Over 30 years ago, the city of Phoenix committed itself to a suburban “village” planning model that resulted in a decentralized distribution of the various components of the city. While this plan may have reduced urban congestion, it led to the neglect and stagnation of Phoenix’s historic downtown as development moved outward from the city’s center.
When Mayor Phil Gordon was elected in 2003, he and other civic leaders hoped to redevelop and revitalize the downtown area. A vibrant “live, work, play” environment would not only increase ’round the clock activity in the city center but also make Phoenix more attractive to public and private entities interested in contributing to the city’s knowledge-based economy and new cultural amenities.
An element of Gordon’s plan was Arizona State University (ASU) President Michael Crow’s vision of the “New American University,” which directed the university to find new and innovative ways of engaging the city’s professional and political forces. His vision found concrete expression in a master plan for an ASU Downtown Campus covering some nine city blocks. The land was already owned by the city, a significant parcel located on the edge of the downtown core.
In 2006, Arizona voters approved a $223 million bond to create the new downtown campus. The largest single funding amount was slated for the $71 million Walter Cronkite Building that would house the ASU’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication and local PBS station KAET/Channel 8.
As the first new building of the campus, the Cronkite building was to be part of a developer-led mixed use project to revitalize the downtown area. However, market conditions made it impossible for the developer to deliver the space needed at a cost acceptable to the city and ASU. Since the facility was needed in time for the start of a semester less than two years away, ASU and the city needed a method to deliver the project quickly (within 20 months from kickoff) and at an acceptable cost.
Design-build steps in
Facing extreme time and budget constraints, the city and ASU solicited qualifications packages from design-build teams and committed to the most aggressive procurement plan it had ever undertaken: a one-step qualifications-based selection process with only two months from initial release of the RFQ to selecting and awarding the project to the “most qualified” design-build team.
The RFQ provided a general project scope, listed the evaluation factors and detailed the project requirements in terms of budget and schedule, as well as the necessity of adhering to Phoenix’s Minority- and Woman-Owned Business Enterprises (MBE/WBE) and Small Business Enterprises (SBE) subcontracting goals. Responses were limited to 10 pages (excluding resumes of key team members).
A little over a week after the pre-submittal meeting, the design-build team of Sundt Construction, HDR Architecture Inc. and Erlich Architects submitted their response. The team used the first six pages to describe the team, each member’s role, their collective experience with higher education facilities, television studios, design-build, fast track and required program elements.
The final four pages laid out the team’s vision of the project and the approach they would take to programming, designing and building the school. They demonstrated a clear understanding of the owner’s goals and described how they would address each issue.
The team won the project after the city and ASU interviewed Sundt/HDR/Ehrlich representatives. The team reps elaborated on their methodology and communicated their sincerity, intelligence and preparedness to tackle formidable constraints.
Project elements
The project was challenging — time and money were tight, but functional and aesthetic requirements were high. The Sundt/HDR/Ehrlich design approach acknowledged the campus master plan by suggesting that the project serve as both a gateway to the campus through Taylor Street and as an architectural beacon on Central Avenue. As the flagship of the downtown campus, the journalism school would signal the university’s commitment to the city. By providing both style and substance, the building would contribute aesthetically to the city center without disrupting the existing urban fabric.
The design-builders suggested ways to establish the campus as a distinct entity while linking it with surrounding public spaces. The team applied fundamental elements of urban character, including maintaining the street wall, creating a hierarchy of vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows and including street-level retail facilities to encourage pedestrian engagement.
Pedestrian-friendly strategies were seen as key to integrating the campus with the downtown and increasing the vibrancy of the area as a whole. Broad and shady walkways, native planting beds, inviting street furniture and sensitive lighting were among the proposed amenities. Providing connections with existing destinations such as the light rail system, the Phoenix Biomedical Collaborative, Arizona Center, student and private housing and art and entertainment venues also was emphasized in the submission.
Teamwork
The design-build team proposed a lean construction approach that maximized collaboration and communication. They planned to involve subcontractors during the design process to advise and assist the architects and engineers. In complimentary fashion, the design team would support the subcontractors during the construction phase.
