Is the new Halifax library going to be an interesting and compelling
addition to the city fabric, or will it be a designed-by-committee
dud?
That question is at the heart of a controversy that played out on
CBC’s Information Morning last week. First, architect Brian
Mackay-Lyons (pictured) complained that the city’s tightly controlled
procurement process—which left his firm out of the running for
designing the library—is stacked against local firms who know the
city and culture, and favours Toronto and international firms.
A couple of days later, city official Phil Townsend appeared on the
show to defend the process, which he said will achieve that which
everyone desires—the so-called “iconic building” that the public
supports. Townsend was followed by Paul Frank of JDA Architects, a
local firm that is still in the running for the library design, who
insisted that even though JDA is “partnered” with a Toronto firm, much
of the work will be done here in town.
I appeared on the show Tuesday and, backed by an analysis of the
documents involved in the process and the local buildings the various
architects have already designed, tried to give some context to the
controversy. I’ve laid that all out in greater detail at thecoast.ca/bites. —Tim
Bousquet
This article appears in Nov 19-25, 2009.
Brian thinks a lot of himself and his whining does smack of sour grapes….but he has a valid point about the selection process. I also notice, locality of talent is not mentioned in the score card of consultant criteria. It’s a big slushy area, this expectation of expertise from afar, the further the better! WTF! This says, ‘If you’re local, you couldn’t be good enough!” So although locality is not in the score card, it must have been in the minds of the reviewers……this is a process flaw.
The requested information of the expression of interest does not mesh with the evaluation criteria score card. WTF!….this is a process flaw.
Architects are frequently and unjustifiably judged on previous experiences with particular occupancy uses rather than being selected because of competency of satisfying the programs they were previously given…..this could be a process flaw for 20% marks.
Experience and resumes of personnel to be directly involved in the project is a shell game at best. The process is a long one spanning many years, and frequently staff are shuffled around, there are personnel changes made, often the client has no idea who is really doing their job; they only interface with the lead person. And the argument of the firm’s experience is also valid to the individual; if you are a competent designer, a public library isn’t suddenly going to stump you.
The firm’s record of meeting estimated budgets and schedules is important, but careful scrutiny must be made to validate those previous budgets and schedules as being reasonable in the first place. Numerous projects have been proposed with unrealistic budgets or schedules or both and the architect often gets the blame for going over budget and/or time while meeting the client’s program…..this has huge potential of being a process flaw.
Demonstrating experience in sustainable architectural design isn’t as important as understanding what sustainable architectural design is; this is not rocket science or string theory, just basic principles.
20% for the architect’s approach to the understanding of HRL and HRM’s needs…..now that’s a scary one, how well does HRL understand their own needs in the perspective of the architecture? Equally important, how well can they relate their own needs to the architect?
Description of the firms design and project management philosophy must be wrapped up in the demonstrated ‘functional excellence’ in the scoring matrix…..may the best bullshitter win! Will the written bullshit be revisited throughout the process of design? Not likely….this is a process flaw.
The process is bound to be flawed, most processes we have are, proper accountability benchmarks are not integrated into the process.
But…..blatant disregard for their own rules is inexcusable! THIS STINKS! If the 80% score wasn’t met by 3 proponents…..then those 3 should be out! They failed to make the cut. They are not good enough by the standards set down….THIS IS A VERY FLAWED PROCESS!!! Is there any integrity left anywhere? Politics anyone!
Last but not least…..show me the fee! It’s not in the scoring matrix either, so we have a political selection process with an ‘any fee goes’ policy?
What the FUCK!?
We’re off to a good start folks, I hope it turns out better than our $400,000,000 sewer treatment system, but I’m not holding my breath…….oh…maybe I should.