In addition to massive passing by contractors, the inability to finance a project - and instead try to dribble it out over 20 years -- makes a big difference in the final cost.

Simply put, we are like homeowners doing a renovation financed by credit cards and having no idea what we are doing and relying on your general contractor for everything.

by charlie on Aug 28, 2012 8:42 am • link • report

maybe it's just me, but the link to the MLK article goes to an ad. I think it should be http://washingtonexaminer.com/hearing-scheduled-on-future-of-mlk-library/article/2506058

by 7r3y3r on Aug 28, 2012 8:49 am • link • report

Selling MLK is a no brainer.

We get the place back on the tax rolls and a hugely expensive maintenance nightmare off the taxpayer backs at the same time.

The land underneath MLK is worth ~90 million. Assumed someone built an office or residential tower that used the full FAR allowed by current zoning the city would collect about 5 million a year from property tax forever.

Then we have the ancillary benefits of more foot traffic downtown etc.

We have the old Carnegie Library that is currently mostly unused and only open sporadically through the week. Lets make that grand old (and smaller) building DC's Central Library (as it was intended to from the beginning) and let something more appropriate take place at the current MLK site, other than letting it collect hobo pee.

by MLK on Aug 28, 2012 8:54 am • link • report

You might clarify that "smart meters" refer to meters in taxis, as opposed to Pepco's "smart meters", which are also controversial.

by ah on Aug 28, 2012 8:57 am • link • report

+1 on selling MLK. Surely with the added revenue DC could build another central library with even better facilities--how about explicitly dedicating some portion of the sale price to building a new library in a less valuable location?

by ah on Aug 28, 2012 8:58 am • link • report

I suspect tearing down the library building would prove challenging--I can hear the Council of 100 chanting now, "Save our Mies Van De Rohe!" But MLK's idea borders on the brilliant because it's so simple and obvious--returning to Carnegie for DC's central library does make an inordinate amount of sense.

by Circle Thomas on Aug 28, 2012 8:59 am • link • report

"Mass transit projects in the US cost more than similar projects in similar countries. Possible explanations are ... requirements to select the lowest bidder."

I've known for ages that this requirement interferes with the overall quality of the project, but the above point seemed counterintuitive, so I went to the article:

"The MTA must continue to award contracts to the lowest- price bidder, and without the ability to hold bad contractors accountable, Littlefield said, the agency turns to 'writing longer and longer and longer contracts, expressly prohibiting every way it has been ripped off in the past.' The byzantine contracts that come out of this process drive entrants away, limiting competition and pushing up costs."

by Frank IBC on Aug 28, 2012 9:07 am • link • report

Anyone who has a question about why public infrastructure projects cost so prohibitivly much, only need look as far as the MWAA as explanation.

As the article stated, and as I've clearly seen time and time again in my professional career, the people who end up managing these projects are so hialriously unqualified to do so, their involvment can only be considered a joke.

DDOT, VDOT, on and on. You have mid to upper 20 something fresh out of school MBA's in charge of hundred million dollar projects. People who have never put together a schedule, have no idea how the design process should proceed and not a clue on what a GC does or thinks. Basically, you have people who've never built a dog house, in charge of building rail lines, roads or sewer projects.

Lew is the only person (locally) that has all the aforementioned experience and has a history of delivering large construction projects on time and budget.

by DTR on Aug 28, 2012 9:10 am • link • report

@DTR

The article isn't really about bringing large construction projects in on time and on budget - but rather asking why the budgets are so expensive in the first place?

by Alex B. on Aug 28, 2012 9:16 am • link • report

@AlexB; that is rather the point. The fact that you don't have any expereince inside the contracting agency (MWAA or WMATA) means you are being ripped off daily -- and don't know it.

There was a good article I sent in a while ago on how the Corps was able to build up new levees in NOLA under budget because of upfront pricing. While I am pretty suspicious of the corps, you can see how that gravity of expertise has worked over 100 years.

by charlie on Aug 28, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

Can someone explain to me the constant fawning over Ben's Chili Bowl? The place sucks.

by Vinh An Nguyen on Aug 28, 2012 9:26 am • link • report

The old Carnegie Library is not big enough to serve as a central library. That's the reason why MLK was built.

The MLK library was designed so a fourth floor could be added and the additional space could be leased out. Unless DC develops plans for a new central library and international design competition, then let's stick with the current landmark building, a far less expensive proposition. If DC decides to build something new, it should be of a similar quality to Seattle's new OMA designed library.

by John P on Aug 28, 2012 9:35 am • link • report

Charlie,

No, that doesn't explain what the argument is. Praising Lew's project management is fine, that doesn't change the fact that the unit costs for the Ballpark were still very high, despite being on time and on budget.

