Monday, September 5, 2011

golden bay recreation park

Tasman Projects 12 August 2011
design services for
golden bay recreation park
contents_________________________________________________
Introduction Project Fees Design Approach Relevant Experience Design Considerations Budget and Programme Delivery Project Team Registered Architects:
Structural Engineers: Quantity Surveyor: Civil Engineer:
Resources and Commitment Arthouse Architecture Ltd Profile
Arthouse Architecture Ltd CDT Consultants Ltd Ian Thomson Ltd WR Andrew Ltd
appendix_________________________________________________
Relevant Experience Awatere Community Hall – Concept Saxton Oval Sports and Community Pavilion Saxton Oval Utility Building Moutere Hills Community Facility Trafalgar Centre – Southern Extension
Further information is available at www.arthousearchitecture.co.nz
introduction_______________ golden bay recreation park
We are very pleased to submit this proposal for services for this exciting project in Golden Bay. We are very enthusiastic about this project and would love to be involved.
We have been involved in many other sports/community projects around the region with great success in terms of balancing programmes, budgets, spatial organisation and great design outcomes.
The joint NCC and TDC Saxton Sports and Community Pavilion required the integration of multiple stakeholder requirements into a low maintenance, iconic, easy-to-use, multipurpose facility. It is nearly complete and is on schedule and under budget. Should we be successful in our tender to be appointed as the Architects for this project, it would be useful to organise a walk-through of both this facility, Moutere Hills Community and Sports Complex and the Trafalgar Centre – Southern and Western Extension to discuss spatial requirements. This would help in the brief development and ensure that the initial concept design was correctly targeted.
For this project we have assembled a completely locally based team, very similar to the team that we worked with on the projects I have mentioned above (details of these projects are included in the appendix)
We work closely with our clients and consultants to fully develop the brief requirements and budgets at an early stage to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible during the design and documentation phase.
We believe this proven team will provide a unique balance of design skill and experience , combined with sound
background knowledge and sensitivity to local context. The team also has the capacity to provide a comprehensive level of service. We will produce concept and developed design documentation in 3D allowing us to provide quality renders to help describe the scheme and spaces and ensure the community understand the proposal fully.
We have undertaken many projects in Golden Bay including schools, houses and public toilets. We currently have several house projects underway in Takaka and Pohara. We are aware of the unique qualities of the Bay and would ensure the facility design was sympathetic to this special environment.
This team has extensive experience with projects of this scale, stakeholder consultation, statutory compliance processes and coordination of design, documentation and construction monitoring.
Should you have any queries regarding this tender or require any additional information, please contact me in the first instance.
Jorgen Andersen Director Registered Architect
Arthouse Architecture Ltd p 03 546 6664 f 03 546 6692 jorgen@arthousearchitecture.co.nz www.arthousearchitecture.co.nz
project fees________________ golden bay recreation park
We have listed a summary of fees by stage, showing consultant work separately. We have allowed to provide design services as listed in your tender document and for the deliverables listed in the NZCIC Design Documentation Guideline as requested. All figures exclude GST and disbursements and are based on a construction value of $3 800 000:
Phase One - Concept
Arthouse Architecture Structural Engineer Quantity Surveyor $4320
We would also recommend engaging a Landscape Architect to work with us to develop the areas around the new buildings. We haven’t included this time in our proposal but have discussed the project with Rory Langbridge and we would propose working with him, should you require.
We intend to work with Dave Bright to produce a design/build system for the services and we will undertake the sewerage and building stormwater design. We assume we will be able to connect to the existing stormwater and sewerage system on-site. We have allowed for drainage design to the fields and the new carpark directly beside the new facilities building.
We have not allowed for the changes to State Highway 60 or the new road or parking area directly off that. This would need to be undertaken in junction with Transit NZ and TDC and more information is required before we could provide a price for that as it is very specialised.
We have streamlined our fee structure as much as possible to provide an attractive price for your client without compromising the quality of the documentation that will be produced.
As you can see, we have a wealth of experience on a variety of projects of this nature and believe that this knowledge would benefit this project greatly.
If the project value was to increase, we reserve the right to revise our fees to cover the additional work. Rates for additional work outside the scope in the tender document and any additional services would vary depending on what was required, but rates for Arthouse staff are included below. These rates exclude GST:
Subtotal
$23 820
Phase Three – Developed Design
Arthouse Architecture Structural Engineer Civil Engineer (Drainage) $ 3 000
Subtotal
$27 000
Phase Three – Documentation
Arthouse Architecture $80000 Structural Engineer $10000 Civil Engineer (Drainage) $5000
Subtotal $95 000
Phase Three – Tender and Building Consent Arthouse Architecture $7000
Subtotal $7000
Phase Three – Construction Observation
Arthouse Architecture $25000 Structural Engineer $5000
Subtotal $30 000
Total $182 820
$17500 $2000
$ 19 000 $ 5 000
Director Registered Architect Draughtsperson Interior Designer
$140/h $100/h $ 80/h $ 80/h
design approach____________ golden bay recreation park
Our design approach for this project would include maximising the collaborative workshop design meetings at the outset of the project to develop the brief in further detail. This ensures all stakeholders have the opportunity to be part of the brief development which in turn plays a significant role in the initial concept design. Getting this stage right will ensure the ongoing success of the project and ensure smooth transitions between the other stages.
