Burlingame selects modern rec center design

The decision concludes years of deliberation and planning, as councilmembers winnowed down design options for the new center to be built with money from a recently-approved sales tax hike.

Councilmembers took time to acknowledge the difficult choice presented through the high-quality renderings for both options, but ultimately reached consensus around the more modern option, according to video of the meeting.

“I am just a strong believer that the pavilions is a superior design for this use at this site,” said Mayor Michael Brownrigg, citing his opinion that the preferred design promotes interaction between the building and the adjacent Washington Park.

Councilwoman Ann Keighran shared a similar perspective.

“I think the pavilions integrates the park, and that is what we are trying to accomplish in that area,” she said. “We want people to appreciate the inside and outside and this is an example of how that can be attained.”

Under the decision, Group 4 Architecture will move from the conceptual design phase to drawing schematics. Design development will continue into next year, leading to plan check, a construction bid award and groundbreaking expected around the start of 2020, said firm representative Dawn Merkes.

The new center is slated to be built over the footprint of the existing facility, 850 Burlingame Ave. Its 37,000 square feet will be occupied by an active lounge, community room, classroom, music studio, tech shop, ceramics and fine arts workshops, teen center, fitness studio and more.

The project is expected to cost in the neighborhood of $40 million, as officials previously refined designs to trim the building’s budget which was rising due to construction cost increases. A majority of the cost is slated to be addressed with revenue generated through a quarter-cent sales tax hike approved by voters.

Public opinion on the preferred design was split, as a survey with more than 1,600 responses showed 51 percent support for the classic architecture and 49 percent for the contemporary design.

Some proponents of the mission look claimed it fit better with the city’s other landmark buildings such as the train station, library and high school. Others, such as resident Tom Paine, claimed their preference stemmed from a dislike of modern architecture.

“I’m here to urge the council to select the traditional, mission-style over the contemporary design. I have the impression that contemporary designs, before they are completed, they are already dated,” he said, during public comment.

Councilman Ricardo Ortiz acknowledged the classic building would blend well with the city’s existing civic style, but also suggested the mission design too much resembled a school, which would be inappropriate for a recreation facility.

Beyond the functionality concerns, Councilwoman Emily Beach said she appreciated the modern design’s enhanced capacity to accommodate photovoltaic panels on the roof.

The pavilions look is better suited to host such panels, according to Merkes, and the modern design would require building more panels over the parking garage to generate the same amount of energy savings.

“The sustainable aspects are really important to this council,” said Beach, in justifying her vote for the pavilions design.

For her part, Vice Mayor Donna Colson expressed her admiration for both designs, but said ultimately she would prefer the same design as her colleagues.

“I would bend toward the pavilions,” she said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105

Note to readers: this article has been amended to accurately reflect the nature of Emily Beach's vote.