Again, building this 'under budget' isn't the relevant comparison. How does that budget compare to budgets for similar projects in other places? That's the question that's being asked.

Look, I don't disagree - accelerating implementation would save money, no doubt about that. But that's not the entire story. Likewise, our project management skills also need to improve, but that's also not the entire story.

by Alex B. on Aug 28, 2012 9:41 am • link • report

+1000 on selling the MLK library. I read a Post article awhile back that detailed how poorly designed the building was in terms of functiononality, which I'm sure contributes to the expense of maintaining it. I love libraries but that one is a blight that no one feels commortable using.

by I. Rex on Aug 28, 2012 9:44 am • link • report

The MLK library building could be expanded upward to the height limit using the identical Mies exterior design. Just like Dulles was expanded using the identical Saarinen design. If you weren't aware of what happened at Dulles, you would never notice it.

The upper 10 or so floors could be leased out and the proceeds used to pay for the construction, and then to the benefit of the MLK library or the whole library system. It would be a "win-win," to coin a cliche.

If the MLK library was sold, the new owner would surely do exactly as I am suggesting, unless they demolished the whole thing and started over. but the public would lose a valuable asset, as well as a historic landmark.

by Steve on Aug 28, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

Moving the library to the Carnegie Building makes all the sense in the world. In fact, if it's too small, then get one of the few good traditional architects to do a sympathetic addition. Classical buildings lend them selves to additions as the Capitol Building attests to, if done with out irony.

But I'd save the MLK Library, as much as I think it's a junk building, if only becasue like it or not, it's part of our history. Architects for the last 50 years have been taught that Mies Van DeRohe is a master, so it's not worth having that fight. It would be great as a modern sculpture museum, like his museum in Berlin. Do a Barcelona like lobby and open up the spaces to be truly what Mies called "Universal Space".

by Thayer-D on Aug 28, 2012 9:47 am • link • report

I. Rex, The building was actually praised for its functionality when it was built. Libraries have different demands theses days. I think a thorough and respectful renovation could work, if DC is not willing to make the commitment to building a new world-class facility.

by John P on Aug 28, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

@alexB; actually, we are talking at cross purposes. I'd agree with you that it is never one component.

But when you see a private sector company say "hell, we could build that for half the cost of the guberment" what that usually comes down to is building it quicker and not paying interest.

(and yes, as you've said before endless levels of review don't help either. They do keep the planning community in business, however!)

by charlie on Aug 28, 2012 9:57 am • link • report

Regarding MLK:

I'd save the building - I'm not a huge fan of it, but it IS a Mies. Mies is one of the very few architects whose work deserves saving simplly because it is his, in my opinion. I'd perhaps feel differently if we had other examples of his work in DC, but we don't.

What I have often thought (and this pie is so high in the sky it's in orbit) is that, had I unlimited funds and the ability to do it, I'd purchase MLK and turn it into the new home of the National Portrait Gallery. The current space works well enough, but I'd honestly rather see the NPG be given a space all its own. Preferably with some larger-scale wall space to do some really impressive things. Granted, I feel this way primarily because of how impressed I was with the National Portrait Gallery in London. And ours is nowhere NEAR that good, though it's getting better...

(Yes, I know it's not likely. A fellow can dream, can't he?)

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Aug 28, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

On costs: I think this piece lays out some of the causes:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/more-on-cost-comparisons/

. Failure to embrace technology except in the most expensive cases. We are behind in construction techniques overall. We will bring in European methods when the case is made they are necessary. These methods therefore tend to be used when the expense is higher. This means we don’t upgrade technology overall, just at the costly fringes. Examples come from the methods used to construct the new tunnels in Boston; one used a method developed mostly by the Dutch because our domestic methods weren’t up to it.

2. Our project management is not equivalent. European large scale construction projects run more just-in-time. Even really big ones require very large things to be built and then to arrive on a schedule. Our system can’t handle that so we build in lots of slack expecting stuff will come late and will need to be adjusted – sometimes substantially – to fit the need. That is very costly.

3. Our system is very bad at prioritizing. My experience with this is mostly at the state and local level. I have seen very competent people working at both levels. They exist in a morass of work that needs to be done. They don’t have the resources to do things properly. They have to put repair, snow, etc. way, way, way ahead of planning.

4. My overall comment is this: Europeans understand they exist in a high cost environment so they squeeze out the inefficiency to be competitive. They focus on value-added design and on efficiency in planning and scheduling. We don’t.

