REVISED
9/13/05
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2005
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE
Friday, September 16, 2005
1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
Board Room, The Rotunda
Committee Members:
Mark J. Kington, Chair
Alan A. Diamonstein
Susan Y. Dorsey
W. Heywood Fralin
Vincent J. Mastracco, Jr.
Catherine S. Neale
Lewis F. Payne
Don R. Pippin
Gordon F. Rainey, Jr.
Thomas F. Farrell, II, Ex Officio
AGENDA
PAGE
I.
II.
ACTION ITEMS (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines, Hospital
Bed Expansion (Ms. Sheehy to introduce Mr. David
J.Neuman; Mr. Neuman to report)
B.
Schematic Design, School of Nursing Building
C.
Historic Preservation Framework Plan
REPORTS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
2005-2006 Revised Goals and Work Plan
B.
Architect/Engineer Selections Less Than $5 Million
and Not on Term Contracts (Written Report)
1
8
12
17
18
22
III. REPORTS BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY (Mr. Neuman) 23
A.
Foster Site Cemetery
B.
South Grounds Planning Study
•
Update on South Lawn
C.
Schedule of Upcoming Design Actions
24
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
September 16, 2005
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A. Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines,
Hospital Bed Expansion
$60,000,000 Bonds
$18,000,000 Hospital Operating Revenues
BACKGROUND: This project includes the renovation and addition
of space within University Hospital to provide up to 70 acuity
adjustable single patient rooms ($60,000,000), and the
replacement of the hospital’s major internal engineering
infrastructure systems ($18,000,000), which were installed when
the hospital was completed in the late 1980s and are approaching
the end of their useful lives. The additional beds are needed
to address a 110 bed shortfall that is projected by the year
2013. The project will be phased over a 3 – 5 year period. The
project budget is estimated at $78 million and will be funded
from bonds and hospital operating revenues. This is a new
project that is not in the University’s previously approved
capital outlay plans. The Medical Center Operating Board
approved the project on September 1st. The Finance Committee
will review the financing plan at its September 20th meeting.
The University will request a state authorization during the
2006 General Assembly Session.
DISCUSSION: The Health System and the Office of the Architect
have prepared the concept, site and design guidelines. Mr.
Neuman will review the guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE
HOSPITAL BED EXPANSION
RESOLVED that the concept, site, and design guidelines,
dated September 16, 2005, and prepared by the Architect for the
University, for the Hospital Bed Expansion are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER that the project will be presented for
further review at the schematic design level of development.
1
Hospital Bed Expansion
Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines
A)
Proposed Project Concept
There is a critical shortage of acute adult patient beds in the University Hospital. This trend is
expected to continue. With the expansion of clinical programs there is expected to be an even
greater demand for patient beds in the Hospital. A preliminary study initiated this past spring
identified the opportunity to create 70 acuity adjustable single patient rooms within University
Hospital while upgrading the infrastructure to handle future demands placed on the facility by
changes in technology and health care practice. The potential of adding a new bed tower and
adding beds to a Children’s Hospital was also explored. Construction of the Hospital Bed
Expansion will allow for the addition of patient beds without utilizing scarce real estate adjacent
to University Hospital. By expanding within the existing footprint, the need for redundant
support services will be eliminated. Further, the Bed Expansion will provide the opportunity to
upgrade the aging infrastructure of the University Hospital. The project cost includes
$60,000,000 for renovation and $18,000,000 for upgrades to the building infrastructure. The
new beds will be phased in over a three to five year period.
2
B)
Siting Criteria
The University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities include the following
components. Those highlighted are the most pertinent in determining the siting recommendation
for the University Hospital Bed Expansion.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conforms with overall land use plan and district/area plans.
Reinforces functional relationships with the other components of the same
department or program, and is compatible with other neighboring uses.
Satisfies access requirements – pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and service.
Maximizes infill opportunities to utilize land resources and existing infrastructure.
Minimizes site development costs, including extension of utilities, access, loss or
parking, mass grading, etc.
Minimizes opportunity cost: i.e., value of this use and size versus alternatives.