This also provides an early platform to check the brief and budget against each other to ensure the initial concept design is viable. We have used this process successfully on our other sports and community projects.
Clear, open and concise communication
and agreement of areas of responsibility and expectations at the outset of the project are also vital to the end success. We strive to ensure this happens on all of our projects and the Golden bay Recreation Park project will be no exception.
The design generator will come from the collaborative discussions we will have with the stakeholders at the initial meeting and the brief requirements of the facility to be fresh, modern, desirable, simple, practical and functional.
We believe that these are all important qualities and we can absolutely deliver these requirements. We also believe that good design principles will ensure the building is easy to use by multiple user groups and that a well designed attractive building does not have to cost more than ‘shed’ style building.
We have proven this with the design for the Saxton Sports and Community Pavilion
We have allowed for a Registered Architect to administer the Construction Observation Phase and based the fee on the requested 10 site visits during construction, plus 4 hours a week for 10 months answering questions from the contractor during construction. In each design phase we have allowed for one workshop meeting in Golden Bay and one workshop meeting in Nelson.
We would also like to have a site visit around some of the other facilities we have designed during the concept phase. This allows a total of 3 Golden bay workshop meetings and 3 Nelson meetings, plus a site visit meeting, which we believe should be sufficient for an inclusive and thorough design and documentation process.
Entry to Saxton Fields Utility building
where the initial draughtsman design was a long shed style building. We have delivered a functional, low maintenance, practical, fresh and modern building for exactly the same budget. Refer to the project sheet in the appendix for further information on this project.
One of our staff is the President of the Nelson squash club and we will draw on his wealth of knowledge for the design of the squash courts.
We will liaise with sports court suppliers and local (Tasman) sports bodies to provide design guidance for re-surfacing the tennis courts and providing the new netball courts, markings for the grass athletics track, long jump, discuss and shot put areas and the cricket pitch.
We have designed many public toilet facilities and incorporated changing, shower, storage and toilet facilities within sports facilities before so have a wealth of knowledge to draw on for the design of these spaces.
The other areas required within the building such as the bar, manager’s office, meeting rooms, baby change and shop have also been incorporated in the nearly complete Saxton Sports Facility so we are experienced in the requirements (both operational and design) for these spaces.
We have undertaken commercial kitchen design on similar projects and will produce this documentation ourselves.
We have developed functional designs for dance room, hall and weight room spaces before while working for the Awatere Community Group in their endeavours to upgrade their local sports and community hall.
Ensuring we have good understanding of the functional requirements for the facility at the beginning of the design
process will be important to the end success.
Considering the big picture in the initial concept design, including planting, seating, access, security, orientation, functionality, spatial organisation and sustainability (both financial and building design) will also form a big part of our design approach.
We pride ourselves on the ability to manage brief requirements with budget and once a design and cost is agreed, we will adhere strictly to that.
The integration of sustainable features such as the items listed below will contribute toward keeping the ongoing running costs down:
LED low energy use lights on motion and lux sensors
High levels of insulation and double glazing where appropriate
Natural ventilation Natural lighting where possible Good orientation to maximise solar
gain Solar water heating Low water use fixtures and fittings Low maintenance material
selections
Moutere Hills Community Centre – Courts
relevant experience_________ golden bay recreation park
We have included 5 relevant projects in the appendix of this submission that demonstrate our competence and experience in successfully undertaking work of this nature. We have worked extensively on projects with TDC, with community based working groups and projects with Don Robertson. The recently completed Richmond Library upgrade with Tasman Projects is another example of that a successful project we undertook with Don.
Sports and Community projects are unique in their nature with multiple stakeholders requiring thoughtful and clear communication and design based consideration of the usability of the facilities.
So often poor design results in facilities that are hard to use, especially when multiple user groups want to use the facilities at the same time. We have a wealth of experience in bringing together requirements from multiple stakeholders, community and sports groups and funders to ensure that the end building functions harmoniously.
We have also been involved with Scott Construction, TDC and a local community group in developing plans for an indoor pool in Motueka. This experience would beneficial to ensuring appropriate allowances were made for the pool in the Concept phase of this project.
budget and programme______ golden bay recreation park
We have reviewed the project information in the tender document. We are confident that we have the skills and the resources to deliver this project on programme.
We have a long track record of delivering projects on budget and the nearly completed NCC and TDC Saxton Sports and Community Pavilion is on track to come in under budget.
On all projects we are very mindful of budget constraints and balancing the brief and budget requirements to get the best solutions for our clients. We will work hard to maximise the benefit for the Golden Bay Community for this project by working with the stakeholders and project manager to ensure the budget is adhered to.