The next step would be to understand why we, as a country, do these things. A lot of that is the harder stuff to change, it is systemic stuff that's inherent to the way we've been funding and financing infrastructure. Jumping through the hoops for federal processes to get a small grant adds to the overall process, which adds time and often adds unnecessary scope.

It's endemic to the legal system we have, both for the aforementioned procurement regulations but also to environmental approvals.

I also think this list of hypotheses for US infrastructure costs is illustrative:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/2012/02/why-transportation-costs-too-m.html

by Alex B. on Aug 28, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

@alexb; thanks. I'll look at that.

" They focus on value-added design and on efficiency in planning and scheduling. We don’t."

Shooting from the hip, that is the point about the lack of expertise inside the goverment (for public projects). And being tight-wads. take the ICC bike path -- would have been cheaper in the long run to do it at the same time, but instead it just gets spread around.

And again, the financing there is a big limitation. You've got one debt deal that can bring in, say, 12M a year, and you're constrained by that dollar amount for a yearly spend.

Some sort of infrastrucure bank makes sense, but what it turning into is more leverge (GARVEE bonds) and corruption (half private sector involvement)

by charlie on Aug 28, 2012 10:21 am • link • report

Selling MLK is going to be much more difficult than people expect. The building and the land it sits on is worthless if the Historic Preservation Review Board enforces the building's landmark status, and there's no reason they wouldn't. Altering the building would end up being a fight similar to the First Church of Chirst, Scientist building on 16th Street except that the developer would have a much more difficult time claiming a hardship exemption. I'm not sure there's anyone who'd be willing to go through all that.

by Adam L on Aug 28, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

Of course the MLK library site is valuable, but wouldn't any equally central location for our central library be just as expensive? We should not give up on the central library's central location and its proximity to all of the Metro lines.

That said, I don't like the building at all. I think what irritates me most is the modernist insistence that automated technology should be ever-present, hence the assumption that everyone traveling between floors will use an elevator. Thus the stairs are treated like an afterthought. The heavy doors that lead to the stairwell seem like they might be the sort that lock and won't open from the other side, and it's ambiguous which doors from the stairwells lead to the reading rooms and stacks, and which doors lead to some off-limits back room. And the stairs themselves have an ambience reminiscent of a parking garage.

I wish the central library had a scope similar to a top-flight research library. I'd like to see support of small businesses--small research, consulting, or law firms--be a primary mission of the central library. Would it be possible for the library to assemble a collection of resources (primarily online database access) such that proximity to the library could be a real asset for a startup consulting firm?

by thm on Aug 28, 2012 10:44 am • link • report

Maybe MTA still has to award to the lowest price, but that hasn't been the rule for federal contracts for over 30 years. Most large federal contracts are awarded on a "best value" basis, meaning a trade-off between quality and price.

One of the biggest reasons for high prices are the crazy government-unique requirements. Some of them, like a whole different set of accounting rules for large federal contracts, keep companies that have a mostly commercial sales base from entering the government market. Other risks, like getting sued under the False Claims Act, also deter potential contractors and drive up their compliance costs (which are then passed on to the government).

Lack of experience by government personnel managing the contracts is also an issue- they don't understand how messing with supply chains and financing affects the schedule and price, so the dumb decisions.

by adam on Aug 28, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

I can't speak to small business consulting, but people shouldn't forget that DC already does have a top flight research library, fully open to the public.

by Steve S. on Aug 28, 2012 11:13 am • link • report

re: Colonel Brooks...sad to see that another bit of DC character is going to be replaced with some non-descript, cookie-cutter boring structure. Be sure to fill it with a chain bar/restaurant to make it sting even more. That's DC for you.

re: MLK...when I was in library school at Catholic in the mid-90s I presented a project that involved the restoration of the Carnegie structure connected with a new, tasteful, state-of-the-art (at that time) library facility. My instructor laughed it off. (Coming from a school that offered an Internet research class without Internet access her backward response makes perfect sense.) Students in the program took Metro to Arlington Public to get work done because MLK was a cesspool and lacked the resources because of budget issues. This building I'm glad to see go.

by Mark on Aug 28, 2012 12:31 pm • link • report

Save the MLK Library.

It's one of the very few buildings in DC - whether office building, house, courthouse, outhouse or doghouse - that doesn't look like every other building.

by ceefer66 on Aug 28, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report

@ceefer66:

It's one of the very few buildings in DC - whether office building, house, courthouse, outhouse or doghouse - that doesn't look like every other building.