Provides a size that is adequate, but not excessive, for initial program, future expansion,
and ancillary uses.
Allows for incorporating sustainability principles in terms of solar orientation, reuse of
historic structures, storm water management, etc.
Avoids unnecessary environmental impacts, including significant tree removal or filling
of existing stream valleys.
Allows site visibility and aesthetic character as appropriate for the intended use and
for the neighborhood.
Minimizes time for implementation of project.
UVA Hospital: View from Lee Street
3
C) Proposed Site
The recently completed Hospital Expansion addition occupies one of the last building sites
adjacent to University Hospital. The only remaining building site is occupied by the Emergency
Department Entrance/Emergency Vehicle Parking and the Helipad. The Hospital Bed Expansion
will allow for the addition of patient beds without encroaching outside the existing footprint of
University Hospital and, thus, preserving the building site for future expansion. The infill
construction also provides an opportunity to coordinate design characteristics on the north façade
of University Hospital with the facade of the proposed Clinical Cancer Center (CCC) to be
located directly across on Lee Street.
Future CCC
Future Childrens’
Hospital
UVA Hospital: Aerial View
4
D)
Design Guidelines
Site Planning
The Hospital Bed Expansion will be constructed within the existing footprint of
University Hospital.
Circulation and Parking
Circulation will not change as a result of the Hospital Bed Expansion. There will be a
modest impact on parking facilities within the Health System from the increased bed
count and associated staff and visitors. It is anticipated that the new West Main Street
Garage will absorb this increase.
Architecture
• The exterior architectural changes to the University Hospital will be limited to the
north facade of the fifth through the eighth floors of the east and central towers. The
penthouses on all three towers will be expanded northward.
• Materials and detailing of the new north façade will be sympathetic and proportional
to the proposed Clinical Cancer Center and Childrens’ Hospital projects, as well as
contextual with the other major hospital projects. It is anticipated that the exterior
façade will be designed in metal and glass in order to accommodate these objectives.
Landscape
No changes to the existing landscaping are anticipated as a result of this project.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval
of project compliance with these guidelines.
5
UVA Hospital: Existing
UVA Hospital: With Bed Expansion
6
UVA Hospital: Existing Floor Plan
UVA Hospital: With Bed Expansion
7
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
September 16, 2005
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.B. Schematic Design, School of Nursing
Building
$6,000,000 Gifts
$6,000,000 21st Century Bonds
BACKGROUND: This project constructs a 30,000 gross square foot
facility for the School of Nursing. The facility is needed to
address severe overcrowding in McLeod Hall. The building will
house classrooms, faculty and administrative offices, student
spaces, and research facilities. The project was authorized in
the 2004 General Assembly Session. Its budget is $12,000,000
with funding provided by the State through its 21st Century bond
program and by the University through gifts. The Concept, Site,
and Design Guidelines were approved on December 8, 2004. The
architect selection was approved on March 31, 2005.
DISCUSSION: The architects, in conjunction with the Architect
for the University, the School of Nursing, and Facilities
Management, have developed the schematic design, which Mr.
Neuman will review with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE SCHOOL OF NURSING BUILDING
RESOLVED that the schematic design, dated September 16,
2005, and prepared by Bowie Gridley Architects of Washington,
D.C., for the School of Nursing Building, is approved for
further development and construction.
8
School of Nursing Building
Site Plan
9
School of Nursing Building
View from the North on 15th Street
10
School of Nursing Building
View from the South on 15th Street
11
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
September 16, 2005
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.C.
Historic Preservation Framework Plan
BACKGROUND: In 2003, the University received a grant from the
Getty Foundation to develop a historic preservation framework
plan to ensure appropriate stewardship and planning for historic
buildings and landscapes. The plan’s objectives were to:
1. Develop a base level of consistent research and documentation
for the historic structures and landscapes built on the
University’s main Grounds after the completion of the
Jeffersonian buildings (1827) to forty years ago (1965).
2. Describe and document, through consistent narratives and
graphics, the general appearance, significant features, and
histories of these buildings and landscapes.