We will deliver a facility that is an asset to the community and is designed to provide efficient on-going running costs. In order to strictly adhere to the budget, early agreement on the brief and in particular spatial requirements will be important.
Once a preliminary estimate has been prepared and accepted, we will thoroughly document to meet this figure. Our track record of delivering high quality, functional and practical buildings that adhere to a brief and budget speaks for itself is testament to that.
Please feel free to contact any of our referees that are listed on the project sheets at the back to discuss our performance on the sports and community projects to date. The most recent is the nearly complete NCC and TDC Saxton Sports and Community Pavilion. We propose the following Concept Phase programme:
Upper Moutere sports and community facility
Week 1 -2 The required 6 weeks for initial concept design and pricing is achievable and we would begin with a site visit and meeting the stakeholders & project manager for a briefing session. We would then prepare broad initial concepts and meet again (perhaps after viewing some other local facilities with the group) for discussion.
Week 3 -4
We will take on board the comments from the group and incorporate these into a more detailed concept plan complete with perspective images of the building for some further discussion.
Week 5-6
We will prepare concept plans, sections and elevations and a preliminary specification for the QS to provide an estimate. We would also prepare some presentation concept drawings for the group to display that would include a site plan, floor plan and some colour perspective renders.
This would bring us to the end of this section of work. We would be available for discussions with the group and project manager for Phase 2 - feasibility analysis, presentations to TDC and public consultation meetings as and if required.
We would be available to commence developed and detailed design in mid 2012 and could produce tender and consent documentation by the end of October 2012 as required. This is the same timeframe we had to do the design and documentation of the Saxton Sports and Community Pavilion that had a similar project value.
As we have mentioned earlier, thorough discussion with the working group and project manager at the beginning of the project and a robust development of the brief will ensure we get achieve the maximum ‘bang for your buck’.
project team_______________ golden bay recreation park
The project team we are proposing comprises the following consultants, all of which we have successful existing relationships with: Arthouse Architecture Ltd
CDT Consultants Ltd Ian Thomson Ltd WR Andrew Ltd
(Structural Eng.) (QS) (Civil Eng.)
Within the Arthouse team we propose using:
Jorgen Andersen Brian Riley Brendon Monk Helena Glover Nick Reeve Margot Deveraux
(Director) (Project Architect) (Architect) (Arch. Graduate) (Draughtsman) (Interior Designer)
This team have considerable experience in all of the sports and community projects that we have included in the appendix, demonstrating our unique position as the most experienced local firm in sports and community facilities.
We have our own interior designer and will incorporate all joinery requirements, colours and material selections in our documentation ensuring a comprehensive and well coordinated set of plans.
NCC/TDC Saxton sports and community facility
resources and commitment___ golden bay recreation park
We currently employ 9 staff so we have the ability to be able to deliver high quality design and documentation quickly. We use the most up-to-date ArchiCAD software that enables us to model the building to help clients understand the spaces. We can incorporate structure and services to this and create detailed consent, construction and tender documentation from this quickly and accurately.
We have an in-house Quality Management system which ensures all documentation is peer reviewed before being issued, minimising issues during construction.
We have worked extensively with the proposed consultants, the TDC and Don on projects successfully in the past and are very experienced working with community groups to deliver this style of project.
This team is enthusiastic about working with the stakeholder group and Don Robertson to deliver this fantastic addition to the Golden Bay Community.
arthouse architecture ltd_____ profile
The bulk of our work is located in Nelson and Golden Bay. Our office is located in the heart of Nelson, and with the benefit of thirty years living and working here, we have a particular interest in sustainable, functional and innovative design solutions to projects of all scales. We have a sound knowledge of the Tasman District in terms of climate, history and community.
Arthouse has a long standing commitment to sustainable and energy efficient design reinforced by ongoing research into products and methods to support this. We regard every project as an opportunity to not only meet or exceed clients’ needs and aspirations but also to make a positive contribution to the built environment.
A high level of thought is applied to contextual considerations of each project and thorough planning is undertaken at the concept stage. Incorporating cost efficient solutions that relate to the site and use of the building ensure a quality project.
We are proud to contribute back to the community by sponsoring:
Arthouse Installation Art Project Nelson Arts Festival Nelson ARK Plunket
Hear Children NZ NZ Family & Foster Care Angels for Children
Trafalgar Centre – Southern Addition
The arthouse team
Awatere Sports and Community Hall
Project Details:
Client: Awatere Community Group Location: Awatere Valley Hall Approx. Value: $ 4 000 000
Floor Area: Completion: Director: Project Arch.:
2 000m2 (approx) currently on hold Jorgen Andersen Jorgen Andersen
We were commissioned to work with the Awatere Settlers Group to liaise with local user groups and produce a concept design and feasibility study to upgrade and add to the existing Community Hall.
This involved workshop meetings and presentations to the local community and developing a functional, cost effective multipurpose facility that could cater for indoor sports and outdoor sports, changing and toilets, childcare, homework rooms, mother’s day rooms, visitor centre, gymnasium, commercial kitchen, bar and function centre.
We worked hard to organise spaces to allow the facility to be used by multiple user groups at the same time but independently of each other and also open up to facilitate larger wedding groups, conferences or theatre performances.
