110
13 January 2012 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona Prepared For Prepared By

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

This study examines five historic buildings at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon for their suitability to serve as the Park's art venue. It was sponsored by the Grand Canyon Association at the behest of Grand Canyon National Park.

Citation preview

Page 1: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

13 January 2012

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Prepared For

Prepared By

Page 2: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 3: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 4: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Required Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Art Museum Building Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Museum Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Program Summary – Art Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Program Summary – River Heritage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Individual Building Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Limitations of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9General Structural Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9General Mechanical Design Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10General Electrical Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Site Accessibility Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Site Concept and Test-Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Laundry Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Test Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Engineering Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Test Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Powerhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Test-Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Page 5: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

General Offi ce Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Test Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Mule Barn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Structural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Mechnical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Administration Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . 34Powerhouse Building Test Fit Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . 35General O! ce Building - Test-Fit Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Building Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Overview and Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Detailed Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Evaluation Criteria Score Sheets - Overall

Appendix A - Meeting Minutes

Appendix B - Grand Canyon Art Collection

Page 6: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Executive SummaryGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 1Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Executive SummaryGrand Canyon Association contracted with Westlake Reed Leskosky (WRL) and Coe & Van Loo (CVL) to prepare an Art Museum Concept (as indicated in the GCA RFP) Study and Building Assessment of six (6) existing buildings. " is report contains evaluations, conceptual studies, cost estimates, program usage and test # t plans that were used to rank and determine the appropriate venue to adapt to a new Art Museum and Gallery space. " e buildings selected for assessment are as follows:

1. Laundry Building2. Engineering Building3. Powerhouse Building4. General O! ce Building5. Mule Barn6. Administration Building (also referred to as Building 1 or park Superintendent’s

residence and # rst visitor center)." e proposed Art Museum will display the collections of the Grand Canyon Association (GCA) and the Grand Canyon National Park Service (NPS), and allow room for future acquisitions. " e Art museum is also planned to function as a gallery and event space, for seasonal events, such as the annual “Celebration of Art” event, currently held in the Kolb Studio Gallery.WRL and CVL met with representatives from the GCA, the NPS, and other key stakeholders to develop the program for the Art Museum, and to develop the evaluation criteria used in the building assessments. Minutes from these meetings are included in Appendix A.

In addition to stakeholder meetings and interviews, the following reports were referenced during programming and assessment:

• Village Interpretive Center (2004) concept plan: " is site plan was utilized as a guideline for future implementation.

• Conceptual Design Cost Plan (March 3, 2004)• Class B Cost Estimate for historic Powerhouse Stabilization (January 4, 2007)• Grand Canyon Art Gallery Building Evaluations (February, 2010)• Historic Structure Report First Administration Building (June 2008)• Feasibility Study of the Grand Canyon River Heritage Museum (June 7, 2010)

Required Programming " e program for the proposed Art Museum was developed using the current collection size as a benchmark, while providing room for expansion through future acquisitions. " e collection will incorporate art, artifacts, sculpture, and traveling exhibits. " e program also addressed functional and support spaces, such as docent space, gift shop, restrooms, storage rooms, and mechanical rooms. A summary of programming needs are outlined on the test individual # t plans. Cost estimates are included on page 39.

Evaluation Criteria" e project team developed a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for comparing and ranking the alternative building locations. " is data is located on page 9

A summary of each building assessment is included for review on page 13.

Page 7: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Executive SummaryGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 2Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Art Museum Building RecommendationCompletion of the building assessments, based on the proposed program and evaluation criteria, yielded the following ranking and recommendations:

Ranking Building Actual ft2 Addition ft2

Total ft2 with Addition

Required Program ft2

Estimated Cost*

1 Laundry with addition

7,650 3,750 11,400** 9,048 $5,224,061

2 Engineering with addition

2,675 6,400 9,075 9,048 $4,161,313

3 Laundry 7,650 - - 9,048 $3,381,2594 Powerhouse 17,200 - - 9,048 $5.970,8245 General Offi ce 24,282 - - 9,048 $4,093,0196 Engineering 2,675 - - 9,048 $1,715,313

*These costs are intended to be used for fundraising efforts and not as fi nal construction costs.

**The total ft2 noted for the Laundry with addition, is based on the Proposed River Heritage program established prior to this study.

During the building assessment stage, it became apparent that renovation of either the Mule Barn or the Administration building would be too di! cult and costly to accommodate the required program. For this reason, they were removed from further consideration or study. " e data supporting this decision is outlined in the individual building assessment. Combined Art and River Heritage Museum RecommendationAs an additional exercise the feasibility of combining the Art Museum and the proposed River Heritage Museum was evaluated. " e number 1 (one) choice is the vacant Powerhouse with the General O! ce building as number 2 (two). Test # t plans for each of these scenarios is provided in the individual building assessments on pages 34 and 35.If, however the museums are to remain separate, it is recommended that the River Heritage collection be housed in the Powerhouse.

Page 8: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

PROJECTNORTH

Full Master PlanGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 80 160 320 FEET

11/29/11

GRAND CANYON GRAND CANYON VILLAGEVILLAGE

SCULPTURE SCULPTURE GARDENGARDEN

TRAIN STATIONTRAIN STATION

MUSEUM MUSEUM ENTRYENTRY

dclev
General Office Building
dclev
Powerhouse
dclev
Engineering Building
dclev
Laundry Building
dclev
Mule Barn
dclev
Administration Building
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
dclev
Page 9: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Museum ProgramGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 4Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Museum ProgramProgram Summary – Art MuseumTo develop the program for the proposed Art Museum, WRL and CVL met with the GCA, NPS, and other stakeholders; and toured the current NPS art and artifacts collection at the Grand Canyon. Following this meeting, the GCA provided a list of their current art collection for review. " is includes 80 paintings and photographs, with the largest painting measuring 138” x 92” (though the majority of the collection is 36” x 48” – or smaller) and is located in Appendix B. Using this information we have arrived at the program presented in the following pages.

" e following assumptions were used in determining programming needs:• NPS collection storage will remain in its current location; the proposed

curation room will have limited storage intended only for paintings being rotated into or out of the gallery, as well as work space for restoration.

• Temporary gallery space is recommended for events such as the annual Celebration of Art. " e size for this gallery is modeled after the Kolb Studio (1375 ft2), only slightly larger (1500 ft2).

• GCA’s current art collection can be housed comfortably in the proposed gallery space of 1500 ft2. With the addition of a dedicated GCA storage space of 400 ft2, the Art Museum would be able to easily accommodate twice the current collection.

• Gallery spaces are shown as individual spaces, GCA Collection, Temporary Gallery and NPS Collection; we would anticipate, and have shown in the test-# t plans, a much more integrated gallery experience for the visitor, where the spaces are $ uid in their layout.

• " e Grand Canyon NPS collection would feature paintings as well as “artifacts”, such as pottery, and tools.

• Programs marked as “additional” are not essential to the art museum function, but would be incorporated where and when space is available.

• Programming for the Combined Art and River Heritage museum has been provided for the Powerhouse and General O! ce (on pages 34 and 35). " e River Heritage program is based upon the June 7, 2010 study, for the Laundry Building.

See table below for speci# c programming recommendations.

Page 10: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Museum ProgramGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 5Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Art Museum Program RecommendationsArea ft2 Comments

EntryEntry Lobby 400

Museum Store 120 Connected to entrySubtotal 520

Gallery SpaceGCA Collection 1,500 Space for ~90 paintings

Temporary Gallery 1,500 Space for ~90 paintingsNPS Collection 1,000 Space for paintings

Subtotal 4,000

Building SupportOffi ce 240 2 offi ces at 120 ft2

Break Room/Docent 200Curation Room 400

GCA Storage 400 Space for ~ 96 paintingsGeneral Storage 300Catering Kitchen 300

Audio Video Closet 120Data Room 120

RestroomsMen’s 400 7 fi xtures

Women’s 400 7 fi xturesFamily/ Unisex 70 1 fi xtureSeparate Staff 70 1 fi xture

Subtotal 3,020

Total Net Program 7,540Gross Program 9,048 1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and

infrastructure

Additional SpacesClassrooms

Youth Art Room 300 Approximately 10 to 15 studentsSeminar Room 500 Approximately 20 to 25 people

Exhibit SpaceTribal Gallery 500

Subtotal 1300

Total Net Program w/ Additional Spaces 8,840

Gross Program 10,608 1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and infrastructure

Page 11: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 12: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Museum ProgramGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 7Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Program Summary – River Heritage Museum

River Heritage Museum Program RecommendationsArea ft2 Comments

Exhibit SpacesDisplay Area 5,220Boat Display

Demonstration Area1,684 Connected to entry

Theater 510 Potential to share with the “Seminar” space in the art museum program, if space does not allow for both

Subtotal 7,414

Administrative/Shared ProgramsWork Room 202

Storage 361Mechanical Room 555

RestroomsMen’s 230

Women’s 230Subtotal 1,578

Total Net Program 8,992Gross Program 10,790 1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and

infrastructure

Additional SpacesClassrooms

Youth Art Room 300 Approximately 10 to 15 studentsSeminar Room 500 Approximately 20 to 25 people

Exhibit SpaceTribal Gallery 500

Subtotal 1300

Total Net Program w/ Additional Spaces 10,292

Gross Program 12,350 1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and infrastructure

Page 13: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 14: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Individual Building AssessmentsGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 9Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Individual Building Assessments Limitations of AssessmentA site visit was made on October 24, 2011, by the engineering/architectural team to evaluate and assess general architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and site access conditions for 5 of the six subject buildings. (note: the General O! ce was added to the study following this initial visit) Observations were limited to those areas where the existing structure is exposed and visually accessible. Areas concealed by drywall, plaster, or paint, or physically or visually inaccessible are not included in this assessment. No destructive forensics was conducted. Additional building assessment information produced by previous # rms was also utilized to prepare this report.A general outline of each subject discipline is provided below as well as a detailed individual building assessment following this summary section.

Evaluation Criteria" e initial meetings and previous reports established the following building evaluation criteria:

• Site Infrastructure• Site/Pedestrian Accessibility• Site and Building Security• Site Access & Parking• Site Presence• Site Lighting• Identity/Entry Experience• Exterior Building Envelope• Interior Modi# cations• Building Accessibility/ADA

Concerns

• Flexibility of Interior Space• Quality of Display Space• Historic Preservation Concerns• HVAC• Plumbing / Sprinkler• Electrical and Interior Lighting• Structural Upgrades• UV control

General Structural Design CriteriaAll additions, modi# cations, and new construction shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the most current editions of the International Building Code (IBC) and International Existing Building code (IEBC). Any repairs, alterations or change of occupancy shall be investigated and evaluated. A structural evaluation describing, at a minimum, a complete load path and other earthquake-resistant features shall be prepared. Additionally, the report would describe each feature that is not in compliance with these provisions and shall demonstrate how the intent of these provisions is complied with in providing an equivalent level of safety.

" e design live loads applicable to an art museum are anticipated to be as follows:• Lobbies, # rst $ oor corridors, stairs: 100psf. " is live load will be used in

addition to the typical dead, wind, snow, and seismic loads." e seismic design criteria applicable to this location are as follows:

• Seismic Design Category D• Soil Site Class D• Occupancy Category III• Importance Factor I = 1.25

Page 15: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Individual Building AssessmentsGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 10Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

" e wind design criteria applicable to this location are as follows:• Wind Exposure C• 90 MPH Velocity• Occupancy Category III• Importance Factor I = 1.15

Structural RecommendationsA new geotechnical report will be required for all buildings to determine new foundation requirements. Further investigation is required to quantify the amount of seismic retro# tting for life- safety level of performance in a moderate earthquake.

General Mechanical Design CriteriaAll additions, modi# cations, and new construction shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the most current editions of the International Mechanical Code (IMC).

All buildings will require HVAC upgrades to meet the requirements for temperature and humidity control in an exhibit space. Each building is unique but will require similar systems. " e proposed HVAC systems will consist of multiple heating and cooling units consisting of high e! cient # ltration, cooling and heating coils, and steam humidi# cation at each unit. Space temperature, and humidity levels and tolerances shall be based on ASHRAE 2011 Applications guidelines for general museum spaces. " e space temperature shall be maintained at 70oF +/-4oF, and space humidity shall be maintained at 50% relative humidity +/-5%. " e con# guration of each unit will have a 30% # lter, fan, 95% # lter, cooling and heating coils, and steam humidi# er at each unit.

Mechanical RecommendationsEach building would utilize a Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) heating and cooling system. " is type of system will allow for tight temperature and humidity control for each space within the museum and also provide ultra-high e! ciency with Seasonal Energy E! ciency Ratio (SEER) above 16. With smaller indoor units the system will allow for tighter temperature and humidity control as smaller areas will have individual controls.

General Electrical Design Criteria" e design intent is to provide the electrical and lighting system design upgrades as required to meet the requirements of the current applicable codes including the following:

• NFPA 70 - " e National electrical Code, 2011• NFPA 72 - " e National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code• NFPA 101 – " e Life Safety Code• " e International Building Code, 2009• " e International Fire Code, 2009• National park Service Design Guidelines• American with Disabilities Act Guidelines

New electrical systems shall be sized to support the increased power requirements related to heating, ventilating, air conditioning, humidi# cation and de-humidi# cation inherent in an appropriate art museum design. In general, larger systems bene# t from a higher distribution system voltage of 277/480 V., 3-phase, and smaller systems use 120/208 V., 3-phase. If a higher system voltage appears

Page 16: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Individual Building AssessmentsGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 11Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

bene# cial, large HVAC system loads and $ uorescent and HID source lighting would be served at the higher voltage with general use power and incandescent lighting loads to be served at the 120/208 V level.

" e lighting design shall incorporate the use of general ambient lighting and artwork showcase lighting.

Lighting control strategies to be pursued will be dependent on project budget and may include individual space dimming, multi-level switching, occupancy sensors, daylight harvesting, astronomical time clock controls and central lighting control and dimming systems. In many areas these control strategies can be combined for maximum savings.Natural lighting of exhibit areas may need to be controlled to limit UV in# ltration and glare. " e lighting system will be coordinated with the architectural design to accommodate and adjust for di% erent conditions.

" e Art Museum building design shall provide an addressable # re alarm system with sprinkler supervision. " e noti# cation system will have audible and visible appliances to comply with ADA.

Electrical RecommendationsDue to the increased power needs associated with an art museum HVAC system with humidi# cation controls, specialized display lighting, as well as the age, condition, and revised occupancy of the existing proposed buildings, it is anticipated that each building, will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring. " e services for the Powerhouse or the Laundry Buildings may be able to be located in the basement areas.

New lighting should be energy e! cient and selected based upon intended uses, such as ambient lighting, or display lighting. Some of the original RLM style luminaires in the Powerhouse or the Laundry Building may be refurbished and reused to maintain the historic character of the buildings.

New exterior building lighting and adjacent site lighting will provide security near the building entrances but will be minimal to conform to the park’s natural environment.

A new addressable # re alarm system is proposed. " e # re alarm system shall be monitored o% -site.

A new low voltage voice/data distribution system will be designed to meet the new building use. " e building services, power and low voltage voice/data are proposed to be routed to the building below ground.

Site Accessibility Design CriteriaAccess to the proposed Art Museum will be through several entry points, all based upon the 2004 Interpretive Campus Plan. A parking lot will be provided immediately west of the Interpretive campus, along with a bus drop o% . A second bus drop o% will be provided from the south, with a new bus stop along the existing road. Additionally, pedestrian access will be addressed from the Grand Canyon Village through a proposed pedestrian bridge, which negotiates the signi# cant grade change from the Village to the Interpretive Campus, as well as the train tracks that lie in-between.