3. Evaluate the integrity and significance of these buildings and
landscapes, their interior and exterior architectural
elements, physical or historical context, and other
contributing qualities, and develop priorities for their
preservation and maintenance.
4. Prepare preservation guidelines defining preferred
preservation treatment and maintenance practice for managing
these historic buildings and landscapes.
DISCUSSION: For this effort, the Office of the Architect for
the University in conjunction with its consultants and advisory
board developed the following evaluation criteria and
preservation priority categories. The four criteria are 1)
association with people or events important to the University’s
history, 2) quality of the original design, 3) integrity of the
design, and 4) condition of the building and site.
The six preservation categories are 1) fundamental to University
history and present character, 2) essential to University
history and present character, 3) important to University
history and present character, 4) contributing to University
history and present character, 5) not contributing to University
history and present character, and 6) of consideration outside
of University context.
12
The evaluation process will continue on an annual basis to
capture additional buildings and landscapes as they attain forty
years of age. An executive summary is included after this item
summary.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FRAMEWORK PLAN
WHEREAS, the University is the steward of many significant
historic buildings and landscapes, including Thomas Jefferson’s
Academical Village - a World Heritage site; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Architect has completed a
Historic Preservation Framework Plan to ensure appropriate
stewardship and planning for the University’s historic buildings
and landscapes, which postdate the Jeffersonian buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Plan establishes a base level of consistent
research and documentation for significant or contributing
historic structures and landscapes on the University’s main
Grounds; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation criteria used, and the preservation
priority categories established, are enumerated in the
Attachment to this Resolution;
RESOLVED the Historic Preservation Framework Plan is
approved.
13
ATTACHMENT
The Plan has 1) described and documented through consistent
narratives and graphics the general appearance, significant
features, and histories of these buildings and landscapes, 2)
evaluated their integrity and significance, their interior and
exterior architectural elements, physical or historical context,
and other contributing qualities and developed priorities for
preservation and maintenance, 3) analyzed the potential for
adaptive use of these buildings, and 4) prepared preservation
guidelines defining preferred preservation treatment and
maintenance practices.
The Office of the Architect for the University developed
four evaluation criteria: 1) association with people or events
important to the University’s history, 2) quality of the
original design, 3) integrity of the design, and 4) condition of
the building and site.
The Office of the Architect for the University developed
six preservation priority categories: 1) fundamental to
University history and present character, 2) essential to
University history and present character, 3) important to
University history and present character, 4) contributing to
University history and present character, 5) not contributing,
and 6) of consideration outside of University context.
14
Historic Preservation Framework Plan
Executive Summary
September 16, 2005
The University of Virginia received a Getty Foundation Campus Heritage Grant in 2003 to study
the 120 buildings and 29 landscapes which were constructed on Grounds after Thomas
Jefferson’s death and before 1965. The grant was matched with funds from the Hunter & Carl
Smith Endowment.
The goal of this project was to understand how these buildings and their settings contribute to the
special sense of place which defines the experience of being at the University of Virginia, and to
generate a report which can be a source of information as renovations, restorations, additions and
replacements of these buildings and sites are planned.
The University engaged Mesick Cohen Wilson Baker, Architects, of Albany, NY a nationally
regarded historic preservation firm, as consultants for the project. Eight graduate interns from
the School of Architecture were also involved during the course of the project.
The evaluation process began with documentary research on each building in the University’s
archives at the Special Collections library, at Facilities Management, and at local historical
societies. This work provided the basic factual background, to the extent that information
existed, for each building. Each building or site was inspected inside and out by both the interns
and the consultants. These site visits yielded lists of significant features for each building,
helped to clarify changes to the buildings, allowed for the accurate identification of the materials
used in their construction, and identified areas of concern about building conditions.
Once the research and inspections were completed, the buildings were compared to each other to
determine their relative importance to the University. The four categories used for this
comparison were:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Association with people or events important to the University's history
Quality of the original design
Integrity of the design
Condition of the building or site
So, for example, an undistinguished building that was associated with an important event could
be highly ranked, but a well-designed building that had been heavily altered over time might not
be.