The schedule took a fast-track approach with multiple packages, each with its own team. This schedule would integrate design and construction to compress the time required. The team would use 3D modeling (Building Information Modeling, or BIM) to reduce the design time and eliminate conflicts between design and final construction.
And the owners, the City of Phoenix and ASU, were included on the team. As owners, they established the requirements; as team members, they committed to reviewing and approving the design by a set date.
The contract set a fixed fee for design services and a percentage fee for construction fixed at the acceptance of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project. In addition, the city was obligated to meet the proposed timeframe for permit reviews and approve a phased or package-based permitting strategy
The schedule: Time is money
The schedule was tight and every member of the team had schedule milestones necessary to make the required completion date. The project started on its contracted date, October 6, 2006. It finished on May 30, 2008, almost two weeks before the contracted completion date (June 11). The contracted cost, $65,668,722, was increased to $70,463,241 to include additional features requested by the city and ASU and value-added scopes included by the design-build team. Total cost was managed by establishing a total project cost model and managing the design and construction to that model. The design-builder was responsible for managing the total project cost with the city and ASU using an “open book” relationship throughout the entire project to maximize the total value of the project’s scope.
Again, teamwork was crucial. The wide-ranging competence of the team proved pivotal and, in the course of the project, expanded. The contractor and subcontractors became involved in the design phase; architects and engineers learned to view their designs from the contractor’s perspective. The result was a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To make coordination easier, the whole team worked in one location.
Once design was complete, the entire project team moved from their shared office space to a single open eight-trailer space on the construction site. Again, shared location made communication and coordination a part of their working style. Progress was tracked weekly; every Monday, design progress PDF prints were issued and design meetings were held with the owner. Tuesdays were devoted to meetings with consultants, key subcontractors and internal resources. Using a detailed systems cost model, the team made sure that the project was on budget by the end of business every Friday.
Cutting-edge technology/quality design
The Cronkite School transitioned from a university program to a school in 2005, with the goal of becoming what Dean Christopher Callahan calls the “preeminent professional journalism program in the country.” In many ways, quality was as much a driving force for this project as time and money. As the first building on the ASU downtown campus, the school established a benchmark for future development. As the gateway to the campus from the public spaces and the embodiment of the university to downtown Phoenix, its appearance presents ASU to the public. And, as a high-tech facility that houses a range of needs, including cutting-edge journalistic training, it serves a wide variety of users.
In addition to educational and administrative functions, the six-story, 223,000-square-foot, 110-foot tall building supports state-of-the-art television studios, control rooms, a master control room, editing suites, post-production suites, computer labs and television-ready classrooms. The total components include 12 university classrooms, seven working newsrooms, two television studios, seven digital computer labs, a 150-seat theater-style auditorium and a 1,500-square-foot gallery dedicated to journalism history.
The building’s rectilinear shape maximized usable floor space, but the designers wanted to break up the scale to make it more welcoming and less monolithic. The final design uses different materials and window groupings to reflect the interior spaces and functions. Interiors are shaped to encourage public gatherings and exchange of ideas. For example, students gather in the grand hall, dubbed the First Amendment Forum, during the day. At night, it provides a public forum.
In addition to the program requirements outlined above, the construction materials and interior systems needed to be economical. The mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems had to meet ASHRAE standards while keeping material and operating costs as low as possible. Several innovative methods were applied, including using CO2 sensors to decrease ventilation in high-occupancy spaces when not in use.
Conclusion
As befits an institution that honors one of the country’s finest journalists, the Cronkite School is regarded as one of the best journalism schools in the country; its students regularly finish at the top of national collegiate journalism competitions and are in demand even in today’s rapidly evolving media marketplace. Now they have a facility capable of meeting their expanding needs while contributing to the city of Phoenix’s broader goals.
Presented with a tight budget, a tighter schedule and stringent requirements for function, quality and aesthetics, the city of Phoenix and ASU chose design-build. As Cronkite might have put it, “It was a day like any other day … and design-build was there.”
Todd Rich is DBIA’s manager of web and graphic systems.