HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 6, 2020 Agenda
Public Notice - Art in Public Places Board Meeting Agenda
Monday, January 6, 2020 - 8:30 a.m. - Town Council Chambers
1. Roll call and approval of minutes from December 2 meeting.
2. Citizen input.
3. Review of Winterfest Programs – Lantern Walk & Ice/Light Installations. (10 mins)
4. Summer 2020 installation discussion. (15 mins)
5. Ford Park Art Space – Preliminary Review of Harry Teague Architects Report. (15 mins)
6. Coordinator updates. (10 mins)
7. Other matters from the Board. (5 mins)
8. Meeting adjourned.
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.com
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 1
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS81808
1
8
2
81
8
4
8
1
8
6
818881
9
0
8
1
9
2
8
1
9
481948196 8
1
9
68198 8
1
9
8
2 5 10 40
SITE PLAN
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 2
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
VAIL ARTS CABIN
EVALUATION REPORT:
EXTERIOR
Existing condition analysis - 8/14/19 Field trip Observations
Siding: Most of the narrow siding seems in fairly good shape with the exception of
the siding close to grade where some of it is actually below grade. (fig.1) This siding
has rotted out some. Sections of the rim joist and sill plate are also below grade and
are rotten as well. (fig.2) Looks like the surrounding grade was elevated higher than
the original at some point. The triangular gable ends are shingled with wood shingles
which are unlikely to be original. (fig.3)
Roof: The roof material while not “historic” seems to be in fairly good shape in
general and will probably last for several more years. (fig.4)
Windows: The widows appear to have been replaced fairly recently
and are in decent shape. They would, however, probably not comply
with current energy codes.
fig.2fig.1
fig.4
fig.3
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 3
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
VAIL ARTS CABIN
EVALUATION REPORT:
INTERIOR
Structure/Foundations: The foundations, while they appear not to have shifted too much, are
minimal, close to grade, and not below frost. (fig.5) As a result the framing they support
have become rotten. A new perimeter foundation with footers below frost and top 6 to 8
inches above grade will be a necessary first step in stabilizing what is left of the original
structure.
Floor: The floor structure which is very close to the dirt in the minimal “crawlspace” is rotten
and deformed in many places especially on the east side, and will have to be entirely
replaced once the building has been re-founded. (fig.6)
Walls: The walls have a very unusual structure comprised of 2x2 studs and 1x sheathing.
(fig.7) They seem to be in good enough shape and might be adequate structurally. They
have served so far. On the other hand they provide no space for insulation and they would
most likely be “sistered” with 2x6 members anyway. While interesting as an historic feature,
the structure would not be visible unless the reinforcement and insulation happened on the
exterior. The exposed 2x2s on the interior would be interesting but not very functional for art.
Roof: The roof structure is a bizarre combination of 2x4 rafters supplemented with randomly
placed vertical props. (fig.8) It has, of course, lasted until now without noticeable
deformation, but would have to be seriously reinforced with sistered joists and ties to
accommodate the additional snow loads of insulated space.
Surfaces: most of the interior surfaces have been removed and the small amount remaining
are not of historic value.
Mechanical: There is evidence of some gas wall heaters, but all the equipment has been
removed. The roof is framed to allow for a chimney in the approximate middle of the space
but the masonry or other chimney structures have been removed.
(fig.9)
Electrical: Any remaining existing wiring is not functional.
Plumbing: The existing building does not appear to have had any plumbing.
fig.8
fig.7
fig.9
fig.5 fig.6
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 4
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
VAIL ARTS CABIN POTENTIAL
PROJECT OPTIONS
Potential Project Options: We present three basic options for your consideration to make a
space that might be useful for arts programs.
2.
1.
3.
Minimal version: Move structure, build new foundation, replace on new
foundation, stabilize structure, add basic electrical wiring, insulate within
existing framing, provide interior surfaces with minimal improvements.
Least cost. (model 1)
Basic accommodation of Arts activities within existing structure to
preserve some of the existing structure for historic reasons: Move
structure, build new foundation, replace on new foundation, restore and
remodel existing structure with new features such as accessible
bathroom, utility sink, chair and art supply storage, a large west window,
new entrance and porch, new larger windows and possible skylights.
Reinforce roof and wall structure and insulate. Add electric forced air heat
and mechanical ventilation with an energy recovery unit, and possibly
radiant heat. Cost varies with the inclusion of the various amenities, but
the refurbish and restoration and remodeling process is the most
expensive. (model 2)
Demolish existing structure and build a new structure on a new
foundation that resembles the existing building, but has the features and
systems to accommodate all the anticipated arts needs. This new
structure could be somewhat larger than the existing structure, but would
be similar enough in shape, and materials to be mistaken for the original.