The buildings and landscapes were assigned to six categories of importance:
1) Fundamental: This category was exclusive to Jefferson’s Academical Village.
2) Essential: These are the most important buildings, those which deserve the utmost care
when renovations are planned, and which are the least likely candidates for significant
change.
15
3) Important: These are important buildings, which deserve careful consideration as
renovations or enlargements are planned.
4) Contributing: These are the buildings which have some interest. As projects are planned,
their history and significance should be considered, but these buildings could be subject
to significant alterations or replacement.
5) Of Interest Beyond the University Context: This category was developed for buildings
owned but not constructed by the University, with a location remote from the Central
Grounds. This category indicates that the buildings need to be considered to some
degree; they could be placed in any of the three categories of significance listed above.
6) Not Contributing: These buildings could be either University-built or acquired later, but
in either case, there is nothing of significance which needs to be considered as a project is
developed.
An essay which briefly discusses the physical development of the Grounds and places that
development in the context of larger national trends provides a framework for the individual
building and landscape entries.
The project’s approach and work product have been reviewed by an Advisory Committee
composed of experts in the area of Virginia architecture, drawn from the staffs of the Department
of Historic Resources, Colonial Williamsburg, Monticello, Poplar Forest, and including a former
senior official from the National Park Service.
This project will provide both local and state level benefits. Locally, the building and landscape
entries will assist property management and renovation planning, and related decisions on
allocation of resources, will help minimize surprises for future projects, and will assist in
focusing fundraising efforts for historic preservation projects. On a state level, this effort will
demonstrate to Department of Historic Resources (DHR) our responsible management of our
historic buildings and could serve as the basis of a MOU with DHR for future projects, and will
make negotiations with the state easier as plans for historic buildings are developed, including
demolitions, if good-faith consideration of a building’s merits is shown.
16
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
September 16, 2005
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II. Report by the Vice President for
Management and Budget
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
DISCUSSION: The Vice President for Management and Budget will
report on the Revised Goals and Work Plan for 2005-06, included
on page 21, for the Buildings and Grounds Committee.
17
Buildings and Grounds Committee
2005-06 Goals and Work Plan
GOALS
1. Historic asset management: implementation and process
Currently the University has one of the nation’s most eminent collections of historic
buildings and landscapes, and it is the only campus designated as a World Heritage Site.
A historic resources plan has been developed to ensure that the Academical Village
receives preservation treatment which conforms to the highest international standards.
The soon-to-be-completed Historic Preservation Framework Plan will be disseminated
this year, and will help to inform decision-making as work is proposed on the postJefferson buildings on Grounds. The successful implementation of a tax credit strategy
will help to defray the costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of these buildings.
Results: The thorough assessment of all of the University’s historic resources and the
dissemination of the results will allow for appropriate and timely administrative decision
making related to these facilities, as well as better care of our treasures.
2. Environmental sustainability evaluation and process
Given Jefferson’s intention that the University’s buildings would serve a didactic, as well
as a practical, role in every day life, it would seem appropriate that our current buildings
do the same in terms of demonstrating principles of environmental sustainability. While
many other leading universities have been very active in this regard, we have made only
modest efforts to date. The efforts will be directed at developing a pragmatic set of
design guidelines tailored to the University context and its natural climatic setting; and
identification of best management practices as they relate to the university-at-large.
Results: Better designed, more energy efficient buildings and environs that express these
characteristics obviously in order to enhance the overall learning experience at U.Va.
3. Land use: work plan, data analysis & enhanced process
Though the University owns more than 5,000 acres beyond its Central Grounds, we have
only just begun efforts to assess comprehensively the natural systems, current uses,
political constraints, etc. related to these physical assets.
Results: More strategic management of existing lands and the acquisition process
through a collaborative approach of the Office of the Architect and the University of
Virginia Foundation will provide for better decision making, stewardship, and future
flexibility for the institution.
4. Maintaining the University’s buildings and infrastructure
The 2005-06 operating budget includes the first installment in a ten-year plan to reduce
the backlog of deferred maintenance to a reasonable level and to establish a level of
permanent investment in the maintenance budget that will protect our educational and
general (E&G) physical assets. There are additional aspects of this initiative that need to
be completed in the coming year.