By working closely with the local stakeholders we were able to develop a cost effective, functional, low maintenance design that incorporated colours and materials found locally. We incorporated concrete terrace seating to one side of the building and orientated the top story function/bar space toward the playing fields to allow spectators to take in the view and minimise the additional cost of a standalone grandstand.
The project is currently on hold pending MDC funding approval.
Saxton Oval Sports and Community Pavilion
Project Details:
Client: Nelson City Council Location: Saxton Cricket Oval, Nelson Approx. Value: $ 3 500 000
Floor Area: Completion: Director: Project Arch.:
Referee:
2 056m2 In Progress ( est. 8/11) Jorgen Andersen Brian Riley
Shane Davies Project Advisor Community Services Nelson City Council 110 Trafalgar Street Nelson p: 546 0244
The Pavilion is a multipurpose Nelson City Council facility that also serves Nelson Cricket, Nelson Athletics and Nelson Football Clubs. Located on a long narrow site between the cricket ground and athletics track, the structure offers easy access from either field as well as the carparks at each end.
Simple dark stained plywood clad boxes sit underneath the curved shell and create interior volumes that work independently of the outer shell providing international standard cricket facilities, public toilets, administration spaces, bar, kitchen, timekeeping and storage areas.
Complementing the long covered boulevard, walkways extend from each end into the central function space, allowing views over the Athletics/Football area or out to the Cricket ground. New ramps and terraced seating provide additional spectator seating.
A simple palette of materials has been used to delineate the curved outer skin of longrun iron and a curved plywood lining underneath. Concrete signage panels at each end welcome spectators and players.
The project is on track to meet the programme and come in under budget.
Saxton Oval Utility Building
Project Details:
Client: Nelson city Council Location: Saxton Cricket Oval, Nelson Approx. Value: $ 850 000
Floor Area: Completion: Director: Project Arch.:
Referee:
320m2 December 2009 Jorgen Andersen Jorgen Andersen
Peter Coubrough Project Advisor Community Services Nelson City Council 110 Trafalgar Street Nelson p: 546 0244
This project incorporated a plan that had already been established by Peter Coubrough in conjunction with the main stakeholders. We developed this information and conceptualised the form you can see in the images. Materials such as pre-cast concrete and longrun iron were selected for their durability and cost efficiency.
A simple curve was used as an architectural gesture toward the adjacent cricket oval and access points were penetrated through that curve and highlighted by the change in material and use of colour, giving access to public toilets.
The players change rooms and public toilets have also been designed with durability and maintenance in mind, and the introduction of colour brightens up these functional spaces.
The facility caters for the groundsmen downstairs with a simple exposed truss over concrete panels, while a higher level of finish was achieved upstairs for the media and scorers areas. Integrating text into the locally sourced concrete panels easily identifies the building from the carpark and adds interest to the building entry.
The integration of creative engineering solutions and simple architectural gestures combine to create a durable, cost efficient and attractive utility building for Saxton Field.
Moutere Hills Sports and Community Complex
Project Details:
Client: Tasman District Council Location: Upper Moutere, Tasman Approx. Value: $ 2million Floor Area: 2000m2
Completed: 2006 Director: Project Arch.: Brendon Monk
Awards:
NZIA Resene Local Award 2006
Referee:
Lloyd Kennedy Community Services Manager Tasman District Council 189 Queen Street, Richmond p: 543 8400
This community run facility is the central gathering place for the people who live in the greater Moutere Hills area. The brief was to create a multipurpose centre housing a playgroup, large function and dining room, multi-sport hall, commercial kitchen, foyer areas for art and sponsor display, home club for tennis, netball, rugby and soccer. The design process was a collaboration of ideas between the clients, Arthouse and the various community groups represented by the Moutere Hills Trust Board. The resulting design is based around a split-level plan that allows the main function room to double as a stage to the sports hall.
The raised level creates a mini grass terrace along the north side looking out over the rugby grounds to the mountains beyond. The main entry steps and accessible curving ramps fuse together to form the display foyer, war memorial site and a welcoming entry at the east end of the two main spaces. Sustainability was considered in the form of rainwater collection, natural lighting and ventilation, high levels of insulation, double- glazing, and a wastewater treatment system. Colours and materials in each space were selected for their acoustic properties and to relate to the area and community.
David Wallace
Trafalgar Centre-Southern Extension
Project Details:
Client: Nelson City Council Location: Trafalgar Park, Nelson Approx. Value: $ 7million
Floor Area: Completion: Director: Project Arch.:
Referee:
1000m2 1 February 2009 David Wallace Brian Riley
Andrew Petheram Nelson City Council PO Box 645, Nelson (03) 546 0200
This is a major addition and alteration project to Nelson’s indoor sports, event and performance venue.
Stage one of a two stage project to add valuable performance, sporting and seating space in conjunction with additional changing rooms, practice spaces and loading docks to this aging facility.
The Southern Extension forms a new ‘book end’ at the southern end of the existing centre. The curving exterior wall comes to a slender point on the eastern and western sides, minimising the visual impact of what is a substantial structure. The innovative use of interior linings and exterior claddings work in conjunction with the dynamic curved wall to create an exciting high profile addition to Nelson’s public building stock.
Careful integration of structural and services engineering into the design and documentation help to create this harmonious structure. The additional height and space it creates will allow more plays, bands and sports events to be held in Nelson and the well resolved internal planning will make it a pleasure to use.
We worked with a multitude of different stakeholders on this project and were able to draw the requirements of all of them together into this landmark building.

