFF:
Date:`��'1,�Y
7Y54/61
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
MINUTES
Thursday, August 18, 1988
Room 2402 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER
7
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ald. Collens, Feldman, Juliar, .Morton, Rainey, and Rudy
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Collens, Chair
STAFF: Carter
OTHERS PRESENT: Joel Asprooth, Judy Aiello, Don 'Aright, Charles Anderson,
Richard Lanyon, Jay Carow. Doris `•olin, Ann heppler, Jeffrey
011swang, Lawrence tt i tzling, Ann Dif'nner, Richard Stillerman,
Vary Ann Cappo, Irving, Cherry, Ri,7r1rC Coot,, Vary Sighn and
other mernbe rs of 0te general public.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE JULY 28, 1988 MEETING
Aid. Rainey moved approval of the July 28, 1988 minutes as written. Seconded by Aid.
Feldman. Motion passed. No Nays.
COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Collens announced
receipt
of two cornmunications: a let-,=-
fr.)'n Richard Stilierman
(7,)-�ir±t,'3tintl `
` 1ii�!in� 3 ne.\ li`�r.�r\ nn •''�
�rs •`t eSt Side •
Chicago •1\er.ue: ant; a iettf-r
from
11r. >;ohlf expressing, his reser\a: .-s
)n r,esi,n coi';petit ions.
DISCUSSION OF THE CHICAGO AVENUE SITE
C h;iir Lolk,'7S l3!!e� ['" �Or:3r� itteE' .�crr�ers attention to the 11.; !`��.`' ?'►;.�',andllm l]1
the, Librar\ Plre'-. _ . '`.tr. the app1V .it ` :'ie 17'c4r\'j proF7'3rn
-,t lte -er,,t .. !')t. `'j1j�'l' . „ i^, t it :II3•`:, in tiff' }� 1 T-is n1e ..-r
Lv.ii in re'sr'-ns— t� r- �'� '!'i c:uess r,iise d 3t the rr" •'-.. l.i.. .JGe`'
t'mt the rrer )o t { :31 it's '.L 1'. tl-, L.t7r''r7 kttt'e slh u:�, not seriousi'. t-le _111C3 Al _-n„1e•
Sitter. He felt the an."°lyL is .kas very clear as to \t'h'r the library ne not be cell se-\t'.1
with so many levels. A!C. Ructy moved that the Committee cease of t!ie chic:12")
Avenue site fir a neL\ Srconc'f d �; :llr;. Itaineti. llt'. t-o r mente•: t!-,it
':,':anted 1t e'nphaS;zZ-d t`'.3t his r•.-asnr for elii-,inatinp t';is Sit- %kat� _. ;t 't:r )ot %%ors '.%oll for
the users. fie did not feel t'at ! w',ir sir f!c•-)rs .L.iS necessar,, a - - - . t..* tnat it .Loulc n)t
4.t)r"C with a s'r.;,!l 3.louni of ,Its;: a"'..1 ' it e crl of "`lost' IeLel; -1. ':�i!t in cc,` ,sion.
1 -
Special Committee on the ,X-lain Library Project
Minutes - August 18, 1988
Page Two
Ald. Morton asked for clarification on the motion. She agreed that the Chicago Avenue site
would not work for the main library, but wondered if the motion ruled out any consideration for
using some part of that site for expansion of the main library. There followed some discussion
of the difficulty in spanning the alley. Ald. Morton cornmented that she did not want to see the
Committee locked into a position where they couldn't touch even a portion of that site because
of the motion. She merely wanted the motion not to preclude any consideration of some use of
that site. Aid. Collens explained that the Committee 'Would likely make future adjustments to
their position as they moved along and that nothing was chiseled in stone at this point. It was
Aid. f=eldman's understanding of the motion that all they were doin} vvas eliminating the
Chicago avenue site as the primary site for the main library. He did not believe the (notion
precluded using some portion of that site. Ald. Rainey asked for clarification on her seconding
of the motion and it '.Was confirmed that the intent of the motion cWas to eliminate consideration
of the Chicago Avenue parking lot as the site for the library. Motion passed No
Committee .vent on to discuss the second part of %lr. ICrif±ht's rre r` :,hich !coked at
alternatives to increase the footprint of the library to better actor .'
od.st': the program
.;tate?nent needs. This memo was in response to questions raised by Corrittee ?t their last
meeting. Aid. Rudy felt that the anal}'sis did point out that the site 11.3�
3 Ill:le t-)n SM211 to
adequatt-ly do everything, but-?xpressc'd his opposition to taking sorre o; me ;.ar ,. Ne '.fished
to contintie to expiore other means of ho\v we meet that need. V:lide not r.. t .crept ant
of the alternatives, he preferred taking from the vards on the north .:
on the :a_t. Aid.
Collens cnmrnented th.�at the analysis of site options \could have :
and ur^ed
Committee e,atr ine the site and try to
t.1C rpacr of these
diagrams. Aid. Fudy e \rl-lined that the li`arary had the sar!Ie seth.-%cl` (in
a_ :he other
buildings. l!c• felt that if ,le be; an to tnove the building Into its front yar,�
:t _land out in
an unattractive 'a•ay. Ho ;arrested Committee :nernbers look at places
.l`.ere that had been
done so that they could understand the impact, Ald. Vortor, did not share ni:_ -^,rlrr.r ,, about Ilse
yards. She felt that .ve '.could havt� to look at the ..arils realistically .s
a ::ossi!�Ie •neans of
meeting space regt:ire- ents. She did not fael that Trost 1)c'ol)Je :oetld h.- `•_'"'e•^•,
f,', ,sing those
evtra fe'.v fet,t. Sht, ;a�7rerd sile '.volald not like to sf„' the t:..,,
t•� :li,� ;�i line on
Orrington, but fc!i sorre i:stl of the irds -Du1,7 be :r!e. \;(. rc,l,,!'.,,,rlp!
might not ha%., an op;nr.,ri ;oi t the
!'harap ati ll'=�.. r� r},t' 'a' •- -- `,` - f- 1+ -_
' '
to them. He o)serle�' th,,t :lie .:rds 'i-c n=_�t %kW-niit P �:, ,`,..
;r :... sr.o,lr,
tl.inl•: hard a'�c;ut any _!.anlc's •ir.1 .col:!c',,:{ 1 \ r, pt�r•, Teas=, sa r.'.
� .sc �a s. ;ld.
P.udv eonlrlwnted on thr '}.:tl�rn�s acr--ss the street C ('trip ! ,,i!t to
..,,s a -rf:e-ent
situation brc mso the 1 and re lie—d un '.1 t'i v,s a
L '' S ;."' ."a,. . _ 1-,ere
were rea,on; .`,)r !1,s'.ir:; t', _• t ;acn a• d notert
backs. l t 'lI At is it .l . r',rrec;a r\ .l- s';(;r.';.. e 'I`_r:., . E'!
A; •\' .-t .';1 r - t" t �!',•' .. f'.-'t '.l �Slt '.�'" i• •' .. - -
... .. .•ti
�`r•'r�ilC{e',.. `�,� �l. rlt,i _ '\�• ti�:. '.l•- ,"I =r:, _.r' ,
• ., .. .: ._ .:t:
�_'� the .�,. i" i_C' cat �:,. :lit' !•1riC.
_
DESIGN COMPUITION
.'\1C. Co!!e,�ri.rrn v[e' .. rel'ei o` t•le e ,r ,. c •-,tom
_ pt � r!'at rials >r rr i n i _ . _ c r
,re5erice o ',tr. <•_11i�''.1�3:1,: :1r1(: ,lr. t�� it711rlc. Sh•' jsti vC; Vr. L.1';1'J'l If .. .-r:
:,Msi?iiajit5 f"r a !'rief
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - August 18, 1988
Page Three
Mr. Lanyon reviewed the history of the Board's decision to recommend the use of design
competition and the commissioning of Design Competition Advisory Services to oversee such
competition. Some three years ago the need of a new library came to the attention of an
architectural design class at the Illinois University of Chicago. They asked fir. Wright if they
could do a student competition on the design problem. They developed eight to ten different
student solutions and presented these to the board which, in turn, got the board interested in the
potential of using a competition to develop a new library. Subsequently they interviewed seven
different consultants providing services on design competition and selected the firm of Design
Competition Advisory Services a year ago as their recommended firm. He noted that the City
Council had endorsed the idea of a design competition and phased construction when the Board
approached them on this matter in 19S6. Fie went on to introduce Mr. Oilswang and Vr.
Witzling, both associated with the faculty at the University of 1; isconsin.
Mr. Witzling noted that there was one principal reason for holding t`ie corr,petition; the need for
design excellence. `,,)t all projects have that strong a need, but he ft'It in this case the civic
importance of the site, the need for a very functional kind of building, the ne'_-d for something
that has the appropriate public image, and the problernatic nature 31 the site all require the
highest possible design quality. He felt that the competition %vas a route to resign excellence
because it offered a ~rider range of choice and professional jury exr-_rtist' in evaluating that
choice. The jury includes not only professional designers, but ,i W)rarian 't% as sponsor
representatives. That expertise in making a good choice from a ranxe of choices allo%vs V441 to
begin the process of building a library with an excellent desif;n. \l h"n t'1e process is over you
have a design':r and a &sign. Next, you ran work on rnodifyinc- that ne;ign to the extent
necessary.
1tr. 011s`,vang romt-nented that ten years ago they had initiated t;W ronalssance of design
competition as an alternate way of achieving design excellence. fay' noted that there had been
many misconceptions about design competitions. However, it has bee:1 their experience that the
best chance of achieving design excellence -.vas through a comp<�tiuve Process uf!Ich xtias tatally
anonymous. This means the best design solutions are taken on t"pe!r 'rerit alone. In Evanston's
case, it '.;as their professional opinion that a design competition. )rat" tc all :architects. uuas the
best '.Ca', to achf?ve design excellency.
-.;as ,;n(,erstant,in�7 pt-tition would ne:
ho doe'S '.4{lut:
ghat art' the +_osts t.) the CiI, and the r()ntC`St.:; t=:
•;hat '.;a5 the overall
time frarrle'.
%Ir. Olk-.• ,ang not,.(! that over'v design competition i5 .'.i,t',
` .I ass!;-Tnin, that this
competition
would `)e an opt'n national cornprtition to all lii ons- v-_"itc•'=ls,
from the time of
the decision
to go, the development of the pr,)gratn, the t`:)Q
prC,7-,tion carnpaign,
the selection
of t'e jl:rti, t')e a,-t!tal do�is'n time, question an=}
c, anc the from
bt>giRnl`.1 to
Pf)C: '1=:*','i�:l\ Inj i.i t.3^.C' '11 Ql:; ;)Ine 0r.t,1<.
L1. _ Ei �e�1ln
solutio^. T
is roj* pI.-J l} 11_,t e ,("li-Ih It
=-unventional
!fr ASS, `3Ut tilt,• i'_'it.'t!' clf ti-re it taI-,es tJ picl^ :in -..
it t 3 r. ,'il' I')_.
design. Cost
'.trill 'D apPrOxiIn, ItL'1% 11 ;'.S: i IIncl," ttl+'ir
YrcpoSI-fl.
'1ld. CollQns 1SI:t' v hat .-idditii)nal :QSts th-re 'r'I)', 1t 5e `-C"Ong tilt• ; 51he az-,ec
of the optional Fe)5ts rhe,. �kouid bt- hhoir ,-csp,)_st7 =5 -.t the
award cere'arid pliblIC exhibiiion ar, options uh;rll *hlr .' r; >nC, � ;d Host
sponsors klallt to do there. Tile%do rot thinK it ',ta5 :, :t r;: ',t at laic
beglt'.Fllr}i',. Tht'St' ar^ j,nSI rorr,pt'[tIl•11l 1ell�'lilt'S, Ri i i,F.'t i t`
They 13r1{It' tF,_.t 1)i7t'. O e `ilriiw _-.1 ;tall' am i!?. ;.fJ: ✓'. �! ! 5
irrrE'.
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Nlinutes - August 18, 1988
Page Four
All Feldman asked H they had ever recommended against a competition and the consultants
replied in the affirmative. There were three times when they had recommended such action and
gave examples of inappropriate circumstances under which to conduct a competition. .among
the conditions which would be inappropriate were: projects with limited budgets on short time
frames; or projects seeking a particular high style of design which could only be provided by a
very few architectural firms. If a client wanted not only design excellence, but �Aanted to
garner public support for a project, fund raising, a bond issue, and wanted to be sure that the
community was part of the process, then he would recommend a competition. .old. Feldman felt
that there had been a strong assertion that the competition was the only way to go without
sacrificing design excellence. He noted that the knew of many buildings and structure's which
had not been subject to a competition but did have design excellence. He asked for cl,rification
if they .vere saying we could not achieve design excellence without a cornpetitien. T`.e response
was that it would be more difficult to achieve design excellence through the ron4untional
process in Fvanstonts case. %lt. 7 itzling noted that there were many kinds of tLil"inrs, such as
professional office huildinqs, housing developments, and com1i-,ercial :ho site,
location, and the functional requirements are not exceptionally difficult for procucinq design
excellence and would not require design comptetition. He agreed that th•-re are ',an'. ^:samples
of excellent buildings LLit!2 not ciesroned under a competition and many ohere excelI^_nrn .L•as not
achieved. Ile did not lee] it %Las a causal relationship. Their position .vas that .e hse a much
L,reator chanC=' of tit-hie,.iny [rongn excellence Urlde'r our aacumstances Ann; a design
compeuticn. They felt the process of taking approtiinately 200-300 des;€n so::Kns and
narrowing it joyn, to the' five best, and then finally the hest of the five, err r,nred the
chances of a really fine desit,•n. This, cornp"re,� to int�'rviev;ing a ntari,brr firm—,,
ri.king one and f;�tlin,r onl`. ;)nr. desr,,n to _onside'r, ar}-'tied' for design r�,1 .�•r•t::1:r t '"iOrL
tractive al.pro,ac!-i. '..r. ells\lane errph.1;iFe41 th,it b)olh i)t thvrr •,Lert Fr ':tl_l k "! `,it^ri$ and
the) •.vouk4 no[ advocate C-'at the onl'r •.Lav t) achieve design excellence ,:a$ t.`:,rnoy" a design
cornpetitien. However, histon has shown then, th,It more often than not. if succc°ss!.!f, and
equitably run, the coir_petiti'.c process has produced buildings of extracrdinar'. quahzy. He
noted every building on the 'rill in ttashin tcn, DC .were 11w result of d11esi`7 cc:r'-G-L?iIi ,'..
Ald. Feidf:ran noted that gznv of the ey.r as dsed u ; ro inonu' :et:t-s: _ .. , t' _ .ind or
projects L.hmn "add attram outstanding ar-`Qeq" AW large firms
de31 of
effort into Me %ark. Fie av,ed if a pr_ it-''_ t on they Scale cif f-v anston'
:.L c :, laien?.
n a v . that i h e % aIrr'a0 y t w i
a c a es frorr
architect, bou: the co orzait_.n. Ine in their-
:rl, L other
compeut:Ons the, have 3tlrar-ted Ve^y pond talent. .old. Qld'ran
i
mtntioned '.L'`'iici'. o pr�)joct sht7 do lil int? and MY Much of MY-
'-rat'ra ere used to
determine that Oan=top Act& hi", a cesir- c,mpotit onw W. Mtzhn�
;.-at thed
saA in the hmat'-n &as: :n P. pur:ant nO.: it-ucrir^: i , rrtiral locale
a= s , . an C
in lr.al :sviv nhir4 :.' .., 'c'c:- relat":
_" .. ''•'.