As part of the strategy to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance in E&G buildings
the Board of Visitors supports the use of debt to finance the one-time investments needed
over the next ten years. During 2005-06 we will work with the Vice President and Chief
18
Financial Officer to establish guidelines for using debt to finance appropriate projects
which will effectively reduce existing maintenance deficiencies while giving
consideration to the University’s debt capacity. We will also need to identify repayment
sources for any debt issued. We will not ignore the state’s role in funding deferred
maintenance and will vigorously work to make our case for increased allocations to
ongoing maintenance needs and the maintenance reserve appropriation in 2006-08.
This initial plan deals only with E&G buildings. Similar plans need to be in place for
auxiliary enterprise facilities, the Medical Center, and the College at Wise. We will work
with each of these entities during the coming year to analyze the maintenance needs and
develop required plans to achieve and/or sustain maintaining our facilities in a good
condition as measured by the facility condition index.
5. Board Notification of Up-Coming Design Approval Actions
The Office of the Architect for the University will develop an annual schedule of
upcoming design approvals for all Board members. This schedule will be updated and
included in the routine reports that are prepared for each Full Board meeting. The report
will also include items regarding the University’s plans for buildings that are currently
vacant or will become vacant as a result of the occupancy of new buildings.
19
WORK PLAN
1. Historic asset management: implementation and process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
August 2005 – June 2006: Historic Structure Reports for Rotunda & Carr’s Hill in
progress with completion expected in 2006-07.
October – December 2005: Disseminate findings of Historic Preservation Framework
Plan through presentations and incorporation in Facilities Management building
inventory; inventory system operational and in use.
December 2005: Complete Historic Structure Report for Pavilion III.
December 2005: Retain consultant and begin inventory of decorative arts.
January – March 2006: Obtain administrative approval of tax credit strategy.
March 2006: Complete alleyway and pavilion courtyard paving and lighting design.
March 2006: Complete adaptive reuse study for Rugby Faculty apartments, including
historic tax credit strategy.
March 2006: Complete a written work plan for historic preservation fundraising efforts.
March 2006: Submit grant proposal to the Getty Foundation.
June 2006: Restore Cocke Hall clock.
June 2006: Complete restoration study, design drawings and specifications, and cost
study for Pavilions, Lawn Rooms and Colonnades.
2. Environmental sustainability evaluation and process
•
•
•
•
•
•
October – December 2005: Identify best practices and incorporate into sustainability
guidelines.
December 2005: Publish revised building and landscape guidelines with sustainability
goals.
December 2005: Develop and incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) equivalency criteria into project Concept, Site & Design Guidelines;
Prototype three (3) U.Va. projects and track during 2006-07.
June 2006: Obtain administrative approval and publish sustainability guidelines on
Office of the Architect website.
June 2006: Inventory existing University sustainability program efforts and establish
vehicle for regular communication and information sharing among proponents.
June 2006: Benchmark other relevant institutions and review current literature to
ascertain programs with greatest potential benefit.
3. Land use: Work plan, data analysis and enhanced process
•
•
•
•
December 2005: Complete work plan and related schedule of tasks for Land Use Plan.
April – June 2006: Furnish knowledge base gained through land use analyses to pertinent
internal U.Va. entities.
March 2006: Initiate a standing working group with UVAF to review decision making
and stewardship in relationship to UVAF properties in Albemarle County
June 2006: Provide appropriate levels of access to detailed knowledge of U.Va. planning
data in land use and biological areas.
20
4. Maintaining the University’s buildings and infrastructure
•
•
•
•
•
•
September 2005: Submit proposal to Governor for increasing operating maintenance
funding related to the significant inventory of historic structures maintained by the
University (i.e., a supplement to operating and maintenance funding provided through
base budget adequacy formulas).
November 2005: Propose guidelines for using debt to help fund reduction in the backlog
of E&G deferred maintenance.
December 2005: Assess the allocation made to operating maintenance and maintenance
reserve in the Governor’s 2006-08 budget and determine whether to request additional
funds through the legislative process.