Paved pedestrian paths, with grade and slope to comply with ADA requirements would need to be provided to the art museum, and eventually all campus buildings,

Page 17: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Individual Building AssessmentsGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 12Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

as part of the development of the campus plan. " ese would be necessary from each of the proposed entry locations, including bus stops, parking lot to the west and the pedestrian bridge.

Based on the existing site grading, several buildings will need additional ramps and stairs to provide accessibility to the main level of the building. " e Powerhouse has an approximately 6 foot grade di% erential, which will require a fairly extensive ramp. As shown in the Concept Site Plans, the ramp and stair provided would be integral with the proposed amphitheater and pedestrian bridge (as indicated in the Interpretive Campus Plan).

" e Engineering Building currently has a ramp to the main entry, with the implementation of the art museum in this building, railings and slope would need to be ADA compliant.

Site Concept and Test-Fit" e attached Site Concept Plans A and B illustrate the potential for a site entry building, which would be in addition to the Art Museum and serve as an amenity for the entire campus. " e function of this building would be to provide common restroom facilities for the campus, thus reducing the need for some of the restrooms in the individual buildings, re$ ected in some of the test # t plans as well and would provide a small orientation kiosk, where events that are scheduled at the interpretive campus could be posted for visitors. We have shown two options for this entry building; A where the building is a stand-alone feature and B where an open-air trellis connects the Laundry and Engineering buildings, providing some protection from the elements, with the entry building in-between.

Also illustrated in the Site Concept Plans are options for connecting the General O! ce Building to the interpretive campus. As it is physically remote from the campus buildings, we are proposing a system of paths and trails that would lead east from the Interpretive Campus – to the General O! ce Building. As an additional option that would strengthen the pedestrian experience, we have illustrated the potential for re-locating the village loop road to the south side of the General O! ce Building. " is would provide a more seamless pedestrian experience. We understand that the Historic Grand Canyon Village Plan is designated as a campus, which includes the roadways; we are proposing that the road would be maintained, but re-purposed as a pedestrian plaza. " e potential for museum functions, such as the sculpture garden, to occupy this space presents a strong entry experience for visitors

Page 18: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

1/10/12

PROJECTNORTH

Full Master PlanGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 80 160 320 FEET

GRAND CANYON GRAND CANYON VILLAGEVILLAGE

SCULPTURE SCULPTURE GARDENGARDEN

GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL OFFICE BUILDINGBUILDING

ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGBUILDING

GREENSPACEGREENSPACE

MUSEUM MUSEUM ENTRYENTRY

GENERAL NOTE:GENERAL NOTE:SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN

Page 19: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

1/10/12

PROJECTNORTH

Interpretive Campus Concept Plan AGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 80 160 320 FEET

POWERHOUSEPOWERHOUSE

GENERAL NOTE:GENERAL NOTE:SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN

STEEL STEEL PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEBRIDGE

RAMP AND STAIR FOR RAMP AND STAIR FOR ACCESS TO MAIN ACCESS TO MAIN FLOOR LEVELFLOOR LEVEL

AMPHITHEATERAMPHITHEATER

EXISTING LODGINGEXISTING LODGING

GREENWAYGREENWAY

ENGINEERING ENGINEERING BUILDINGBUILDING

PROPOSEDPROPOSEDTRELLIS ENTRYTRELLIS ENTRY

ENTRY BUILDING - WITH ENTRY BUILDING - WITH CAMPUS RESTROOMSCAMPUS RESTROOMS

PROPOSED SHUTTLE PROPOSED SHUTTLE DROP-OFFDROP-OFF

MULE MULE CORRALCORRAL

MULE MULE BARNBARN

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY BUILDINGBUILDING

PROPOSED PROPOSED PARKINGPARKING

GREENPLAZAGREENPLAZA

ENTRYENTRY

ENTRYENTRY

Page 20: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

1/10/12

PROJECTNORTH

Interpretive Campus Concept Plan BGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 80 160 320 FEET

POWERHOUSEPOWERHOUSE STEEL STEEL PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEBRIDGE

GREENWAYGREENWAY

LAUNDRY BUILDINGLAUNDRY BUILDINGSHOWN WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONSHOWN WITH PROPOSED ADDITION

ENGINEERING BUILDINGENGINEERING BUILDINGSHOWN WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONSHOWN WITH PROPOSED ADDITION

COVERED TRELLIS / WALKWAY COVERED TRELLIS / WALKWAY BETWEEN ENGINEERING AND BETWEEN ENGINEERING AND

LAUNDRY BUIDLINGSLAUNDRY BUIDLINGS

ENTRY BUILDINGENTRY BUILDINGWITH CAMPUS RESTROOMSWITH CAMPUS RESTROOMS

SHUTTLE DROP-OFFSHUTTLE DROP-OFF

MULE MULE CORRALCORRAL

MULE MULE BARNBARN

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY BUILDINGBUILDING

GREENSPACEGREENSPACE

ENTRYENTRY

ENTRYENTRY

GENERAL NOTE:GENERAL NOTE:SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN

RAMP AND STAIR FOR RAMP AND STAIR FOR ACCESS TO MAIN ACCESS TO MAIN FLOOR LEVELFLOOR LEVEL

AMPHITHEATERAMPHITHEATER

EXISTING LODGINGEXISTING LODGING

Page 21: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Laundry BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 13Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Laundry BuildingArchitectural ReviewWhile utilizing many of the design characteristics of the larger Powerhouse, the Laundry Building’s overall visual impact has been lessened by a series of non-conforming additions that would need to be removed to allow for its restoration. While its smaller size is a challenge programmatically, the possibility of an addition would negate those issues. " e Laundry Building also bene# ts from an open warehouse design that allows greater $ exibility without having to sacri# ce architectural or preservation concerns. An existing small basement area could also be utilized by engineering systems or storage. Limited mezzanine space would also be available for secondary functions.

Structural Review" e Laundry building structure consists of steel roof framing with deep trusses, in # lled with steel channel purlins. Wood nailers are bolted to the sides of the channel

purlins. " e roof appears to be sheathed with 2”x3” straight decking laid upright spanning over the tops of the purlins and is assumed to be fastened to the nailers. " e steel roof trusses span to concrete bearing/shear walls and to interior steel columns. " e bottom chords of the trusses are horizontally cross braced with steel angles in several locations wall to wall. A wood framed mezzanine with plywood sheathing occurs on one end of the building which appears to be used for storage. Some of the exterior walls are covered with large sharp angular stone veneer which appear to be adhered to the concrete walls with concrete or grout. " e lateral force resisting system is classi# ed a concrete shear wall. " e building appears to be in good condition.

Structural Recommendations• New plywood sheathing on the roof• Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors

Roof Framing

Page 22: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Laundry BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 14Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

• Wall to foundation anchors• Concrete wall sti% ening for out-of-plane seismic loads• Anchorage of stone veneer

Mechanical Review" e Laundry Building HVAC consists of gas # red unit heaters in the original storage area with exhaust fans for natural ventilation in the warmer months. " e new addition on the west side of the building utilizes evaporative cooling and a gas furnace for heating. Restrooms are located in the basement and are not in use, a large water heater located in basement is also not it use.

Mechanical Recommendations" e Laundry building will be a good # t for the HVAC systems as the lower north and south side areas will allow for air distribution to be at a lower level along and have the ability to serve the center area from a level elevation.

Electrical Review" e existing electrical service to the building is at the north end of the east wall of the building. It is served overhead, with the riser at the south end of the east wall, and appears to be 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire. " e main distribution appears to be original, primarily fusible disconnects and does not indicate an overall ampere rating. Building branch circuiting appears to be served primarily through two newer load centers.

" e historic building general lighting is primarily via industrial luminaires using T-12 lamps. Some RLM type luminaires, probably historic, remain in the open storage areas. " e expansion o! ce area uses primarily 2’x4’ recessed $ uorescent tro% er # xtures with T-12 lamps. " e building has minimal exterior lighting.

" e building has an existing Noti# er SFP 1024 # re alarm panel. Low voltage voice/data service to the building is routed overhead.

Electrical Recommendations" e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility Review" e Laundry Building is well situated on the site to take advantage of parking and pedestrian accessibility.

Test Fit PlansConcept plans for the Laundry Building were developed based on 2 programmatic approaches: 1. Provide full program with a proposed expansion (expansion is based on the feasibility study done for the River Heritage Museum), 2. To provide a reduced program scheme where the maximum gallery area is # t into available square footage of the existing building, without expansion. (Options A & B). Exterior access is provided to the lower basement level as the grade falls away from the building along the east site.

Ventilation Fan

Electrical Service Entrance

Building Access

Page 23: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Laundry BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 15Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Where the full restroom square footage is not provided, this reduced scheme would require a common restroom facility within the interpretive campus, only a small convenience restroom is provided (see site plan concept A and B which illustrates a small entry building, which could act as site orientation and amenities, such as restrooms).In each scheme, the gallery space leverages the softer natural light provided by the clerestory space, and is located along the northern exposure of the building, providing softer natural light, which is ideal for glare and UV exposure to the artwork.

Opportunities• Prominent site location adjacent to proposed shuttle stop and parking (based

on 2004 Interpretive Campus Plan).• HVAC system can be easily integrated into exposed structural framing.• Strong building character to unite with the surrounding Engineering and

Powerhouse buildings, and very desirable quality of natural light with the overhead clerestory windows.

Challenges• Large volume may cause greater temperature and humidity swings in the

gallery space than desired.

SummaryAs highlighted in the evaluation criteria scoring, we feel that the Laundry building is the most desirable for an art museum. " e building has great character, re$ ecting the history of the Grand Canyon, as well as prominence as viewed from the Grand Canyon Village. " ough both the existing and expanded Laundry building can provide ample gallery space, the proposed expansion to the Laundry building provides additional gallery space which is ideal for a temporary exhibition gallery. " is would allow room for the GCA and Grand Canyon National Park collections to grow, while keeping dedicated space for temporary exhibits, including the annual celebration of art event.

Page 24: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 25: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 26: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 27: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Engineering BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 17Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Engineering BuildingArchitectural ReviewNot adequately sized to accommodate even the minimal museum program, the Engineering Building would require an addition to meet the programmatic needs. Limited mezzanine space would also be available for secondary functions. " e $ exibility of its open interior would lend itself well to rehabilitation.

With some of the architectural features characteristic of the surrounding structures, the Engineering Building has an excellent visual presence towards the area that would most likely become the main site parking.

Structural Review" e Engineering Building is similar to the Laundry and Powerhouse building in that it has a basic roof and wall construction. " e di% erence lies in the corrugated steel deck used for the roof in lieu of wood deck. It too has stone veneer on the exterior walls. One end of the building has a second $ oor but the framing was not accessible to view. " e lateral force resisting system is classi# ed a concrete shear wall. " e building appears to be in good condition.

Structural Recommendations• New plywood sheathing on the roof• Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors• Wall to foundation anchors• Concrete wall sti% ening for out-of-plane seismic loads• Anchorage of stone veneer

Mechanical Review" e engineering building is heated and cooled with gas furnaces, electric baseboard, gas unit heaters, and split system A/C units, along with evaporative coolers.

Mechanical Recommendations" e engineering building is limited in ceiling space for HVAC and would require extensive re-working of the spaces to accommodate the new ventilation system.

Corrugated Steel Deck

Ventilation System

Page 28: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Engineering BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 18Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Electrical Review" e existing electrical service to the building is at the southeast end of the building. " e service is served overhead and appears to be 400 A., 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire, with two 200 A pull-out disconnects.

" e building distribution also serves a separate temporary containerized o! ce structure to the west. " ere is an existing feeder with conductors routed and exposed below the east eaves. " e service feeds other individual circuit breaker panels throughout the building.

" e historic building general lighting is primarily via industrial luminaires, or other assortments of luminaires using T-12 lamps. " e building has minimal exterior lighting.

" e building has an existing Fire-Lite 5024-UD # re alarm panel located on the second level.

Low voltage voice/data service to the building is routed overhead.

Electrical Recommendations" e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility ReviewADA access to the west side of the Engineering Building can be achieved with ramps.

Test Fit PlansConcept plans for the Engineering Building were developed based on 2 programmatic approaches:

1. Provide full program with an addition, with the option of a basement (Options A & B)

2. To provide a reduced program scheme where the maximum gallery area is # t into available square footage of the existing building, without expansion.

Where the full restroom square footage is not provided, this reduced scheme would require a common restroom facility within the interpretive campus, only a small convenience restroom is provided (see site plan concept A and B which illustrates a small entry building, which could act as site orientation and amenities, such as

restrooms).Both schemes for the Engineering Building eliminate the mezzanine, as the small amount of square footage gained is nearly negated by the lift or elevator that would be required for ADA accessibility. " is would then open the entire space to a double height volume enhancing the visitor experience of the gallery.

Opportunities• Prominent site location adjacent to proposed shuttle stop and parking (based on 2004 Interpretive Campus Plan).• HVAC system can be easily integrated into exposed structural framing.• Strong building character to unite with the surrounding Laundry and Powerhouse buildings, and a desirable quality and volume of natural light.

Electrical Service

Drainage

Page 29: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Engineering BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 19Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Challenges• Large volume may cause larger temperature and humidity swings in the

gallery space than desired.• " e proposed addition is roughly double the size of the existing building, and

will be challenging to maintain the historic integrity. Careful consideration will need to be taken to not diminish the scale of the existing structure.

Summary" e engineering building, with the proposed expansion is a close second choice, as it possesses many of the same character attributes as the Laundry building. " is expansion would be much larger, and essentially double the size of the existing Engineering Building. " e design of this building would need to carefully consider the massing of the expansion, to prevent visually diminishing the presence of the original, historic structure, as re$ ected in the criteria scoring. Without an addition, the Engineering building does not seem su! cient to meet the program goals of the Art museum. One potential scenario where the Engineering Building, without expansion, is feasible would be as a temporary exhibit gallery only, while one of the other buildings in the study serves as the permanent gallery for the GCA and NPS collections.

Page 30: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 31: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 32: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 33: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

PowerhouseGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 21Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

PowerhouseArchitectural ReviewAs the second largest of the structures examined, the Powerhouse Building provides the necessary square footage to house the entire Art Museum Program without the need for a building addition. Its monumental presence and historic character would enhance the museum experience.

" e $ exibility of the open warehouse lends itself well to the proposed program. " e tall ceilings would allow for the addition of a mezzanine level that could house displays or serve as secondary exhibit space. Multi-level changes located in the secondary spaces of the Powerhouse would add additional expense to accommodate site and ADA accessibility. " e current basement would remain inaccessible to the public, modi# cations would allow for certain areas to be used for engineering systems or storage.

Structural Review" e Powerhouse building is a much larger version of the Laundry Building as far as basic roof, steel column and wall construction, but is a large high bay warehouse type building with an average roof height elevation of approximately +45’-0” above ground level. It also has the same stone veneer exterior as the Laundry building, but at a much taller and massive scale. In the basement concrete columns support the main $ oor, bearing walls, massive cast in place walls and spread foundations

Roofi ng

Page 34: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

PowerhouseGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 22Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

support the machinery that was located above (much of which has since been removed). Connected to the west of the main space of the Powerhouse building is the Icehouse, which is a lower roofed two story structure with steel wide $ ange roof and $ oor beams spanning to concrete bearing/shear walls. " e roof and $ oor appear to be sheathed with approximately 2x3 decking laid upright. " e building and the addition contain mezzanines that are not tied to the building’s structural system. " e lateral force resisting system is classi# ed a concrete shear wall. " e building appears to be in good condition.