PROPOSED GOLDEN BAY COMMUNITY RECREATION, LEISURE & CULTURAL CENTRE GOLDEN BAY RECREATION PARK

PROPOSED GOLDEN BAY COMMUNITY RECREATION, LEISURE & CULTURAL CENTRE GOLDEN BAY RECREATION PARK
Request for Proposal for Design Services July 2011.
Project Outline
A Working Group has been formed in Golden Bay to investigate the options in developing a new Community Recreation/Leisure/Cultural Facility at the Golden Bay Recreation Ground, which will provide a central hub for community activities in Golden Bay.
The Working Group consists of a group of Golden Bay residents interested in promoting and facilitating the development of a “multi-use” recreation, leisure & cultural facility at the Golden Bay Recreation Park, Takaka. It is in the process of becoming an incorporated society
The group has held numerous public meetings since October 2010, to gauge interest and formulate what is desired.
To date 30 individual groups (leisure, sport & cultural) have expressed interest and support for this project. “Wish lists” from each group have been obtained. There are approximately 1,300 members are represented by the 30 individual groups. The reasoning behind a centralised and amalgamated facility includes:
Facilities currently available across Golden Bay are scattered on several sites. They are not dedicated facilities and, in particular, fail to provide adequate toilet, showers and changing rooms.
A number of groups do not have homes let alone facilities to cater for their demands. An excellent example of this is the Golden Bay Football Club with playing venues currently split between Golden Bay High School and the Golden Bay Recreation Park. Neither venue has a clubhouse, while no facilities are available at the Recreation Park for changing and showering, an issue when hosting visiting teams.
A central facility such as proposed will improve family life and prevent parents dashing from one place to another ferrying their children. They will be able to spend more time watching their offspring, maybe partaking in sport themselves and definitely improving social interaction. Parents will become better roles models to their children by either directly participating in their children’s activities or participating themselves.
Currently all non sporting activities are also in scattered sites, again with variable suitability for purpose. This limits exposure of those groups to the broader social interaction of a community. By having a central facility all groups are exposed to new ideas. The more people participate in community social activities, the more a community bonds and strengthens. This contributes to its overall wellbeing and is to be strongly encouraged.
Golden Bay Recreation Park Request for Proposal for Design Services
The provision of modern, up to date facilities would engender pride in the community when hosting tournaments and invitation events – be it sporting or otherwise. For sporting events in particular the absence of shower and changing facilities reflects days that are now gone.
A combined/shared facility will produce efficiencies and cost savings across the board, in effect rather than spreading the available resources thinly across the community, these valuable resources would be pooled in order to provide enhanced facilities for all.
The inclusion of a suitable kitchen and social area able to seat 200 people, at a fresh and desirable location could allow additional external benefits to accrue. These include but are not limited to weddings and conferences, which in turn promote Golden Bay and the many activities it offers, thereby enhancing local tourism, employment and overall growth to the wellbeing of all residents.
To date two presentations have been made to the Golden Bay Community Board, one in March and most recently in June. Positive feedback has been received from the Community Board to progress to the next stage of the engagement of an architect to take the planning to a concept design stage that can be costed for a feasibility report.
This request for proposal seeks proposals from selected local architects to provide a fee submission for phases 1 and 3 as outlined below:
Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3:
Concept planning and estimate for the development of the proposed facilities. The estimate will form the basis of confirming funding for the project in the council’s 2012/2013 annual plan. Feasibility planning by Working Group Council and Community funding confirmed.
Detailed design and construction phases, which is conditional on community and council funding being confirmed.
Project funding for community facilities in the Tasman District Council are 80% funded by the council and 20% by the local community. The Golden Bay Recreation Park Working Group or its future Incorporated Society will be tasked to raise the 20% community funding. Community funding may take the form of materials donated in kind or as direct cash contributions.
Tasman District Council has provisionally allocated $3.4m in its annual plan for the financial year 1 July 2012 to 30 June 3013 for this project. With the additional 20% community funding, the maximum project budget would be $4.25m. This includes the park development, site preparation, design and consent fees. The working groups expectations’ is that the project would be completed within the range of $3.4 - $4.2.m. As an initial starting point it is likely that the cost split between structures and site works would be 2/3 and 1/3.
The council has a requirement that council funded projects are independently project managed rather than managed by the designer. Tasman Projects Limited has been engaged by the Working Group /Tasman District council as their project manager for this project.
Date; July 2011. Page 2 of 7:
Golden Bay Recreation Park Request for Proposal for Design Services
Project Scope
The park is located off State Highway 60. It currently consists of 4 tennis courts, playing fields, a grandstand containing social rooms and a single squash court, change facilities and the adjoining A&P Society facilities.
An initial conceptual park configuration is attached that the Working Group has drafted up from ideas received during the consultation process. This is a reduced plan from the original that was printed on an A0 sized sheet.
The proposed project scope for Request for Proposal is: Phase 1 - Concept design and estimate for the proposed park development
Phase 3 - Full architectural, civil, structural & services engineering design services for the proposed park development.
Project Description
The word ‘facility’ is used to represent the project is not only a ‘building’ but also the surrounding facilities and environment (sports fields, car parking, A&P arena’s etc.).
The feedback form the community consultation has resulted in the proposed facility would encompass: Site Development:
6 playing fields (soccer, rugby, hockey) 4 tennis courts (existing but require re surfacing) 3 netball courts plus 1 warm up court 1 grass athletics track, marked out on winter playing fields plus long jump, discus, shot put 1 cricket field/pitch Carparking Access roads
Building Development 1 warm up area
2 squash courts 1 dance room (dance, yoga, tap-dancing, aerobics) 1 large hall (netball, basketball, volleyball, badminton, climbing wall, aikido) Weight Training & Gym Room 6 changing rooms 2 sets communal showers Individual showers 3 sets of toilets (including disabled) 8 storage areas (accessible from outside) 2 cupboards / office storage (indoor) 5 storage areas off main hall Manager’s office Commercial kitchen 3 meeting rooms 1 youth room
Date; July 2011.
Page 3 of 7:
Golden Bay Recreation Park Request for Proposal for Design Services
Baby change / breast feeding room Bar 2 Social areas (200 seat) Shop with both internal and external sales windows. Parking
Grandstand/Viewing Area
Indoor Not part of proposed initial park development or project budget but space to be allocated onsite in the concept plan for a future facility.
Pool
Pool (indoor 25m 6 lane) Pool (learners) Pool plantrooms Storerooms
Shared change facilities is feasible Separate entry/reception
General: The buildings must be simple, practical and functional. A fixed cost to be adhered to upon approval of the preliminary design and estimates.. The general layout and requirements of the facilities to be approved and signed off by the Working Group. Economy of operations is important to minimise operating costs..
Ground conditions: No geotechnical investigations to date have been carried out.
Siteworks & landscaping: The areas surrounding the building facilities shall be developed and landscaped so that this new facilities fit in with its surroundings and will not look out of place. The layout of the grounds shall determine the location of the facilities, rather than the building facilities governing the playing field locations. However the different levels of the areas need to be taken into consideration as funding wouldn’t stretch to significant siteworks to raise or lower existing fields.
Building services: To be determined but consideration has to be given to achieving a low operating cost solution .
Project Budget
The project has a preliminary budget estimate in the range of $3.4 - $4.2m plus GST. This budget includes:
Professional fees and disbursements Tasman District Council consent and development levies Facility development Park alterations and development As a guide the building cost would be in the order of 2/3 and siteworks 1/3 of the overall project budget.
Date; July 2011. Page 4 of 7:
Golden Bay Recreation Park Request for Proposal for Design Services
Project Timetable
The initial program for the project is:
Phase 1 – Concept Planning Phase
Issue RFP to selected designers, week commencing 25 July 2011. Responses to RFP’s received 12 noon, Friday 12 August 2011. Appointment of design team to be made by 31 August 2011. Presentation of draft concept design and estimates, no later than mid October 2011. Feedback/confirmation of concept design & estimates and updates if required, late October 2011.
Phase 2 - Feasibility Planning – Working Group
Feasibility analysis to be prepared by the Working party to include but not limited to issues and information around cost of construction, cost of additional land, operational budgets and project funding.
Concept design and feasibility planning presented to Tasman District Council November/December 2011. Public consultation and feedback on concept planning and feasibility planning
Phase 3 – Detailed Design & Construction Phases
Approval by the client to proceed to subsequent detailed design phases will only be given after the receipt and consideration of the designs and estimates and confirmation of council and community funding for the project.
Subject to confirmation by Tasman District Council that funding is available for the detailed design/tendering and construction in the 20112/2013 financial year, the indicative programme from July 2012 is:
Commence detailed design, July 2012. Complete detailed design documentation September 2012. Design review September 2012. Prepare and issue tender and consent documentation, October 2012. Tender and consent period, November 2012. Award contract December 2012. Commence construction January 2013. Complete park development October 2013 – to be confirmed.
Comments may be made on this programme in the RFP submission.
Deliverables
Stage One - Concept Plan Phase:
  