August-December 2005: Assess the maintenance needs of Medical Center, auxiliary
enterprise, and College at Wise facilities.
Winter 2006: Identify initial set of E&G buildings to undergo substantial renewal.
Spring 2006: Develop and present to appropriate Board committees a long-term plan,
similar to the E&G plan, that achieves a reduction in the backlog of deferred maintenance
and establishes an appropriate annual maintenance budget that will prevent the further
accumulation of deferred maintenance in the future for Medical Center, auxiliary
enterprise, and College at Wise facilities.
5. Board Notification of Up-Coming Design Approval Actions
•
•
•
August 2005: Prepare draft of design approval schedule for review by Chair of Buildings
and Grounds Committee.
October 2005: Include this schedule in routine reports for Full Board meeting.
January 2006: Include revised report for Full Board meeting, including images of
recently approved designs and designs proposed for upcoming B&G Committee
meetings.
21
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $5 MILLION OF LESS
AND NOT ON TERM CONTRACTS
JUNE 30, 2005
Project
Selection Date
None
22
A/E Selected
Description
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
September 16, 2005
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
III. Reports by the Architect for the
University
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
DISCUSSION: The Architect for the University will 1) report on
the current status of the archaeological investigation of the
Foster Site Cemetery, 2) review the conclusions of the South
Grounds Planning Study including an update on the South Lawn
project, and 3) present the following draft of a schedule for
upcoming design actions that is to be included in future Board
materials.
23
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
MAJOR PROJECTS
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Academic Division / Agency 207
Adv. Research & Tech. Bldg.
UVa Foundation Project
Ald. Rd Residences: Hereford 1st Yr
24
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Ald. Rd Residences: O-Hill
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Arts Grounds Parking Garage
Architect: Kimley Horn & Assoc.
Address: Virginia Beach, VA
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Bavaro Hall (Ed School Bldg)
Architect: Robert A.M. Stern
Address: New York, NY
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
84,500 gsf new
120-140 beds
$38,870,000
($38,870,000)
$12.6 - $14.7M
($38,500,000)
N/A
N/A
N/A
TBD
TBD
Jun-05
Oct-05
Mar-06
TBD
TBD
120-140 beds
$12.6 - $14.7M
$38,500,000
Jun-05
Oct-05
Feb-06
TBD
TBD
478 cars
$10,600,000
($10,600,000)
Dec-04
Jun-05
Nov-05
TBD
TBD
80,000 gsf new
$37,200,000
($32,000,000)
Mar-05
Jun-05
Feb-06
TBD
TBD
Comments
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments
Academic Division / Agency 207 (continued)
25
Campbell Hall Additions
Architect: SMBW, P.C.
Address: Richmond, VA
Contract Date: Aug. 10, 2001
Contractor:
Address:
Campbell Hall Chiller Expan.
Contractor: Waco, Inc.
Address: Sandstrom, VA
Cavalier Substation Expansion
Contractor: various
Address: various
Center for the Arts
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Cocke Hall Renovation
Architect: Schwartz Silver
Address: Boston, MA
Contract Date: Oct. 30, 2003
Contractor: R.E, Lee
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Env. Sci. Field Station (LTER)
Design Builder: McKenzie Const.
Address: Virginia Beach, VA
Contract Date: June 2004
14,700 gsf new
5,700 gsf ren
$10,000,000
($8,500,000)
May-02
Jun-01
Jul-02
TBD
TBD
n/a
$3,200,000
($3,200,000)
[$1.6M GOB]
$4,700,000
($4,700,000)
[$4.7M GOB]
$98,000,000
($98,000,000)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Jun-05
Dec-05
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mar-05
Oct-06
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-05
TBD
TBD
n/a
1,600 seat hall
art museum
137,000 gsf new
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Jul-02.
Re-design for 95% documents
based on Value Engineering to be
complete Dec-05.
Building complete Sep-2005.
Programming/proforma complete.
Design competition initiated Jun-05.
20,000 gsf ren
$9,000,000
($9,000,000)
[$6M 21st Cent.]