.`;i anp , . .. :' :Alt t'P% K" a t ,. . . st• .. :lens•_ vie
r e
,:,[e'• : �; ,ors :`:_° i-.:, . ��f the ,:r's:s.• . - :rr, u'e;
•old. Ruav
cinser% d that on- of
the
tl,in)•S ac tic'^dec to have to .ar'.. e a
r= ::C ..ncuanal
sohnion nos
ail , st ra fi,n Ntye'en
the npCwwrs :an._. the enu user. f - . o
if .. _ ;.ehoo-7
A;'eI! ! l%,-
lij t n! ; ier-h,ange.
Mr.
lit "icy -•e! ' t.`3.'t tl-oro .Le'rt'
at ..•,C�: t':.
cauh! he ac
_ • phs"ec. Xe is at
the
berinmn; in r'lscusnon of the WAL! • •
,' _. . Anoo, .
is Currn st
_
t'-�. t: „n 3 ;IieEtinn
a^t 1
s ,r • , entrant, . - in
an .L t ,-t��i ,c \L try t`;r deft n
. : tin -., t
.g ;' :r,
,rrt is of
mo pre _r:. r 7ro%n7;nv
a : ,
it up o t=' . that pr='ora,q.
Special Committee on the Plain Library Project
Minutes - August 18, 1988
Page Five
This is followed by a dialog of the jury. When all of that is done, there is a preliminary design
which has been built upon a great deal of input. At this point of the process, you have the same
opportunities as you would for input under the traditional approach. SFr. Oilswang emphasized
that there is a great deal of exchange of information prior to the competition and a much more
careful diagnosis up front. The difference in communication is that it is a formal process rather
than an informal one. Ald, study asked about jury composition ard Aho would be on it. Mr.
011swang emphasized that this is where their experience is re4:l�. helpful. They know the
difference between good designers, great jurors and those who are available. It takes sit months
to put together a top-notch jury. The consultants always recomr,end that there be client
representatives on the jury. They like to see a majority of design professionals to insure the
ability to lead drawings and make design judgments on the difference bet%veen stvle and
substance. Their recommendation is a maximurn of seven jurors '.%;t`1 two frorn the client and
five from the outside. He emphasized that they knew who not to p,:t on a jury as cell as who to
put on one. Ald. Juliar asked whether the consultants would s,,'t t`"e criteria 'ir %vhether t!ie
client would. Response was that the consultant writes the pragra•- =r,; the client reviews that
program for their approval. The consultant's role is one to advis? the client, not to dictate.
Ald. Juliar asked if Evanston would be better off with a desi j^ competition or selecting
architects in the traditional manner as far as costs were concerned. '.'r, tt itzling said that a lot
of what the final budget depends upon is not the preliminary desi--r.. L':ich corr-yes at the end of
Elie competition process, but the design development and constru't.•-,r, rr.,,naFerrent that collws
afterwards. If you have a realistic budget at the beginning, the,. :. ;t in criteria that says the
project has to rr,eet certain budget constraints and develop so'r^ ^sidelines on costs. The
preliminary desi^n ca:n be a eery cost conscious approach. Tntra are t0lt+ t;le approximate
hudget, the m!-ber of sq;:are feet arid that the jury will co.sice-r pr.:cticability as
major factor. Thy". do not 'give a cost per square foot Ineasur�- It is nct a fair
measurement. V.r. It itzlinj? emphasized that It %vas in the jury's t=C",'. .-.terest .10 ,olcn _OIJ)0thi.-I2
that can get built easil) and economically.
Ald. Rainey usn d the consultants to describe a,n ideal jury profit,- response '.ta>:.at least
two people '•%'ill) il,%e a vested interest in tilt' bijiidlklC' h1—:: _"-'ittrts .Li',e have prior
experience In illr%inn a large number of dt'sirns. probal.lti :,:1 oc..'" t') t"i'',,(? lder
collegial atr,'rosphe r�,: anc one pE-rsun %l ho '.% ill e rlt_ of rage lift' �''': r5 t ] enz-.!r scan) Cie
discusSi-)". T^r.. :sc tt'^ cfofi-li
Rainey asked tilt cnnsuJltants to c—s: rll-t' \% Co'?1:T'I;nII' `S 'r' J'i -,cv tr ''rDCr_'S,.
Mr. Olfs'.%'ang an Leesburg. Virrilli,., 'st.3t i i'F'r ad%Isir,
r,inol of Interest:': rol,ps where, i)er.11ltii' r-i serm< is ,ite )rr. J ' ' : % :5 a P 1.Jr
rub5tantiaf corfllct :.et.le.'n different i.i(: tlons in the tov n. i'`. _ the rians o—, in pl:bllr.
and Eisine the fa".C' "ro L;;5, t') 0L11 S-5
AIL ii,rsr% i :, it , ... 'I,. < t . -I:
of fir'r ail%n. i>-.eC f 11!' L 1' ". = 3r J %.iS r
consultants hc,l',t^'C C'.. that tf'c' flit "i! `.l.a., 1.1t le""JdL IOCnFr lE', Lr'•' rc! I'J rst
least have -a rOou" f aitll nt€ot:iLion %%ith t�'(_- first place vinner anc :, .Dt:r:t t1;=;'S1`: 1• l
negotiations are not sE rcessful, the firsI %%'1-)nt,r '.talks a%La, o J z c and t'3C'
hoard niilsl )tiate ,%it'1 the se-(:ond plate -tinn"r on their ' _. ,It_'tn:.'
\\ a '.Ie'rClria1 '' ;rpetltIon Is an ex.i:-,..)1'.
\1c:. �- (- Il -ors as'.; _. ii the, '.ter^ antiri['lfinv is ,_liE, ! t'ir'e ;' . ,1rE5+1 't'
u I; in t~.t- of f.r'--it:% ,.
Special Committee on the :Main Library project
Minutes - August 13, 1433
Page Six
,jd. Collens asked if the jury would be able to get from three hundred contestants down to five
within three days. Mr. 011swang replied that they normally allow, based on their best judgment,
jury deliberation for three days. First, he explained that the jurors had substantial experience in
doing this. He stated that about fifty percent of the entries drop out on the first round because
it is immediately evident they either didn't understand the program, weren't Very careful, or are
not very talented. The jurors score these independently on the first round and on the second
round they begin to operate as a group. At this point the debate begins to ct a little more
heated and it may take them the next day to get down from around sixty to around thirty. fay
that time they' have seen the drawings many times and understand them thoroughly;. Thev are
generally able to get down to a consensus on the top five or six on the third d, . He explained
that it was a very' tirne consuming and exhausting process involving t'xety- lour dais of heated
debate. The non-professionals, \vho have not served on juries before, typically asp. hole it can all
be done in that amount of time, but it is accomplished. Ilr. 011s-.van€ e'.rlained that the
difficult part was not the first cut, but voting on the nurnber one choice.
1n response to 'A.Id. Rudy's CL1e5tir)n on the drawings r':cuirtd, 1Jr. „itzling explained they grant
plan sections and elevations, and something sho'xinC how the building fits on the site. They give
a lot of time ana thought to ac hievjng a balance bet,.%-cen not overbtjrdenin� The ContCstants vit`1
irrelevant drawings. yet giving the jurors enough to d"tail on 'A,hic`l to base . j,.;dgrnent. %0
models are requiraEf. Al _ Rudy asked if design {prof'-ssionals on the jur,,- cane with a
particle?arty strnn7 appcoacii 1.hi,7h might effect the rind of building that git, !.n%v -voAlic Tho
consultants deal '•.lei; that•.' %;r. 0115'.l am rt soondea that the,, know\ '.vho t4 ^ :trrt :tt_'�ts ;ire and
do not us.- those !'_,rors. The% also nno,x- fine _,rc`litcts +1i'U are flnr J 1rnr5, T: c'= r:ot p!lt any
pedagogues on tl:c
.d. Feldman „t5?.t' if they hid a list of cn npttiti+on5 that thel -Acre If':\r11.7c In. Aid. Collens
asked if it •.ynuidr,'t be helpful for a brief explanation of ho',v thf- !:card found these
particular cons;�ltants. %lr. Lan\on explained that %1r. Carow har prov!,_:p - ;151 of 1lrm5
providing suc�l services and Ire Board intervic,-%eo aknt!t -seven differera fir'--5 [,ltlmitely
selecting ne51;_'n (_ornpe'tiIion Ndvis ir4 Services cf ',111,.l:f'lt:f'r'. 17 rt'S,^,nn5c'
Aid. Feicr'•an, tn'_-(—,FSUit.Mt5 snC11 'd I)lCtUres of SUI;lt ('f the, ;,rc)je'!'ts ,.. iC :n in\O1\'ed
1l i Ill.
llc'. Raiine\ i�d , , if the Cr' - rr'ins! t1,}�,.
m C lt'.'S" Vr. A itil1'1g rE',,-1ie_. :!'. tt thy._ 3-t?.!r,-` -- .,,•, t` 'rt1 f t'i" ;F .l i t' ti.�
rl.hts t,? rev r 1:,,)t -!n pjr;csSi . J)!,; 'ile right u'Sr the :c o'1
those d;r"okin'-s art [lot the L,:\'s. if ycu art' un,3i]IU t)
then ne° :'ot;at,' le r1 ")t t : i:'l.l!'.. ti.e SC'Ct�l`.(; F ia`r� Ct'<it Fl. ii '.tac tGrt .tr i3'r::i'� flat ;f %ke
were un';;1'_ ti) Q _n f;.'t a"
f;3rt
t,)t rtn',t [ } .[,. 1. ir, i:r" ? !•
Ann �?iilE'. , rt'fi: iln� ,�rl hi'r _:.1: ...' rr' ,?: Iv�ni 1� .i[ ,?f t?it 'flda'"r a',. G,. true ;ne
111i1'(i,1!" ,_ rVif'!t I�.. Ci!'`i: n '.'. .'i�' Il'�' L r'-•t: CI�';�. •- 1. :t ,.�F ,t•. .. l' _ r.. •
in t~c :f _ , .'lrt It' J. [: it :t ti ...fir Co
1J:_ '!tJ`_ ,,r' .;!'.I''. .i �. 7r" .?I��' r: �r, :[ [".�• .,r� '; [''!. , !:
r"Unr-��[ '\.. 'ni:t . 'i_ :t•_ t`lr' ,?" `'. . ;�1: 'ti ,'! .:!'-. .. _ .. ,. .\ )`_, _ �.
Special Committee on the Nlain Library Project
Minutes •- August 18, 1988
Page Seven
Aid. Collens asked how much flexibility they would recommend, such as adding to the
competition whether the project should be built in phases or in one stage? Or would that
decision have to be in place before the program is written? Mr. 011s,>.•ang's response was the
first thing that we needed was a committment to a competition. Then spend a great deal of
time defining the details. Mr. ',Vitzling felt the first thing to be najled down very hard was the
site because the project has to be defined as to its limits. Then it can be determined whether or
not phasing should be part of the criteria. Aid. Collens clarified that she '.wanted to get an
understanding of whether a competition afforded her a better opportunity or a lesser
opportunity to get these decisions made. She explained the City's previous e\perience on a
recent development where two options were offered based on types of zoning and the
difficulty they had in paring the two. Mr. Witzling explained that trleir approach contained
three maim sections including: requirements; recommendations: an;, options t%-hich the client
must define %'with the help of the consultant.
Mr. Lanyon asked if it would be possible to get some signal or, ."..ether [o proc-ed with a
competition. Aid. Collens responded the committee vas still tr".!nc to understand .%hat the
board already knows and wants to look at alternate +.;aNs to do the '--esi-n. Ald. Feldman asked
for clarification as to u Nether this committee '.was rnakirig any final dt'•_isions independent of the
Council. Ald. Collens stated that the committee ~,would have to de.ei. p i r_cerrm,endation to
take to the City Council for a final decision. It was her hope tl.at th,� C=o!iw:1ttee had
finished its ~work all of the possible questions or) the library ao+sir r.r:.e ecn ans,>,ered and the
recommendation tiworsld be obvious.
Aid. Rudy asked the consultants to respond to some of the poir :.
_^ntaine !r1 %lr. Kohlf's
letter. Vr. 14[itzling stated that there were a lot of points raised
_ ;t^tt r .�lth �,vhich they
could agree and a few with -0ich they do+z't. First point is t'la:
hw.t° t great dual of
experience and are confident that they can make the approachi
r: t!;e sN'-onc point about
the possibility of nnan� mediocre entries, their experience .:as t-.a:
t`,t•% got quaiit% entries.
One of the misunderstandings '.vas ab,-),At hox rapidly a jun r,akr<. Mil
juCFments and their
experience is that it does ~work .'.hen -A-11 orrsni eC. T`}e'y agree :'
t--e jug. ru-t the
pro€yarn and in all c—pomitions the} don't do thit. Ire resp,•:nz=
._ `1_ ,,:nt a. t invit(_d
cu'npetition, he st ed out t'.lat this is rlsu3!I} duct l!rn ,o,: _ _
soli,-;t. farr,ous
architects. Ther,.. t,l.� ,.i..,n of �.,.t r„�titi,. n '.� ;, ,,,,., t;,,t :t
_ „^,., k-architects. zn iRvitAf!
competition and one t},.at hats no l:rolossion,al t)ri t';e !;�L-- _
d; ed
that th''re a c,!ffc'ren•. in ill' ,:ia{'st11,_, q::l'.tit!!5•li ,oW a:15•kerz .
_ . .=1t,,- al
a co:rlpetition l'i the Ctl'r'-pe titian t:_I(' {;ur'sti )[I ir ', _
11 I'.. 'Ll1,Dc IS
:nor,? for -,,al, mort' strut turPi, and r7iori' ri l"J rr 115. Each
dlsidw.3ntaoes. iln t:w :oint ,-,f an in\it.,d cur:
he ,`Unt-PGPd that —s 1S :r'.:e rn-:]L 0-,en %-i are- i-%i,,iM7 t'*�:Frl
:. _ :!1t' Stl,7^ if
V'r.
art iclllat t!ln'1k: .. 11 ., ir? ..(,: C: :t t'. :t _•r .0'1. i!;'
i
have sa, .cone fr(� };. 1,sr'r grout. ?',e• M.i rs .t ire r,nt so ;r,
expertise from the ii`.rar•. field to attra-_t `ooc coi: Pet:tors. The.
to .`.
the jury set up so that it coul(3 shcot for c.)rsensus. It .tZs t,+eir e\,- • a: -iplits ;n
the jur% .vere nit the dlesigners .rsl:s th- Ii':r.iriar or
Differences of upini,)n c.iusc' splits in i .:r~ different %1r. L::
t..- _:; nu: ,ll
librarians Vr. Pohlf5 •)f the
-:,t
i ,.� 6 1 C 11 t t �"i t• 'A a r I t�� t., .1 1.~ r � r ', t!: I t ! ... � 1. l' , 3� � 4 ! t• 4 l ! i ". , 3 i T i,' 7 n
0
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - August 18, 1988
Page Eight
Aid. Feldman asked what the drawbacks would be to an invited competition. llr. Witzling
responded that in an invited competition there is no guarantee that the names you pick will do
the design work. Very often in a firm the design gets assigned to someone else. The odds that
all five invited designs are going to be of top quality are not good. An open competition starting
with a couple of hundred designs and a highly qualified jury, the chances that you would get a
number of top quality designs to choose from are much better. In an invited competition you
play all five entries something up front to cover expenses and this could prove to be more
expensive than the open competition prizes.
