Burlingame mulls recreation center designs

As building costs increase across the region, officials are examining changes to maximize their investment, while also seeking to make the project more aesthetically pleasing.

Dissatisfied with renderings of the project buttressing Washington Park, councilmembers directed architects to draw up new designs of the facility proposed to offer a variety of modern amenities for residents.

“It just doesn’t look like Burlingame,” said Vice Mayor Donna Colson, succinctly critiquing the rendering.

Councilmembers agreed the proposal appears too much like a school campus, and would prefer a more enticing vision before moving ahead. Drawing new plans could take as long as eight weeks to develop, and then would need to be vetted by residents before further examination from councilmembers, officials said.

As officials seek improvements, they must also keep an eye to the clock, said Mayor Michael Brownrigg, in recognition of the growing price tag hung on the project.

“I’m concerned about the amount of time this is taking,” said Brownrigg. “If we are going to move forward, I really think we have to get going.”

Most recent projections expect the project could cost as much as $56 million, due largely to the cost of construction skyrocketing locally. With an understanding such an expensive facility is likely beyond the city’s reach, officials examined methods for trimming costs. When the proposal was first floated, it was expected to cost between $37 and $47 million.

Abandoning a plan to construct a LEED certified building and narrowing the scope of the work at the city property while preserving the size of the facility and underground parking lot were among the value engineering methods preferred by councilmembers. 

In all, the efforts could cut the cost down to nearly $40 million, back in a range of affordability for the city, which is leaning on revenue from the quarter-cent sales tax approved last year to finance a majority of the project.

Under the direction from councilmembers, the architect will craft new designs and bring the issue back for further consideration in June.

While design revisions were considered, housing advocates suggested developing some residential units on top of the facility as a means of combating the city’s affordability crisis. Proponents of the effort pointed to a similar innovative proposal in Menlo Park, where officials are examining building a new library.

Councilmembers were unenthusiastic about the idea though, suggesting the design process is too far along to introduce such a novel concept.

“This is not the right place to have it,” said Colson, of the housing idea.

Officials were more receptive to the idea of selling naming rights to rooms and amenities in the project once it is completed, in an effort to further trim the city’s price tag.

Councilmembers agreed such an effort should be explored through the foundation benefiting the Parks and Recreation Department. They also concurred with residents who shared concerns that an adequate amount of parking be provided in the project.

With the further planning ahead, architects projected the ground could break in roughly two years, which dissatisfied Brownrigg.

“We really have to be careful for process to not kill the project,” he said.

While recognizing the desire to move ahead promptly, officials also took time to assure the designs are crafted appropriately to design with the community’s expectations.

“We have one time to do this and we need to build it right,” said Councilman Ricardo Ortiz.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105