Structural Recommendations" is portion of the narrative outlines possible structural modi# cations required to renovate the buildings for use as an art museum. A new geotechnical report will be required to determine new foundation requirements. Further investigation is required to quantify the amount of seismic retro# tting for life- safety level of performance in a moderate earthquake. It is anticipated that the following items would need to be installed or altered in this building for its new use:• New plywood sheathing on the roof• Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors• Wall to foundation anchors• Concrete wall sti% ening for out-of-plane seismic loads• Anchorage of stone veneer

Mechanical Review" e powerhouse has no heating or cooling within the building, only operable windows. " ere is an existing water pumping station in the basement that has new pumps and expansion tanks install, this system is supplying domestic water to facilities to the north of the area.

Mechanical RecommendationsOne of the main challenges for the HVAC system in the power house will be large volume space as the air distribution would be from a very high elevation and higher temperature and humidity $ uctuations may occur. A more e% ective approach would be to supply heating and cooling air from below, but would require $ oor penetrations and $ oor registers, but this would allow for the HVAC equipment to be located in the basement space and would not be visible.

Electrical Review" e existing electrical service to the building is at the south exterior and is served overhead and appears to be 600 amperes, 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire. " e utility feed to the building appears to be less. " e main distribution is exterior to the building and serves two small panels inside.

" e historic building general lighting is very sparse, using possibly historic RLM type luminaires. " e building has minimal exterior lighting, although more than the Laundry Building. A raceway serving an exterior luminaire was noted to be separated exposing conductors to the elements. " is condition should be corrected to avert the occurrence of an electrical fault or incident." e building is not currently in use." e building does not appear to have a # re alarm system.

Electrical Service

Operable Windows

Page 35: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

PowerhouseGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 23Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

" e building houses generators and control switchboards which served site electrical distribution. " ese elements are historic and will remain in the building.

Electrical Recommendations" e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility ReviewADA access to the Powerhouse will be more challenging and most likely will require a lift or ramp. " ere is about a 6 (six) foot grade di% erential on the east side of the building from the ground to the main $ oor level.

Test-Fit PlansPlans for the Powerhouse preserve the existing equipment and machinery within the space, surrounding them with gallery spaces. Centrally located restrooms serve as a solid volume within the open space of the Powerhouse, and provide a mezzanine level above.

Administrative and storage functions are located on both levels of the Icehouse, and are accessible through a new elevator provided in the space, which also connects to the proposed mezzanine level.

With large, expansive windows, careful interior shading will need to be provided to protect artwork from harmful UV exposure, particularly along the south and east sides.

Outside the building, a proposed ramp and stair provide an accessible entrance to the main level, and connect to the central “Interpretive Campus” green space (as proposed in the 2004 study), as well as the amphitheater further east.

Programmed areas located in the basement can be accessed via the proposed elevator or from the exterior, north side of the building. Based on the assessment visit, much of the piping that reduces the ceiling height can be removed, but would need to be con# rmed with a full, detailed building assessment.

Opportunities• Most iconic structure on the campus with monumental site presence• Large open space allows a $ exible, open approach to space planning• Opportunity to create loft spaces to utilize the high open volume space

Challenges• Large volume may cause larger temperature and humidity swings in the

gallery space than desired.• Requires extensive modi# cation to address accessibility / ADA.• Seismic / Structural upgrades are extensive, and magni# ed due to the size of

the building.

Summary" e Powerhouse is an impressive, heroically scaled structure which speaks strongly to the history of the Grand Canyon, and in any study would maintain the machinery that made the original lodging accommodations, such as El Tovar possible. Even more so than the adjacent Laundry building, the Powerhouse is a prominent structure from the vantage point of the Grand Canyon Village and would be a clear destination for visitors. " e extent of work to be done at the Powerhouse to make the art museum feasible, including ADA access to the main $ oor level, and to the

Page 36: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

PowerhouseGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 24Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

various levels within the building, including the partial levels of the original icehouse are challenges that would be presented. With large windows, particularly on the south elevation, a strategy to control sunlight would need to be part of successful museum implementation, which could be achieved with either window # lms or internal shading, to preserve the historic exterior quality. With an appropriate UV control strategy, the visual connection of the interior gallery spaces to the Grand Canyon Village would be an inspiring aspect of the Powerhouse.

Page 37: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 38: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

General Offi ce BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 26Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

General Offi ce BuildingArchitectural ReviewO% ering the largest amount of available square footage, the building is more than su! cient to house the museum program. While the structure does not carry the same sort of monumental presence as the Powerhouse, its façade is composed stylistically with a palette of materials that # ts well into the character of the existing historic structures. " e interior o% ers few ADA or historical concerns and would leave a $ exible space available for the new program after interior demolition was complete.

Structural Review" e General O! ce Building is a one-story structure with a gabled roof consisting of wood trusses, straight sheathing and stone veneer on the exterior walls. Based on the construction of the other buildings and photos observed, it is expected that the perimeter walls are composed of concrete or masonry bearing walls. " e building appears to be in good condition.

Structural Recommendations• New plywood sheathing on the roof• Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors• Wall to foundation anchors• Concrete wall sti% ening for out-of-plane seismic loads• Anchorage of stone veneer

Mechanical Review" e General O! ce building has roof mounted evaporative coolers and roof mounted A/C units with gas heat and gas furnaces.

Mechanical Recommendations" e General O! ce building would require minimal work to accommodate the HVAC system as there are large amounts of attic space that could be utilized. Roof mounted equipment could also be utilized to save ground space.

Wood Trusses

Evaporative Coolers

Page 39: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

General Offi ce BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 27Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Electrical Review" e general o! ce buildings existing electrical service is located on the north side of the building and is an overhead, 120/240 V, service which appears to be relatively

new.

" e interior lighting is primarily via $ uorescent source luminaires. " e garage portion uses industrial luminaires, while the o! ce areas have surface mounted wrap-lensed luminaires. Exterior lighting is limited and uses both incandescent and HID sources.

" e building does have a # re alarm system.

Electrical Recommendations" e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility ReviewStudy re-location of road immediately west of General O! ce Building – to be re-routed to the south side of the building.

Test Fit PlansConcept plans for the General O! ce building were developed based on 2 programmatic approaches:

1. " e art museum program occupies only the east portion of the building. " is area currently serves as the garage service bays (Option A).

2. " e art museum program occupies only the west portion of the building (Option B).

Each scheme is viable, option A provides an entry o% the existing parking and service areas, which would become the dedicated museum parking lot, and option B provides a stronger connection as the terminus of the interpretive campus. Although more physically remote, a system of pedestrian paths would be proposed to connect the buildings at the interpretive campus to the general o! ce, making it a terminus to the campus. Strengthening this connection would be the re-location of the road to the west of the entry, as noted on the test # t plan.

Opportunities• Approximately double the amount of necessary space, additional uses (to be

determined) can share the cost of renovating the building. (this could be a challenging if there is no additional user identi# ed at this time).

• Close proximity to both the train station and nearby lodging (El Tovar and Bright Angel Lodge), existing pedestrian access would negate the need for a bridge or crossing over the railway.

• Adjacent parking can provide access for those only visiting the art museum.

Challenges• Physically disconnected from the Interpretive Campus Concept and other

potentially related programs that could create a synergy at this portion of the park. (" e museum functions would seem ideal as a core element of this campus.)

• Additional cost of re-routing the existing road to connect with the Interpretive Campus, as well as challenges with the Historic Plan that is in place, and includes the road layout.

West Entrance

Page 40: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

General Offi ce BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 28Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

• Lacks the historic character of the Engineering, Laundry or Powerhouse buildings.

• Relocation of the existing garage.

Summary" e # nal viable museum location is the General O! ce building. With respect to the previous structures mentioned, the General O! ce Building lacks the historical character and inspiring presence that the other buildings possess. Minimal windows allow limited connection to the exterior and very little natural daylight into the space. " e General O! ce is much closer and more accessible to the lodging and would be potentially the # rst building encountered from visitors arriving via the train.

One potential drawback is the distance from the “Interpretive Campus”, where as other cultural amenities are implemented in this area, the art museum, would logically is at the core of this cultural experience. " e general o! ce would be connected to the larger campus with a system of pedestrian paths, and in one study, the road is even re-routed (see graphic on the next page) to the east side of the building to allow a stronger pedestrian connection, but remains physically more removed.

" e size of the General O! ce Building can be either an advantage or disadvantage, as less than half of the building is needed for the art museum program. Should a compatible user for the remaining portion of the building, such as expanded artist-in-residence program accommodations, or youth art + education retreat space, some of the renovation and construction costs could be shared amongst the two users.

Page 41: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 42: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 43: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

1/10/12

PROJECTNORTH

Road AlignmentGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 40 80 160 FEET

SCULPTURE SCULPTURE GARDENGARDEN

RE-ROUTED ROAD RE-ROUTED ROAD CONFIGURATIONCONFIGURATION

EXISTING “HISTORIC” EXISTING “HISTORIC” ROAD - PEDESTRIAN PLAZAROAD - PEDESTRIAN PLAZA

EXISTING ROAD AND EXISTING ROAD AND SIDEWALK ALONG RAIL LINE SIDEWALK ALONG RAIL LINE

PARKING UTILIZES EXISTING PARKING UTILIZES EXISTING MAINTENANCE YARDMAINTENANCE YARD

TRAIN STATIONTRAIN STATION

GRAND CANYON GRAND CANYON VILLAGEVILLAGE

MUSEUM MUSEUM ENTRYENTRY

GENERAL NOTE:GENERAL NOTE:SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN2004 “INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS” PLAN

GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL OFFICE BUILDINGBUILDING

ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGBUILDING

Page 44: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

The Mule BarnGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 30Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Mule BarnArchitectural Review" e usable space of the Mule Barn would make the minimum requirements of the art program attainable; the addition of a secondary structure to accommodate the full art program would be infeasible due to topography and building structure. Also, the congested $ oor plan that is characteristic of a working stable, while a de# ning feature of the Mule Barn, would need to be heavily modi# ed to accommodate the art program, this modi# cation would also have a detrimental e% ect on the building’s historic fabric.

Additionally, challenges with the exterior building envelope, lack of natural lighting, and overall $ exibility of the space; does not make the Mule Barn a good candidate for the art museum program.

Structural Review " e Mule Barn is a one-story structure with an attic loft consisting of wood frame construction. " e roof framing consists of wood trusses spanning to perimeter wood stud bearing walls and interior beams and posts. It appears that a line of beams and posts was added where the roof rafters meet the collar ties on only the north side of the building, and not symmetrically added on the south side. " is could indicate that the roof sagged at one time and needed to be propped back up, perhaps from uneven snowdrifts. " e attic $ oor is sheathed with straight sheathing." e roof and walls are sheathed with 1&x&straight sheathing. " e foundation appears to be continuous concrete spread footings at the perimeter walls and isolated spread footings at interior posts. " e lateral force resisting system is classi# ed as a wood shear wall. " e building appears to have a large of amount of solid shear walls and roof wood diaphragm capacity and appears to be in good condition.

Structural Recommendations• Add perimeter blocking at rafter between roof sheathing and double top plate

of walls to transfer horizontal roof diaphragm shear to the shear walls.• Add adhesive or epoxy anchor bolts from wall sill plate to foundation as

needed.• If interior posts are to be removed new transfer beams with new end posts and

footings would be required to support the existing attic $ oor joists.

Wood Trusses

Page 45: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

The Mule BarnGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 31Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Mechnical Review" ere is no existing HVAC in the Mule barn, a gas furnace has been added to the wood shop for heating needs. " e wood shop also currently has a dust collection system.

Mechanical RecommendationsWith the Mule barn currently having a dirt $ oor this building could allow for an even more energy e! cient HVAC system. Since a new $ oor slab would need to be installed a radiant heating and cooling $ oor could be designed, this would require a chilled and heating water system. " e exterior walls will need to be upgraded for insulation and vapor barriers so the temperature and humidity could be controlled.

Electrical Review" e mule barn does not have a dedicated utility service. " e buildings electrical distribution is served from the Livery Stable building to the southwest. " e livery Stable service is 100 A., 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire. " e feeder to the mule barn appears to be 100 A. " e feeder runs the length of the livery Stable, overhead across to the Mule Barn and enters the Mule barn at the west end. " e feeder connects to the # rst panel at the center south of the building. " erefore, the existing utility source is located quite a distance away with voltage drop a concern for any meaningful sized loads. " e service feeds two individual circuit breaker panels.

" e general lighting at the east side of the building is primarily via industrial luminaires, using T-12 lamps. " e lighting along the west side and the second level appears to be via RLM type luminaires with incandescent lamps. " e building has minimal exterior lighting at the east side.

" e building has an existing Ademco # re alarm panel.Low voltage voice/data service to the building is routed overhead.

Electrical Recommendations" e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring. .

Site Accessibility ReviewADA access to the west side of the Mule Barn will be di! cult due to the grade di% erential and limited area to construct a ramp.

Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building

Summary" e mule barn, presented a structural challenge, where to provide a desirable gallery space, much of the existing structure would need to be removed to allow larger column bays. Providing a conditioned environment, suitable for displaying artwork would prove di! cult, as the exterior envelope would need to be drastically modi# ed, resulting in much of the historic fabric being concealed with new, insulated walls. " e recommendation was made that this building is better suited for seasonal events, where the un-insulated structure could be utilized and the historic fabric remain in-tact. In this capacity, the Mule Barn could be a common facility for the interpretive campus.

Gas Furnace

West Site Access

Page 46: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Administration BuildingGrand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 32Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Administration BuildingArchitectural Review" e Administration building while a visually pleasing structure, presents several challenges. " e building’s small size, di! cult site location and multiple grade and level changes make this site incapable of meeting the minimum required art program. Any modi# cations to accommodate ADA and program needs would completely alter, detrimentally, the historic character of the structure.

Structural Review" e Administration building is a two-story wood framed structure with gabled roof. Per a previous structural building review, the roof consists of collar tied rafters and ceiling joists supported on wood stud walls. " e structural $ oor framing and wall framing were not visible as they were covered with # nishes. It appears that the roof is supported on multiple interior bearing walls. " ere are a lot of exterior stone masonry walkways, site walls, retaining walls, chimneys and stone masonry pilasters built up on portions of the structure. " e lateral force resisting system is classi# ed as wood shear wall. " is building is similar to residential construction and appears that it would perform well in a moderate earthquake with minor structural upgrading

due to its height and redundancy of wood shear walls and horizontal diaphragms. " e building appears to be in good condition.

Structural Recommendations• Add perimeter blocking at rafter between roof sheathing and double top plate of walls to transfer horizontal roof diaphragm shear to the shear walls.• Add adhesive or epoxy anchor bolts from wall sill plate to foundation as needed.• Anchorage of stone veneer.

Drop Ceiling

Page 47: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 33Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Mechanical ReviewEvaporative coolers are utilized to cool the Administration building, and electric baseboard heat on the perimeter of the interior of the building provides the heat for the building.

Mechanical Recommendations" e Administration building is limited in space for HVAC equipment to be installed. " e exterior of the building does not allow for ground mounted equipment and roof space is limited for roof mounted equipment. " e interior of the building is also limited in space for interior HVAC equipment to be installed.