There followed a gteneral discussion of the invited coinpetiticn for the Chicago Library and the
difficulty in making comparisons 'xith that to our circumstances. Mr. Chem' from the audience
pointed out that the entrants had to guarantee the cost as part of the redevelopment program
and felt the City Z,ot a great huy. They may not have gotten the preatest _esizn. but they got a
co} npetent and hr' felI that oetlln� reat dealgn 'N,as IrT,por!:'nt ;' !t '.kas also essential
to have architc.,_ tural fir•rs who could carry throll„f; in a very t�f ficir_nt �. hole program,
to be able to prnlc'ct and 'neet costs. Mr. Ric -hard C ooL, cornr.',entr_,d tha: t"'.' C.t':cago situation
•.vas very different fr�.rr chat is being prop o`;ea here. lie exrr(_-stt_d lis to an open
competition and the lack of int',raCtion bet`.veen the ar,.hitc'ct and : _ :ii'}' t. He pointec'
out that entrants ',toulu b( supal\in;: '.4riting r,-sponse�, to .1,,mts '.tho in
turn would be sr'ndi!Ic, 'trltte!1 C-D'riwt'nts t') the jur% and that 010,,0 tou;ri ip ;cJr tun.tir•S ti,
talk or interact 11ith tbw ques:ions. }f& agreed '.lith Vr. C!ierr'. the -,I )i r—P,)rta:lt t0
etitabli5h a hud"' any t'4'alliac'? a� tali go tirori,_r) sch"T-1 LiIC Ca's:;-''la so t'. : ..'.1'-t '.tkero "CtJ
stand on rosts befor�, [�-e dt'sicn is finish.ert. I. i,L:vr t!,e op'?') r''iI ,I;('IIII iri, _. 1.0t slut' t`,at
a3ctual[\' `'t)I!1C to `.ane {){yC". hesi`1t1 CXCC'{1t?I1Ce -,4ns 1-,or- i`-.r_t;, jus; ti::tJ;r', It's a tl7tai
ocess int-Ilydi[V i i .:'1L' d hi.ih4in4' from the bt',;Inr..n_, t7 Iht' e I1C i 1r'ia.;. ._ .' ;tr'.:ction and
administration. It is F'•_'ttlr:v I}le 1)est pe,.)nle lrl`.':.leu 'r', t` r' pr' (7+_s3 :_,rr. �ut the bt_st
building. %1r. `.kWi his definition i)f hi; deiJ}-TI �'ti:C _'!fE"lr'. { .' ai`o &rice_- that
the dlaloylle ltas ci.itr?nt. tt;t there 4tiere plaros f.J" that �ialz}'c!i' to t ce.�In dt'sl_n
competition vozi have restricteC 6dGgUe but fr )'T, r' 3'1\ r.;f f'_r:!lt wfCill:"... aereec' That
there wai .i r! of"' to e t i1` I:f. a at the '.Z.- _ . . _ _ r'Cuire C()SI
estirt'at(', .tit,' t:l,' r-cr ,`10tii-r. -�f :1;o 5Ci "l, t;r- I}'t• l'r. 1', 1 llC i'= SII 1Of-
tl:e 1ur'.. It :r' :l°t!a. in -L iv --Li, rr•. of the C':. !', Vr. C, i7„, tit js .3
Cif fern..S '-1I'. :,.. ';4 1
.(Idg-t tth :r' ' : h;s t, ... f'C _IS-) :Ia
t_on- nittet' .'r-it)c.S ...tit= 1i5t"; tI Q t'.1t Z� con t5
1kIt11 Isle t'. r s: _.tc. ,.'.4Ls l.'Of, I') _rl 1 .!." SC: :.1t•'i 7 .+�`.
T1:e 1. h3;r" rlrI i " . -zt j: f t r I, 'i e .. ' C;,.e
'.t J: r`t: .. t -.,�.. l,4 ., .�° .. �' ' it• 'C �-r';t.-, S. '13, .. :c':: '
t,f`it t., se 14 '_ e :1'. tam.. .1 .. t.'t:r. i',':
-o•T l]ar15C�'1 '.4 -.� rt,l�...a' '.t t, ` .i� S`" _ Il ;' JC'1 t1 .1,'S 1 . A,'11: -.
ronovition t'•t C I % 4: E, r'.r'r : lr. ;t)t :i Ii.)rar'.. As��C D 7'GS
th it sh`_ '.1.,:1 oc "„i „t' 3r' t'.3t C,')C 1) t ri L._
Il li" - �:. "�(• Ct 1 _ r cit.,.�l t. �a _. '!' r :i .. :r. e5S.
Special Committee on the �ilain Library Project
Minutes - August 18, 1988
Page Nine
Mr. Lanyon responded that they did not receive a presentation on a RFQ process, but did
consider the information presented in the table of comparisons as prepared by :Mr. Carow. Ward
felt that they had a balanced comparison. Ann Rainey commented that she did not know
whether the RFQ part of the table was as an objective a case as could be made and would be
more comfortable knowing all the pros and cons. She referred to comments b� architects in the
audience at these discussions who raise objections to the competition process causing her to
doubt it validity. Ald. Feldman stated that he would like as definitive and as articulate a case
for the RFQ process as the committee has heard for the competition. ald. Collens clarified
that she was not asking the staff to take an advocacy on an RFQ, but 'xanted a thorough
description of it including such facts as how long it would take, what kind of costs %%ould be
involved.
Ms. Singh requested that committee materials be made available in the linrary for reference.
Meeting adjourned approximately 10:00 p.m.
r
STAFF:
DATE:
8Y79/S7
1.1111. 11 111 11111 1 11 Il'Igll J 11111 li III I11 I "^ III I I , 111 '1, 11 1 111 11 -II II IItI III I I I I, 1 11
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
,MINUTES
Thursday, September 1, 1988
Room 2401 - 7:45 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Collens, Morton, Rudy, Feldman, and Rainey,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Juliar
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ald. Collens, Chair
STAFF: Carter
OTHERS PRESENT: Joel Asprooth, Ann Dienner, Bennett Johnson, Don Fright and
Charles Anderson, Jay Carow, Richard Lanyon, Mary Anne
Cappo, Ann Kepler, She] Neuberger and other members of the
general public
APPROVAL OF 411NUTES
Aid. Feldman moved approval of the august IS, 1988 minutes as Britten. Motion passed. No
Nays. Aid. Collens commented that she thought the minutes %ould be most helpful to the
general public and others following the deliberations of the Llbrar4 Co*-imittee.
DISCUSSION ABOUT EXPANDED LIBRARY SITE
Chairlr:,r �:,)hens expi�uned that remembers halt received in ttleir :a --':et a site diagram of a
concept f )r an expanded library sito, prepared by Mr. Carter, to '..-t er the request of the Cite
Council that the Library Committee explore the option of an exaa'. r= site. She explained that
the Committee '.�•is to pursue consideration of whether it .%o—: be desirable to consider
acquisition of properties adjacent' to the W-)rary site and to report t' . rerornrr.endation back to
the city k-OL111+_!l. Sht' (7ornmente-1 that this particular conflc+lra: ore -)f several
y.3rtdll!�f tJ r--insl^er. Its pilrres[ 'A 5 t0 defT'CWStralf- 110'A t',r "..'' ._ _s-- "holiP It
be i1C(11M-L7.
-
%tr. Carter explained that the total property would be a com'.)ina.. _` t,.�o ;_ --?;: r,,t,as+,rin,p,
70' b� 1 but not -,It of that land would be available to be inc r. _tcd int , :r+e `o-)tp ritlt of
the building. First, a substitute alle} for the one adjacent to ;-,ave to t;e_•
treated tai<ing 20' off the size. Next, It would be pro5abl}' t)e r''—:.'_';•' to a Side
yard bet'.keen the %[o„nan's Club property and the %khich r, ix. . .,FF• ran. t`,^r f::tt?-en feet.
Final1%. x %%-mld le'ay'.' a 5' S.Diii t- be t'.CePn the cdc!C' of the r;t"% lllc"in ar -- the 111r'\
itself.
Special Committee on the Main Library
Minutes - September 1, 1983
Page Two
The net gain to the library site under the configuration shown would be approximately 4,000
square feet. this would bring the footprint available to the library up to something just over
35,000 square feet. He noted that there were variations on this scheme which could be used to
increase the amount of area added to the library site, such as squaring off the northeast corner
where the new alley was proposed to go on the diagonal. The amount of land between the east
edge of the alley and the Woman's Club could be reduced for portions of the other yards, such as
on the north, could be added to the site. For this particular approach he used the most
conservative assumptions. He noted that the 35,000 figure was one that Mr. %� right indicated
would be a comfortable one to work with and recalled :Mr. \4 right's concern over the previous
figure of approximately 31,000 square feet as one ~Which would be far too tight. He stated that
apparently the library program statement could function within approximately 35.000 square
feet, but did not have a sense of exactly how well it would to within that number. He noted Mr.
Rohlf's preference for a 40,006 square foot footprint. He felt that by k%orking some variations
on this general concept that we might be able to get the footprint up to something approaching
40,000 square feet, but that would probably be an absolute maximum for this site. He went on
to explain that if this particular concept were followed, a ne,& alley would have to be
constructed and utilities relocated. He called their attention to the cost of these items which
had come from an earlier memo prepared by the Director of Public Aorl<s. The further cost of
the acquisition of the residential property at 615 Church Street %as, at this time, ar•= =tnknown.
Aid. Morton asked \that variations might be involved in this site configuration. W. Carter
responded that variations, as such, would probably not be required assurning that this project
was 'wilt under municipal exemption provisions of the zoning_ ordinance. He st_tefr that the
1,awing before them assumed r: aintaininit dw existing bijildirlo lines on the north, t`+e east, and
.e south. The rear Ward could be almost non e\istent.
Aid. Rudy commented on the site configuration and asked hocmuch area would be xvined if the
building were squared of on the northeast corner instead of angling the alle% un that edge.
Response was about SOO square feet. Aid. Pud% suggested that the alley go on t' e angle north
of the possible east 5uilding line of the alley, thus, giving a squared off vlJi!di~t and taking a
little more land from the parking lot.
Ald. Feldman a51.ec if %tie took jr feet off the north sirte %arr+, char
7-ae re;ponc .ta s at;c,,it ,!�; i square feet. -\it-.. Feldman Calctilat-! t' :t ,,id,
footprint of =:)huiJt 7�,S�.iJ sciiare feet f_`y id(!irw this space plus squI irvr off ter'--,rn'.r. =old.
Feldman coma-lc•nted *hat the hip cost that stnod out t%as that of relo( sI.=`k EJt;. :;'4 °;' Illinois
1�ell and %v)ndered %vas involved to rn;eke the cost so high. The rv5pors(• the fi<cures
had been developed t'-�-.rlier b� \tr. Pudloski an(! that %ke u,-)(1 d havo to ,,s, Ib i 1-�r -e cet3ils.
The Cit,, V,?:' rer =o' 1C'nlOh i.`'.3i in SCl1=1 !n -: t`''
incursJ,-)rls '.:e7 '.t' i t:" ar''ih�' !"t 'Afil
parwJni Iot, iric, i:!ti, :t"I} n IL-ht effect Its 1517f'Jlrle';S 1 _ site f yr ; i , t :r' :. - _.ring. He
urged caut,on in j,1sI 3SS:aIIti car'.'Jnp t,p tha: Iot. It 1%as notes: that it .. >>;iC '_' "are55,1 t�
rework the aloev alii ntrent t) [e %k.hat ItS :'Tip,1C1 '.;-'0LI!G L'" Oft t'Ie 10t. .. , bi F' ^oJnt'.'�* ,-ut
that another variable %vou!d he ho'.: rT-IIC!I \.Ard 0,,,ere uol,id t;e ea5t A :t- .fie',. There art- a
number ct: .i55Ur':f.Iit)r s whJ(-h i 7Uld t'f f"C t f i!);tl AIo. 1'r'111'1- .11 •'n: .. ,' a t 'le 5,1
Iwo issues: I) I..) sal' the lot for 4 �':afiC' Iiso, anc, „ t•) rrJi'jv�, :11
possible.
Special Committee on the plain Library
!Minutes - September 1, 1988
Page Three
He noted that we had talked about having as many as a 108 spaces underneath the library and,
that if we are concerned about spaces, that may be a solution. But, that did not replace all the
spaces in the lot and asked what the value was that we were trying to save. Aid. Collens
reminded Committee members that they had been working under the assumption that parking
would be included as part of the project and noted the larger the footprint the more spaces
could be incorporated below grade. She wondered if, by doing that we began to approach coming
out even on the number of spaces. Aid. Feldman commented that he did not know have a
picture of what the added 800 square feet per floor would yield versus the potential loss of
parking. He asked how vital that would be. Mr. Carter responded that we would actually get
more than the 800 square feet because the cutoff corner makes for a more awkward floor plan.
Ald. Morton noted the City Manager's comments on preserving the Chicago Avenue parking lot
for another use and asked what the priorities were concerning the use of that iot for outside
parking for the library. He wondered if the lower level of the librar} '.could be better used for
library purposes if surface parking were available instead. She asked representatives of the
library if they had any idea howmany of their patrons park in the lot for sole use of the library.
They responded that they did not have information on this. They did know that many people
combined a trip to the library with other purposes. Mr. Asprooth responded that few of the
spaces were used solely for library purposes and that many of the spaces were taken up by
employees w-ho take up the space for the entire day. Aid. Morton asked if the new library
spaces would be for patrons only or whether there would be a continues Pattern of mixed uses.
Mr. Lanyon responded that if there were specific parking for the librar% that would be helpful,
but his understanding was that the City need all the parking the} get for a variety of
purposes.
Aid. Rainey asked about interim service which would have to be provicrys bN the utilities if the
alley were relocated. She asked how this would take place and if a scenario could be described.