Dec-02
Sep-02
Aug-03
Mar-05
Dec-06
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Dec-03.
Construction 5% complete.
15,151 gsf new
$2,788,000
($2,788,000)
Jun-98
May-99
Jan-01
Oct-04
Dec-05
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Jan-01.
Pier/Dock completed.
Lab/Housing 25% complete.
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments
Academic Division / Agency 207 (continued)
26
Fayerweather Hall Renovation
Architect: Dagit-Saylor Arch.
Address: Philadelphia, PA
Contract Date: Sept. 28, 1999
Contractor: Martin Horn
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Gilmer Teaching Labs
Architect: Lavigne Assoc Arch
Address: Alexandria, VA
Contract Date: various
Contractor: various
Health System N. Parking Garage
UVa Foundation Project
John Paul Jones Arena
Architect: VMDO Arch., P.C.
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Contract Date: Oct 2, 2001
Contractor: Barton Malow
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Main Heating Plant Upgrade
Architect: RMF Engineering
Address: Baltimore, MD
Contract Date: Sept. 2, 2003
Contractor: Frank Lill & Sons
Address: Webster, NY
Medical Education Building
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Nov-99.
Construction 40% complete.
18,745 gsf ren
$7,700,000
($7,700,000)
[$5.4M GOB/
21st Century]
Oct-99
Mar-98
Nov-99
Jun-04
Feb-06
14,000 gsf ren
$5,700,000
($5,700,000)
[$5.7M GOB]
N/A
Apr-05
N/A
May-06
Jul-07
1,200 cars and
ped. bridge
$28,000,000
($21,600,000)
$143,383,000
($129,800,000)
Dec-04
N/A
Dec-05
TBD
TBD
Apr-02
Jul-01
May-02
Apr-03
Jun-06
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Sep-02.
Cast in place concrete/precast
seating/garage structures complete.
N. Grounds connector 60%
complete.
Replace/improve
5 boilers
$64,200,000
($39,300,000)
N/A
May-03
Apr-04
Apr-05
Feb-08
Design Build in progress.
60,000 to
65,000 gsf new
$30,000,000
($20,700,000)
Jun-05
Oct-05
Mar-06
TBD
TBD
15,000 seats
1,500 cars
N. Grounds
connector, Dell,
Project Extras
Preparing proforma for garage w/
adjacent office/retail building.
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments
Academic Division / Agency 207 (continued)
27
Med. Research Bldg (MR-6)
Architect: Henningson,
Durham & Richardson
Address: Alexandria, VA
Contract Date: Jan. 11, 2000
Contractor:
Address:
Rouss Hall/Commerce School
Architect: Hartman-Cox Arch.
Address: Washington, DC
Contract Date: March 8, 2005
Contractor: Gilbane
Address: Laurel, MD
School of Nursing
Architect: Bowie Gridley Arch.
Address: Washington, DC
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
South Lawn - A&S Building
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Studio Art Building
Architect: Schwartz/Silver Arch.
Address: Boston, MA
Contract Date: Nov. 24, 2003
Contractor:
Address:
189,000 gsf new
$70,700,000
($70,700,000)
[$24.3M GOB]
Jun-00
Jun-00
Feb-01
TBD
TBD
125,000 gsf new
23,000 gsf ren
$57,000,000
($57,000,000)
Dec-02
Sep-02
May-03
Mar-05
Feb-08
30,000 gsf new
$12,000,000
($12,000,000)
[$6M 21st Cent.]
Dec-04
Mar-05
Sep-05
TBD
TBD
150,000 gsf new
200 cars
JPA crossing
$78,000,000
($78,100,000)
[$42.3M GOB]
Jun-02
Oct-05
Mar-06
TBD
TBD
42,000 gsf new
$16,700,000
($15,440,000)
[$9M 21st Cent.]
Apr-03
May-03
May-04
Nov-05
Aug-07
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Sep-03.
100% documents received Aug-05.
Construction Manager submissions
in review.
Construction is 10% complete.
Varisty Hall has been relocated.
Polshek Partnership resigned as
architect Jul-05.
