Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #28 - Discussion ItemBEY x.iJt7Z TORItrl Diftnct Ma;Lnr. Ptah i-ptotru1ci t_na .n irunc 19 Etna rm �p''cct jy Lhe City• 'Cb,tarr i bt in rpt 1.J7 f: cd is r;inq are its; high lights ss regards D.ihn^ Igo 'ludito±iut nt: It prez:ently lack too tunny omen:it-A.(2s to br.I truly tatled ah %i auc3i'Loriunit f�CC�tt�; t..icr:1 }...tom,. , :�" a �.timp StZrnl�:�lt`y f.�1C.'m_1.1.%.?C:�; rt1.r-C'C7i?C�"t.t?O`t'!!"!gt C'.ltr'Ct3.':I"'"_a e:te. .ore all inaa-ni :fie and have been poorly •7aiti .alined. . The truc t:ural. engineer reported it in t' po. of condition". (Note t Ii., did not say a -nso. 'e., hazardous, in i1e d of demoliti,ortp or atilt t;uch thinq.) ant~ worstworsIE that the report says is that a survey of event attendance reflects no justification for a building of its size at Dinner Key. Report says that there is some justification for a building of about 20,000 sq. ft. to house local exhibits, art shows, and various functions that require minimum facilities. Biased on above, City Commission passed Resolution 75-67,authorizing the City Administration to "Evaluate the practicality of modernizing and improving the Dinner Key Auditorium". III. On March 17, 1975, the City Administration received responses from 47 firms expressing an interest in conducting the study of Dinner Key Auditorium for the City, and submitting their qualifications. Based on the following criteria, the 47 submitting firms have.been reduced to those recommended to the Commission today. Only Dade County consultants considered. 2. Only firms *which are able to provide the total professional services in-house considered. Firm must be large enough to provide expeditious service.` Interviews conducted by a committee composed of the Directors of Public Works Department, Planning Department and Public Facilities Department. ssell Melton Dinner Key The oriy trouble. hat it is often greatly overcrowded. This eesi n .c plincpsilly by t proximity to food service at restaurants' ;' w and 13 to fact Into it hes restrcoros. however inadequate for tite c; p c vile use. them This overcrowding would be relieved if than: were other places in the park offering these facilities. There. are four e 1ctters"alo:,g the bayfront in this area. They n: m. constant u e but ere in very poor repair. Concrete coljmns are badly c a .. c nd need Immediate etta^.flog 2. Dinner Key Auditorium. The building at Dtnrcr Key called the ""auditoriuin " consists of two o, mcr' v, hangars hastily and cheaply thrown together to accom- mentite the American Legion`Cot Convention in 19-1S At the time that it was cittrie atchitects cxCacted it to have, at most. a life span of five years. reolocernert by a more su table fze, ty It is still standing. It is. in no normal sense of the word. an auditorium. It has cap treatment, no adequate striee. no lighting for even a portable ‘Irtariliy re sanitary facilities. it contains n a 11oor area of 82.200 The streeetural eneineer reported it in Poor condition. There has ser d r:a sunit,rnent in the floor slab especially in the southeast r`„ tttnd on the west end where SevCfC cracking of masonry partitions has n_ t . ,r a cvsteal roof deck was placed over the old one in tut t, s .co is ov,rng evidence of corro:on: Nothing was done .1hi.n.athes..:!ng or deck over the low roof ad aracswhich are badly corroded. Titeie are. savcrai window -CC d tioning units and thedoe: s i..:ve a central unit wliich employs a `pater -cooled package ever:: miry veil in small arees but the vast majority of the 13 w, -conditioning. There is a sprinkler system. but it could rat _t accerlaned whether or not it was operable. The elect cal system is obsolete. The service from a vault in et Inc ludo i4 is lane but inac_quete for the air-conditioning of major part of the building. The sanitary food t,cs has been reported by one consultant c 1 q , t 3 r xtures are. cia some broken and many pulled loose -from the wall cue .e floor settlement. Apparently piping underground has tro.,t n ,s.a:re ico_cn and some fixtures are inoperable Even if repaired. the f 3 T 3totallyinadequatefor a b::iid nn of thissize. The toilet fa ,a•t, ,; ,eve ro ,• cC..t:n,Cal ventilation and the odor is often nauseating. The building Ps.s. virtually no maintenance. It contains 82,200 square feet or 'covered spy e. From this building the City derives S33,000 annually or about tic= per squarefo at. The rc csoc s for this is that ail large revcnuc-produc- n went, have c been;creed to look elsewhere for space. it is inconveniently to .led for CCuntV V sle Sf v as well. The question to be anst Bred is weather a facility of this sort belongs at Diertr Kay in any event.: We chosetwo shows as diverse in • nature 3; pasreble in order to obtain the opinions of those attending. They were the Camper's Show and the Flea Market. - The Campers Show had an attendance of 14.000 on Satur- day. 29 January.1972,of which a little less than two thirds wen na e. notr half had come to this one show at Dinner Kcy and p visit Dinner Key until there was another similar attraction. Although mere of those attending were from Dade County (G3%) more than one third (37%) were from Florida or out of state. 