Mr. Carter stated that we would have to talk to each of the separate utilities because they all
have their own way handling such a situation. %ir. Asprooth explainer t^3t as far as the City's
utilities were cencerr),,d. sewer and water, that they first build the re,,-, :rstallation and then cut
over to it so that there would be only tho briefest of interruption. T',e .nt:erruption takes place
at the tine in which you cut off one ser,-ice ana hook up the next. T; _'1o• trio utility operates
In a similar w'.3v by constructioj7 new !acilitinsCl-; �- the n.%
system has been energized thev cut over to it. The intent in :Ie elf::: ,s al.ka%s to minimize
any interruption. H'e felt the same circumstances would ar-!•, t, C.11one. •Vd. Rainey
requested a report on these procedures from the Fngineering
Aid. Feldman asked what the sk:nlficant difference %kould be s,et'.; "_i!djnr :n --hases. He
wanted to kno'•ti the cost as well as problems and service 1rnp1ic`tt:_. < ` ..:..irw iri --se5. AIC.
Collens not that sc're of the information hac' bet-'n rrac(- c=rt�
\tanager's 7',, of %Ia` I ",th concerning t'1P COS' Of '7,O%Inr tJ t fti 'r. 511f'
that the estimate for each rnov(i .kas approxitnatei'. $S9,JrZ_ to ? ('
on location ana not to another place. It ,assumed a cost offoot f^r tie move.
This estimate was made by a construction cost estimating firm. •%hic`-, %kolrld tal•,e
place would he one from the present library into a newly -onSir11—t4.,, _ ..:. and t? t ) the move
from that addition into the second completed Phase of the li�r,.tr.. as cic:rt!, that thc•
estimatt? was '�3sed on the amount of prestmt space in the lif.r<ar% z, . A,,,�. askec,
for clarification as to whether different config'.:r-ations %. orale t, .vir,` cost, Vr.
:Asprooth's rvtponsc .ias that them xas .% 1iffy°rer , t t:e?{, tc±;r,; ? t-:t collection
Might ha%e to :,) int., rep: ote stnr:ave ;,nc: '.k here that _e.. ote
Special Committee on the Main Library
Minutes - September I, 1988
Page Four
Aid. Feldman observed that under some of the configurations looked at this evening, we could
get a footprint roughly equivalent of the present library. He asked if it would be necessary to
go off site with the amount of potential space available under one of these schemes. .tar.
Asprooth responded that he would make no assumption that this could be done without some
more detailed architectural analysis of the site to examine what the constraints are on building
in two phases on that location. He questioned whether the whole site would be available if we
were going to biuld and demolish on the same site. He stated he would be much more
comfortable if we had someone do a detailed analysis of the possibilities. Aid. Feldman
clarified that what he wanted to get at was the constraints and disadvantages. lXere there
advantages such as financial advantages, time constraints, efficiency advantages, etc. He
stated that all he had heard had led him to believe the larger the site, the easier the transition
would be. lie asked if the Library Board had considered a full tu'o-phase move on this site.
Their response was they had felt that if they had been confined to the present site they could
manage a two phase move and a continuation of service. Board members indicated that it 1t'ould
be tight, but it could function. Committee members agreed that it was important to ;het more
definitive answers to .old. Feldman's question, raid. Rudy did not believe it -.%as necessary to
hire an architect to provide those answers, but rather, have that assignment given to the
architect selected. He raised the further question of how the Library Boarc sees thernselves
functioning in a small interim phase building. He personally felt it could be Cone and dirt agree
the larger the space available, the better it would work. His concern kith phase detielupnient
was whit kind of impact it would have on the ultimate building built. tie did n,t '.cant to see a
library that was askew because it had to be done in two phases. Chairrr,.n Coilens stated that
the next information they were looping for ckould come from the librar {•t:,:airiine uhat they
ould do with various size ac!ditions. Mr. :lsprooth felt that file Cortlrnitte' `.a. ~lit On a critical
Ant and wondered if it %would not be worthwhile to spend a litre cnec nou with a
architectural firnl familiar with libraries to pet some firmer ails%vers. Ala. Ruc'.'s response '.tias
that the next architect '.%e uork with should be the one selected to des1pr) the building and ask
him to perform that function. He felt it was clear what Elie implications :cre un having, the lot
or not having the lot as it would effect the design of the library. It ena'�kt s ,5 to maintain the
setbacks, it provides us kith a footprint that is large enoiiph that '.ce '_ar htrary in t'lree
levels, and we could continue to rnfinFl questions of •additional cost -.wit` `-:'.!ng to go to an
:architi�ct to answer that -,uebtion. Chairman Collens ob%ervc`a that t'r :te't .cas nlanv
Steps away front knotting oho th.it architect %%ill be .and illat archite t Z'11 +'c7MII,i'.t!'^
i'r"-Isinrl c.rl .0, t+,e ti " . ' .. i t C
a: �1I�. '�i i:C, •,r, t :ti cnEr.rT.rrit� tact[ li-:C'pi'nCNC O' ;1C Committee
decided to sole-! an architect. !f �Ou go urle .lc'slg'1 co—pt-iition rnutt' the s :c_' "tis to be clef:ned,
')Ut if 1'OU S1ET1pl'. S'I(-Ct a , ar-C!)it�rt yo. u. call assig") hire it.e ? ia; Of Cvai:=;;'.r ai r'lanl sites as
1'ou "ant.
AId. Feld:Tian asi,:oj tre C;'I\ lianager for clarification on ;, 'te f e 1 , ,. A _s i'~t-star: t )
proCeed %%it1, an -irr~ttr.'-. .. -1 '1si;llarEt Jrl t! 'Se' cut' 5tio'1<. �1C, f !d-,-=_-
:.- - . :t rt .� -
...,
t, }IelpfII! io C.eI, 't-1}ct. �r,, ,t' t'r re-_ csnrS '.1.`'t ;`t s 51It,
5i-oi,'. ;:o int-Dic:e':.
ea5ier t7ansltlo' . �Iotte'r tier` .. 5` aL"ti:r5e ,;r.p,_t
on
the kind of reasons '.ce '.c, t,!r! `.cant to h31 I,ef(,re
r )villf: to a recorr
-;.._�.. T lese . .rc
factors %which he ass l=,,ed, Irlt wanted verification .
Cily "arlaver r(?57-•
— __;',:s
Mere havine� a ,ite that '.cz, lar„e enoi,gl , riot on!
., t, Icrun„T ocatr
ir1
reasona'-I(- f!-)oI .ri•.t, t_iII to '1_:ch adt c;uatf' room
to l.'uiil tie I '�r_r.
t.cr lla5e=
:s
+-ontt,,l pl,3tetl. He _r2: that ',is Instincts ;,nc:.>> :e-,<
„res r.:;d le" hin -
_ ...- .s of
t'le assl..Dption t1o�\' th'it t'lN h5iarl coil% h,' guilt
i;-i ['t ? i:h'ises '.11;`
"xpert opin;,in Ur tha: 3ssumpiii;rl,
Special Committee on the Main Library
lklinutes - September I, 1988
Page Five
He did not want to find out after we were well into the design phase that there is some
unanticipated impediment which could have been discovered earlier by a little more thorough
analysis. Ald. Rainey asked if that kind of advice would be any more significant that a legal
opinion? She speculated what if an architect said we could construct in two phases and we then
hired a second architect who then discovers reasons why it can't be done. Mr. Asprooth felt
that there was a great difference in an architect dealing with physical facts and an attorney
dealing with making inference on case law. Aid. Morton commented that the merit she saw in
City Manager's suggestion might facilitate getting the project moving ahead faster, but site
questioned how the library staff was going to function well under the phased construction
program. In describing the move, she did not see the difference between moving from one
segment of the library to the next as opposed to moving to some more remote and vacant
space. She suggested space available in the high school as a alternative. She suggested moving
such complete functions as the record collection to the high school which she thought 'xould free
up the space for other library functions. She speculated on the amount of construction taking
place as discouraging use of the library during this interim phase. Chairman Collens noted that
the Library Board had been asked to comment on what they would do if the library were built in
two phases and, after they get that report, the Committee can explore other alternatives if that
is warranted.
Aid. Ludy stated that there was no question, but ghat the library could be built in t:'.o phases on
that site, his concern was the impact that it has on the final outcome. That was the part that
was difficult to project. The real impact isn't known until you begirt to develop the schematic
design. That's where an architect could help. Before committing to additional acquisition, &e
could hire an architect to do preliminary designs. That should be the ;jvrsr�n %.ith ti,.hom you are
ultimately going to work. He argued for establishing a relationship .kit`' the architect who
would do the design at the earliest possible stage and indicated this •.tit,s a reason he did not
favor design competitions. The City Manager shared Ald. RUdy's reasons for not doin; a
competition, indicated that he could take leis word for our ability to cuil,� on that site in phases
and reiterated his concern. Chairman Collens asked for some anal 5is of what the proposed
expansion would have on parking lot 1/3. :old. 1lorton also requester sor-e anal'�sis of sending
some of the material to the highs school as a possible alternative. ,lid. Feldman commented
that, based on most Of the inforrr',ation he had Seen, transferring t::t ' -,Ilection off -Site Mould be
a significantly more +'\pansion move than transferring it to an adlar" t b1ji1('in£. Thought it was
vi,portar.I to i.no%. .%hat t-w iri N.,k-t Je f rr.Gtil,l� part ar;Ot`er
location in terms of additional staffinr�, srr%ice, eta-. AId. ::ne` felt that there W.111
information available alread% xhich ans%%ereC rear V of the gl;•'St, l5 ,?h.`out advantages and
disadvantages of different approaches. Chairman Collens notec I'at the JuN l memo dia
cornrn='nt on interim service.
-old. Feld;n2n iscd of ;i; iss�,. ,,; -ri l.'Jat 0e Li3rarF nr-14 .1 ,ii! . . e .ti.,e additl al 5F-a
�135 a Corr!'r't rllc' ?n lhl5 iz afiirr c°,'. '�''r` i'�'rs of Ih" t;'•' 3150
curnforlalJle '•%ith the Joea of t.ro�., ic,P .1 41iIij)Z-ial Sp3 e.
REPORT ON THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS PROCEDURES
Chairman Collens re,vinded Committee rnerr,bers that this rep..rt k:is r response to their
request for additional inforrz,ation on other ways to appro,ich the r,t•s„r ]f a ne-x library rather
than USinr a C-D'"Pr'tJt1011. Mr. Carter called Cog-' -nittoe rr:e'r.bers' ::i','t;v^ Previous rn:'teria:
prep.?fed h\ the Lt.]r;i~t Foard zi is rii-str:}}:Jted earlier to th'le L`O'ri',t;t'' l '_ orle page surnrnar`.
the Pro{_tss Of r'o�ni' 3 -0'rlre11t;on has cross-c`)m:;<<red Irk t' �. �' i reCueSt in
r;u.31 i fir" t:or's.
Special Committee on the Niain Library
Minutes - September 1, 1938
Page Six
Mr. Carter had been asked to comment on the validity of the RFQ column and offer his
comments on how that process had been conducted by the City on previous projects. He stated
that the two processes were somewhat difficult to compare and did feel that the table on the
RFQ was an accurate reflection of that process as it was proposed in the document. He
commented, however, that this was not the way the City would normally do an RFO. The major
difference is that the review would be Conducted by the Library board on the one hand, and on a
normal City project, City staff would conduct the review. He stated that it \tas an apples and
oranges comparison. He noted the much longer time frame for reviewing, RFOs and conducting
interviews and stated that was because they were using Library Board -members in meetings to
conduct this process. The City staff experience is different because people are readily available
and do not have to wait for meeting time. A staff team is appointed, a 'seek selected and the
interviews are conducted in a fairly short time frame. fie rioted that the library was probably a
more sensitive project than many of the other City projects and is likely to he more
complicated. He stated that it was yet to be determined who would actually revie\v the RFQs
and conduct the int_rview process. Mould it be the Library Board? %tou;u it be staff? %could it
be the Library Committee'.' Cr '.vould it be a combination of all of therm' He felt the biggest
time problem was the difficulty in assembling people who are not available on a daily hasis and
arranging their calendars to get through this process in an effective `.gay. In cornmeming on the
design competition part of the analysis, he stated that he dicn't initialk see hou. it .%ould he
possible to get through so many designs in such a short period of time. F'o%vever, -?fter hearing
the consultants and the d'scipimed approach that they use, he '.vas convinced it r,)uld be done.
He felt the main difference bet•.%een the two approaches as far 3s time \\:!5 con-rried depended
upon who %%as going to reyie\y the' RF O-,. xho was going to inttr%ie�4 the r_ nsl,ltlnt5 and on what
'nd of time schedulr'. He felt that this `.4as a policv choic;'. �t aff is able to go
Trough the intervie%s in one week any; decision at the tynd cf the-• second xoek. There
was not a great deal f-A time involved in preparation on the part of the architects in the RFQ
process. They come in and describe '•thy they are uniquely qualified to carry out this particular
project. The panel or tearn evaluates the applicants experience in their particular approach to
the project, they listen to the responses and in the end real!} make _} yai c judprrer:t as to \rho
gives you the greatest sense of ronfidenct in Leing able to cam out the
.•old. Feldman com nenttld that the principle' thrust it tho ;r—,icus pr——tation .t.is a Strong
belief that the archite•cturzl corpetit ion \tas the ho-t '•t-}\ io ti7-1 '1—
th,'
;ess control .i;id hrnt[ec: Interl-irt!or• '.tlt'i V.e rfe's1;
' at the ear![ s:=;'es
of the pr .ljer. t. HE, _ , ,rnhnted on the de sirsbiii t\ of 1.? : in;• siicli in --a- _ ::on. Cie a;ke-- : f it
could be assun';ed th-it '.,-e could hayr enough contr-)i to s-t :ire lie .:I
so tha: on the f."St
schematic design tf-,e _ir__hitect \tc;uill c:oine closer I,) i!ie `)lidpct in tko F.
I- prjre•ss versus the
competition Process- `.1r. C .fro\t rospon.`ey4 t;iat tf _ rG+ pt't;IiJn r \ ;:'_..
lib '';^ i?teC .'lilt
competition cotrlo ne St';t'ttlre'G' 1n st}c i i '.t;3\ i5 to }':.•� t �j -:.
Gr.� f t.''e P
factors in the fit' s,ipf.(-Ntt, - t':.it .,rlr ,)f t';o :r
in -o5tiing lied t!�a: I' - 1!r?r'1t -''L: '•tie. ....••� 1`
.. i' _ .'.. .:.-...
Vr. l:.tro.t Mate,. I' T t,l zz'e ltf ` roce5s v, zt,
accurate In his Cast !>ic a:15nt inn +f vou C 'nit halt'e =: 1t,?' jf -hC�--.
figures cou!d he' riff n the pr,,lir)ind7N t7esion rh.-Isf-. lie s.?Id it ,kaS n.-
_ t
differenc('; bet,-\ec'n t,siirrat''s .i:;c' they final
t
feel that iiw i,' F'L r r,; e; s r:,'ces, iril\ i n,tc :c d tnj fr-)17 s1:1-'1 1'i..
_ ter•„ V7.
,-r,mmeated that !filer' .+t re' i1= r';t!,er �r',rr s_. A �. hu
%1as not cOrltr]llefl t'ir :rC'11 is _ .. i`CSt is roiir ..
