By Chris Lane
By Jeff Balke
By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
"We cannot profess to be genuine in our aims for health and well-being if we provide services in facilities that are unhealthy and economically wasteful," declared their manifesto. "Those are the kinds of disconnects that reflect poorly on all of us, and those for which we should have no tolerance."
Fast-forward to last month: The second of two architectural firms chosen to build the dream "green" building quit after it became apparent the project design was hopelessly over budget. That left the Health Science Center leadership -- already convulsed by staff layoffs, a $20 million budget shortfall and the abrupt resignation of chief executive Dr. M. David Low -- belatedly auditioning new candidates for the project. Estimates of spending on the aborted preliminary work range from the nearly $300,000 cited by HSC officials to more than $1 million by outside architectural sources.
In 1996 HSC sponsored an international competition that resulted in the selection of a husband-and-wife-owned design firm, Patkau of Vancouver, British Columbia. The firm is a leader in the field of "sustainable" architecture, which emphasizes energy conservation, recyclable building materials and designs for user-friendly interaction between buildings and surrounding natural spaces. Patkau submitted a preliminary design for the site on Holcombe Boulevard between the School of Public Health and Grant Fay Park. Plans included enough environmental bells and whistles to make a friend of the earth swoon.
On the roof would be a retention pool to harvest cool winter rains for irrigation during dry months. To take advantage of "fresh, outdoor air," windows that could open would be installed wherever possible. Natural light would penetrate every part of the building. But to avoid being cooked by summer sun, the flat roof would be topped by a parasol of solar panels and motorized louvers to shade the walls.
To make all these elements work, special consultants were required to work out mechanical, electrical and plumbing details. UT hired Ove Arup of San Francisco to handle the engineering design, while local firm Watkins Hamilton Ross was brought on board as the Texas-registered executive architect.
In their design narrative, John and Patricia Patkau explained that large buildings in Houston "respond to summer heat and humidity in much the same way that astronauts protect themselves from the alien environment of outer space through the creation of a completely sealed and mechanically supported space suit .While there is clearly a reason for this simple but extreme measure, it is also clear that Houston's climate, though extreme, is not alien to human life."
However, the building the Patkaus wanted to construct in Houston just might be alien to the budgetary life of the project. Partially financed by a surcharge on medical students, the UT Board of Regents approved the project at $40.1 million. Yet from the beginning, the Patkaus seemed to be designing for a $57 million to $60 million building. The team supervising the project, including current Health Sciences Center CEO John Porretto, Assistant VP Brian Yeoman and campus architect Rives Taylor, were oddly reluctant to put on the brakes. It was as if everyone was hoping that $20 million might fall from the sky into a budgetary retention pond.
Watkins Hamilton Ross joined the team in 1998, and firm principal David Watkins says the problem was apparent from day one.
"There was a failure to find a way to mesh the goals of the project with the budget realities," says Watkins. He notes that cost estimates by both his firm and UT's Office for Facilities Planning and Construction consistently indicated 40 to 60 percent overruns.
By the beginning of the year, tensions had reached the breaking point between Patkau and Health Science Center officials. The pressure was on to rework the design to bring down costs. According to Porretto, the changes would not have eliminated the environmental aspects of the structure, only some of the frills.
"We could not afford that," claims Porretto. "We did not feel comfortable spending money for aesthetics or design signatures of an architectural firm that wouldn't add anything to the academic, maintenance and operation of this building from a long-term perspective."
Campus architect Taylor blames the problems on Patkau and Watkins Hamilton's failure to work together. Porretto adds that continuing disputes between the two over fees and project share resulted in "too much collateral damage."
Neither John Patkau nor Watkins recalls any significant disputes between the firms over fees or control. "We did have disagreements over the design," allows Watkins. He believes that the Patkaus, "like a lot of designers, were clinging to things they should have given up sooner."
After it became apparent that a complete redesign was necessary to meet the budget, Patkau resigned in January.
John Patkau rejects Porretto's claim that the issue with the building was aesthetics rather than core environmental values. He says his firm's specialty is designing projects that combine aesthetics with sustainable architecture, and it became clear that the concept lacked support.