BOV approved Preliminary Design
Dec-04.
Currently preparing contract
documents.
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments
Academic Division / Agency 207 (continued)
28
University Center
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Varsity Hall Renovation
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Wilsdorf Hall (MSENT)
Architect: VMDO Architects
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Contract Date: April, 2001
Contractor: Barton Malow
Address: Charlottesville, VA
50,000 gsf new
$15,000,000
($15,000,000)
TBD
Feb-04
TBD
TBD
TBD
6,000 gsf ren
$2,650,000
($2,200,000)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
98,040 gsf new
$41,633,849
($41,633,849)
[$7M GOB]
Oct-01
Jan-01
Feb-02
Feb-03
Sep-06
Building moved Apr-05.
BOV approved Preliminary Design
May-02.
Construction 50% complete.
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments
Medical Center / Agency 209
29
Clinical Cancer Center
Architect: Zimmer-GunsulFrasca Partnership
Address: Washington, D.C.
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Hospital Bed Expansion
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Hospital Expansion
Architect: RTKL
Address: Baltimore, MD
Contract Date: Aug. 21, 2000
Contractor: Skanska USA
Address: Atlanta, GA
100,000 gsf new
126,000 gsf new
150,000 gsf ren
S. Chiller Plant
$55,000,000
($70,700,000)
Oct-04
Oct-04
Feb-06
Aug-07
May-05
$60,000,000
$0
Sep-05
Oct-05
Mar-06
TBD
TBD
$89,600,000
($89,600,000)
Jun-01
Jun-00
May-02
Jan-03
Nov-05
Nov-05
Feb-06
Aug-05
Dec-06
Feb-06
BOV approved Preliminary Design
May-02.
Construction is 76% complete.
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
BOV Design Review Status
(upcoming actions are shaded)
Concept/
Architect/
Site/Design
Engineer
Schematic
Guidelines
Selection
Design
Construction
Start
Complete
Comments
University of Virginia / College at Wise / Agency 246
30
Crockett Hall
Architect: Mitchell Mathews
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Contract Date: Feb. 18, 2003
Contractor:
Address:
Drama Building
Architect: Bushman Dreyfus Arch.
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Contract Date: Sept. 28, 2004
Contractor:
Address:
New Residence Hall
Architect: Ken Ross Arch.
Address: Johnson City, TN
Contract Date: Oct. 20, 2003
Contractor: Swope Constr.
Address: Blue Field, WVa
New Main Entrance
Architect:
Address:
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
Studio Art Addition
Architect: Bushman Dreyfus Arch.
Address: Charlottesville, VA
Contract Date:
Contractor:
Address:
$4,750,000
($7,133,000)
Nov-02
Nov-00
Nov-05
TBD
TBD
$7,475,000
($7,475,000)
May-03
Sep-04
Mar-05
TBD
TBD
$7,185,000
($7,185,000)
May-03
Jul-03
Feb-04
Aug-04
Nov-05
Visitor Access
Revised Entry
Stormwater
Mgmt.
$2,000,000
($2,000,000)
TBD
Oct-05
Feb-06
TBD
TBD
Add to existing
drama bldg
$4,000,000
($4,000,000)
TBD
Sep-04
Feb-06
TBD
TBD
Construction 80% complete.
A/E selection in progress.
Project
Scope
Budget
(Authorization)
[GF Support]
Construction
Start
Comments
Complete
Buildings Available for Reuse
Alden House
Onesty Hall (Partial)
Rugby Rd Faculty Apt. (Partial)
Reactor Building (Partial)
Studying use for public outreach.
Natatorium available for reuse.
Upper 3 apartment floors available.
Waiting for formal decommissioning
Recently Completed Projects
Special Collections Library
Emmet St. Pedestrian Bridge
NRAO Addition
Observatory Hill Dining
JPA/15th Street Ductbanks
73,277 gsf new
38,360 gsf new
62,000 gsf new
$21,160,000
$3,400,000
$8,900,000
$23,500,000
$2,400,000
Feb-03
Dec-04
Dec-04
Mar-05
May-05
Jun-05
31