T'
0,3t delern 1,if, t4_it !S '\ .\ill It f,-�r. f'e poirlt,.,i, cut i 3t t:
;1� r
}1Crisdtit- I`};_3�C '.\... .�i', ��;[ .. .31i1'.! �i.jl, it) "1,• ..5 ?lit� fi?�i`
- ...-' ., ,'S. �t
Ile fo!t'ct',_,t ee \l ;!.c e ;a e
L)nrr_. r
regar;iess of Lt" 1°:ri .i ;\ te! t• ,. �tr, t^3r?'a a� rer'C .!rll7 ri)[L'L ii'. Lea
_ °'I.t.';
boot i 1n rc kit_rI ar'.c .i ,rll7ac :i)r sr',[; \%35 a design, JuiIct cc) n,-pet:[iun.
Special Committee on the Main Library
Minutes - September 1, 1988
Page Seven
Mr. Asprooth commented that part of the selection criteria ought to be the architects track
record in accurate estimating a project cost. He suggested it might be worthwhile for us to hire
our own cost estimator to verify the work of the architect.
Aid. Feldman asked Aid. Rudy why he favored an RFQ process. .old. Rudy responded that he
felt it was very important for the architect to have the opportunity- to work closely with the end
use. He felt that the competition placed more emphasis on the visual than on having it function
well and be appropriate for the community. He acknowledged that there had been some good
buildings result from competitions and some that were not so gooc. He felt that having the
dialogue between the architect and the end user would give you the best functioning building.
Under the competition, the dialogue is very formal, everything is •written and there is not an
opportunity to have dialogue. Aid. Feldman clarified that the difference :gas really in the type
of communication that takes place between the architect and the er:o user and riot in any of the
other factors such as money, timing, etc. He asked Mr. Carter i'-a* his experience '.vas in the
process. %1r. Carter responded that this experience with design ccr-petit.'jn %. -is limited to two
projects of a dissimilar nature and ones '.Which were not actually cerstructeo. He affirmed that
the major difference uas in the nature of the communication. He 5tat.c that tic' •.vas intrigued
by the idea of doing a competition afte- hearing the presentation cf t-t considi5nts. He felt
their process was a highly disciplined one which brought in qualified juc "s arirl r,lid provide the
opportunity to select from a variety of designs rather than rt:%p,,nd to a single
concept. A.ld. Feldman asked if under the RFQ process you wire 5:Lc'-: concept the
architect developed whether you liked it or not. Aid. Rudy responrA- t`�at ;.,)u could al'•vays ask
for a different scherne, but if }'ou had done a good job in selerti�z arc'itects chances are you
would not be so far apart in your opinions on his schematics.
Aid. Morton asked Aid. Rudy after the competition is over, who t',e d: -,ailed drak%ings?
.Aid. Rudy's response was that the firm selected does those drawinks .,` t-,e% are qualified. or they
affiliate with a firm which is qualified. .•old. Morton asked if they be able to interact
at the client at that time' .Aid. Rudy responded that they ti>aulr, teat time you have the
basic concept establisihed and at that paint you are workin^ on ant' e%tension of .i
design that has, .,lready Seen prepared.
Chairman Collens as'kod If the RFO is estl'r-Et(d to r-ost C!t', thai Is
whit a schematic aril cost from the architect �lho is rhosen, do-'s 'f t It sche—,atl,_ ',%e
are ecitir•,F from the ��inning competitor is ��orth products for the
amount of r,oney" SM coivpared the $1 10,500 for ti,e full cyst r,-rr.petition '.Which
would yield a schematic to %hat '.�v could get from the RFQ ��r.cc:=. `r:e is tailored to the
criteria of the competition anc' the other more rustorr! )laat tr c ?. She c.'-'estioned
whether the (-cmpetiuon sclie,ratw is rt—all` tho eclu-ivalent. 7.__ 1 ri.tC that the
price tlifferen'_e is ll t'1G t,) r.e lip 13that fir'. ;-1 late.'
Caro\l renc-a J', e\: cal ill r'j` ttiro`_*•Js in v. I' - -t.• f .r:.
are una blo t,) re;arh-Agree'l--ent itn the firm that as our ftrct " 5,':.r:
list and negotia-c ',x'Ith the second firm. The fee structure is tale
competition, you have a schematic design celiverQd and a ti-mv : -- i^a the -Ird III,,
which to tailor the uzsir.n to the li'arary desires to refine it. f ! 5: the ---c .)' t`}e
competition. you havet0 51t do'x'n and negotiate '.kIt}l [`}+' «Intl ". ? ri3:.' it rrl.'e'
which Is v-ortfh a -reat deiil of publicity and the ch-lncr_'5 art' hf, "' ti t a `et '.lhik-h
would other%vise be less than if he '.Vent thrcuph the l` F pr')CV'<'. -.-., �Oic:
rnight tAke ;,lace be,ond '.that .%as d(-,ns' in the r
kli)orfl. It .'.r'1'.'rhIs on Ow negotiaii�%:i that takes
i ()'PPt'tltlnrh jr.(-'{gyp l" t i rror-ess art'
Special Committee on the Main Library
Minutes - September I, 1988
Page right
He felt it was very difficult to compare the two processes fairly on price basis. Aid. Feldman
asked if the fee was not part of the RFQ process. i41r. Carow responded that it should not be.
The AIA recommends that only the qualifications be examined and a fee negotiated after
selection. It was clarified that a contract is not awarded to the firm selected under the RFQ
process without knowing what the fee would be, only the right to negotiate that fee. Mr.
Asprooth commented that the City of t~vanston's practice \vas to ask for both qualifications as
well as a suggested fee and noted that different firms quote fees differentlti we state that fee is
a factor which \gill be considered, but it is not the first consider tion.
Chairman Collens passed on Aid. Juliar's statement at the end of the last meeting favoring the
idea of a competition as generating excitement and interest as well as having a potential for
fundraising. She asked for clarification on what the constraints and options were - how
important the negotiations with the chosen architect would be versus what '.ve 4%ould lose having
a competition. The idea of being able to sit down with the chosen architect and explore
possibilities through him had appeal for her. She \vould like that to be done by someone who is
very familiar +.with the prograrn statement and the site. Ald. Feldman observed that different
architects sitting down with clients reflect those client needs in their find design and
speculates' on how there are many different values among the people interested in a new
literary. The reflection of \what Evanston needs has to corne from someone ',vho it comes
from is going to impact the final design. He saw that there . as an ad\•anta�7e !',e process and
at the same time, a potential for confusion or responding to an inappr�-pr;_;- .f''.4. 1?e rai.;ed
the gue5tion of who is the "\Le" that the architect is to respond to.
''Ir. Ne•%,berFer corninented from t!)e audionce on the value Of takl,ly a t-' ::. :' position of a
nited competition tnrough inviting a select group of qualifier' arc^Ite,:,s Fie
f',It that the opport.,nity to look at the approaches of a fe\\ \tell Qualifiec fis and to choose
from them wolild be \'erg worth%.hile. id. \lorton ashc°d \.ho the "'.4e" kwoulc :;e 'Aolild took over
ail these plans and n-,ake a decision, the Library Board' %1r. `'e'.%ber`er Inat he could
assun)r� that there :4'ould be a qualified panel of judges.
`11,nnett Johnson. on behalf of Design E,b. .^,5ton, C'-xplaineri that :r .-_.n; •3t1Jn L%3$ a
VOILInteer on,., that tri(s to represent most -)f t`,c desit'n professional; in E' a ,.. . He reported
that 4.Ir. Lawnn haul .iz1 f-e t`)err trl rnrsi(4( ho,4 thr%-,koiilr! foo!
tt,t' 11IL, rd.'\. -fit tne!r boarc, me etlr'. , thew didn't fF'r.'1 that It k4-'_;Id hie to ac".eVe
iunSt'nstis t",r 371 "IC-Uratt r:present.:Unn C_'n tf115 question anr! fNit t.-le lar�:!'r ;'_r_-st!;n '.4?5 ' Ho%l
do you k et the host 1i.-,rar} fJr t!?c i'SC\t 3 i tc 5� ,t'arsf" .,Oulc
I,,' iIIing. t,) hos! a :ttlnr pf t!te dt'�,1�r, t �J T,rPl,lr'it', to 1 i�Ciiss th,t ("es: " ._5'.;es 7! '3e\�
11rJr.3rw He rn1'Itt'' l't);nmittE%e rre,rbers to =-o'ne amI!si'.'n. Ile
':ttl? JiMl, i0 put ]J('r .[ :t°..'ik. i 'f•t�.t.r� 1. \^\t'r, i-�i, r'\._.'G:��r. 'rl(e`, .. t_`_ "' i"E'
1 71 1, _. _:, t•it' .'�I' i?r ;'(1 t� � :. ... t' ., ii i Ir .. i r+, '-. .. - ar
'f.}r\ C.,}• •lill��I '.\3J t:�C 'r;�C'1''( <`�t ..ri' ......F.. - ..,.tt"_
w!):it .J r'')t11% a' :IC .e in des:_(1 rI'd C i?tltIori. !f� t r'}fit t" _ � _. �:• _1r
n,}tional intoret in a corn t''ti[:,-)n \hie'i %%c, id cr..',4 rT3,_}n\
t'! Sir\'t'tj th_tt t!'t'"t' '.lyre in A�rf en t` rh
l4ere not tht' prof' t :f c i"pe!,t! 3'ls. 11' L; I',.'t kr'o 'kI', tt t'Ir' \fit -.e Of v`:
f l :t15tJn S r.._'or_l,. the 1.+_ a".
AIri, coll.it".. et'i') ,,) _ ll at It i 1 "r l, '•l', 1 l: i`t�'
r , rc .inC list='n t�) - .:fii��',t' ,'Orl. i`.r�'''tiv, '13!5. �',C , ;r_rr'. t;,.
. ;-1�• _
Special Committee on the �IMain Library
Minutes - September I, 1988
Page Nine
He explained that it was an evening workshop with Design Evanston and Shag representatives
wherein the design community was able to express some of their ideas about Research Park
which the developers could either incorporate or not. He felt that it had been useful in giving
the developers a viewpoint from the design community. He thought that such a process might
be valuable to the Committee, that they might gain some insights on some aspects that they had
not thought about before. He stated that Design Evanston would offer the program whether or
not the Committee chose to go with the design competition because it felt it %could be helpful in
developing ideas and criteria for considering final designs.
Mr. Carow commented that one of the reasons the Library Board was urging a competition was
to avoid what happened in 1959 when an RFQ process was followed wherein tr;e dialogue with
the architect resulted in a library largely designed by the then director of the li'arary. He noted
that the dialogue resulted in the building we have now. Chairman Collens as�:ed Mr. Bennett if
he could put together the program within the next month and he felt that he could. Chairman
Collens felt that Design Evanston's forum could be helpful. Ald. Raine) statet "',at she had no
difficulty in listening to another group; however, pointed out that the process or, the new library
had been going on a long, long time and if they were to pick up every interes: `roup at every
point, the process could go on and on. She stated that she was ready to make a decision this
evening, but felt that the decision should be tabled until Design Evanston `, :s a chance to
conduct their forum if that is the request of the Library Board. Vr. Lannon p�,-�ted out that he
had merely gone informally to Design Evanston to discuss this issue.
The next meeting date %vas set for September 15th at 7:30 pan. C;hai- nar, C _hens requested
that the Library Board respond to the idea of a limited competition. `.'eetrn4 adjourned at
approximately 10:00 P.M.
STAFF:
DATE:
7Y61/69
SPECIAL. COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
MINUTES
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
Thursday, September 15. 19SS
7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER
`41E11BERS PRESENT: Aid. Collens, %!erton, Feldr-)an. 1 3;^e;.. and 7uliar
ME=11BIPS A5S `,T: ,'BEd. Rudy
PR SIP[NC CFFk-I.NL: Aid. Collens, C►iair
STAFF: Carter
OTHERS PR ESE % j: Joel Asp,00:l;, !ion I riv;it, i:i IC`_ . 7a mon. Ri �ii<Ir d Lanyov,
T Jay Carer, ''!,Ir% lnn Cappi. Arm .. ", Steve Yas, \nn
plenner, Cus Cliern. 3ijrfti Chis Ur-)ssrnan, rjoris
and othor .TL' lil:t5 of the �en�!—al ..
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTE.MBER 1, 19S3
.'!Il".. R:iineti T-'O.ed approval :f the W10 'o ,. in;:•; '*'mates _ ..._•k. Secar.dec by Aid.
-1-1n. aMo:ion passed. `,o .:a.• 7.
DISCUSSIO`. OF ALTE:, NATIVE F00TPP INTS FOP THE PRF Sr*, T :.:- - ' R Y SITE
L71at,r,w :.,
vqs ,;r .. 1: :1' •.t .,.. . r . ro- -. ,:l--'.sir-... .
- • - ... rl,, .you!
')e oi.
Ikerna4vy .....'fir:
s f.r iie no, ll:.._.r\. Thur f ,lot :c,
.-.. .. 2- ?ti the --erlts''f
a
CO ,.PC'QCVI1. 54l :lli'. . .t:.'1: In W (W ' '.?S ZO tU "V'._ , _.
_ "C t'\'enl r
,WWC;i"!:
ar:... '1 !' , .S on nn- rokcau 'n
r. AgraO
wo W.
runs . _._.-. s: :.
.7 ! .-: hnor w\i. 1:;I,•-: 150 P in _
- .. --A the _-_1.
...
to Sv :W%
i.',._.A:t.OrAl larc '" 101 iv, `J! c :fir a flow lion
-nnaindiy •'�
.. I'.._ ,
n4' 1:�
�1.J:�1 t`-, 'llf" n! Wo w _.jenkai puperq ,1C.'.
r
2
.. F. WrO 1171 7 ..'! r' it �� -
.. � .i r�� L
_ _ -._•
if
r,�:i _ :�?:t '•.ir
: �i; "I . ab 'It•' - 'tl,.l ,0;Inv Ali' . J - 1'
- .' , r. i ]0:_ 0 i ..
Special Committee on the ,Alain Library
iMinutes - September 15, 1983
Page Two
Ald. Feldman clarified that there would be additional advantages in this site alternative beyond
gaining more square feet, by having a more efficient building; layout without the angle involved
in the rear wall in the previous alternative. Ald. Juliar felt that the new _rrangernent was a
better one even though we were giving up something on the par';eng; lot as potential building
site. lie noted that Ave (,id not have a specific design or use for ttl.}: :ite at this time.
Corninittee niernbers dirt not fe'el that the loss of eleven par:King �pac': r::; critical. Aid.
Collells llot('(j that if this site arrang ment .Derr choskn. th.ro `.l'as an ir,cre,,ed potential for
adding; p,ir;�ing� spac.s linger the buildirg? `.l'h;ch mid ht offset the 1,)>> of sur.`a-�;paces.
COST OF ALLEY RL-LOCATION
`ir. Asf7rr.)Uth r~evi�_'.ved 1,Ir. TOrJrJnsonrs l: or oo on rz-!oraiion ro-Q!1, ft]r Comrrlltt,•.e
rn,_'Inber�. He notr_'r: that t1h,- cost; in the irlt:!{4 '.fort' 1pkm irlt' r?__...' ,,-=n that access to
illir,cis Cell v.-ould Lc left Ill plat" f r-i-n ?. i str•.'-t?,r'? ': l:}Nr a
nE•'L' I!')r!rv. ii,t' 'fra '}t '.i! tjid 1'itPfiC r:r:l'. .D tit, t I:I1t' )f :i'.:' ii t'".t' strait=t'ar.