0f the Camper's show 1 i% said that ahoy occasionally shopped in Coconut Grove. 26% ate in Grove restaurants while visiting the show. The response to the questions asked the visitors to the Firca Market, presented a marked contrast to the above. The Flca Market occupies only about one fourth the floor area available and on Sunday, 27 February, 1972, attendance was 1,479. 30% of those attending were interviewed. Those attending the Flea Market were younger. on the whole than Mese attending the Camper's Show and a slightly smaller percentage ef male.; was noted. Almost two thirds of those interviewed had attended a nurri'ter of times. 64% of the visitors were tram Dade County, 03% from neer3V Coconut Grove, Coral. Gables and the southwest sections. Very few at either show were very concerned' about tha condition of the building though there were a few su„c tons for `till it up-. The Camper's Show visitors complained that the h, I ina war; air-conditioned though Flca Market visitors \Nem, not especially botiernetf The rest rooms apparently disgusted almost everyone. The following table shows the relative percentages of vis.tars and booth attendants who cat and shop in Coconut Greve, derif._ t c : visit to the shows : Camper Showy Fort market CamperS"OW Flea VI..%ct Visitors Visitors BoothAtt, Boothnett. Shop in Grove Ycs 11% 29% 15"%71 sa 5; No 09 Eat in Grove Ycs 23% 41ra 463t 227 No 74 5tJ 54 79 The only conclusion that can be reachedir a p-t:'tne It tortum- should be demolished_ There is no justification f,, size. even though new and modern, at Dinner Key. There is some justification for a building ef abont 23 ;.) square feet. simply and flexibly designed for indoor/putd xoar 'c e house local exhibits. art shows. and various fur.ct ons that r ur e imom facilities. This building pdceadequately ed rotut air -conditioned. -Scheduling the f thsb�ldingpoa s problem note adequately coordinated, it could serve a multitude of needed (urct.o >. 4. MarinaFaciiities. The magnificent opportunities for an oust ra^.rt1 nlarioa in Miami are but little fulfilled by the existing complex. These c include the ex- istingies such as boat 0tdocks maintenance supporting dirrepa . These arocks and e supporting in old Pan-Arrc ncan storge maintenance hangars north of .the City Hall and one privately owned building rcr,n el these. There is also a Dock Master's office anciseveralother minor su ures. These facilities are scattered without particular order on the west side or the marina often impinging on land that should be put to public use. „4„1„, City t:anapier e5? i)initi.:T' 4f. In January of this year, the City Cot_!ssionj, by resolution, o.uthO1'iZed Me to proceed with obtaining a reevaluation of the future role of the Dinner Key Auditiriuwi. Notices were sent to all practicing architects and engineers in Dade County, requesting they submit their qualifications to me on or before March 17, 1975• Forty -se veri separate brochures were . received in response to this announcement. In conformance with the guidelines for Consultants Competitive Negotiations, I appointed a committee consisting of the Director of Public Works, the Director of Planning, and the Director of Public, Facilities, with the request they review the brochures and to make a recommendation as to the three firms they considered best qualified. After their initial review, they had reduced this number to eight and, subsequently, to five. Each of the five firms was interviewed and the City Administration's recommendation, in order of priority to begin negotiations is as follows: 1) .Ferendino, Grafton, Spills, Candela 2) Connell Associates, Inc. 3) Greenleaf-Telesca, _Planners, Engineers & Associates_ Each consultant was advised, in the interviewing process, that the fee for this service would be limited to a maximum of $8,000, and the City expected an, unpretentious, factual report to be completed within sixty days. It is rrij recommendation that the Commizsion adopt a motion author- izing me to proceed with ne of iat ion , in the order -o f priority as listed in this rr rllorandum. • Connell • .251 for <<.atr d ; o:» mb r 1., I97 T Co71nty 1 o people • n.uaitf:l.c d Abraben Associates, Inc. 17Asqualified by virtue or being in Browarcl Count