Laserfiche WebLink
52 <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she thinks Moseley Architects could meet the community's <br />expectations with an oversight committee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked why competition should not be invited for an extremely important <br />project. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said that the time involved is dependent upon how much public <br />participation is wanted. Mr. O'Connell said another option would be to bring together a <br />team of professionals to work with the existing architect. Mr. O'Cormell said he does not <br />think it is realistic to think the process can be speeded up significantly. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said the building will be there a long time and an extra 18 weeks is not <br />long to wait. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said Mr. Cox's discussion of redesigning the building and redesigning <br />the service core has convinced him to vote again the idea of an RFP. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that in any design process changes will be made. He said he supports <br />the idea of a tightly def'med RFP that has to meet other criteria. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards made a motion to hire an additional design architect to work with <br />Moseley Architects, which would work with the community, the BAR, Mr. Cox, and <br />preservationists to move forward with the design of the building. The motion died for <br />lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano made a motion to move forward with the recommendation of the <br />negotiating team, but withdrew his motior~ <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano made a motion to adopt the recommendation of the negotiating team <br />to use Moseley Architects, and convene a committee of urban design professionals <br />chosen by the City Manager to work with Moseley to design the building, with the design <br />to be submitted to the BAR. Ms. Richards seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if an RFP can be sent saying an architect has to work with another <br />team, and Mr. Letteri said yes, it can state that they have to work with the architect of <br />record. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if we are saying the existing architect needs help, and if so, what <br />does that say. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he envisions that no matter who the architect is it will go through <br />a public process, and though he might have some misgivings about Moseley, he has equal <br />hope that Moseley can do it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said this should not be thought of as another functional thing that needs to <br />be done, and said compromise is not the thing to do. He said he would like to move <br />forward with a RFQ. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked if the motion should be amended to formalize what kind of <br />design assistance is being discussed. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said the steering committee could be similar to what was used with <br />the current urban design consultant, HRT, and could involve historic preservationists and <br />architects. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked to what extent the final design is expected to reflect the team's <br />recommendation, and Mr. Toscano said there would be no change to the footprint or <br />changes to how it is going to toolc <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said preservation of the jail has not been part of the discussion, and <br />one criticism of the Moseley design is it is not sensitive to the relationship with the jail. <br />Ms. Richards said we need to allow for the possibility of changing that. <br /> <br /> <br />