Electrical Review" e existing electrical service to the building is at the east end of the building. It is served overhead and is 200 amperes, 120/240 V., single phase, 3-wire. " e distribution consists of a fusible main disconnect serving two branch circuit panel boards.

" e building general lighting is primarily via surface mounted o! ce luminaires or di% erent styles using T-12 lamps. " e building has minimal exterior lighting.

" e building has an existing Noti# er SFP 1024 # re alarm panel. Low voltage voice/data service to the building is routed overhead.

Electrical Recommendations" e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility ReviewGiven the surrounding grades associated with site topography, negotiating site access to the entry of this building presents many ADA challenges. Solutions for overall site ADA accessibility will be costly and extensive due to numerous grade and level changes within and surrounding the existing building.

Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building

Summary" e administration building presented several concerns when considering it’s functionality as an art museum. One of the foremost concerns was providing ADA access to this multi-level building, both from the exterior due to surrounding grades, as well as within the building. " e extent to which the building would need to be modi# ed to make it compliant would be costly, and negatively impact the ability to provide adequate display space for galleries. Also, the size of the interior spaces is not adequate for a collective gallery space, where larger, open spaces are more desirable.

Administration Building

Multiple Levels

Page 48: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 34Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Combined Art and River Heritage MuseumPowerhouse Building Test Fit PlanAs a shared museum, the Powerhouse has ideal interior volume to provide an additional mezzanine level. In addition to providing more programmable space, this added mezzanine would enable visitors to experience the museum from multiple perspectives. " e structure lends itself to potential suspended exhibits, such as river boats hanging from the structure above. In this scenario, visitors could experience a 3 dimensional display of exhibits from various perspectives.

As shown in the attached plans, the art museum program is located on the proposed mezzanine level. At 3,500 ft2 (which is at the maximum size based on building code requirements) nearly the full proposed gallery program is accommodated at this level.

" e main level would predominately house the River Heritage Museum program, with some $ exible space that is shared between the two museums. " is $ ex space could server as temporary or traveling exhibit space.

Administrative functions are located at the lower level of the Icehouse and basement, along with shared functions of the Seminar / " eater and Youth Art rooms.

As in the Art Museum plan, historic machinery and equipment remains in-tact, with mezzanine and gallery exhibit space wrapping around this existing context, and adding a strong connection to the history of this site for museum visitors.

Opportunities• " e most iconic structure on the campus with monumental site presence.• Large open space allows for a $ exible, open approach to space planning.• Opportunity to create loft spaces to utilize the high open volume space –

which is particularly attractive for shared museum use.

Challenges• Large volume may cause larger temperature and humidity swings in the

gallery space than desired.• Requires extensive modi# cation to address ADA accessibility.• Seismic / structural upgrades are extensive, and magni# ed due to the size of

the building functions of the seminar / theater and youth art rooms.

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum | Powerhouse Building

Page 49: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 50: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 35Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Combined Art and River Heritage MuseumGeneral Offi ce Building - Test-Fit Plan Due to the size of the General O! ce Building, which is more than double the proposed Art Museum program, there is more than enough space to accommodate both museum programs, as well as approximately 2,500 ft2 of additional shared space between the two museums.

" e art museum is shown as occupying the west side of the building, which is currently o! ce space, while the river heritage program is toward the east, utilizing the higher ceilings for the larger scaled river boat exhibits. Shared functions such as the theater, seminar, and youth art room link the two programs together as a common use and administrative space between the two exhibit areas.

Opportunities• Approximately double the amount of necessary space. Additional users (to be

determined) can share the cost of renovating the building (can be a challenge without an identi# ed additional user).

• Close proximity to both the train station and nearby lodging (El Tovar, " underbird and Bright Angel Lodges), without the need for a bridge or crossing over the railway.

• Adjacent parking can provide access for those only visiting the museum.

Challenges• Physically disconnected from the “Interpretive Campus” and other potential

related programs that could create a synergy at this portion of the park. (" e museum functions would seem ideal as a core element of this campus.)

• Additional cost of re-routing existing road to connect with the “Interpretive Campus”, as well as challenges with the Historic Plan that is in place, and includes the road layout.

• Lacks the historic character of the Engineering, Laundry or Powerhouse buildings.

• Sizeable existing garage use that would need to be relocated elsewhere in the park.

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum | General Offi ce Building

Page 51: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 52: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 37Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Building Recommendation" e number one (1) recommendation for the Art Museum program is the Laundry building, with the proposed addition. " e Engineering building, with the proposed addition, is ranked number two (2).

Of the six (6) subject buildings evaluated, only four (4) buildings are best suited to the Art Museum. " ese include the Laundry, Engineering, Powerhouse and General O! ce buildings.

Both the Mule Barn and Administration buildings have been taken out of contention. " is decision was based on several factors and agreed upon by all GCA and NPS stakeholders. By eliminating these two buildings early on allowed the design team to focus e% orts on the 4 buildings, as indicated above.

Building Recommendation

Page 53: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 38Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Overview and Next StepsOverall, the prospect of co-locating the proposed River Heritage and Art museums within the same building has distinct advantages in terms of cost (construction and operational), fundraising, and as a bold vision to inspire development adjacent programs at the Interpretive Campus. Should the museums remain separate, we would recommend the Laundry Building for the Art Museum, and the Powerhouse for the River Heritage Museum, where the height of the interior space could be leveraged by suspending the river boats. " e potential for the two to have a shared outdoor courtyard between them has very attractive potential.

Once a decision is arrived at, based on the information included in the report, and subsequent discussions amongst the GCA and NPS, our recommendation is to pursue a more detailed feasibility study, focused on the selected building and surrounding site. " is will allow for a more focused design concept to be developed, the proposed program to be con# rmed and adjusted if necessary to the available building area. From this more detailed concept study a more precise cost estimate can be developed to allow for a focused fundraising e% ort. Along with the feasibility study, we recommend developing preliminary exhibit design concepts. " is along with rendered views of the architectural and site improvements to the building will be key documents to present to potential donors. " is will be the opportunity to begin illustrating the vision of the Grand Canyon Art Museum, and crafting this story for potential stakeholders. We would anticipate this would be an approximately 2 to 3 month e% ort, and would involve a similar level of involvement from key stakeholders with the NPS and GCA, as involved with this concept study, to have multiple perspectives represented as the vision moves closer to reality.

Overview and Next Steps

Page 54: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 39Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Detailed Cost Estimate

Page 55: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs

9th January, 2012

SUMMARY

NPS Estimates Estimated Cost Break out Cost Contingency F,F & E A & E Fees EstimatedDescription of LSI; final of Structural & Owner Allowance Total Cost

figures to be Upgrades Expenses; (Excl LSI)negotiated with ($'s are incl in Allowconcessioner Estimated Costs)

Allow; $ $ $ 12.5% 7.0% 10.5% $Laundry 2,791,471$ Laundry with Addition 3,927,441 279,458 490,930 309,286 496,404 5,224,061 Laundry Option A 2,542,025 279,458 317,753 200,184 321,296 3,381,259 Laundry Option B 2,819,205 285,678 352,401 222,012 356,330 3,749,948 Powerhouse Building - Powerhouse Building n/a 4,488,856 1,279,447 561,107 353,497 567,363 5,970,824 River Heritage/Art Museum Option 6,599,629 1,279,447 824,954 519,721 834,152 8,778,455 Engineering Building 815,666$ - Engineering with Addition 3,128,469 186,092 391,059 246,367 395,419 4,161,313 Engineering with Addition; Basemt A 3,947,593 186,092 493,449 310,873 498,951 5,250,866 Engineering with Addition; Basemt B 4,406,789 186,092 550,849 347,035 556,991 5,861,663 Engineering Building; No Addition 1,289,570 186,092 161,196 101,554 162,994 1,715,313 General Office 3,471,678$ - General Office Option A 3,077,126 199,780 384,641 242,324 388,929 4,093,019 General Office Option B (excl Road) 3,297,759 198,297 412,220 259,699 416,816 4,386,493

Premium Opt B for Road re-alignmt 1,274,200 n/a 159,275 100,343 161,051 1,694,869 River Heritage/Art Museum Option 4,851,369 210,173 606,421 382,045 613,183 6,453,018 Common Site Requirements - Entry Building incl restroom 304,700 n/a 38,088 23,995 38,512 405,295

Note:1 All costs are current. No allowance for escalation.2 No specific costs included for environmental issues.

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 56: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs

9th January, 2012

BASIS OF ESTIMATE1 These Final Concept Opinion of Probable Costs are based on the draft concept designs prepared by Westlake, Reed Leskosky

during December/January, 2011/2, and the assumptions listed below.

2 The following costs are not included in the numbers:-Land costsOvertime workingEquipment supplied by ownerMoving & Relocation costsInspection feesTelecom equipmentRemoval or abatement of hazardous materials.Lead paint abatementArtwork/Exhibits

These costs should be carried in a separate budget.

3 The following assumptions have been made:-

- Concept site plan estimate not included at this stage.- Interior fit out concept to generally be an open, industrial type concept.- The options for General Office building not utilizing full space assume remaining unused building space to be seperately

funded.- 10% Design Contingency included on the Summary, combined with a 2.5% allowance for Owner expenses..- Costs excluded for any environmental issues.- 38.5% has been included for Contractor Mark-up's which includes General Conditions, location factor,

state taxes, bonds, insurances and fee.

4 Estimates also include some costs reported in the following previous reports:-- Historical Powerhouse Stabilization dated 1/4/07- Conceptual Design Cost Plan dated 3/3/04

5 This estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost and is based on the assumptionthat a minimum of four open competitive bids will be received from General Contractors' ,with similarcoverage from sub-trades.

The estimate represents our best judgement as professional construction consultants, however we cannotand do not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs for this project will not vary from these estimates.

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 57: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

GFABasement 2,450

Laundry Building incl Addition 1st 5,200GFA 11,400 sf Addition 3,750

Total: 11,400Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 7,650 sf 8.50 65,025

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 7,650 sf 3.50 26,775 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine incl belowAdd wall to foundation anchors incl belowConcrete wall stiffening incl belowAllowance for anchoring existing stone veneer incl below - Structural upgrades as noted above; pr previous est 1 ls 175,000 175,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 279,458$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Patch repairs where building addition removed 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upg 7,650 sf 6.50 49,725

- Interior Construction: - Waterproof existing basement 1,010 sf 15.00 15,150 Partitions/Doors 7,650 sf 20.00 153,000 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,000 sf 20.00 100,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 410 sf 12.00 4,920 Communal/grossing space 1,530 sf 10.00 15,300 Specialties/fittings/ 7,650 sf 9.00 68,850

- Systems - Plumbing installation 7,650 sf 8.50 65,025 Fire sprinkler system 7,650 sf 4.00 30,600 HVAC installation 7,650 sf 28.00 214,200 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 7,650 sf 6.00 45,900 Lighting 7,650 sf 15.00 114,750 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 7,650 sf 10.00 76,500

Carried Forward 1,477,600

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 58: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,477,600

New AdditionExcavate for basement 1,100 cy 12.00 13,200 Backfill w/space 500 cy 8.50 4,250 Remove dig 600 cy 10.00 6,000 Foundations 3,750 sf 4.50 16,875 Basement walls 1,900 sf 28.00 53,200 Waterproofing 1,900 sf 6.00 11,400 Slab on grade 5,250 sf 6.00 31,500 Exterior closure above grade 3,900 sf 50.00 195,000 Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) 3,750 sf 20.00 75,000 Roofing to addition 3,750 sf 8.00 30,000 Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 3,750 sf 22.00 82,500 Fit out of functional spaces: - Finishes 3,750 sf 18.00 67,500 Specialties 3,750 sf 9.00 33,750 Conveying Systems:Two stop elevator incl shaft/pit 1 ls 175,000 175,000 Systems - Plumbing installation 3,750 sf 6.00 22,500 Fire sprinkler system 3,750 sf 4.00 15,000 HVAC installation 3,750 sf 28.00 105,000 Electrical installation - New service incl abovePower & Distribution 3,750 sf 6.00 22,500 Lighting 3,750 sf 10.00 37,500 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 3,750 sf 8.00 30,000

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150000.00 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,836,275 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,091,166

Estimated Total Cost for Laundry Building with Addition: 3,927,441$

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 59: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

GFABasement 2,450

Laundry Building "A" 1st 5,200GFA 7,650 sf Addition 0

Total: 7,650Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 7,650 sf 8.50 65,025 Demolish existing additions 1283 sf 25.00 32,075 StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 7,650 sf 3.50 26,775 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine incl belowAdd wall to foundation anchors incl belowConcrete wall stiffening incl belowAllowance for anchoring existing stone venner incl below - Structural upgrades as noted above; pr previos est 1 ls 175,000 175,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 279,458$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Patch repairs where building addition removed 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upg 7,650 sf 6.50 49,725

- Interior Construction: - Waterproof existing basement 1,010 sf 15.00 15,150 Partitions/Doors 7,650 sf 22.00 168,300 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,500 sf 20.00 50,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 2,910 sf 12.00 34,920 Communal/grossing space 1,530 sf 10.00 15,300 Specialties/fittings/ 7,650 sf 9.00 68,850

- Systems - Plumbing installation 7,650 sf 8.50 65,025 Fire sprinkler system 7,650 sf 4.00 30,600 HVAC installation 7,650 sf 28.00 214,200 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 7,650 sf 6.00 45,900 Lighting 7,650 sf 15.00 114,750 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 7,650 sf 10.00 76,500

Carried Forward 1,504,975

Page 3 Associated Construction Economists

Page 60: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,504,975

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

1,835,975 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 706,050

Estimated Total Cost for Laundry Building Option A: 2,542,025$

Page 4 Associated Construction Economists

Page 61: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

GFABasement 2,450

Laundry Building "B" 1st 5,200GFA 8,933 sf Existing Addition 1,283

Total: 8,933Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 8,933 sf 8.50 75,931 Partial demo of existing addition 1 ls 20,000 20,000 StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 8,933 sf 3.50 31,266 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine incl belowAdd wall to foundation anchors incl belowConcrete wall stiffening incl belowAllowance for anchoring existing stone venner incl below - Structural upgrades as noted above; pr previos est 1 ls 175,000 175,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 285,678$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Patch repairs where building addition removed 1 ls 10,000 10,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000 New Entry canopy 1 ls 50,000 50,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upg 8,933 sf 6.50 58,065

- Interior Construction: - Waterproof existing basement 1,010 sf 15.00 15,150 Partitions/Doors 8,933 sf 22.00 196,526 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 3,000 sf 20.00 60,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 3,693 sf 12.00 44,316 Communal/grossing space 1,787 sf 10.00 17,866 Specialties/fittings/ 8,933 sf 9.00 80,397

- Systems - Plumbing installation 8,933 sf 8.50 75,931 Fire sprinkler system 8,933 sf 4.00 35,732 HVAC installation 8,933 sf 28.00 250,124 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 8,933 sf 6.00 53,598 Lighting 8,933 sf 15.00 133,995 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 8,933 sf 10.00 89,330

Carried Forward 1,705,105

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 62: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,705,105

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150000.00 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,036,105 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 783,100

Estimated Total Cost for Laundry Building Option B: 2,819,205$

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 63: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