Cook -Sloan Associates 251 form dated January 1975 Total personnel 4 Disqualified, insufficient forces No Comparable type stork listed in projects submitted Adonay $erganiaschi AIA Architect 251 fora not dated total complement - 6 people No•architect, no engineers No comparable projects listed Disqualified 5, IL J. Ross Associates 132 personnel Qualified • Herbert Saffir PE Disqualified - not enough information furnished Smith and Gillespie, Engineers Disqualified out of torn Also letter stating not interested . Mid South Engineering Co. Disqualified - out of town Also letter stating lack of interest Borroto & Lee, joint venture Ross Adams 251 for►. submitted December 1974 143 people 14 engineers Qualified as joint venture Vct'cndiitlo. Ot'_.fi:on •� .'f. ? ; • t 5 i. fo1'«t ubnk.i,CC w7�?711� t�;�r �.9%J • 16( t) opl ,f �3 (.0 t1_if:, d • 11. nobles & Partn ra, Inc, 25.1 form subr" it ted J13.1y 1974 No architects 13 people Disqualified no comparable work listed 12 Sael Peccette 251 submitted October 1974 .total 5 people No ehgineerS Disqualified" 13. Celestine Sar:il.le 251 fOrttl submitted January 1975 Total 5 people No engineers Suggested joint Out of state Disqualified venture Carr Smith & Assoc. December 3974 37 people Qualified with Curtis Davis Smith Korach, Nayet , Ha;; ne, Partnership Modified qualification form dated February 1975 Many people Qualified Van Note -Harvey Assoc. Joint venture with Bliss 251 form dated July 1974 3 people Disqualified home office • '7- fl Ja io 1.:rin & fist;cif:: 1?-isqu li f'•it:d - - tot) in Iioburt tero ^ Filer il=:mmond3 DeSoto t Spain 251 form elated I'.arch 1975 7 people, no engineers Disqualified, no comparable work listed 19. Abele and Forfar Architects No date on 251 fora No engineers 7 people Disqualified 20. Porlick Gopmari Poliquin 251 submitted January 1975 12 people No architects Disqualified -- too small, no comparable work listed 21. Rentscher, Haynes & Assoc. 251 form dated January 1975 9 people, no engineers Questionable pending more definite information'on the type association with their professionals listed. 22. Kincaid Pack-Arthur-Ludovici Orange. William Hamilton Arthur 251 no date 43 people Questionable because of joint venture 23. Norton & A11igood, and Tilyard Intn' l.; 251 dated Fcbruary 1975 9 people No engineers Disqualified because of joint venture with H. J. Ross who is competing on his own. l:unde, Driver, Spooner & Assoc. .Joint venture with Madigan 251 form dated January 1975 38 people No architects Disqualified - joint venture out (. * 1[0�l a: vd t, (til \I o o tat~a. 251. ftlr -- no c3 1.tc tfti j eel-, Nojo:i;nt; vct tu.t" �)L:"Citfal rie j toc st: .1.l. enlca f/ 141es ca. 251 fort -dated J&ivary 1975 l8 people• • Qualified Hatcher -Zeigler -Guinn & Assoc. 251 fort dated January 1975 15 people NO engineers No joint venture Disqualified 28. Herbert H. Johnson 251 form dated January 1975 31 people Uo engineers Disqualified no joint venture No comparable type work listed 29. Leff & Alexander and Lawrence F. Brill 251 form dated November 1974 7 people No engineers No joint venture Disqualified too Nichols Fullerton 251 form dated January 1975 11 people Disqualified -- principal Panes ro Management Corp. No architect or engineer Disqualified rmd Atii6ci tcb 3 Tics r 51 fOrM. dated 'January. 1 'r:5 Quali rit d 33. i u eLL'4tooster Assoc. 251 form dated January 1974 9 people Do engineers n1squa1ified 14• Herbert M. Schwartt P Assoc. 251 form dated September 1974 10 people No et gir eer% Disqualified 35+ Robert Me Shrum c- Wray G. Succop 251. form - no date 4 people One architect One Engineer Disqualified -- too small Frank H. Shuflin Architect 251- form dated February 1975 7 people Reevaluation because of previous experience in type projects Tampa Bay Engineering Co., Questionable until more information is found out about local capabilities 38. Tripp and Skrip 251 form dated March 1975 No engineers Few people Disqualified -- too small 39. Bertram S. Warshaw & Assoc. Out of town Disqualified comparable `to. Jo Zn Albert t' eller"3 Jr, No 251 form Apparently an Individual ni:iCj. allfiod too ".tf1` lI 41. 1)al't,Oti$ f)altot 3 Little Newport 251 form dated February 1975 18 people Questionable, for consideration of firm whose parent organitatiort is local 42. Rellinan-Reiff Assoc., /no. 251 fora dated i'anuary 1975 16 people Disqualified -- nti comparable 43. Ferguson -Glasgow -Shuster, Inc. 251 form dated May 1974 10 people ito engineers Disqualified -- joint venture with H.J. Ross ►pe work listed 44. Charles C. Mitchell Disqualified --- too snail 45. Steward & Skinner Tentatively qualified - pending review of his information on file 46. Yaros Associates on file 47. Campanile & Associates On file