Architect for Mt. View Announced

RCSC General Manager Announces Architect for Mt. View

We have selected an Architect and Engineering firm to get started on the Mountain View Recreation Center, and the Performing Arts Center. The firm is triARC Architecture and Design, and they are located here in Phoenix.

We will be working with them to get a contract in place and lay out an initial schedule to get this rolling over the summer. Our goal is to have something for the board and community to look at in the fall. This is the first step, in what we all know is a fairly lengthy process - but at least we are getting started.
#
About the architect: https://triarcdesign.com/

Eblast Monday, 6.10.2024, 3:29pm MST
https://mailchi.mp/a7bc7b884ea3/mv-architect?e=f18f779945

 

Now who are the stakeholders who will be talking to the architects?

 

JOHN,
Good question.
Answer - Management.
General Manager Announces:
“Our goal is to have something for the board and community to look at in the fall.”

The board and community will be informed!

 

OK - Really??? Kind of like Option 2.... From the description of the process in Mountainview recreation center section of website:

The selected design team will conduct various meetings with the stakeholders, (RCSC Board, affected clubs, Mountainview area members and RCSC staff) to best determine the needs, uses and specific requirements of each component of Mountainview and the PAC.

So substantially all the input will be given by the current Board, The Pickleball Club and The Players club, and some Mountainview area residents. These folks will determine the needs, uses and requirements for the entire project behind closed doors. And how does the long range plan (that does not exist yet) and the T Bird property fit into this?

The concealment and double speak in all this is comical.

 

Who is on first? Is Marlene the architect hired? Like in Plan M? Sorry, but my patience went out with the trash from yesterday.

 

Marlene was not hired.

 

Has RCSC ever told the Membership about the structural study of Mountain View? It's long overdue and I think it was supposed to be done after the SAC gave their report(s). Did I miss something?

 

It appears management decided not to do the structural analysis.

 

If that is what happened, then management should inform the Membership and their logic behind that decision. We were told at multiple stages in the Mountain View dialogue that it would be done. Personally I think this should be an agenda item and the Board should make the decision. Regardless, Members should know.

 

JANET,
Mountain View Renovation Process
Lengthy document with no reference to who presented it at what venue, or the date. In the url date is 2-5-24.
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Mountain-View-Process-2-5-24.pdf

And this “presentation” dated 1.23.24 in the url.
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Mountain-View-Board-Presentation-1-23-24.pdf

Found listed on the RCSC website NEWS page:
https://suncityaz.org/news/

 

And how stupid is that?

Once it was determined that MV would be the next project for PIF money, that should have been the very first item on the agenda?

It never made sense to me to hire Marlene to generate a plan before knowing whether the building could be renovated or needed to be entirely rebuilt!

That was just throwing good money away.

 

When you watch the YouTube video, you will see that I challenged the Board about what they had promised (see EyesOpen first sentence and link above). I was shocked to learn that they skipped several of the promised steps and have already hired an architect. The only director who came up to me after and apologized and agreed with what I challenged them on was Preston Kise. Once again, it's hard to believe anything that I read or hear.

As mentioned at an Exchange back in February/March, the Board needs help. They need to remember the promises that they make to the members.

Jean Totten

 

VIDEO RCSC Exchange Meeting - Monday, June 10, 2024 2:32:04

HERE:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLy0Uy9sKWCJNLz37tn5ug

 

Jean, as you know I/others also commented on the unfortunate communication and expectation breakdown (I first got side-tracked by the unfortunate guest-pass debacle). You were not in the twilight zone - which was my own first thought with Matthew's update (what? what did we miss?) - and while Karen's explanation (in response to my question/comment) did not provide complete satisfaction, it did give a flavor for the review of the architects and high-level understanding of why the 4th architect was selected. A little more light than what Matthew provided.
Hopefully, we will see some good options come Sept - with both a remod of the auditorium (some auditorium), if viable, and a separate PAC site proposal with details and costs of both and be able to provide input/vote (with good data and qualified perspectives in the presented information).
We have wasted so much time, effort, and money on this because of poor decisions - including the $40M spend. Plan M was a decent compromise, as long as we didn't spend half of the $27.3M on the auditorium. But we should have just started with the BOD element list (whichever one it is) and not wasted last summer. That's what it boils down to . . . and is a bit unfortunate.