1I)f]k'_ I'Cl!!;a ,_'t. TIiF'-s '.lere the si:l,-,i is:r1:,, ail' .'It'r'! irl tr,QrI 11)t'! t11t":
have bevi, !f flril ,rr. l.lr. \>r:'ooth r':1.ltior1C'r t+} I tr, se ("Os[s v.k r' t'.]t "rr •-." :ill,, tho f Jt',.re
t i in e Lvhcn t'l:' II:]ra T i'' 't . _ 1)cl!It11
as',U-TI^rl0]!1` ,111ml t C'.:F'., .Li71-h L, in iifne, l''',.iC. r'. f�P Ilrr_t t!I•' (' t' iI :'1 ft1('.;S .in
tale I 1),l,s!' l_ :7.ti; Or 'JiiItl r !tl(_atirt!? .!r?l' 'gin r'rsi .i tilt'. srl_ I'''}:L'r as
aSjir'T.r tir.:as .Sr! CPlt ttlrI1111jktt'_ ..;11.;C :- 5.-:f. I:l %% ... � .._r( t�t• i?I�.!1'-'r
:,ld, t.�t7(t1R .. �•.C.rt i,.,, !` :: ,si't t+ t'�t' r'�t.'T-r.,.'< w.,�t_. t'! tt�t, fJ..�.rt:r. .. I.li� .., "t' �lil�t�
tirrP '.tl 1't' ,'Ct [ .. ,. :re': If:'- .:t _I� 1;. 1.i17ir' ,1:, t U11: fT; rt-]r;{I;r.•r t' �, .. - _':r' 'r ,flit 'A:AS
tl"l'ilt~r:,' t) t"t' U 0'7'l_1{ t'ii:t i!lt`r + t) 7rCt!!;(', !t- 'ti
`r
reCOr'li •C'rlrl T.1'�f! int:,F.IIC
f•.('ludr,�.
[t xati _I.irIfil'r _:t '�f !',c.,,'g� lti'.It:c; �.ls ::, rt 1:7r_Il
' : •' :n_• i 1 sit :1?r
situatian% rrir
rr','r•ir.".il_r, .�: tl�'.. �!'til'._nI• n ti'C t:ji �, :.11.:I :l•+: ..
4 ,'. .rl 1,.�;[ :1'.
(`1IIirrr:,l•1 , 1,:. ns ::., ['"..tt
r!� t) tl'I-if : i,il ;[ t•,, li.. r.
at • 'i,
Vr. A)r �l"I .�.t: r'rtt i ,. , C.... :r '['.l ? t: t'. r.. s
... lj t.:r.
\11S ;i _r rtrti' .:::t K'r• t:'':r_.
ai:'rrl?tl\• [. _ _
CONSID[ Al'IC`. `1[- '.+t't,'l` :, 1'• -,c s::\TNS
C. i',3trf:�,.
r
• • Special Committee on the Alain Library
klinutes - September 15, 1988
Page Three
Ad. Rainey felt that, if the purpose was to let the Council know what the Lull implications were
of the different alternatives, there were line items missing from these particular alternative
scenarios on cost. She felt the cost of the TornaWs Club property should be included. It was
seen from the two tables that the costs were nearly identical, with certain items offsetting; one
another in the two schemes. It could be s�?-n that the project would, !)- something., sli jhtly over
QgO0100 . Ald. Feldman noted that, if costs are identical bet' o� r the two phur" the reason
for doing a phas:'d rno`.•e would be one othcr than costs. These reasons inchdod site familiarity
for the patron,, an:+ the fact that there are no other site; to rru'.e ci:o and then back out of
again.
Chairman Coilens asked Mr. TAght to address the quevKn of 3 phased construction hove
Versus an of f-silo ;;-)ove and, the di ferent i''rq)Iicatic.ns. ',,ir. er rJt nt rL0porteC that \'shed thc-
Library Board lonG:ed at 31terna1,ive 'tli.7\'•2s, they loo;ed Ott 76•a'!-`:iIiI'. '7f spaC'_ In tale
Downt(]'A'n. or neir F'. In Ilia mill' r)t w'. VAG to 1Q :'r .snuare_' feet. Ti •w u1C have i1.4h d i^_Il:
factor of apprax; a: -1;. i' 000 J Wl iri. `ir. lit r .'lit ":'li.ha- ... .. .t Le Cris.- to
operate at a d ffe'rent location H there sere spa:- a :Ilahle a = url'.eni He :r"lpfi.si7 •C
that un&-r a'w _:-heme. servJCe \A wdd rnt A tital ,and _ .. ,. m kc cmoibnable
inconvenient-. livery Wort '•could be rra: :C IU „'. tl')t !:'. her iI:e of-_ 7ttrrt!]tic l:i. btJt
there ac"Id 4; _: hwon%e'nJence. lit' used the RAINWan,,, ,A C . r : wiv vxa:'ad 31
'.L'hor,? tilt'.. .,-,-re to r:'.o\e] tho entire HIr-} y uDyr:?:mn !:!J:
stressed hat '_ inst:n thin': ii<]'.. a N''.ltW comeniont wtuatkr. Fir" . AM Ow QiG11.G'A
rental pushbJlit: and Ow, lack _1 sp r'r., u", UbrjrV l'u:rr, i ttley tho idea of a pl'i`y-(-.'
(_t-)nstrt7::tJun. tl--- e.', c:',-iiiz e 1 t, 1: L h 0 % A,Vdd U U t .Lint t) `i% A J+i''. 'ffirient :design
simply b— vise J: hal to be runivr!Iner :n .'.C) t;h.._ '�. if Ito L , . to a t ko ah_ s
('']ns*ruc:jcr.. It tttl' 5v ieCr.'essa.rL0) look it is lign .i pit'':' as.i5 I1luCli c:z:,
possible ')f th (_-711eot on can W r7.e' ' to the Ira phase of t'" i" eq l.: ned this
tilt OpCr}tJQr, '.i,7{�lC i l'•'OILr' ,- :h 17?) tKVf,J`.. (]S]r1Jle' evc.)
thoug`l t'Zis LL7llc; n-)t Wai ar'.rf'.L ant -A _ .1c^ i.''i!';l : ., .. 7 Ji1se ',%an buJII ar1L!
(lc: _upio(• . He -,-o r 1'7'ii 1"1 ,�i: hr `e l)Illl'`�InL' Ill''
an\ )ti,,?r r;.:. Me, or . it 'r _.'v ').r.' .:,
Ald. l .. it ]r _:1' ' 1 .. ili- -. Vat
i i. r - A.-, o to '. .'Ir !: • -. .t
% is 1
7: a . to:
the denin he ,-13Fe
nee a 0 N 0 ' , .: t. . •t r ,t n1
;e'it 1KAtt Pho W 1 e. M s 1 re.
a
tl7 t)rC' .i •'r;i :�� 4t ;t '.t _ ..t; '-�.
j:,.t_]r:, Alt :," ., f!:t': ,t'
J'r.,xn
.. ,i DT r'w;ip.rnm:iQ
Ch
.}!I{. 1,1t %ve
"%"—e Arearil Y'.t. v q H" {:?..OMI
fir
-
z: Sid: as4vl :,
t°:. f' �t ,] . .l_ l.. _.
�`',^ a'�.n ,.;e•� .. , �:�i:•r ti 'r•'
'' 1 : ?,r.:.
..
- ..�, .. �Le'• e'
..)s•+'•ti ._ - '.i"- .( it �,
7• _ -, f' .l 'r 'J. i1.i
Special Committee on the Alain Library
Minutes - September 13, 1988
Paige Four
Mr. Asprooth observed that the issue of impact on the patrons wzs the most critical one and also
n,)t?d that it would not be possible for the library to lay off and get back full-time em}]lo}'ees
during this period of construction. He addr^ssed the issue of scaling back during an into rim
operation and its impact on fall and part tune staff. He urged that we rrrowe C;1refull'.' in this
area so as not to create longer-ter,l employee problt-ns for the library's furictit)ri.
THE CITY MANAGER'S REPOIzT ON THE AVAILABILITY ON TEMPORARY SPACE AT THE
HIGH SCHOOL
L%lr. As-proorI reporie,,: .i1t 'ic !-,ad spor:en ',%ith t.w Pro.-,k4cnt „f the FZr;3::, droijt vacant space 1n
the Bacon Mnr. Hle sty -Led that it cou!-1 big !nd th:lt It ii is rge t rit7lJgh to serve f'7r
interim Ui-? or .st'-)r-age. He zh,it t it'rt oems no inol b0czri-, t::3i7.11 lI,' 3nn an ar,::lltectural
analysis '.vou!d i'i' rc'aiiirt'' Ir t1rE' of th • sp'l- . H.? Mt the [ r':,tln %tins the ]ljgait
Nsue bercll]_ nwe '. aj rehi 3 a i.' K He WK that 4tornp- 'A as t!'t' -.cid that
4'-3u1"d Ile r;il :•`.. i"�_�t:�!1,� _1'�j'. .'] t:lt' fhf,.y.It7'.\f!. St' t71Gr }it.t ..:�'�•� rr'i"i;�l l�:> jICE'�t'
Ala. FE'ld .?o eta: c Mot; it sat 3ppar: rlt Qo: t it' Cn"r"111ttee, t ir11!"tJ of
r, e"t1!'. `i.,7 Alt- .iri', r•'tlf',k.,v, I ,�) , ,:%-.t' , r.'3sk)rit,ci Ct•c_;sio) i Ih3t the Ilarars r :Ir.
be by t wrvod ny th,_ Von "Mae W t' WIWI tilt.' tl . '7t I`+`i t:t" ')J:ilr.:tl IZ
Figure Yl ni .yr. Sr...r'_ rr_ -_) r)i qrhn 11 l'tV ah W W!print for the h5rim. W w
Illt]�' `d. �t t_on, _ `✓�' %)C*'. fit:., 3r. %lotion passed. s, W. C •;i•. inc., an that :+
rt_ct]til;i .'}t; :tltl;, '.', .;1!C �,0 �..'' .I:t'-1 ;r-`,.,�,.i, ,'.I�'1f,. r'• „f :`._ (.:)'r.-l.111`•' , -i �:i'ltl (, ,:..,Ik :A
ft,r'r,er rLl:r )t 'ti ..'itil o :a the r . Ct C 1., t - Di, it i1 't "r'!r"f'
`'_lP. on '.Q, 3 ri it'. .J a: ., 'no concerns .irf; .ns Am cu;x-;t :t t\L")
phase wr s:, ictl'_n an W pnni- :`_S' !"rim :,ac !%C . ti,rt.' r. \L1:�1
others 1 ho . ad t':r haer3w'iv ex .. n' _,' 1: jt I,�t,flri I � r , - r..: � f - Tlc.fl.t '1I. ,� Vr'. ti',3..a` )il lal..
Wth Prichit` Wre a:. . ?::11jwcnuM .3i •, .,. '.l l[hm Wir fi-rr. The s_ _ r__ „ he . li. . , !n ,.33
Wn 5. IM [ .1' 7ar. WZ0 ho! pnot t',_ <t..?` .. , 1-11 1"'1: '1 r:l"•'. l't' 111: _ s: .. ... .. , 'Ono:
t'iii _ -' w� 1` :? 1 wv c.• v:lr z � r. .tl . ',:tc Yr •i:". : _
:4r1tiot Mat :51` f., ', '.i-)' o rot n. . 1r _. U—i :°.. I i t t 0i : .
f ,.l .ant• .: i'J .. .,:1:. 0 3 n P :I. ".I'_?i"'J }:. _
i�''_i:.' ..'i ,ii •,n,�ii. 11 t .t e' a _ t.l: ._.. -t'.'1 .,•e'.
DISCU55! ,` OF T NE iJESIC`: CCUPETITION t'•_ STIO\
Special Committee on the Main library
Minutes -September 15, 1938
Page Five
In response to a question from Aid. Rainey as to what Design Evanston intended to do, NIr.
Johnson responded that they felt they should deal With both the Design Competition as well as
the design guidelines to be used in planning a new library. ,old. Rainey recommended that the
Committee set a date in the near future to have the pros and costs discussed before there. Vd,
Feldman agreed and noted that the would be away durin; t`-,e proposed meeting of Design
Evanston and indicated his desire to be present during the discussion of the rnerits of a
competition. He recoinntende:d that the Coms-nittee invite interested parties on both sires of
the issue to come and discuss that �Orh the Committee .at an early date. Chairman Collens
expressed her interest in the d?sign aspects '.which Designs Evanston •.vould oiscuss and hope that
their organization v.ould folio,.%' through on this even if the debate on the competition is held ')y
this ComrTljttCC.
����1'tl3tic?e TTWIT,`.J["`. Set *Oonda�'. October Z at 6:10 p.ni. for their nett ;neC'ting for the Yllfi,r)__
of E}Ching the pr')s :lna cons on archit,''_ tUral r_omp_ 5t:On.
Mr. Bennett agreed r) have Del;" Evinston help in getting the Aard au: to ar:hheets -tho
would be interested in r corm' to this meeting to dlsn"i th, mews 7f in 3rchrte:t.Jral
C'Jrrpetlt;On Mr the 117r"."` lI was agreed that he prat r3'1 C7l:C] ;' 3n .)per, i:?.`l
structlir" to sIlr'- ilia' nQ& Ades fir art acahrlst wrc`+Itt°oti O con POP.t.r`t._ 1%Oljld
onoort.ini t•. 13 5- K0,10.
%1r. Cheri . fry,., 'lt- MC;1t.'^i(- - qWC&r!',*_ t le nt- -CS01' of 4--pi I Cw •.ti; _ open and left a
rn;]eh i•Jr ,-enQr)ws tnamr:nt . Ile: W? 1;.._) On Or Y 'ij'r11nah _ Oat leg of til'.
alley. Lhairm n Coll•_n_ mii2a . ;a. the ;t;e,M)n "f the My lac Nan rese'?r7hc d and It as
deter"ined that the My --dsz v -tin op -el. `.t'. %sprooth P.^.:jrgvd up . the re°'._ont for
keeping isle allTy open and _hen Ow ;:'iC is -oncliCtod. lit s: ff'_ l T:iat It -.l : ��nae_ 1 :]eJtil for
servkp as 'Ail! as acovss to phr0r . lie also rC'`'Iwn-d the ry marl , for nit t :r:':n rhr till`_. ro
Other Chicago ,'r'' ille or It •�A3 It t;lilt
a l ley.
ST \ FF:
e
NNOWEENEW-
Pon
-4
CITY CF EVAi !S T ON
CI7Y COUNCIL rv1EMORAi,IDUM
For Information Only
Schedu,ed :=ct Committee Ccr.sidero::on _
Sc`7edufed For Ceoncii Ccns;deration
�' ._.•,.'.fir I... 14^l
F:unr:i Ci�aC_ y
.__ Ccmmittee
_Intro;uct:on Adcpticn
5 1_. �...