Really? You need to get out a bit more. Heck, it's hard to find two houses that are next to one another that look like one another.

by oboe on Aug 28, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report

Re: colonel Brooks
Is the old building somehow architecually distinguished?

Surely there is some chain store/restaurant you like. What if they put that there? Moreover, if said chain ends up drawing more people than the old place wouldn't that be better for the neighborhood overall? I mean, trader joe's is a chain yet people lose their minds once they know one is coming to their neighborhood.

by drumz on Aug 28, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report

@ceefer,
"Save the MLK Library. It's one of the very few buildings in DC - whether office building, house, courthouse, outhouse or doghouse - that doesn't look like every other building." That's an interesting criteria for preservation, I'll have to remember that. Ironically, the modernists who aped Mies stuffed court houses, office buildings and just about every other function under the ubiquitous Meisian grid. Kind of like the Maoist pj's that where supposed to extinguish class distinction.

by Thayer-D on Aug 28, 2012 3:13 pm • link • report

I like the MLK library as a landmark because when I see it, I know where I am. Be careful what you wish for. If its replaced, it will get replaced with a new office building that looks just like any other. And as much as it pains some, people aren't sending their kids into stone-cutting and brick laying internships in lieu of a university education, and architecture schools aren't teaching how to design office builings in the Richarsonian Romanesque style.

by spookiness on Aug 28, 2012 4:07 pm • link • report

@ Spookiness,
Are you saying that there are no brick layers around, or that brick layers are too stupid to go to university? I'm not sure, but they sure are building brick buildings, even traditional ones. Allthough to be fair, architecture schools are not teaching traditional architecture, yet we still see them going up. I wonder what that's about?

by Thayer-D on Aug 28, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report

Through amazing tricks of physics and optics, the Carnegie library's large exterior surrounds a very tiny, funny-shaped interior. It would be a lovely little library for a small city with a tiny literate elite. Ah, those must have been the days!

The urine-soaked elevators erected in Martin Luther King Jr's name give me pause, so when I need to change levels I step bravely into the sepulchral, tangled stairways. My fears of encountering a knife-wielding madman there have, so far, come to nothing. Indeed, rationally, it's much more likely that I would trip over the madman's skeletal remains after he hadn't found his way out of the labyrinth. I, myself, rely on the haphazard paper signs that someone keeps taped up. In fact, the stairwells are the only place in the MLK building where I feel grateful to be able to read.

by Turnip on Aug 28, 2012 9:41 pm • link • report

Re: Mark/Col Brooks - even the owner realizes that it's time to move on. The new structure will provide more than just an underused bar that smelled of stale Yeungling. Col Brooks was 60s-90s Brookland, places like Menomale are the present and future. Time to move forward.

by Kev29 on Aug 28, 2012 9:49 pm • link • report

The MLK thing is old news with the actual review coming up. The building's maintenance problems could easily be replicated in a new building---the library system is always among the first things cut which is why MLK isn't in great shape now and why branches like Cleveland Park feel like dungeons. OTOH, Mies was all about open flexible space---which is something the building has and which should make it adapt to the future with proper care. Carnegie is too small and more inflexible and probably requires even more special care. MLK is a more practical building than Crown Hall, which was one of Mies' masterpieces--that building has a leaky roof and terrible climate control, even with restoration--the lack of a/c was a nod to preservation, but on a mild day, it's hot and stuffy.

It is one of the few post-WWII building that has a unique look and one of the few where the celebrity architect didn't go for grandiosity (like the Kennedy Center). DC's buildings by worthwhile modernists are not necessarily their best work like Lapidus' Washington Plaza Hotel, but are worth keeping because they do have something to teach about modernism.

by Rich on Aug 28, 2012 10:53 pm • link • report

1. Thayer-D is exactly right. If the MLK building is not used as a library, it would make a first class modern art museum, just as the Mies-designed National Gallery in Berlin serves. DC should sell it or do a swap with the Federal government. The building could serve as an adjunct to the Smithsonian American Art Museum/Portrait across the street, or to the (US) National Gallery, which has been hunting for modern art gallery space (and covets the FTC building). Presto, an enlarged, livelier arts district to bring more tourists off the Mall.

2. Whether the DC central library stays at its present site or moves, don't forget that it also now serves as downtown's neighborhood library branch. 20 years ago there were few people living in downtown Washington. Now there are thousands. Serving this population is an important function of MLK.

by Sam on Aug 29, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

people aren't sending their kids into stone-cutting and brick laying internships

That's what illegal aliens are for.

by Bloomingdale on Aug 29, 2012 11:21 am • link • report