Yes, John Fast, no LRP/5-year plan contributed to our challenges . . . . it's coming . . . albeit some carts before the horse. ;-)

Susan

 

Thanks Susan,

Regrettably, I have to agree it was a waste of time to involve members in a meaningful way when two directors were obsessively determined to hijack the process to get there own way. (A theater and park at Lakeview, an air conditioned dog facility and a championship pickleball pavilion at Mountainview). Live and learn. Due to that experience I am very skeptical. What I heard said Karen say in her own way was this:

If we are able to buy the T-Bird property demolish 20% of buildings to get the necessary parking we would be left with 38,000 square feet and this would provide a wonderful space for our staff as opposed to the awful space we have in the "donut building". We could then demolish the Lakeview center donut building. This would save tons of money vis a vis the last approved PIF schedule as follows (analysis from pif schedule not from Karen):

Cost of T- Bird Property $?

Versus

2031 - New Administration Building at Lakeview: 2.3M
2032 - New Administration Building at Lakeview: 2.3M
2034 - Lakeview center Replacement 10.5M
2035 - Lakeview Center Replacement 10.5M
Avoided rental cost while Lakeview is being redone

We have hundreds of pages of documentation about the T Bird building and hired an appraiser (but not a building engineer) and are doing our best to pour through it (Did it occur to anyone to hire an engineering firm to conduct the analysis?)

As with all things Karen, one must ask what she didn't say - What happens to the Lakeview property if we demolish the building? Perhaps a theater and park an be put there? And we could build an indoor dog training facility and an indoor pickleball pavilion with all the money we save.

Bottom line in my mind is Karen and Kat see this as an opportunity to implement their agenda. If the property is purchased the agenda is essentially a fete accompli.

 

Kat F. was accurate when she said that many many things had been neglected for decades, and now it is fallen on there laps to make right. She is absolutely accurate about that.
We elect a board and entrust that it is there responsibility, ultimately to do the 'heavy lifting'. They are essentially the fixers, and that is what they are now struggling to do, is fix! I do think they do listen and respect what members say. Just look at all the ugliness of Monday's meeting. It is disgraceful and pathetic. They still kept cool heads and listened. However, ultimately they have the difficult task of looking at the future and viability of this place and now having to make some hard decisions. Yes, within our budget constraints.

Too many of those meeting 'regular' microphone attenders, just want to hear the sound of there own voice and are chronically disagreeable folks.
You can clearly see some of there issues magnified at these exchanges, and they still keep coming back every month to openly dispute and condemn.

It is too easy for folks here to get on this blog and tear apart the efforts of the folks we entrusted to do the job.
They have some monumental financial tasks right now. I respect some of the views, but I do think we need to allow these folks who are looking at the larger picture of the community to be able to decide what will work best as this place keeps changing.

 

I watch every exchange meeting and am not sure which topics are repeated monthly. The T-Bird bldg should be, it a big item, as should the Mt. View renovation, and it appeared that members were not informed from listening to Jean. The guy with the desk thing was off base, but I think we all get that and he will just be dismissed by all who saw the video. The libraries are a recurring topic and I understand that. The membership has been lied to, kept in the dark (grand bldg) for a long time. I won't believe there will be a library contract until I see the signed papers.

I understand it's summer but the attendance was really low. Other than the library debacle attendance is around 80 and that is an eyeball count, not electronic so who knows if the number reported in the minutes are accurate. Youtube views are 433, but again, if I play for a bit, shut down and come back 5 times each one is a view.

Members were/are angry and they should be. The board was angry and I understand that. McAdam has quite the unique talent tho I will say.

How youtube views are "counted" https://tuberanker.com/blog/how-doe...A view is counted on,landed on the watch page.

 

I think most members watch meetings online now.
I don't think we are being lied too.
We have a lot of advanced elderly living here now. I think many of these folks are no longer care about how the place is being run. They are living out final years of there lives.
I think it is fine for people to get up and share as long as it has some well thought out reason with some resolution.
Not a forum for self indulgent people who like to hear the sound of there own voice and blame and shame board members.

 

And that's fine. You just made my whole point. No one really cares anymore. Those meetings were full 24 years ago. The board cared, the people cared. Now no one cares so the board can run amok. Spend what they want, do what they want. We were lied to about the libraries. They knew, and if they did not they should not be on the board. Maybe you are fine with things but most are not. I am watching this town deteriorate.

Did you see the offer to non residents from Briarwood Country Club in the Independent? Tell me when they have a top rated course (even tho it's a Troon course) that SCW is not doing things better then we are. No the fees are not more and when I receive the breakdown of closing costs I will show you.

 

While I admire your defense of this Board I wish they would show some humility and make positive steps to engage the membership. It appears to me we have fallen into the same trap as before where a combative Board and Management is met by a combative membership and access to information is the tool of power. There has to be a better way.