GFA1st 2,675

Engineering Building & Add Loft 0GFA 9,075 sf Addition 6,400

Total: 9,075Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Demolitions; - Gut interior space 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Remove loft mezzanine 1 ls 15,000 15,000 StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 2,675 sf 3.50 9,363 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 25,000 25,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 10,000 10,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer 1 allow 75,000 75,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 186,092$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 15,000 15,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 40,000 40,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad 2,675 sf 6.50 17,388

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 435 sf 12.00 5,220 Communal/grossing space 535 sf 10.00 5,350 Specialties/fittings/ 2,675 sf 12.00 32,100

- Systems - Plumbing installation 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Fire sprinkler system 2,675 sf 4.00 10,700 HVAC installation 2,675 sf 28.00 74,900 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 2,675 sf 6.00 16,050 Lighting 2,675 sf 15.00 40,125 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 sf 10.00 26,750

Carried Forward 732,300

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 64: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $New Addition Brought Forward 732,300 Foundations 6,400 sf 4.50 28,800 Slab on grade 6,400 sf 6.00 38,400 Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) 6,400 sf 22.00 140,800 Exterior closure above grade 5,000 sf 50.00 250,000 Roofing to addition 6,400 sf 8.00 51,200 New entry canopy 1 ls 75,000 75,000 Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 6,400 sf 22.00 140,800 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,125 sf 20.00 42,500 Restrooms 870 sf 22.00 19,140 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 3,005 sf 12.00 36,060 Communal/grossing space 1,000 sf 10.00 10,000 Specialties/fittings/ 6,400 sf 9.00 57,600

- Systems - Plumbing installation 6,400 sf 6.00 38,400 Fire sprinkler system 6,400 sf 4.00 25,600 HVAC installation 6,400 sf 28.00 179,200 Electrical installation - New service incl abovePower & Distribution 6,400 sf 6.00 38,400 Lighting 6,400 sf 10.00 64,000 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 6,400 sf 8.00 51,200

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,259,400 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 869,069

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Addition 3,128,469$

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 65: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

GFA1st 2,675

Engineering Building + Base Add; "A" Addition 6,400GFA 10,875 sf Add Base A 1,800

Total: 10,875Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Demolitions; - Gut interior space 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Remove loft mezzanine 1 ls 15,000 15,000 StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 2,675 sf 3.50 9,363 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 25,000 25,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 10,000 10,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer 1 allow 75,000 75,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 186,092$

External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 15,000 15,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 40,000 40,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad 2,675 sf 6.50 17,388

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 435 sf 12.00 5,220 Communal/grossing space 535 sf 10.00 5,350 Specialties/fittings/ 2,675 sf 9.00 24,075

- Systems - Plumbing installation 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Fire sprinkler system 2,675 sf 4.00 10,700 HVAC installation 2,675 sf 28.00 74,900 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 2,675 sf 6.00 16,050 Lighting 2,675 sf 15.00 40,125 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 sf 10.00 26,750

Carried Forward 724,275

Page 3 Associated Construction Economists

Page 66: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $New Addition Brought Forward 724,275 Foundations 6,400 sf 4.50 28,800 Slab on grade 6,400 sf 6.00 38,400 Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) 6,400 sf 22.00 140,800 Exterior closure above grade 5,000 sf 50.00 250,000 Roofing to addition 6,400 sf 8.00 51,200 New entry canopy 1 ls 75,000 75,000 Basement AExcavate for basement 1,250 cy 12.00 15,000 Backfill w/space 500 cy 8.50 4,250 Remove dig 750 cy 10.00 7,500 Foundations 1,800 sf 6.00 10,800 Basement walls 2,050 sf 28.00 57,400 Waterproofing 2,050 sf 6.00 12,300 Slab on grade 1,800 sf 6.00 10,800 Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) 1,800 sf 20.00 36,000 Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 8,200 sf 22.00 180,400 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,125 sf 20.00 42,500 Restrooms 870 sf 22.00 19,140 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 4,805 sf 12.00 57,660 Communal/grossing space 1,640 sf 10.00 16,400 Specialties/fittings/ 8,200 sf 9.00 73,800 Conveying SystemsThree stop elevator incl shaft/pit 1 ls 250,000 250,000 Systems - Plumbing installation 8,200 sf 6.00 49,200 Fire sprinkler system 8,200 sf 4.00 32,800 HVAC installation 8,200 sf 28.00 229,600 Electrical installation - New service incl abovePower & Distribution 8,200 sf 6.00 49,200 Lighting 8,200 sf 10.00 82,000 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 8,200 sf 8.00 65,600 Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

Mark-Up's 2,850,825 General Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,096,768

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Basement Addition "A": 3,947,593$

Page 4 Associated Construction Economists

Page 67: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

GFA1st 2,675

Engineering Building + Base Add; "B" Addition 6,400GFA 12,875 sf Add Base A 3,800

Total: 12,875Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Demolitions; - Gut interior space 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Remove loft mezzanine 1 ls 15,000 15,000 StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 2,675 sf 3.50 9,363 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 25,000 25,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 10,000 10,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner 1 allow 75,000 75,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 186,092$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 15,000 15,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 40,000 40,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad 2,675 sf 6.50 17,388

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 435 sf 12.00 5,220 Communal/grossing space 535 sf 10.00 5,350 Specialties/fittings/ 2,675 sf 9.00 24,075

- Systems - Plumbing installation 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Fire sprinkler system 2,675 sf 4.00 10,700 HVAC installation 2,675 sf 28.00 74,900 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 2,675 sf 6.00 16,050 Lighting 2,675 sf 15.00 40,125 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 sf 10.00 26,750

Carried Forward 724,275

Page 5 Associated Construction Economists

Page 68: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $New Addition Brought Forward 724,275 Foundations 6,400 sf 4.50 28,800 Slab on grade 6,400 sf 6.00 38,400 Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) 6,400 sf 22.00 140,800 Exterior closure above grade 5,000 sf 50.00 250,000 Roofing to addition 6,400 sf 8.00 51,200 New entry canopy 1 ls 75,000 75,000 Basement AExcavate for basement 2,250 cy 12.00 27,000 Backfill w/space 1,000 cy 8.50 8,500 Remove dig 1,250 cy 10.00 12,500 Foundations 3,800 sf 6.00 22,800 Basement walls 3,000 sf 28.00 84,000 Waterproofing 3,000 sf 6.00 18,000 Slab on grade 3,800 sf 6.00 22,800 Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) 3,800 sf 20.00 76,000 Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 10,200 sf 22.00 224,400 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 2,125 sf 20.00 42,500 Restrooms 870 sf 22.00 19,140 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 6,805 sf 12.00 81,660 Communal/grossing space 2,040 sf 10.00 20,400 Specialties/fittings/ 10,200 sf 9.00 91,800 Conveying SystemsThree stop elevator incl shaft/pit 1 ls 250,000 250,000 Systems - Plumbing installation 10,200 sf 6.00 61,200 Fire sprinkler system 10,200 sf 4.00 40,800 HVAC installation 10,200 sf 28.00 285,600 Electrical installation - New service incl abovePower & Distribution 10,200 sf 6.00 61,200 Lighting 10,200 sf 10.00 102,000 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 10,200 sf 8.00 81,600 Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

Mark-Up's 3,182,375 General Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,224,414

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Basement Addition "B": 4,406,789$

Page 6 Associated Construction Economists

Page 69: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

GFA1st 2,675

Engineering Building; No Addition Loft 0GFA 2,675 sf Addition 0

Total: 2,675Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Demolitions; - Gut interior space 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Remove loft mezzanine 1 ls 15,000 15,000 StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 2,675 sf 3.50 9,363 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 25,000 25,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 10,000 10,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner 1 allow 75,000 75,000 New canopy structure 1 ls 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 186,092$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 15,000 15,000 Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow 1 ls 40,000 40,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad 2,675 sf 6.50 17,388

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 2,675 sf 20.00 53,500 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 1,900 sf 20.00 38,000 Youth Art/Seminar 0 sf 18.00 - Restrooms 70 sf 22.00 1,540 Entry 0 sf 25.00 - Office/Storage/support 705 sf 12.00 8,460 Communal/grossing space 535 sf 10.00 5,350 Specialties/fittings/ 2,675 sf 9.00 24,075

- Systems - Plumbing installation 2,675 sf 8.50 22,738 Fire sprinkler system 2,675 sf 4.00 10,700 HVAC installation 2,675 sf 28.00 74,900 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 2,675 sf 6.00 16,050 Lighting 2,675 sf 15.00 40,125 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 sf 10.00 26,750

Carried Forward 701,675

Page 7 Associated Construction Economists

Page 70: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 701,675

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

931,675 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 357,895

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Addition 1,289,570$

Page 8 Associated Construction Economists

Page 71: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Powerhouse Building

9th January, 2012

GFABasement 9,070

Powerhouse Building 1st 8,130GFA 17,200 sf Mezzanine (Optional) 1,500

Total:(excl mezz) 17,200Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 10,608 sf 8.50 90,168 Partial gut historic fabric to remain 6592 sf 4.00 26,368 Powerhouse StabilizationAs Estimate dated 1/4/07 - Foundations 56,500 Superstructure 196,928 Exterior Closure 429,825 Roofing 156,555 Escalation 83,981

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 1,279,447$ External WallsIncl above excl -

Roof CoveringsIncl above excl -

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 10,608 sf 22.00 233,376 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 4,500 sf 20.00 90,000 Youth Art/Seminar 800 sf 18.00 14,400 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 2,200 sf 12.00 26,400 Communal/grossing space 1,768 sf 10.00 17,680 Historic fabric to remain 6,592 sf no workSpecialties/fittings/ 10,608 sf 9.00 95,472 Systems - Plumbing installation 10,608 sf 8.50 90,168 Fire sprinkler system 17,200 sf 4.00 68,800 HVAC installation 17,200 sf 28.00 481,600 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 10,608 sf 6.00 63,648 Lighting 10,608 sf 15.00 159,120 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 10,608 sf 10.00 106,080 Electrical to historic space to remain 6,592 sf 15.00 98,880

Carried Forward 2,716,629

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 72: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Powerhouse Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 2,716,629

Conveying Systems:Three stop elevator incl shaft/pit 1 ls 250,000 250,000

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000 ADA ramp 1 ls 35,000 35,000 Stair 1 ls 10,000 10,000

3,241,629 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,247,227

Estimated Total Cost for Powerhouse Building: 4,488,856$

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 73: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Powerhouse Building

9th January, 2012

Powerhouse Building; Combined River Heritage/Art MuseuemsGFA

Basement 9,0001st 8,934

GFA 17,934 sf Mezzanine 3,500Total:(excl mezz) 17,934

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 9,288 sf 8.50 78,948 Partial gut historic fabric to remain 8946 sf 4.00 35,784 Powerhouse StabilizationAs Estimate dated 1/4/07 - Foundations 56,500 Superstructure 196,928 Exterior Closure 429,825 Roofing 156,555 Escalation 83,981

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 1,279,447$ External WallsIncl above excl - StructureAdditional foundations/structure for mezzanine: 3,500 sf 125.00 437,500 Roof CoveringsIncl above excl - Interior Construction:Art Musuem - Partitions/Doors 9,288 sf 22.00 204,336 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 4,150 sf 20.00 83,000 Youth Art/Seminar 400 sf 18.00 7,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 350 sf 25.00 8,750 Kitchen 300 sf 20.00 6,000 Office/Storage/support 1,600 sf 12.00 19,200 Communal/grossing space 1,548 sf 10.00 15,480 Historic fabric to remain 8,946 sf no workSpecialties/fittings/ 9,288 sf 9.00 83,592 Systems - Plumbing installation 9,288 sf 8.50 78,948 Fire sprinkler system 17,934 sf 4.00 71,736 HVAC installation 17,934 sf 28.00 502,152 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 9,288 sf 6.00 55,728 Lighting 9,288 sf 15.00 139,320 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 9,288 sf 10.00 92,880 Electrical to historic space to remain 8,946 sf 15.00 134,190 River Heritage Museuem CostsFit out existing space to accommodate museum functions 8,104 sf 110.00 891,440

- Carried Forward 3,990,653

Page 3 Associated Construction Economists

Page 74: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Powerhouse Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 3,990,653

Conveying Systems:Five stop elevator incl shaft/pit 1 ls 400,000 400,000

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Cultural demonstration area 1 ls 75,000 75,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000 ADA ramp 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Stair 1 ls 20,000 20,000

4,765,653 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,833,976

Estimated Total Cost for Powerhouse Bldg; Combined River Heritage & Art Museuem 6,599,629$

Page 4 Associated Construction Economists

Page 75: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

GFA

General Office Building; "A" 1st; Programmed 11,213GFA 11,213 sf

Total: 11,213Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 11,213 sf 8.50 95,311

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 11,213 sf 3.50 39,246 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 40,000 40,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 2,500 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer 1 allow 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 199,780$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up 11,213 sf 6.50 72,885

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 11,213 sf 20.00 224,260 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,000 sf 20.00 100,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 3,973 sf 12.00 47,676 Communal/grossing space 2,243 sf 10.00 22,426 Specialties/fittings/ 11,213 sf 9.00 100,917

- Systems - Plumbing installation 11,213 sf 8.50 95,311 Fire sprinkler system 11,213 sf 4.00 44,852 HVAC installation 11,213 sf 28.00 313,964 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 11,213 sf 6.00 67,278 Lighting 11,213 sf 15.00 168,195 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 11,213 sf 10.00 112,130

Carried Forward 1,841,329

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 76: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,841,329

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150000.00 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Access road from west 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,222,329 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 854,797

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "A": 3,077,126$

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 77: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

GFA

General Office Building; "B" 1st; Programmed 10,907GFA 10,907 sf

Total: 10,907Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 10,907 sf 8.50 92,710

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 10,907 sf 3.50 38,175 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 40,000 40,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 2,500 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer 1 allow 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 198,297$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up 10,907 sf 6.50 70,896

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 10,907 sf 20.00 218,140 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,000 sf 20.00 100,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 3,667 sf 12.00 44,004 Communal/grossing space 2,181 sf 10.00 21,814 Specialties/fittings/ 10,907 sf 9.00 98,163

- Systems - Plumbing installation 10,907 sf 8.50 92,710 Fire sprinkler system 10,907 sf 4.00 43,628 HVAC installation 10,907 sf 28.00 305,396 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 10,907 sf 6.00 65,442 Lighting 10,907 sf 15.00 163,605 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 10,907 sf 10.00 109,070

Carried Forward 1,800,631

Page 3 Associated Construction Economists

Page 78: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,800,631

- Siteworks (excl Road re-alignment): - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Earthworks/grading/landscape re-work 1 ls 250,000 250,000 Road re-alignment from east incl storm drainage 1own seperately - Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,381,631 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 916,128

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "B" (Excl Road): 3,297,759$

Premium Costs for Road Re-AlignmentRoad re-alignment from east incl storm drainage 1 ls 850,000 850,000 Additional site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Additional site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire 1 ls 20,000 20,000

920,000 Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 354,200

Premium Costs on Option B for Road Re-Alignment: 1,274,200$

NOTE: No costs included for any work to remaining unused spaces in these Options as assumed will befunded seperately.