Overall site concept plan showing the development of the overall recreation park Detailed concept plans, elevations sections of proposed facilities and outline scope of work and spaces.
Concept plan estimate for works proposed. Stage Three - Detailed Design and Construction Phase:
Developed Design:
Development and expansion of the concept design to a stage from which working drawings and specifications can be prepared.
Co-ordination with structural and services engineering design development Date; July 2011. Page 5 of 7:
Golden Bay Recreation Park Request for Proposal for Design Services
Client meetings as required. Preparation of cost estimate Presentation of developed design report for client approval
Documentation:
Preparation of working drawings and specification based on approved developed design sufficient to obtain a Building Consent and sufficient for tendering and construction.
Co-ordination of structural and services engineering design, documentation and specification production. Design services to be based on the current New Zealand Construction Industry Council (NZCIC) Design
Documentation guidelines. Client meetings as required
Building Consent:
Preparation of consent documents Assisting the project manager to respond to consent queries
Tender and negotiation:
Preparation of pricing documents
Assisting the project manager to respond to tender queries
Assistance with tender negotiations with client’s project manager
Assessment of tenders and preparation of a tender report and recommendation in conjunction with client’s project manager
Contract Observation:
Observation of construction progress – designer to propose the frequency of inspections. Response to all construction queries, including structural and services Attendance at a minimum of 10 site meetings, to be chaired by client’s project manager Issuing draft contract instructions and variation instructions for issue by client’s project manager Client’s project manager to assess and issue payment certificates
Practical completion inspections
Post Contract:
Assisting in the co-ordination of warranties, as built documentation & manuals, Code Compliance with the client’s project manager.
Defect inspections and approvals
Fee Proposal
Fee proposals are sought and are to include for all design services including services & structural engineering.
Your submission shall clearly identify your proposed team members as well as their experience similar projects.
The design and contract observation fees shall be broken into the following phases:
Phase 1 – Concept Design
Fees for design and estimate Disbursements for printing and mileage only. Toll calls are not considered as disbursements.
Date; July 2011. Page 6 of 7:
Golden Bay Recreation Park Request for Proposal for Design Services
Phase 3 – Concept Design
Developed design phase, including preparation of drawings and estimate required for approval Documentation phase, including preparation of documentation required for building consent Tender phase Construction observation phase
Disbursements for printing and mileage only. Toll calls are not considered as disbursements.
The fees for any sub consultants shall be clearly identified.
Selection Process
Selection of the design team will be assessed on the following attributes:
Proposed fee Design approach Relevant experience Ability to deliver projects within budget, ability to meet time frames Proposed team Resources and commitment
Golden Bay Recreation Park Working Group and Tasman District Council reserve the right to reject any or all submissions.
The acceptance of a design team for Phase 1, does not constitute any contract or commitment of engagement for subsequence phases of the project.
Submission Closing
Any queries relating to the Request for Proposal shall be directed to Don Robertson at don@tasmanprojects.co.nz
The response to this RFP shall be limited to a maximum of 10 A4 pages. Submission by email as a PDF document is preferred as this will allow distribution to the committee members for review.
Responses to the RFP close with:
Don Robertson Tasman Projects Ltd 2 Fell Place, Stoke, Nelson 7011.
Ph 03 547 7833 Mobile: 0274 530 796 Fax: 03 547 7831
Email: don@tasmanprojects.co.nz Submissions must be received no later than 12 noon Friday 12 August 2011. Attachments:
1. Concept ideas for park development – Note this has been reduced from its original size.
Date; July 2011.
Page 7 of 7:

