Viewing page 73 of 119

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-56-

construction of an 80,000 sq. ft., permanent structure within the east court of the Natural History building as an initial step, has been generally accepted by consultants and staff as the best combination of long-term benefits and efficiencies in terms of time, money, and the inevitable relocations of staff and collections.

* * * * *

The heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and electrical equipment in the Natural History Building have reached the end of their useful life. The Institution recognized this fact several years ago, and contracted with a firm to recommend remedial action in a construction sequence that would avoid major disruption to Museum activities over the course of the construction. The result was a 14-year project schedule at an estimated cost in excess of $100 million. This figure included a substantial amount to replace equipment not expected to last through the construction period, as well as costs for relocating staff and collections during construction.

At the Regents' recommendation, the Institution asked the contractor in the fall of 1987 to review other potential construction scheduling options, including the possibility of closing the building completely to staff and public. In July 1989 the contractor presented an initial comparative analysis of five options to the project steering committee. These options range from the original schedule, which projects a ten-year period of actual construction, to a scheme that projects a four-year construction period.

Two schemes, which project the shortest construction periods, are predicated on a complete or partial close-down of the building and full or partial relocation of staff and collections to off-site leased space. The analysis made it clear that these two options are by far the most costly alternatives, despite some savings in construction costs due to compression of the actual construction schedule. The cost of leasing and preparing appropriate space to house the collections and ongoing program activities for the duration of construction is, in fact, considerably more expensive than the construction itself. A move to an off-site location would also take a terrible toll on the academic and public life of the Museum, and full or partial closing of the Museum would deny an important educational opportunity to the visiting public for a number of years.

Of the remaining options, one scheme stands out as the best combination of cost effective construction sequence with less overall disruption to the Museum's public activities. This option projects the complete renovation of the building's aging HVAC and electrical systems, along with asbestos removal, window replacement throughout the building, and some work on fire protection and security systems over a seven-year construction period. The magnitude of the work will require the temporary dislocation of large blocks of collections, most occupants, and virtually every activity in the building during the course of the construction. Exhibition spaces will temporarily close to the public in turn as work proceeds through the building, and objects on display