�„ � ii � !I IiE l I� II III' I �hl�Ir�ipl'1��91'�I PP 9�R'il NI IA'llw�lpll�I" +Iw', il,�f#i iilPi'llll PI II'IP'I'+'��i�,II!11°III"I�I�iI�I"Ilii'iP�l 11 IEilq'i' iI�IIE � „ q lnniRi�il,'�I�f'P'PI1��;glkr
v aj'
r
FIG. 1
' _ 1lillll
N.U. Aparttnants
1
TIT
City Parking Lot
':7/.!s_.Y. �F:... %;!..5a„'.3�/ �.�'., rry. •^s•W, f, :r.i1(hi .�'v, •�2.v ,�s •.'h•a:r•.{.fir ._�}"' I 7
5�J%•'r
2U' Present Lirar-y
o ;,`:5 � lYctnatu �1u5
�2u,i
so
cicuncn i
FIG. 2
:�.U. Apartments .v
c Iri
I f -•
v 'a New Li,-cot7":r,t I ��
ill! �I Il ii r 11 Ih �I " II ll' II I I�I i �I' III r qhl p qll' , i �l �I q� ri it s�
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
MINUTES
DRAFT NOT APPROVED
Monday, October 3, 1988
City Council Chambers
6:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Collens, Morton, Feldman, Rainey, Juliar, and Rudy
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Collens, Chair
STAFF: Carter
OTHERS PRESENT: Wright, Anderson, Lanyon, Carow, Chiss, Grossman, Wolin,
Kapple, Bennett, Hill, Syvertsen, Cohen, Figman, Cook, and
other members of the general public
Chairman Collens acknowledged receipt of materials including communications from Dorothy
Versteeg, Richard Cook, and a position statement form the Plan Commission favoring a
competition for the design of the library.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPT>: MBER l S, 1988 MEETING
Aid. Rainey moved approval of the minutes as written. Seconded by Aid. Morton. Motion
passed No Nays.
HEARING ON THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING AN OPEN COMPETITION FOR THE NEW
LIBRARY
Chairman Collens announced that the discussion on a competition would be the only agenda item
before the committee and that all comments should be limited to the subject of the method of
selecting an architect to do the new library.
The first speaker was Mr. John Syvertsen who identified himself as an Evanston resident and
stated that he was speaking as an individual. He noted that he was the Vice -President of the
Chicago Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and in that position, as a member of
the Board of Directors of AIA, he served as chairman of the library taskforce which dealt with
the Chicago library competition. They were very critical of the competition in Chicago because
of its structure as a design/build competition requiring 25% of the work on the project with
reference only to the manual. They objected to that competition because they felt that to
develop a project to such a level of detail, without an ongoing and candid conversation with the
client, would eliminate the client as a major player in the early development of the design
process. He stated that he was strongly in favor of an open competition for the Evanston
Library. He felt that this was the best means to accomplish an outstanding library for the City
of Evanston. To allay any concerns about the competitive process as a means of producin"
design excellence, he noted a long list of standout projects producer- D� a competition including
the Whitehouse, the U.S. Capital, the New York City Hall, Chicago T-:bune Building, the Boston
City Hall, the New York Stock Exchange, the Rhode Island State House, St. Louis Union Station,
the Harvard Business School, and in the Boston Architectural Center.
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
October 3, 1988
Page Two
He noted the AIA publication on competitions which identified the types of projects which would
be appropriate for this approach. From the perspective of his experience and training he felt
that a competition was both a good way and an appropriate way for Evanston to go because it
would bring a great number of exciting and Interesting solutions to a difficult site.
Aid. Feldman asked Mr. Syvertson what there was inherent in a competition that made it
especially appropriate for Evanston. Mr. Syvertson responded that it depended on how the
competition was structured. He did not feel that the requirements should be terribly elaborate
so that a great deal of work not be done without contact with the client. What is gained is
hundreds of ideas to choose from for a difficult site and problem. He felt the chances of getting
a brilliant solution were much better than would be the case in dealing with one architect, even
though that be a very good architect. He also liked the excitement generated from the public as
part of the competition process.
The next speaker was Stewart Cohen. He identified himself as an architect and an Evanston
resident. He wanted to see the City of Evanston, for him as a citizen, get the most prestigious
possible building that it can commission. He favored an open competition as the best of several
ways to achieve excellence. He believed that the national publication and the structuring of a
competition with nationally recognized judges, along with local representatives, would attract
different kinds of architects than those that would normally respond to an RFQ. He noted the
amount of interest which had already been generated by the possibility of a competition in
Evanston. He felt that the project would get great visibility from an open competition. With
many people thinking very hard about solutions, Evanston would benefit. He observed that there
are very talented people who might be weeded out in an RFQ process for lack of a direct
experience with libraries. Yet, these architects might do an outstanding job given the chance.
What the community gets out of this process is a large number of ideas about what the public
library would be, how it would relate to the community and the buildings around it, what it
might look like, and how it might be internally structured and organized. You also get an
opportunity to see what each of the architects would do for you, unlike the RFP process in
which you only get to see what each of those architects has done before undertaking your
project. He thought the competition could be structured with prizes in such a way as to get the
right to use the best ideas from other schemes.
'fir. Richard Cook identified himself as a local architect and past president of the Chicago
Chapter of American Institute of Architects, past president of the Illinois Council of the
American Institute of Architects, a fellow in the AIA and a full member of the national board of
AIA. He announced that he would speak in opposition to the competition process. He felt that
the competition process had some qualities which were really lacking that immediately takes a
client and puts him in opposition to the architect. A program is prepared, a schedule developed,
and possibly a budget prepared, without any interaction with the architect. You don't really
know if you can work with that architect, there is no opportunity to discuss questions with the
architect during the design process and you can't control the budget. He questioned whether
Evanston could afford a "brilliant scheme" for the library. He noted that one of the reasons the
City of Chicago went to a design/build competition was to control the cost of the project. The
ability of the architect to finish the project is not certain without a joint venture with another
firm. He did not believe there was any guarantee of a good project coming out of the process.
He felt that either process could involve public participation.
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - October 3, 1988
Page Three
He thought the procedure, in terms of fairness, in terms of the jury, was equal since your going
to have people making the selection on the basis of the information. The fee can be determined
after you select the architect based upon the negotiations with them the same way it is done
with other municipalities. He noted the AIA guidelines produced by AIA on either approach.
Next speaker Robert Figman identified himself as an architect and Evanston resident. He felt
that the citizens of Evanston would be better served and better informed through the process of
a competition. He also felt that the final outcome would be better. He noted that the program
for the competition can be published, the final designs selected by the jury can be published and
that the reasoning of the jury can be published. The public will be totally aware of the process.
He noted that some of the issues Mr. Cook brought up were valid but they can be controlled by
the structuring of the competition. He reiterated that both the Library Board and the Plan
Commission had endorsed the idea of a competition.
Aid. Morton questioned whether the competitors will receive all the information the Library
Committee had developed. This was affirmed. She further asked if the library wanted certain
things on each floor and a certain number of floors, would the designer listen. The response was
that the client writes the rules.
Bennett Johnson identified himself as President of Design Evanston, an architect, and a lifetime
resident of the community. He stated that the method of selecting an architect for the new
library was a crucial one and that the decision would affect the lives of Evanstonians for many
years to come. He observed that the library was more than a warehouse for books, it will be a
cultural statement about the community. He felt that we could not afford to build another
library building which would be obsolete before its time. He announced that Design Evanston
had done a telephone poll of its membership concerning their feelings about having an
architectural competition. They asked three questions: would members prefer an open
competition, some form of limited competition, or the traditional request for qualifications?
The great majority favored some form of limited competition for registered architects.
Committee members felt that some form of limited competition would result in a selection
based upon the merits of the design, function and compatibility to Downtown Evanston. Two
members expressed negative opinions about a competition. %Iany members were concerned
about how the competition would be run, particularly, with reg_-- :o the ,;-ay the Chicago
competition was conducted. The vast majority felt that if the competition were handled
properly the result would be the best possible library for Evanston. %Ir. Bennett referred to the
AIA handbook on competition and felt that the summary would be helpful for committee
members to understand how competition best works. He stated that the members of Design
Evanston felt that the winning solution under a competition would be judged on the merits of the
design rather than the name of the firm. Other members felt the difficulty of the site offered;
an interesting challenge for the competition which would loop% at a number of different
solutions. If the AIA guidelines were followed and a distinguishes ;ury selected, with a we''
thought-out program, the result could be a fresh and exciting solution which would attract
positive national attention to Evanston. He stated that Design Evanston intended to hold
library forum on the design needs of the library. This would include both internal and external
program needs. Some of the issues that might be discussed would include: the site, massinF
phasing, parking, the context of the library setting, yards, etc. fir. Bennett concluded with a
quote from Daniel Burnham, "Make no little plans for they have magic to stir men's blood. Aim
high and hope and work, let your watchword be order and your beacor. beauty."
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - October 3, 1988
Page Four
Aid. Collens asked for clarification on what constituted a limited competition. Mr. Bennett
responded that one of the problems with an open competition is that you might get student
schemes which they would be unable to follow through on. He did not feel that the competition
should be limited very much, only to registered architects. He felt there was an advantage to
getting solutions from architects who have not already done a Iibrary. He thought that with the
competition they would get more than merely standard solutions to look at.
Aid. Collens confirmed that the Library Board wanted the competition limited to licensed
architects.
Ald. Juliar asked how many architects and designers were surveyed by Design Evanston. The
response was somewhat more than thirty.
Aid. Feldman raised two concerns: 1) getting a brilliant solution which the community can't
afford and maintaining cost control, and 2) the limited interaction between the client and the
architect, and the need for deep familiarity with the site. He asked how a design competition
could be constructed to achieve the kind of cost control assurances that we might get in an
RFQ, and how can we also get the client involvement and site familiarity that might come with
this other process.
Mr. Severson responded that Evanston couldn't afford not to have a brilliant solution that falls
short of our needs. Secondly, brilliant building is not one which exceeds budget. The
requirements of the competition should be limited so that there isn't a tremendous amount of
design work done in advance. The design should first be an idea about how the library might be
built, and then the work begins of refining. A qualified jury can evaluate if the idea meets the
program requirements, and can tell if it can be done within the required budget. He
recommended not to carry the schemes too far in advance. As far as site familiarity was
concerned, the majority of firms would have easy access to the site. The good ones will take
time to come and look at it.
Aid. Feldman confirmed that the interaction between the client and the architect would occur
after the preliminary design was prepared. Mr. Severson stated that most of the interaction
does come after this phase and what comes out of the competition is concept, not a building.
The building is produced after long sessions of working hard with the client. lvtr. Severson saw
the opportunity to look at many solutions as well as the excitement generated by the
competition as outweighing the advantages of an RFQ process.
Aid. Morton asked about how the judges for the competition would be selected. Mr. Severson
replied that it was important that there be representatives on the jury who know the program
requirements of the library as well as those who are highly qualified in knowing how to build
buildings. It is the interaction between these two groups that produces the best judgment on the
design selection.
Aid. Morton asked who would select the jurors. The respond was, under the Library Board's plan
it would be the consultants hired to manage the competition. This would be with agreement on
the qualifications of the jurors.
Aid. Juliar asked if it was wise to use a consultant in conducting the competition or are there
other ways and what would be the most cost effective? Mr. Carow responded that the Library
Board interviewed ten different groups who could manage a competition, but they felt that the
consultants they had selected Nad the reatest in-depth experience and would deliver the
strongest package. He stressed the complexity of the undertaking of the competition of doing a
competition and that the consultants gave them the strongest sense of confidence in being able
to handle all aspects of the competition.
Illipl " 1111 �,����1I!��III�iA�ll�Mf��AI!I ��h;!lllAllJJjJfMll11lP111I1I!,j RPi���jl,Itl1l
Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - October 3, 1988
Page Five
Aid. Feldman asked whether there were any disadvantages Including a budget ceiling or
limitation. Mr. Cohen responded that they could do a two stage competition or do it the way
Chicago did. Typically a design competition contains too little information to do a highly
accurate cost estimate. He felt that issue could be addressed by having someone on the jury
who knows construction costs and who has built libraries before. He suggested that each of the
various problems which had been brought up in connection in doing a competition could be
addressed in that way. He recommended that the competition process be used as the method of
hiring an architect, but not think of it as the method for choosing a final and definitive design
for the library. In reviewing his credentials, Mr. Cohen mentioned that he was also a fellow of
the AIA and Professor of Architecture at the Circle Campus at the University of Illinois.
Mr. Johnson commented on the possibility of having a two stage competition which could
address a number of the issues which have been brought up. The first stage would be largely
concept and a shorter process. The second stage would provide comments by the sponsor and
the jurors at the beginning of the second stage and these passed on to the architect. The
architect then develops more detailed concepts which could be examined.
Aid. Morton commented that she had come prepared to make up her mind this evening and was
intrigued by the idea of a competition. She felt that some of the concerns or questions could be
ironed out after a decision was made. Aid. Morton moved that we have an open competition.
Seconded by Aid. Feldman. Chairman Collens clarified that an open competition could be one
which was phased, includes licensed architects, that it would allow interaction between the
Library Board and the architect at the second phase. Concept would come first.
Aid. Rudy stated that he still favored an RFQ. He noted that most of the interest in doing the
competition came from the academic architects. He also observed that no matter what method
is chosen you end up with the concept. Success or failure was not guaranteed by the approach.
He felt that a competition took a lot of possibilities for the City to be involved in the process
and gives it to experts. He didn't believe that this would eliminate controversy or necessarily
guarantee a great building. He felt it would take longer and cost more. He felt the only time
there was certainty on cost was when a contractor is asked what he will build the building for.
Aid. Juliar stated that he supported a design competition because •x•e %-ould get a wider range of
ideas, could control costs, and felt the entire community would benefit.
Aid. Feldman commented that there were both inherent pitfalls and exciting possibilities in the
values of doing a competition. If we could have the same kind of cost control in client
involvement, he felt we might find something really remarkable through the competition. He
liked the idea that there would be people from all over the country focusing their talents on
solving this problem. He felt there was a greater possibility of getting an exciting and
expandable structure through the competition process. He stressed the importance of
controlling the costs and the need for client involvement in the process.
Aid. Rainey commented that a lot of what had been heard this evening related to site and she
didn't believe the committee knew exactly where the library would be built. She didn't think
that the City of Evanston would condemn the Woman's Club property. She expressed hel
concern about cost constraints. She felt that some exciting designs would have to be rejected
by the judges because they would be above and beyond our means to pay for them. She found!
Mr. Cook's information on selecting architects to be very persuasive.
Ald. Rainey stated that she had not been supportive of a competition and that her fiscal
conservatism would not allow her to support a competition. Given the fact that she's concerned
about the location about the library and given the amount of move} we have and are prepared to
spend, she announced she would vote against the competition in favor of a more conservative
approach.