Page 4 Associated Construction Economists

Page 79: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

General Office Building;Combined River Heritage & Art MuseumGFA

1st; Art Programmed 13,357GFA 24,178 sf Heritage (as 6/7/10); 10,821

Total: 24,178Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Art Museuem:Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 13,357 sf 8.50 113,535

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 13,357 sf 3.50 46,750 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 40,000 40,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 2,500 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner 1 allow 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 210,173$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up 13,357 sf 6.50 86,821

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 13,357 sf 20.00 267,140 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,800 sf 20.00 116,000 Youth Art/Seminar 800 sf 18.00 14,400 Kitchen 300 sf 20.00 6,000 Restrooms 1,025 sf 22.00 22,550 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 2,482 sf 12.00 29,784 Added Multi-purpose/classroom/Display areas 2,550 sf 20.00 51,000 Communal/grossing space 2,671 sf 10.00 26,714 Specialties/fittings/ 13,357 sf 9.00 120,213

- Systems - Plumbing installation 13,357 sf 8.50 113,535 Fire sprinkler system 13,357 sf 4.00 53,428 HVAC installation 13,357 sf 28.00 373,996 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 13,357 sf 6.00 80,142 Lighting 13,357 sf 15.00 200,355 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 13,357 sf 10.00 133,570

River Heritage Museuem CostsFit out existing space to accommodate museum functions 8,104 sf 110.00 891,440

Carried Forward 3,047,371

Page 5 Associated Construction Economists

Page 80: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 3,047,371

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Cultural demonstration area 1 ls 75,000 75,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Access road from west 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

Note: Excludes Road Re-alignment excl

3,503,371 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,347,998

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Bldg Combined River Heritage & Art Museum 4,851,369$

Page 6 Associated Construction Economists

Page 81: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

GFA

General Office Building; "A" 1st; Programmed 11,213GFA 11,213 sf

Total: 11,213Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 11,213 sf 8.50 95,311

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 11,213 sf 3.50 39,246 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 40,000 40,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 2,500 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer 1 allow 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 199,780$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up 11,213 sf 6.50 72,885

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 11,213 sf 20.00 224,260 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,000 sf 20.00 100,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 3,973 sf 12.00 47,676 Communal/grossing space 2,243 sf 10.00 22,426 Specialties/fittings/ 11,213 sf 9.00 100,917

- Systems - Plumbing installation 11,213 sf 8.50 95,311 Fire sprinkler system 11,213 sf 4.00 44,852 HVAC installation 11,213 sf 28.00 313,964 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 11,213 sf 6.00 67,278 Lighting 11,213 sf 15.00 168,195 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 11,213 sf 10.00 112,130

Carried Forward 1,841,329

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 82: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,841,329

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150000.00 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Access road from west 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,222,329 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 854,797

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "A": 3,077,126$

Page 2 Associated Construction Economists

Page 83: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

GFA

General Office Building; "B" 1st; Programmed 10,907GFA 10,907 sf

Total: 10,907Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 10,907 sf 8.50 92,710

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 10,907 sf 3.50 38,175 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 40,000 40,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 2,500 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer 1 allow 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 198,297$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up 10,907 sf 6.50 70,896

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 10,907 sf 20.00 218,140 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,000 sf 20.00 100,000 Youth Art/Seminar 900 sf 18.00 16,200 Restrooms 940 sf 22.00 20,680 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 3,667 sf 12.00 44,004 Communal/grossing space 2,181 sf 10.00 21,814 Specialties/fittings/ 10,907 sf 9.00 98,163

- Systems - Plumbing installation 10,907 sf 8.50 92,710 Fire sprinkler system 10,907 sf 4.00 43,628 HVAC installation 10,907 sf 28.00 305,396 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 10,907 sf 6.00 65,442 Lighting 10,907 sf 15.00 163,605 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 10,907 sf 10.00 109,070

Carried Forward 1,800,631

Page 3 Associated Construction Economists

Page 84: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 1,800,631

- Siteworks (excl Road re-alignment): - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Earthworks/grading/landscape re-work 1 ls 250,000 250,000 Road re-alignment from east incl storm drainage 1own seperately - Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire 1 ls 30,000 30,000

2,381,631 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 916,128

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "B" (Excl Road): 3,297,759$

Premium Costs for Road Re-AlignmentRoad re-alignment from east incl storm drainage 1 ls 850,000 850,000 Additional site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Additional site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire 1 ls 20,000 20,000

920,000 Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 354,200

Premium Costs on Option B for Road Re-Alignment: 1,274,200$

NOTE: No costs included for any work to remaining unused spaces in these Options as assumed will befunded seperately.

Page 4 Associated Construction Economists

Page 85: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

General Office Building;Combined River Heritage & Art MuseumGFA

1st; Art Programmed 13,357GFA 24,178 sf Heritage (as 6/7/10); 10,821

Total: 24,178Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $

Art Museuem:Remodelling Existing Building:Demolitions; - Gut interior space 13,357 sf 8.50 113,535

StructureNew plywood sheathing to roof 13,357 sf 3.50 46,750 Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine 1 allow 40,000 40,000 Add wall to foundation anchors 1 allow 2,500 15,000 Concrete wall stiffening 1 allow 15,000 15,000 Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner 1 allow 35,000 35,000

Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: 210,173$ External WallsExterior walls; minor repairs; allow 1 ls 25,000 25,000 Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow 1 ls 60,000 60,000

Roof CoveringsRemove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up 13,357 sf 6.50 86,821

- Interior Construction: - Partitions/Doors 13,357 sf 20.00 267,140 Fit out of functional spaces: - Gallery space 5,800 sf 20.00 116,000 Youth Art/Seminar 800 sf 18.00 14,400 Kitchen 300 sf 20.00 6,000 Restrooms 1,025 sf 22.00 22,550 Entry 400 sf 25.00 10,000 Office/Storage/support 2,482 sf 12.00 29,784 Added Multi-purpose/classroom/Display areas 2,550 sf 20.00 51,000 Communal/grossing space 2,671 sf 10.00 26,714 Specialties/fittings/ 13,357 sf 9.00 120,213

- Systems - Plumbing installation 13,357 sf 8.50 113,535 Fire sprinkler system 13,357 sf 4.00 53,428 HVAC installation 13,357 sf 28.00 373,996 Electrical installation - New service 1 ls 100,000 100,000 Power & Distribution 13,357 sf 6.00 80,142 Lighting 13,357 sf 15.00 200,355 Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 13,357 sf 10.00 133,570

River Heritage Museuem CostsFit out existing space to accommodate museum functions 8,104 sf 110.00 891,440

Carried Forward 3,047,371

Page 5 Associated Construction Economists

Page 86: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study:Final Opinion of Probable Costs:General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Brought Forward 3,047,371

- Siteworks: - Sculpture Garden 1 ls 150,000 150,000 Cultural demonstration area 1 ls 75,000 75,000 Remodel existing restrooms 1,010 sf 100.00 101,000 Access road from west 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site paving adaptations; allow 1 ls 50,000 50,000 Site utility adaptations; allow 1 ls 30,000 30,000

Note: Excludes Road Re-alignment excl

3,503,371 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 1,347,998

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Bldg Combined River Heritage & Art Museum 4,851,369$

Page 6 Associated Construction Economists

Page 87: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study;Final Opinion of Probable Costs:Site Entry Building

9th January, 2012

Entry Building; (Common All Options): GFA:Restroom 800 sfMiscellaneous function: 200 sf

1,000 sf

Ref Description Quantity Unit Rate Total $Entry BuildingBuilding complete 1,000 sf 200.00 200,000

- Associated Siteworks: - Allow for utility hook-up's, paving, fixtures etc 1 ls 20,000 20,000

- -

220,000 Mark-Up'sGeneral Conditions 12.0%Taxes, Bonds & Insurances 10.0%Location 9.0%Overhead & Profit 7.5%Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 38.5% 84,700

Estimated Total Cost for Entry Building: 304,700$

Page 1 Associated Construction Economists

Page 88: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Evaluation Criteria Score Sheets - Overall

Page 89: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Association - Art Museum Concept Study

Building Evaluation Criteria - 01.13.12

Powerhouse General Office Mule Barn Administration Building11,400 sq.ft. With Addition

7,650 sq.ft. (Options A + B)

9,075 sq. ft. With Addition (A & B) 2,675 sq.ft. 17,200 sq.ft. 24,282 sq.ft.

(NOT IN CONTENTION) 9,758 sq.ft.

(NOT IN CONTENTION) 3,780 sq.ft.

Meets Program NeedsMin. Program Only 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 1

Desired Program 4 1 4 1 4 4 1 1

Site / Pedestrian Accessibility 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2Site Access + Parking 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 1Site Presence 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 2Identity / Entry Experience 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3Building Envelope 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3

BUILDINGSLaundry Engineering

ERIA

(YES)(YES)

(YES)(NO)

(YES)(YES)

(NO)(NO)

(YES)(NO)

(NO)(NO)

(YES)(YES)

(YES)(YES)

Interior Modifications 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1Building Accessibility/ADA 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 1Flexibility of Interior Space 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1Quality of Display Space 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 2Hist. Preservation Concerns 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 2

Building Infrastructure:HVAC 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3Plumbing/Sprinkler 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 4Electrical 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Structural Upgrades 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3UV Control 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

Total Estimated Project Cost 5,224,061.00$ 3,749,948.00$ 3,749,948.00$ 1,715,313.00$ 5,970,824.00$ 4,386,493.00$ N/A N/ALSI cost (estimated) 2,791,471.00$ 2,791,471.00$ 815,666.00$ 815,666.00$ N/A 3,471,678.00$

Total including LSI 8,015,532.00$ 6,541,419.00$ 4,565,614.00$ 2,530,979.00$ 5,970,824.00$ 7,858,171.00$ -$ -$ EVA

LUA

TIO

NC

RIT

ERIA

, ,$ , ,$ , ,$ , ,$ , ,$ , ,$

Total Score 59 55 56 50 54 54 39 37

Preliminary Ranking 1 3 2 6 4 5 N/A N/A

CRITERIA 1 2 3 4LEGEND Critical conditions Serious conditions Moderate conditions Minor conditions

LSI figures are based upon estimates provided by the NPSExisting conditions poseserious challenges tomeeting the evaluationcriteria

Evaluation criteria can bemet with a reasonableamount of effort

Criteria is either currentlymet by the existingbuilding or could be metwith minor modifications

Existing conditionscompletely prevent ormake it extremely costprohibitive to meet theevaluation criteria

General Note: Criteria that was evaluated and determined to be equivalent forall buildings include the following:Site Infrastructure, Building Security, Site Lighting, & Interior Lighting

General office was added following the assessment visit data is based uponbrief visit to the general office.

EVA

LUA

TIO

NC

RIT

ERIA

1/11/2012

Page 90: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Association - Art + River Heritage Museum Concept Study

Building Evaluation Criteria - 01.13.12

Meets Program NeedsMin. Program Only

Desired Program

Site / Pedestrian AccessibilitySite Access + ParkingSite PresenceIdentity / Entry ExperienceBuilding Envelope

Powerhouse 17,200 sq.ft.

44

3232

24,282 sq.ft.

44

323443

BUILDINGSGeneral Office

ERIA

(YES)(YES)

(YES)(YES)

g pInterior ModificationsBuilding Accessibility/ADAFlexibility of Interior SpaceQuality of Display SpaceHist. Preservation Concerns

Building Infrastructure:HVACPlumbing/SprinklerElectricalStructural UpgradesUV Control

Total Estimated Project CostLSI cost (estimated)

323

6,453,018.00$ 3,471,678.00$

434

34

34

2323

8,778,455.00$ N/A

2444

3

3

EVA

LUA

TIO

NC

RIT

ERIA

LSI cost (estimated)Total including LSI

Total Score

Preliminary Ranking

CRITERIA 1 2 3 4LEGEND Critical conditions Serious conditions Moderate conditions Minor conditions

54

2

3,471,678.00$ 9,924,696.00$ 8,778,455.00$

54

1

N/A

Existing conditions poseserious challenges tomeeting the evaluationi i

Evaluation criteria can bemet with a reasonableamount of effort

Criteria is either currentlymet by the existingb ildi ld b

Existing conditionscompletely prevent ormake it extremely cost

hibi i h

EVA

LUA

TIO

NC

RIT

ERIA

criteria building or could be metwith minor modifications

prohibitive to meet theevaluation criteria

1/11/2012

Page 91: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Appendix A - Meeting Minutes

Page 92: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 1 of 4

M E E T I N G N O T E S

AUTHOR: Dan Clevenger NOTE: The following meeting notes constitute our understanding of the items discussed. Unless

Author is notified of any additions and/or corrections within five (5) days after receipt, the following is assumed complete and correct.

Client: Grand Canyon Association Project: Grand Canyon Art Museum Study

Comm. No.: 11124.00 File No.: B02

Purpose: Grand Canyon Museum Kickoff

Location: Grand Canyon NPS Headquarters – South Rim

Meeting Date: 10.19.11 Time: 1:00 pm Date of Notes 10.24.11

Pres

ent

Dis

trib

utio

n

Name Company/Department Email

David Uberuaga (DU) NPS - Superintendant Bonnie O’Donnell (BO) GCA – Dir. of Dev. [email protected] Michael Terzich (MT) NPS – Project Manager [email protected] Leah McGinnis (LM) NPS [email protected] Susan Schroeder (SS) GCA - CEO [email protected] Colleen L. Hyde (CH) GRCA - Museum Collection [email protected] Kim Besom (KB) GCA - Museum Collection [email protected] Catherine Lentz (CL) NPS [email protected] Ellen Brennan (EB) NPS - Cultural [email protected] Barclay C. Trimble (BT) NPS [email protected] Mary Killeen (MK) NPS [email protected] Palma Wilson (PW) NPS [email protected] Beth Hickey (BH) GCA [email protected] Vince Leskosky (VL) WRL [email protected] Kristi Duce (KD) WRL [email protected] Dan Clevenger (DC) WRL [email protected] Kathleen Fitzpatrick (KF) CVL [email protected]

Page 93: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 2 of 4

NO.: ITEMS DISCUSSED: ACTION REQ’D

BY TARGET

DATE Integration with Previous Master Plan Efforts 1. DU provided an overview of the previous interpretive center master

plan done in 2004 and associated programs. Main “greenspace” to remain primarily pedestrian, parking

should not extend beyond what is shown in the concept study. Theater program proposed for the Mule Barn has now been

completed at the new Visitors Center Laundry Building is currently proposed as a “River Heritage

Museum”, but this does not preclude other potential uses for this building.

Identity / Interpretive Center program proposed for the Powerhouse has since been completed at the new Visitors Center

New Artist in Residence accommodations have been provided since this study.

New bike rental and coffee shop to be provided at the visitors center next year, bike rental will no longer be planned for the basement of the powerhouse as previously considered.

Info.

2. MT confirmed the following related to the interpretive master plan: There are plans to relocate the substation that is currently

west of the Powerhouse. Plan was vetted by SHPO Plan did not rely or reference light rail as primary

transportation. (Decision was made prior to this plan that Light Rail would not be implemented at this time)

Previous planning efforts were termed as an “Interpretive Campus” because it was more than just “Heritage” which implies primarily history – the plan was more inclusive of other programs.

Mule corral will remain

Info.

3. Other potential uses for surrounding buildings can be proposed by architectural team as part of site study, however, the main focus should be the art museum assessment and concept study, site uses are secondary. The following considerations should be made for these proposed uses:

Need to be revenue generating options Food service will need to be part of this campus Should serve as its own destination in the park, not relying

only on the adjacent hotels and lodges to generate visitors. Connection to nearby Community Building – which includes

some meeting and office space, can these buildings enhance this use?

Space for seminars and large conferences – this could be an alternative to Shrine Auditorium.

Info.

Evaluation Criteria 4. DU confirmed that “Disruption of Existing Operations” should

not factor into the evaluation criteria. Existing uses can easily be relocated.