Overall cost will vary depending on the scale and amenities, but the
process is the least cost per conditioned space.
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 5
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
This version would involve the minimal amount of cost to stabilize the existing structure, but would not result in a space that would be very useful as an arts facility
as it would not have a bathroom, heat, or ventilation. The most minimal version would have a new foundation with crawlspace, a new flat floor, and some new
lighting. The existing structure would be reinforced only as required, original surfaces removed, and the remaining structure painted white to brighten space. It
would not have plumbing, heat or only minimal heat so it would not need to be insulated. This version would only be able to be used in the summer. Its purpose
would be to preserve and stabilize the “historic” structure and retain some possibility for arts use or storage.
Version 2 would attempt to make the most useful space possible for arts activities within the confines of the existing structure. In this case some of the purely
historic qualities would be sacrificed in order to make a functional arts facility. From the outside the building would look pretty much the way it does now with the
exception of a porch entry, a large west window for light, and longer windows in general. Other exterior modifications might include skylights, metal roof, new paint
scheme, and ventilation vents. Inside there would be an accessible bathroom, utility sink and counter, supply and stacking chair storage. Plumbing would probably
mean the space would be winterized, insulated, and then ventilated with an energy recovery system. Insulation if placed in the walls would reduce the amount of
floor area significantly or if done on the outside would add some bulk to the exterior historic proportions. The resulting space could accommodate a single artist in
residence or workspace at folding tables for 12 to 16 at folding tables. Working in and around the existing structure would no doubt involve considerable expense
depending on how much of the existing structure would have to remain. “Sistering” the rafters and studs is a tedious labor-intensive operation and in the end
would be invisible. As previously mentioned the floor joists and flooring will have to be replaced in any case. The only reason for approach #2 would be to retain
as much original historic material as possible or to save particular historic features.
Given the expense of working within and modifying an imperfect existing structure, with pretty much no useful components, it makes by far the most sense from an
economic standpoint to build a new structure from scratch. The new building could be exactly like the existing one, or it could incorporate the new features
proposed in alternative #2, or it could be slightly larger to provide more space yet retain similar proportions and window configurations. A new building of this type,
even if somewhat larger, would be considerably less expensive, and could be designed to accommodate the anticipated arts uses more closely. We are not in a
position to assess the historic value of the cabin, or which of its qualities the town of Vail values, but from a purely economic point of view, it makes much more
sense to demolish the structure and build from scratch.
We have included a couple of very rough sketches to illustrate how a new structure might add significantly to the useful area. It would pretty much double the
useful area with an addition that is basically the same shape as the original repeated to the north, and connected with a “transparent” (glass) section. The glass
section would make a clear separation between the historic resource and the new construction and provide light to the workspace. Also the illustration shows the
possibility of opening up the entire end of the new portion with glass towards the flat grassy area to the north allowing activities to flow out doors.
VAIL ARTS CABIN
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.
1.
3.
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 6
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
26'-1 1/4"5'-1 1/4"
31'-2 1/4"1'-9 3/4"10'2'-2 1/4"14'3
Page 7
1
Page 7
4
Page 7
2
Page 7
338 sq ft
4 8
1.
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 7
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
4 8
EXISTING ELEVATIONS
EASTNORTH
WESTSOUTH
1.
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 8
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS8'4'-2"8'-1/2"2'1'-10 1/2"8'6"2'3'-8"5'-1 1/4"
35'-4 1/4"
6'-6"1'-9 3/4"10'2'-2 1/4"14'6'-2"4'-4"2'-10 1/2"1
PAGE 10
2
PAGE 10
3
PAGE 10
4
Page 9
3
Page 9
2
Page 9
1
Page 9
235 sq ft
class: A3
(art gallery/lecture hall)
Occupancy Load factor 7 net
Occupancy Load: 33
4 8
2.
ALTERNATIVE 2 PLAN
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 9
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
4 8
EASTNORTH
WESTSOUTH
2.
ALTERNATIVE 2 ELEVATIONS
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPAGE 10
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
4 8
2.
ALTERNATIVE 2 SECTIONS
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 11
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
2.
ALTERNATIVE 2 PERSPECTIVE
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPage 12
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
2.
ALTERNATIVE 2 PERSPECTIVE
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPAGE 13
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
3.
ALTERNATIVE 3 SKETCH
www.harryteaguearchitects.com
970 927 4862 info@teaguearch.comPAGE 14
HARRY TEAGUE ARCHITECTS
3.
ALTERNATIVE 3 SKETCH