-Special Committee on the Main Library Project
Minutes - October 3, 1988
Page Six
Chairman Collens stated that she was grateful for the input of the architects who attended this
evening and was persuaded that a competition would be a fine way to pick an architect. She
liked the idea of doing the competition and design in phases as a way to have the advantages of
both approaches. She also liked the idea of encouraging quality people who might not try for an
RFQ. She stated that she would support the motion and asked the Board to have the consultants
prepare specific proposal as to how they would carry out a competition using the concerns
expressed of the committee. In particular, she cited the controls which might be there. The
committee would then take this proposal to the council.
Aid. Feldman asked whether voting on motion was appropriate without a site? Aid. Morton
commented that the committee would be in the same place once a site is finally selected. She
recommended the Committee go ahead with the decision without a site because it would take
two months to finalize in any case. The committee further discussed the timing of the release
of the competition documents and the determination of the site. It was clear that the program
could not go forward without a site.
Chairman Collens called for a vote on the motion and that an open competition be used for
selecting an architect to do the new library. Voting aye; Aid. Feldman, Juliar, ,Morton and
Collens. Voting nay; Aid. Rudy and Rainey.
Chairman Collens clarified that there was not a need to go back to the Council with the
Committee's request of the Library Board to refine the proposal including the Committee
statements of concern. Aid. Feldman commented that he would be more comfortable having a
revised proposal to go to the Council with. Aid. Rainey asked what their recommendation might
cost. Mr. Lanyon commented that it would be appropriate to ask the consultants to submit a
cost of proposal. Their current report on competitions had cost $2,600. Mr. Carow commented
that he did not think the consultants would charge for responding to the Committee's ideas.
Chairman Collens requested that if there was a charge, Library Board let the Committee know
so that they could discuss it. if there was no fee, she asked that they proceed to modify the
proposal. Aid. Collens asked that the Committee's concerns be put in writing for the consultant.
Chairman Collens reported on discussing with the Mayor the question of the Committee going
out of business. The ,Mayor felt that there were some remaining issues that needed to be
addressed and these included: the possible phasing of construction of the building, siting issues,
and possible zoning issues. The Mayor expressed the desire to have they stay
together through the initial stages and to stay in place in order to receive recommendations to
take to the Council. The Committee needed to discuss what the ongoing process would be and
how to keep it before the Council. There is also the remaining question of who the "we" is that
the architect needs to talk to in the development of the final design.
Aid. Morton commented that she felt the Committee should stay together now that they are
becoming familiar with the issues rather than turn over the responsibility to another body.
Chairman Collens wanted to know how long the consultant thought it would take to prepare a
response.
Meeting adjourned approximately 8:00 p.m.
STAFF:
DATE:
7Y72/77
F1' 1111 1n �� i
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MAIN LIBRARY PROJECT
MINUTES
November 30, 1988
Room 2403 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Aid. Collens, Feldman, Rainey, 3uliar, and Rudy
MEMBERS ABSENT: Aid. Morton
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Collens, Chair
STAFF: Carter --e
OTHERS PRESENT: Wright, Anderson, Lanyon, Carow, Chiss, Grossman, Cappo,
Dienner, Peters, Wilson, Facente, and other members of the
general public.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3, 1988 Meeting
Chairman Collens noted minor errors in the minutes. With these corrections, the minutes of the
October 3, 1988 meeting were unanimously approved.
DISCUSSION OF CONSULTANTS REVISED PROPOSAL ON CONDUCTING A COMPETITION
Chairman Collens called attention to the letter which was written to the consultants by Mr.
Wright raising the questions the Committee had at their last meetiry arc the response from Mr.
011swang and W'itzling. She commented on being satisfied with their response and asked other
Committee members their opinion. Aid. Feldman commented on the response to the questions
concerning client involvement and observed that both the handbook and the consultants felt that
the client input was enhanced during a competition process. He read a quote from the
architectural handbook which stated that communication was not h7ited betxeen the client and
the architect during a competition process, but is highly disciplined an{' carried out in a very
systematic way. He did not feel that the communication wa, lesserP-, js, C'ifferent.
. -1. Rudy observed that the question which was difficult to answer *.4_s, c,z noes the 4ifference
in the communication affect the end results? Under a compet:ticrr the communication is
formalized. He felt that part of the communication was cut out, h,; the part that is cut out is
difficult to articulate.
Aid. Feldman commented that in order for communication to tame glare, the sponsor must
conduct some kind of formal introspection, demanding more of h:-- r`,an a norma" dialogue
might. W e need to have the questions posed in advance to ourselves a-r: n-ed to knc%k what we
want. He saw this rather demanding process as a plus.
ti
Special Committee on the :Hain Library
Minutes - November 30, 1988.
Page Two ?
Chairman Collens felt that the Library Board had conducted such a process among themselves,
but the Committee had not yet posed the main questions for themselves. She thought that once
we got to the competition program we would have to "sign on" to the library's program
statement fairly early in the process. Aid. Rudy commented that, if the project is well defined
in advance, it is a plus to the architect because it spares him many conflicting demands coming
from different directions.
Aid. Feldman commented on the consultant's response to the question concerning site
familiarity as a reasonable one. He thought that the section on cost control was not quite as
impressive as the other responses. Ald. Collens noted the cost control would be the biggest
problem regardless of the method. She was not entirely convinced that this process would be
less expensive than the traditional method, but saw other benefits.
Aid. Feldman reviewed some of the undesirable conditions identified for undertaking a
competition from the manual and commented that he did not think the library project fell under
those conditions. In commenting on cost control, Aid. Feldman expressed the hope that nothing
in the schematic design stage would be so irretrievable that we could not bring it under control
during the design development stage. Chairman Collens commented that it was also possible to
add to cost at the design development stage..;Ald. Rudy observed that the schematic stage of
the design consisted largely of floor plans and elevations and that the size of the facility would
have strong bearing on the cost. fir. Carter felt that most of the challenge in cost control came
after the schematic design work in the design development phase. He noted that the size of the
facility was almost a given and that the consultants had been well alerted to concerns about
cost. Aid. Rudy felt that we needed to be realistic about what we would accept as far as how
low we push the cost versus the type of library we really need. He thought it would be �
important to have discussions in advance as to what would be appropriate for Evanston. There
followed discussion of the need to establish some sort of range for cost.
Aid. Feldman discussed the question of appropriateness and how different points of view of that
appropriateness get incorporated into a single vision for the library. He commented on the need
to have the different values incorporated into some sort of framework to avoid endless
discussiuii. Chairman Coliens assumed that such a framework would be developed as part of the
competition and as a document which they would endorse.
At this point the Committee shifted its discussion to the outline of the proposal as submitted by
the consultants. Aid. Feldman inquired of the Board what they had in mine in the way of a
project manager and secretary. Mr. Lanyon responded that both the prc;ect manager anc
executive secretary would he part time positions and that they would be lc2king for specific,
relevant experience. They would work directly with the Library Board and Ci'• administration.
Chairman Collens suggested that the Committee go to the Council at the E � : n gular mcetlrc
with a recommendation to proceed with a competition. She requested that t`-� Council get the
same documents that the Committee received this evening as well as minutes for the meeting.
The Committee should ask for Council approval of authorization for the City .Manager to
negotiate agreement with Design Competition Advisory Services. Aid. Julian moved that the
Committee take their recommendation to the City Council on having Design Competition
Advisory Services serve as Evanston's consultant on the architc,:tural compet.t.on. Seconded by
Aid. Feldman. Aid. Feldman observed that the timing on consultant selecti_- -tight be subject
to discussion on the Council floor because of uncertainty on the enact site.
Special Committee on the Main Library
Minutes - November 30, 1988
Page Three
k
Chairman Collens observed that, aside from the site issue, many other questions were ready to
be addressed by the competition. The program statement had been prepared and needed to be
translated into the requirements for the competition. She noted that there was a great deal of
lead time required in preparing to initiate a competition. Chairman Collens stressed that what
the Committee was taking to the Council was their recommendation to proceed with an
architectural competition as the means of selecting an architect. Aid. Feldman questioned
whether an open ended contractual relationship would be acceptable to both Council and the
consultant. There were unanswered questions which may or may not be resolved quickly. Aid.
Juliar observed that we might be in the position of hurrying up and having to wait, but we did
not want to be in the position of waiting and then having to hurry up. He felt getting started
with the competition and getting a consultant on board to work on it was important. Mr. Carter
commented on having discussed this with the consultants and that the consultants share the
Committee's concern about getting under way and getting the competition organized rather
than waiting until everything was in place.
Aid. Rudy asked whether the Committee was prepared to recommend to the Council these
particular consultants? The Committee's response was in the affirmative. He also asked, "Who
is the 'City' that the consultants will be responding to?" Chairman Collens commented that this
question will .have to be defined. Ald. Rudy asked who would define the goals and objectives?
Chairman Collens felt that this would probably be accomplished by the Board bringing
statements and recommendations to the Committee and the Committee responding. The
Committee would then take these recommendations to the Council.
Chairman Collens called for a vote on Aid. Juliar's motion. Motion passed. No Nays.
REVIEW OF MERITS OF A DOWNTOWN SITE FOR THE LIBRARY
Chairman Collens announced that this agenda item was in response to Aid. Warshaw's request
that the Committee review the Lake/Ashland site as a possible site for the new library.
Chairman Collens felt that the question of a downtown site should be discussed before looking at
any additional sites outside the downtown. She noted that the Plan Commission, the Library
Board and the League of Woman Voters were going to make a statement on the subject.
Chairman Peters from the Plan Commission stated that the Commission's position was that the
library ought to be in the downtown for a number of reasons. Paramount among those reasons
was the wav in which the downtown economy is helped by the presence of the library as a
generator of multiple purpose trips. Commission also felt it was important to maintain the
library as a civic anchor in the downtown to help support the business community. He stated
that multiple purpose trips to the library had been well documented by more than one survey.
Mr. Peters also stated that the downtown had public transportation available from all parts of
the City for those who inert dependent upon it. He concluded t�-_t t`:e Plan Commission felt
very strongl, about the public library remaining in the downtown.
Mr. Lannon of the Library Board stated that the Board's long stanc:^,o position has been to keep
the library in downtown. He stated that in siteing the library it d$? irportant to consider the
context of the community. Part of this context was the strong central business district and its
established transportation network. Since many of the citizens of the community use that
transportation, being at the hub is important. He cited the idea! possibilities for combined
business and library trips as mutually beneficial. Further, he noted that good parking was
available in the central business district and outside of that area parking would be a problem.
He noted the significance of a major public building in a prominent li-ation a= another factor.
Special Committee on the Alain Library
Minutes - November 30, 1988
Page Four
Ms. Jane Facente of the Evanston League of Woman Voters described the League's process in
reaching decisions and the history of the League's interest In the library. She stated that the
league supports a downtown location as the most convenient one because of public
transportation. She also noted the role that the library plays in the balance of the downtown
and that removing the library would remove a big pedestrian volume from the core of the
downtown. The League expressed its support of the present expanded site. She cited the
League's study of the library problem two years ago. The League of Woman Votes supports the
downtown location for the siteing of Evanston's main library so that it will be convenient for
user of the downtown which includes: workers, shoppers, medical/professional clients, students,
residents of the nearby apartments and retirement facilities. They feel that the library should
be easily accessible by public transportation and have ample parking nearby. They believe the
location of the main library on an expanded site at the Church/Orrington location would meet
these requirements. The League feels that the vitality of the City depends upon a people
oriented downtown and that mixed -use deve[operrients best serve this goal. A balance between
office, retail, cultural and recreational activity, residential and office facilities provides wide
variety of activities to attract people to the downtown throughout different hours of the day. A
main library is an important component of such a mixed -use approach. The League felt the need
for a new library was urgent and urged the Committee to move forward with its plan to provide
an improved library at the present site.
Ald. Rudy asked whether the Plan Commission had considered the problem of parking should the
library be located outside the downtown area. Chairman Peters responded that the Plan
Commission did not address sites outside the downtown area. Aid. Rudy observed that before
the site moved away from the downtown area, the more parking would become an issue.
Aid. Feldman expressed the belief that the library helps the downtown and the downtown helps
the library. He expressed concern over having a location more remote. He asked whether there
had been any study made on the multiple purpose trips to the library and the Library Board
answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wright commented that a very high proportion of the users of
the library have another destination combined with their trip to the library. Aid. Feldman
commented on his belief that the library was an essential part of the downtown and expressed
his pleasure at seeing a number of other groups agreeing with this position.
,inn ❑ienner questioned since the neighboring cities to Evanston chose not to put their libraries
in the heart of their downtowns. why Evanston needed to have a downtown location. She stated
that the library could be put on the periphery it it w•as served by public transportation. She
questioned this particular site as necessary. She further questioned on the library to bring
business to downtown and felt it should be a complementary function. She felt it was more
appropriate to have businesses which would bring people to the downtown rather than having
them rely on the library.
Aid. Juliar commented that the library could be at many sites within the do+xntou,n and that t~e
Committee should consider every other site in the area; however, he did not see one mailable.
Chairman Collens clarified that both the Committee and Council were on record as endorsing;
the present site and that the Committee dic, not need to consider where e?se in dou ntown the
library might go. The only reason for considering any other site is if the present choice does not
work out, then where else might the library be' She felt that the sense of the Committee was
that their report to Aid. %Xarshaw %vas that the Committee was not interested in an,
non -downtown sites. Ald. Rudy stated that the comments by the Plan Commission, League e'
\[ornan Voters, and the Library Board were right on target. He felt it was %e-y important tha:
we have the mix in the downtown and that the library contributes in a significant xay to t~a*
mix.
Special Committee on the plain Library
Minutes -• November 3% 1988
,:- Page Five
ts..
Aid. Rainey asked whether the downtown had ever been geographically defined. In the
discussion that followed, it was determined that no official downtown boundaries had been
established for purposes relating to the library.
Ald. Feldman raised a question as to the Committee's work and its ability to communicate that
work on the library to the rest of the community. He asked whether they should gather their
minutes together and have them generally available or write a separate report to the Council.
Aid. Collens asked who was in need of these reports who did not presently have them? Aid.
Felman responded that he saw letters in the Evanston Review asking the Committee to consider
items which had already been dealt with. Chairman Collens suggested that Committee members
ask %Ir. Carter to send a packet of minutes to anyone raising these questions. Mr. Wright
commented that a complete of all library materials were available in the reference room at the
main library. Ms. Wilson of Friends of the Library urged the Committee to summarize their
work and put articles in the Review discussing decisions that had been made. She saw a need to
begin to develop community consensus and support and to explain that the project is really on its
way. She felt it was essential to communicate to the community at large on various
considerations such as cost and design as the project evolved. It was suggested that we begin
with a brief article in the next newsletter. It was also felt that there should be a good summary
on the library story developed as part of the project. y
Chairman Collens suggested the next meeting day should be January 26, 1989.
Aid. Feldman commented an his hope that when the consultant and the library have a fully
developed program statement and it is approved by the City Council, that some summary of its
contents cam be shared with the community. He felt this would be a very important statement
and that his expectation should be shared with the community. Chairman Collens thought that
the goals of the program statement might be shared as part of the Council deliberations on the
competition itself.
Meeting adjourned approximately 8:45 p.m.
STAFF:
DATE:
7T61 /65