Building Security to be added (particularly in consideration of valuable artifacts and artwork)

Historic Impact to the existing building to be added as a factor. (How easily can exhibit spaces be implemented without impacting the historic impact?) WRL recommends getting

Info.

Page 94: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 3 of 4

SHPO involved early on. Need to consider how to physically link the visitor experience

to the utility area while keeping the historic context in mind. Add leasehold surrender to cost criteria – GC will provide WRL

with figure. O&M will not be part of WRL scope Consider future expansion only if it works with historic integrity.

Museum Program 5. Art Museum to be designed considering the following “required”

program elements: Art Collection of the Grand Canyon to be displayed (including

paintings, photography, pottery and artifacts) Art Collection of the Grand Canyon Association to be

displayed (see note below regarding items to be provided) Art Museum should include a temporary gallery space that will

allow for rotating exhibits. Future Celebration of Art events to be held in the new gallery

space, larger than the Kolb Studio due to the increasing popularity of the events. (Kolb studio dimensions are approx 25’ x 50’)

Storage for the Grand Canyon Association Collection (pieces not currently on display)

Grand Canyon collection storage will remain in existing building

Small art staging / curation room to house art between storage and display.

Provide Museum Store – in conjunction with reception area.

Info.

6. Art Museum to include the following “desired” program if possible given available space:

Youth Art Room Outdoor Sculpture Garden Seminar Space Cultural Demonstration Space (weaving, pottery making, etc.) Temporary exhibit space dedicated for tribal art. Consider “Tactile” elements that can provide an interpretive

perspective of the canyon for those with visual impairments

Info.

7. Consider “Artist in Residence” program celebrates all of the arts, including but not limited to:

Painting Photography Music Video Poetry Sculpture

Info.

8. New museum to include integrated modern technology to allow for video art, documentary / film presentations, audio for lectures, music, spoken word.

Info.

9. Allowance for Fundraising & also FF&E to be included in Cost Estimate Info.

Items to Provide WRL to Include with Study 10. BO to provide:

Inventory / list of GCA art collection Concept Studies + Assessment for Laundry Building

BO 10/28/11

11. MT to provide: Concept study of greenway to the south of the buildings in the

concept study

MT 10/28/11

Page 95: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 4 of 4

Bright Angel Trailhead Study for Reference Previous art study of Administration Building (sketchup) Previous environmental assessments Previous plans of solar implementation at the Powerhouse

12. Environmental costs to be included with the cost estimate (not included with this scope, previous assessments can be accounted for in the new estimates)

Info.

13. *Update from October 24th Site Visit: BO requested that WRL also consider Garage Building. Drawings to be provided, if available – please confirm.

BO/MT 10/28/11

14. Next meeting to be held Tuesday, November 8th at 1:00pm at the Maintenance Building at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. WRL to present initial program and test fit studies along with updated evaluation criteria for the proposed buildings. This will be a highly interactive presentation to solicit input from stakeholders.

Info.

Page 96: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 97: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 1 of 4

M E E T I N G N O T E S

AUTHOR: Kristi Duce NOTE: The following meeting notes constitute our understanding of the items discussed. Unless

Author is notified of any additions and/or corrections within five (5) days after receipt, the following is assumed complete and correct.

Client: Grand Canyon Association Project: Grand Canyon Art Museum Study

Comm. No.: 11124.00 File No.: B02

Purpose: Grand Canyon Museum Design Meeting Location: Shrine of the Ages Building Meeting Date: 11.08.11 Time: 1:00 pm Date of Notes 11.09.11

Pres

ent

Dis

trib

utio

n

Name Company/Department Email

x x Bonnie O’Donnell (BO) GCA – Dir. of Dev. [email protected] x x Michael Terzich (MT) NPS – Project Manager [email protected] x x Leah McGinnis (LM) NPS [email protected] x x Susan Schroeder (SS) GCA - CEO [email protected] x Colleen L. Hyde (CH) GRCA - Museum Collection [email protected] x x Kim Besom (KB) GCA - Museum Collection [email protected] x x Catherine Lentz (CL) NPS [email protected] x x Ellen Brennan (EB) NPS - Cultural [email protected] x Barclay C. Trimble (BT) NPS [email protected] x Mary Killeen (MK) NPS [email protected] x x Palma Wilson (PW) NPS [email protected] x x Beth Hickey (BH) GCA [email protected] x x Judy Hellmich-Bryan (JH) NPS [email protected] x x Pamela Wells (PW2) NPS [email protected] x x Paul Schmidt (PS) GCA [email protected] x x Helen Ranney (HR) GCA [email protected] x x Vince Leskosky (VL) WRL [email protected] x x Kristi Duce (KD) WRL [email protected] x x Dan Clevenger (DC) WRL [email protected] x x Kathleen Fitzpatrick (KF) CVL [email protected]

Page 98: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 2 of 4

NO.: ITEMS DISCUSSED: ACTION

REQ’D BY

TARGET DATE

Building Programs 1. WRL reviewed proposed Building Programs for both a reduced (minimal)

program and a full program (meeting all programming elements both required and desired by Grand Canyon Team). Programming square footages were based on typical standards for museums also including an increase for future growth. Reduced Program Includes: Entry@ 300 sq.ft. Museum Store @ 120 sq.ft. 2 Offices @ 120 sq.ft. each Breakroom @ 200 sq.ft. Restrooms (4 fixtures for each mens and womens) @ total 400 sq.ft. Curation @ 200 sq.ft. Storage @ 500 sq.ft. Data/AV Rooms @ 240 sq.ft. total Temporary Gallery @ 600 sq.ft. Gallery Space @ 1,600 sq.ft. total Tribal Gallery @ 500 sq.ft. Classrooms/Seminar (2 rooms) @ 800 sq.ft. total Outdoor Space @ 1,500 sq.ft. total Full Program Includes: Entry@ 400 sq.ft. Museum Store @ 120 sq.ft. 2 Offices @ 120 sq.ft. each Breakroom @ 200 sq.ft. Restrooms (7 fixtures for each mens and womens) @ total 800 sq.ft. Curation @ 400 sq.ft. Storage @ 700 sq.ft. Catering Kitchen @ 300 sq.ft. Data/AV Rooms @ 240 sq.ft. total Temporary Gallery @ 1,500 sq.ft. Gallery Space @ 2,500 sq.ft. total Tribal Gallery @ 500 sq.ft. Classrooms/Seminar (2 rooms) @ 800 sq.ft. total Outdoor Space @ 1,500 sq.ft. total

Info.

2. Team agreed that full program is preferred. May want more display area and storage area to accommodate for future.

Info.

3. The Powerhouse is the only building that will fit the full program within the existing building envelope. All other buildings will require additions.

Info.

Building Evaluation Criteria & Scoring 4. WRL reviewed programming criteria and scoring system for buildings.

Info.

5. Based on scoring criteria, the Laundry Building with an addition scored highest overall. The rankings are as follows:

1. Laundry Building with an addition 2. Powerhouse as is 3. Laundry Building as is

Info.

Page 99: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 3 of 4

4. Engineering Building with an addition The Mule Barn as is will fit the minimum program only. The Engineering Building as is and the Administration Building as is will not fit the desired program or the minimum program. *The correct Garage Building will be evaluated following the meeting.

6. Paul questioned how criteria are differentiated between subjective and objective criteria. Vince explained how both subjective criteria and objective criteria were examined with looking at elements such as entry experience and then elements such as required infrastructure and ADA upgrades.

Info.

7. WRL noted that costs have not yet been examined. Programming/Fit Test package will now go to Cost Estimator to provide costing information for each option.

Info.

8. Vince questioned if Laundry Building should be taken off table due to it already being planned for River Heritage Museum. Leah noted that they will be meeting internally on Thursday and should be able to find out more at that time so for now to keep it as an option.

Info.

Fit Test Plans 9. WRL reviewed through Fit Test Plans for each building.

Info.

10. Catherine questioned the possibility of using two of the buildings to fit the full program. Positives and negatives were discussed with this option. Positives included: contributing to overall ‘campus’ concept, ability to share functions between buildings (restrooms, offices, conference/classroom space, storage, etc.), allowing for program to fit within existing building envelopes without additions. Negatives included: it would not be ideal to have to transport art work between buildings if storage was in the other building, having to go outside to restrooms in another building may be undesirable to public, especially at events, may impact fundraising, would require staffing both buildings, would need to provide infrastructure to a certain extent to both buildings, loss of individual building identity, reality of combining uses if both buildings don’t open at the same time. Would need to compare costs between building out two buildings as compared to one building with an addition. WRL will look at options for both concepts for the cost estimator – building with addition to meet the full desired program and building as is with minimal program and use a second building for remaining functions.

Info.

Next Steps/Schedule 11. Next Steps: Cost Estimate will be prepared. WRL will have draft of complete

report 11/28/1. WRL can either provide draft report to GC team to review and provide comments and then WRL will finalize and present report. Other option would be for WRL to meet with GC team again following receipt of Cost Estimate. WRL would then finalize report based on meeting and send to GCA 12/15/11. Recommendation would be to meet with GC team prior to finalization of report – Kristi will coordinate with Bonnie to determine date.

Info.

Page 100: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 4 of 4

Test-Fit Options Summary: Gen Notes:

1) Gallery spaces will be contiguous, without rigid separation between GCA / Grand Canyon / Temporary Art gallery to allow for flexibility. They will be presented as separate program blocks to reflect the projected size of the collection only.

2) New basement areas will be studied under new additions that will be water tight, conditioned spaces, suitable for storage of irreplaceable artwork.

3) Existing basement areas proposed for storage will be of sufficient condition, based on assessment, to receive renovation suitable for valuable art storage. Any areas where there is the slightest concern of not providing a suitable environment will not be programmed for art storage.

Studies to be presented at the next meeting “Desired Program” studies:

A) Powerhouse: Study implementation of “Desired” program B) Garage Building: Study implementation of “Desired” program (this building has not been assessed

– based on brief tour, we expect this building to be more than capable of housing the “Desired” program.)

C) Laundry Building with Addition: Study implementation of “Desired” program. Addition to be “right sized” for the art museum program, starting with the previous program, but expanding if necessary.

D) Engineering Building with Addition: Study implementation of “Desired” program. Addition to be “right sized” for the art museum program, starting with the previous program, but expanding if necessary. (for the engineering building, the addition will be more significant to meet the program demands).

“Reduced Program” studies:

E) Engineering Building (reduce program square footage to fit existing building size, without addition) F) Laundry Building (reduce program square footage to fit existing building size, without addition) G) Mule Barn Study A – Utilized as a storage building only for the “Interpretive Campus” including art

storage. H) Mule Barn Study B – Utilized as a temporary gallery / event space (potential venue for the annual

celebration of art, as well as future events as demand grows). This can be an amenity for the full “Interpretive Campus”

“Interpretive Campus” studies:

I) Site plan study to be conducted to see if a “Gateway” feature, to connect the Laundry building and Engineering building through an open air canopy, with a small welcome center and common amenities could be provided. This would conceptually unite the two buildings, and serve as an entry to the “Interpretive Campus”.

Preliminary Conclusions:

1) Further study of the Administration Building will not be necessary due to the following: a. Lack of proper gallery and display are given the scale of the rooms / spaces b. Extensive work required to meet ADA / Accessibility requirements to the building

2) Mule Barn will not be further studied further as a candidate for the permanent gallery spaces, only as a potential event or temporary gallery venue. This building has been determined to be the least desirable space for a permanent gallery due to the scale of the interior space which feels confining, and lack of natural light.

Page 101: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study
Page 102: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\12-12-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 1 of 3

M E E T I N G N O T E S

AUTHOR: Dan Clevenger NOTE: The following meeting notes constitute our understanding of the items discussed. Unless

Author is notified of any additions and/or corrections within five (5) days after receipt, the following is assumed complete and correct.

Client: Grand Canyon Association Project: Grand Canyon Art Museum Study

Comm. No.: 11124.00 File No.: B02

Purpose: Grand Canyon Museum Design Meeting Location: Web-Ex / Conference Call Meeting Date: 12.12.11 Time: 9:30 am Date of Notes 12.13.11 (revised 12.14.11)

Pres

ent

Dis

trib

utio

n

Name Company/Department Email

x x Bonnie O’Donnell (BO) GCA – Dir. of Dev. [email protected] x x Michael Terzich (MT) NPS – Project Manager [email protected] x x Leah McGinnis (LM) NPS [email protected] x x Susan Schroeder (SS) GCA - CEO [email protected] x Colleen L. Hyde (CH) NPS - Museum Collection [email protected] x x Kim Besom (KB) NPS - Museum Collection [email protected] x x Catherine Lentz (CL) NPS [email protected] x x Ellen Brennan (EB) NPS - Cultural [email protected] x Barclay C. Trimble (BT) NPS [email protected] x Mary Killeen (MK) NPS [email protected] x x Palma Wilson (PW) NPS [email protected] x x Beth Hickey (BH) GCA [email protected] x x Judy Hellmich-Bryan (JH) NPS [email protected] x x Pamela Wells (PW2) NPS [email protected] x x Paul Schmidt (PS) GCA [email protected] x x Helen Ranney (HR) GCA [email protected] x x Vince Leskosky (VL) WRL [email protected] x x Kristi Duce (KD) WRL [email protected] x x Dan Clevenger (DC) WRL [email protected] x x Kathleen Fitzpatrick (KF) CVL [email protected]

Page 103: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\12-12-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 2 of 3

NO.: ITEMS DISCUSSED: ACTION

REQ’D BY

TARGET DATE

Building Programs 1. WRL reviewed proposed Building Programs for a “full program” (meeting all

programming elements both required and desired by Grand Canyon Team). Programming square footages are based on typical standards for museums also including an increase for future growth. Full Program Includes: Entry@ 400 sq.ft. Museum Store @ 120 sq.ft. 2 Offices @ 120 sq.ft. each Breakroom @ 200 sq.ft. Restrooms (7 fixtures for each mens and womens) @ total 800 sq.ft. Curation @ 400 sq.ft. Storage @ 700 sq.ft. Catering Kitchen @ 300 sq.ft. Data/AV Rooms @ 240 sq.ft. total Temporary Gallery @ 1,500 sq.ft. Gallery Space @ 2,500 sq.ft. total Additional Program – (if room is available) Tribal Gallery @ 500 sq.ft. Classrooms/Seminar (2 rooms) @ 800 sq.ft. total Outdoor Space @ 1,500 sq.ft. total

Info.

2. WRL reviewed each building in consideration for the art museum, including the Laundry Building, Engineering Building, Powerhouse and General Office Building. For each building, an updated evaluation criteria score was provided, along with overall costs associated with each, and test-fit plans for each potential option.

Info.

Site Planning 3. Site ranking for the General Office Building will be re-evaluated. With this

draft, the site scores were lower due to the distance from the interpretive campus. This will be revised to consider the building only, without consideration of the interpretive campus plans.

WRL

4. Michael Terzich expressed concern that the proposed entry building closes the open green space of the campus. This will be revised to be shifted out of the main axis to keep the space open.

WRL / CVL

5. Paul questioned the parking at the west side of the plan, and asked if more could potentially be provided. He anticipates that some of the parking will be used by visitors along the rim, thus reducing the available parking for the interpretive campus.

Info.

6. The re-alignment of the village loop road would need to be carefully considered to align with the requirements of the national landmark district. One potential option could be to leave the existing road to the west of the General Office Building, but limit it to pedestrian use only.