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Golden Bay Community Board Meeting Date: 12 July 2011 Report Author Carolyn McLellan

3. Multi Purpose Facility


This proposed facility for Golden Bay is engendering opinions on both sides of the debate.

When this proposal was first presented to the previous Community Board the agreement was to support this project in principle in order to allow the supporters to gain more information and support, and we requested that the Community Board be kept informed. This they have done, with Tasman District Council subsequently delegating responsibility to the Board as lead agency to oversee the initial planning of the proposed facility.

The project committee needs to have tangible plans to present to the public of Golden Bay for their consideration. The Committee hopes to attract funding from Lotteries for this phase however if this is insufficient the Golden Bay Community Board has recommended that Council’s Community Services funds the balance necessary, to enable this work to proceed to concept plan stage.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Presentation to Community Board Meeting 6th June 2011

PRESENTATION TO
GOLDEN BAY COMMUNITY BOARD
6TH JUNE 2011




“PROPOSED GOLDEN BAY COMMUNITY RECREATION, LEISURE & CULTURAL CENTRE”

GOLDEN BAY RECREATION PARK














-2-
BACKGROUND

  • Group Interested in promoting and facilitating the development of a “multi-use” recreation, leisure & cultural facility at the Golden Bay Recreation Park

  • Numerous public meetings conducted since October 2010, to gauge interest and formulate what is desired

  • 30 individual groups (leisure, sport & cultural) have expressed interest and support for this project. “Wish lists” from each group have been obtained.

  • Approximately 1,300 members are represented by the 30 individual groups

  • Group presented update to the Golden Bay Community Board 8 March 2011 (refer presentation dated 8.3.11)

THE PROPOSED FACILITY

We use the word ‘facility’ to represent not only a ‘building’ but also the surrounding facilities and environment (sports fields, car parking, A&P arena’s etc.)

In summary the “Proposed Facility” would encompass:-

Refer appendix for further detail.

6 playing fields (soccer, rugby, hockey)
4 tennis courts (existing)
3 netball courts
1 warm up area
2 squash courts
1 dance room (dance, yoga, tap-dancing, aerobics)
1 athletics track (and long jump, discus, shot put)
1 cricket field/pitch
1 large hall (netball, basketball, volleyball, badminton, climbing wall, aikido)
Weight Training & Gym Room
6 changing rooms
2 sets communal showers
Individual showers
3 sets of toilets (including disabled)
8 storage areas (accessible from outside)
-3-

2 cupboards / office storage (indoor)
5 storage areas off main hall
Manager’s office
Commercial kitchen
3 meeting rooms
1 youth room
Baby change / breast feeding room
Bar
2 Social areas (200 seat)
Shop (take-aways)
Pool (indoor 25m 8 lane)
Pool (learners)
Parking
Grandstand/Viewing Area

Refer presentation dated 8th March 2011 for detail of diversity of users from Bridge Club, youth groups, sports organisations to Search & Rescue/Civil Defence.

PROGRESS SINCE 8TH MARCH 2011

  • Group ‘Wish Lists” have been prioritised, in order to determine ‘cross-overs’ and base facility/requirements desired. (Detailed in summary above.)

  • A Bank Account has been opened and an initial donation of $750 has been received which will be used for advertising and small administrative type expenditure.

  • Public Feedback and Responses sought, via Golden Bay Weekly and Nelson Mail articles, survey and Letters to the Editor.

  • Feedback has been both positive and negative:-
  1. GB Weekly Survey: Total Responses 76
Positive 53 (70%)
Negative 21 (27%)
Other 2 (3%)
  1. Letters to Editor: Only 3 individuals have publicly opposed the proposal

  • Negative Feedback - appear to relate to 2 main issues:-
  1. Need (this particular facility or anything at all)
  2. Rates
-4-

  • Our Group feels that the individuals opposing the “Facility” are not totally familiar with what is actually being proposed (a misunderstanding of what they are actually opposing).
  • We have invited detractors to our ‘Public Meetings” to gain a better knowledge of the proposal and to air their concerns – attendance by these people at any of our meetings has not been noted.