Info.

7. Nomination for the historic district to be sent to WRL as a PDF for consideration in planning approach.

NPS

8. Leasehold Surrender figures to be provided to WRL. NPS

Page 104: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

M E E T I N G N O T E S Continued

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\12-12-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 3 of 3

(Estimate figures have been provided to WRL immediately following the meeting, to include with our evaluation criteria.) Only the Powerhouse does not have an LSI, and owned by the NPS.

Fundraising Consideration 9. LSI figures (see note above) to be included with fundraising goals.

Info.

10. Pedestrian Bridge will need to be considered in the fundraising approach. (Note: As proposed with the 2004 Interpretive Campus plan, the associated cost was approx. $1.3m.)

Info.

11. Cost estimate to be provided for a “hypothetical” new building, on a site TBD within the Grand Canyon National Park, though not as close to the existing South Rim Village as the buildings reviewed with this study.

WRL / ACE

Building Planning 12. Colleen Hyde questioned the function of the art storage areas and whether or

not this would impact the Grand Canyon storage area – the proposed storage is for the GCA collection storage only, with the “Curation” room providing space for upcoming exhibits to be stored for only a short term.

Info.

13.

All buildings will need to address the transmission of light to meet the needs of an art exhibit area. With the exception of the Powerhouse, all buildings are proposed to receive replacement window panes, where required based on condition (not including the frame unless damaged and in need of replacement), which could be provided with a coating, film or even translucent, to help control the light penetration into the space, and is accounted for in the cost estimate. The Powerhouse windows (panes only) are being replaced as part of a separate, on-going project for Xanterra. Additional solar control can be provided through internal shades, to preserve the historic integrity of the buildings.

Info.

14. New basements proposed would need to be further vetted based upon soils conditions. Soils Evaluation is not part of this scope.

Info.

15. Concern was raised regarding potential basement storage for artwork. Any proposed basement area proposed for storage (either as a new basement or existing to be renovated) will need to take art storage requirements into account and will be designed to be fully climate controlled.

Info. / WRL

16. Test-fit plans to be studied which combine the Art Museum and River Heritage Museum into a single building. Both the Powerhouse and General Office building to be studied as their existing footprint will roughly accommodate both programs. Administrative and amenity functions, such as restrooms can be shared between the facilities. New opinion of probable cost to be included with the final report reflecting these new studies.

Info.

17. Michael Terzich questioned the proposed structural stabilization approach for the Powerhouse building. The portion in questions is the securing of the stone veneer – the approach we are recommending will be clearly outlined in the final report document.

WRL

Next Steps 18. Final Package to be delivered to the GCA by the second week of January.

Final submittal will included assessments, opinion of probable cost, and test-fit plans for the Laundry, Engineering, Powerhouse, and General Office Building.

WRL

01.13.11

Page 105: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Appendix B - Grand Canyon Art Collection

Page 106: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Artist Title Medium Location Height x Width Framed Yr Acq'd Cost Value Value Determined By How AcquiredAiken, Bruce Nankoweap Wall Pencil GCA - Patty's office 25.25 x 20.75 Yes 2006 -$ $ 500 per JRP Donated by artistAiken, Bruce Crystal Rapid Pencil Kolb Living Room 23.25 x 20.5 Yes 2006 -$ $ 500 per JRP Donated by artistAiken, Bruce Influence Triptych Oil GCA HQ 138 x 92 No 2006 -$ $ 30,000 per Brad Donated by artistBiddinger, Richard L. Sealed in Time Oil Kolb Balcony 27 x 22.75 Yes 2005 1,760$ 1,760$ Price Paid Purchased from AFTP

Biddinger, Richard L. Canyon Twilight Oil GCA - Hallway 20 x 16 Yes 2004 790$ 790$ Price paid Purchased from AFTP MinisBoyer, Richard A Journey Through the Canyon Oil GCA - Hallway 27.25 x 37 Yes 2005 6,000$ 6,000$ Price paid AFTP Purchase Award Brown, Gordon Breaking of Light Oil Flagstaff NPS-Lobby 28.5 x 38.5 Yes 1993 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paid Commissioned by GCACogan, John Overlooking Kolb Studio Acrylic GCA - Jeanne's office 14.75 x 17.75 Yes 2009 -$ 1,275$ per artists Donated by artist

Dawson, JohnGRCA: An Artist's View(70+ pieces) *see addtl spreadsheet Mixed

4 GCA Hall; remainderwarehouse Various Some 1997 17,500$ 27,500$

Est. based on curr. value of artist's work Purchased collection

DeLong, Cody Deep in the Canyon giclee print Flagstaff office 25x21 Yes 2009 -$ Donated by artistDenhe, Frank Dawn's Melody Watercolor Flagstaff NPS 23.5 x 21.5 Yes 2001 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paid AFTP Purchase Award Denzler, Nancy Descent on Bright Angel Trail Oil Flagstaff NPS-Barclay 32 x 25.75 Yes 2006 2,500$ 2,500$ Price Paid AFTPDudley, Jack The View Watercolor Kolb Balcony 37.5x30 Yes 1996 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paid AFTP Purchase AwardDurfee, Brian GRCA Cliffs - Peregrine Falcons Acrylic Kolb Balcony 30 x 35 Yes 1999 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paid AFTP Purchase AwardDutton, Hayden Atlases and artwork GCA Emmons Office 18.75 x 29.25 Unknown Unknown 2,500$ Estimated by JRP Purchased

Eder, Jim Triptych Wood block Kolb Parlor (over staircas36.5 x 80.5 Yes 1994 -0- 1,500$ Est. based on curr. value of artist's work Donated by artist

Figone, Allen Drama Along the Bright Angel Trail Oil Unknown 16 x 20 2008 2,400$ Price Paid Purchased from P the PGoldman, Robert Canyon Watchers Oil Kolb Living Room 19x31 Yes 2008 1,800$ Price Paid Purchased from P the PGoldman, Robert Last Light Oil Kolb Living Room 15x17 Yes 2007 700$ 700$ Price Paid Purchased from P the PHawkins, William Grand Canyon Clouds Oil Kolb Pantry 44.5 x 34.5 Yes 2006 415$ 1,250$ Price Paid Purchased from artistHawkins, William Landscape Painting GCA-Jeanne's office 32.5 x 26.5 YesHolmes, William Henry Point Sublime Part I Looking East print GCA - Hall 30 x 40.5 Yes 133$ per Dan Cassidy purchasedHolmes, William Henry Point Sublime Part II Looking South print GCA - Hall 30 x 40.5 Yes 133$ per Dan Cassidy purchasedHolmes, William Henry Point Sublime Part III Looking West print GCA - Hall 30 x 40.5 Yes 133$ per Dan Cassidy purchasedHutchins, Julie Mule w/Kolb Studio Oil Kolb Parlor 25x35 Yes 2008 Purchased from artistHylton, Marion Sunset on the South Rim Pastel Flagstaff NPS - HR office15.5 x 25.5 Yes 2007 3,500$ 3,500$ Price Paid P the P Purchase AwardHymans, Liz Sunset, Mather Point photograph GCA - Hall 17.5 x 37.5 Yes 1995 555$ Gift from artistKabotie, Fred The Germinator (92/250 signed print) Print GCA - Jeanne's office 16.25 x 20.25 Yes Unknown Unknown 1,000$ Estimated by JRP UnknownKolb Brothers Hand-tinted photos (one) Photos Kolb Parlor 24.5 x 24 Yes 1998 600$ 600$ Price Paid Purchased (Gale Burak)Kolb Brothers Hand-tinted photos (two) Photos Kolb Parlor 24.5 x 24 Yes 1998 600$ 600$ Price paid Purchased (Gale Burak)Kolb, Emery Near Head of Bright Angel Trail on a Clear Day hand tinted phGCA - HQ Yes 2007 400$ gift from donorKolb, Emery Scrapbook of hand-tinted photos scrapbook Kolb home 1,500$ Market value

Mahaffey, Merrill Tilted Strata Acrylic GCA conference room 42x23 Yes 2010 5,000$ 7,100$ price paid CoA Dudley Purchase Award

Murray, Robert A Dusty Descent Oil GCA - Hall 16.5 x 22.75 Yes 2005 720$ 720$ Price paid Purchased from AFTP Minis

GCA Permanent Collection

1 of 4updated 10-7-11

Page 107: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Artist Title Medium Location Height x Width Framed Yr Acq'd Cost Value Value Determined By How Acquired

GCA Permanent Collection

Ormsby, Lawrence Agave Print GCA 24 x 21 Yes Unknown Unknown 300$ Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artistOrmsby, Lawrence Bighorn (Artist's proof) Etching GCA - Leah/Sunny office26.25 x 14 Yes Unknown Unknown 400$ Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artistOrmsby, Lawrence Rabbit (19/100 etching) Etching GCA - Laura's office 16 x 19.25 Yes Unknown Unknown 225$ Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artistOrmsby, Lawrence Doves (Artist's proof) Etching GCA - Laura's office 14 x 17.5 Yes Unknown Unknown 225$ Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artistOrmsby, Lawrence Grand Canyon scene Stone litho GCA - Leah/Sunny office30.5 x 24.25 Yes Unknown Unknown 400$ Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artistOrmsby, Lawrence Landscape Arch Etching GCA - Hall 14 x 21.75 Yes Unknown Unknown 200$ Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist

Posselli, Bonnie Powell Point Oil Flagstaff NPS-Lobby 29 x 35 Yes 2000 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paidAFTP Purchase Award - Aid to NPS

Quick, Bob Hozho Tsaye Pastel GCA Warehouse 30 x 51.5 Yes 1995 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paid AFTP Purchase AwardReil, Rebecca Canyon Approach Oil Kolb dining room 18 x 36 Yes 2007 2,800$ 2,800$ Price Paid Purchased from P the PReveal, Rodney On the Edge oil on board GCA conference room 30x22 Yes 2009 1,200$ 2,400$ price paid Purchased from P the PRogers, Roberta Supt.'s House (GRCA Bldg. No. 1) Watercolor GCA - Entry 17.5 x 21.5 Yes Unknown Unknown 350$ Per artist Donated by artistRogers, Roberta GRCA Train Depot Watercolor GCA - Entry 20.25 x 28.25 Yes Unknown Unknown 350$ Per artist Donated by artistRogers, Roberta GCA Office Building exterior Watercolor GCA - Entry 20.25 x 28.25 Yes Unknown 350$ 350$ Per artist Commissioned by GCASchulz, Allan West Mountain Near Santa Clara, Utah giclee print GCA - Laura's office 25 x 31 Yes 100$ per Pam's files UnknownSchulz, Allan West Temple from Kolb giclee print GCA 15.25 x 18.25 Yes 75$ per Pam's files UnknownSchulz, Allan Untitled giclee print GCA - Susan's office 52 x 71.5 Yes 1996 Unknown donated by artist sister

Schulz, Allan Point Imperial (Triptych) Watercolor Kolb Bedroom 52 x 73 (3) Yes 2004 -0- 90,000$ Est. based on curr. value of artist's work Donated by Larsen family

Skidmore, Ryan Ladies in Waiting Oil Kolb Balcony 27.25 x 33.25 Yes 2004 5,000$ 5,000$ Price paid AFTP Purchase Award

Slawson, Brian Canyon Magic Oil Flagstaff NPS - Barclay 29 x 39 Yes 2006 6,000$ 6,000$ Purchased from AFTPSpitz, Judith Majesty oil Kolb Parlor 24x18 Yes 2009 4,500$ 4,500$ price paid Purchased from P the PSteider, Doris Paean Egg TempuraKolb Parlor (N.E.) 28 x 22 Yes 2008 4,000$ 9,000$ Price Paid Purchased from P the PSupplee, Serena Clear Path to Awe Oil Kolb Gallery 48x30 Moab, Uta 2011 4300 4300 price paid CoA Dudley Purchase AwardTimmerman, Wes Canyon Headwall photograph NPS Backcountry office 48 x 48 Yes 2009 donated by artistTimmerman, Wes Redwall Reflection photograph NPS Backcountry office 48 x 72 Yes 2009 donated by artistTimmerman, Wes Spring Storm photograph NPS Backcountry office 72 x 32 Yes 2009 donated by artistTimmerman, Wes Shinumo 2 photograph GCA - Susan's office 40.5 x 29.25 Yes 2009 donated by artistTinus, Arlene Morning on the Colorado River Oil GCA-Susan's Office 28 x 22 Yes 2007 2,500$ 2,500$ Price Paid Purchased from P the P

Various Grand Legacy *see additional spreadsheetPhotos &text panels GCA - warehouse Various Some 1997 5,000$ $ -

Price paid (4.3 k)+ framing (700) Nothing of value left, someone took photos from boxes Commissioned by GCA

Walters, Curt National Treasure Oil Kolb Balcony 38.5 x 69 Yes 1994 -0- 25,000$ Est. based on curr. value of artist's work

Gift from artist & Grand Canyon Trust

Weatherbee, Frank Mule Train to Phantom Ranch Bronze Kolb Observation Room N/A N/A 2002 4,800$ 4,800$ Price paid

Weber, Mark Christopher Trees with a View Oil Kolb Balcony 27 x 35 Yes 1998 7,500$ 7,500$ Price paidAFTP Purchase Award - Aid to NPS

2 of 4updated 10-7-11

Page 108: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Artist Title Medium Location Height x Width Framed Yr Acq'd Cost Value Value Determined By How Acquired

GCA Permanent Collection

Wheeler, Rick Prickly Pear Cactus Watercolor GCA - Hall 21.25x25 Yes 2004 600$ 600$ Price paid Purchased from the artist

Widforss, Gunnar Untitled #1 (Widforss Watercolor 1997) Watercolor Kolb Dining Room 29.5 x 27.5 Yes 1997 11,633$ 45,000$ Est. based on curr. value of artist's work Purchased (5 Quail)

Widforss, Gunnar Untitled #2 (Widforss Watercolor 2005) Watercolor Kolb Dining Room 32.5 x29 Yes 2005 -0- 45,000$ Appraisal Donated by McHenry family

WPA GRCA Travel poster Serigraph GCA HQ 14x19 No Pre-1989 2,500$ Est. value based on current prices of similar work. Unknown

Hoosier Cabinet - Originally owned by Emery KoFurnitureKolb Residence (Kitchen) 2007 -0- 5,000$ Estimated by JRP

Donated by Norman Henderson

402,849$

Ladd, Gary Tonto Platform Desertscrub (B482)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 32 x 40.5 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary Approaching the Canyon Rim (S529)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 40 x 32 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary North Rim Autumn (N834)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 32 x 40 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary Botanical Wonderland (N5010

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 32 x 40.5 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary Vertical Wonderland (S666)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 32 x 40.5 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary Floating the Colorado River (AW799)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 30 x 24 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Grand Canyon's Green Heart: Photographs from the exhibit owned by GCA

3 of 4updated 10-7-11

Page 109: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Artist Title Medium Location Height x Width Framed Yr Acq'd Cost Value Value Determined By How Acquired

GCA Permanent Collection

Ladd, Gary Desert Waterway (P484)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 30 x 24 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary Elves Chasm (Q699)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 40 x 32.5 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary A Prickly Landscape (P662)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 32 x 40 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary Approaching Storm (BA405)

Photograph on stretched canvas

Flagstaff Coconino Bldg. 40.5 x 32 No 2010 $ 1,000 Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

4 of 4updated 10-7-11

Page 110: Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study