  • We believe we will be in a better position to address any concerns by greater public awareness and knowledge of what is actually being proposed. In order to achieve this we need to move to the “Next Phase” – refer summary below.

  • As to the issue around Rates – we believe 2 factors are at play here. Firstly, the perception by the individuals of a general dislike of rates, ie relating to rates as a whole not in respect to the facility proposed. Secondly, an understanding of what the actual impact is likely to be and what we will get for our money.

  • In respect to the second issue and as mentioned above we believe we can only address and clarify the issue around rates by moving to the “Next Phase” – refer summary below.

PROPOSED NEXT PHASE

In order for the following to be achieved:-

  1. Scoping of the proposed project
  2. Assessment of feasibility
  3. To provide detailed information to the public thus enabling a thorough understanding of the proposal
  4. Address and gain further public feedback on the proposal

We believe we now need to take the following steps:-

  1. To consider engaging a Project Manager to manage the organisational aspects of the proposal.

  1. Engage a suitably qualified Architect Group to commence working with the group to initially complete sketch plans, modelling and feasibility analysis of the proposal.

-5-

  1. Feasibility Analysis to include but not limited to issues and information around:-

  1. cost of construction,
  2. cost of additional land
  3. operational budgets
  4. funding of project

In moving to these next steps we will then be in a position to take tangible drawings, models and numbers behind the proposal to the public in order for the general public to gain a full understanding of the project and thus enable informed feedback.

Why A Project Manager?

  • Provide qualified and experienced advice and management of the project
  • Time, skills and relationships to ensure best possible outcome

Why An Architect/Group of Architects?
  • We believe it is desirable that we engage and work with a group of people from the outset with the resources and expertise to see this project to its conclusion.
  • It is imperative that understanding, planning and groundwork be thorough from the outset in order to save money at later stages of the project.
  • Well-designed buildings:
  1. Enhance and enrich the user’s activities and lives.
  2. Living or working in a well-designed building can change the way we think and feel; it inspires us, uplifts us, brings us together in new ways, and promotes well-being and health.
  • Make a positive contribution to the urban or rural landscape.
  • Sustain and protect the environment.
  • Provide an opportunity for sound investment.
  • Leave a legacy for future generations to enjoy
  • A skilled architect can;
  1. Help clarify what we want.
  2. Bring vision, design skill, and creativity to the project.
  3. Maximise potential and create value by taking the project beyond the ordinary.
  4. Avoid predictable responses to a site or brief, and offer practical solutions to problems.
-6-

  1. Offer a broad range of skills, including; design, cost analysis, contract management and project supervision.
  2. Liaise and consult with other professionals including engineers, quantity surveyors and building contractors.

Every architectural project follows a series of clear stages and an architect's professional expertise brings consistency and quality to each step in the building process.

The Project Brief is the first stage of sharing information and describing the vision we have for our site & project. The Project Brief should clearly articulate our needs and vision.

Concept Design is the second phase of the project. At this point, the architect considers all the options and will present us with several solutions, through a series of drawings, perspective sketches, computer rendering or physical models.

Developed Design is the third phase of the project. When a concept has been agreed, the architect will test the ideas and refine the details to shape the final design of the building. At this stage the budget will be discussed and priorities will be set in terms of cost, time, and quality.

Planning Approval is necessary before the final, detailed or working drawings can be finalised. Once all the consents for the project have been finalised, working drawings allow a construction contractor to assess the full scope of the project prior to the Tender Process.

Building Consent is crucial to the actual construction or renovation and your architect is the best person to understand the relevant codes and to apply for this consent.

Choosing a builder and contractors is another important role the architect can help with. The architect is well-placed to help co-ordinate and integrate the contribution of all building professionals (engineers, quantity surveyors, building contractors etc.) into the building process.

Throughout the construction of the building, the architect can manage the contractual and financial transactions as well as oversee the construction phase of the project to ensure that best building practice is maintained and that the building is one of quality.

Once the building is completed, the architect will assess the construction for quality and provide a detailed list of remaining work. The architect will collect all trade warranties from

-7-

the main contractor, secure a Code of Compliance Certificate, administer the final payment and issue the main contractor with a Defects Liability Certificate.

We have the opportunity here to design and construct a facility that we will still be proud of in 50-100 years and which remains fit for purpose.

It is proposed that any actions/work undertaken by these people/groups would be at the sole recommendation and approval of the Committee proposing this project.

Action Plan

  1. Existing ‘working group’ behind the Recreation Park Facility is restructured into the following (or something similar):-
  1. An Incorporated Society is formed
  2. Executive Committee consisting of up to 6 members and chairperson
  3. Full Committee consisting of representatives of all potential facility users
  1. Expressions of Interest to be sought for the role of Project Manager (role and job description to be confirmed)
  2. Expressions of Interest to be sought for the role of Architect (role and job description to be confirmed). Initial scope of this role would be limited to the “Brief” and “Concept Design” Phases of the process, however with the view that the appointed Architect would continue to the end of this project in the event that it proceeds.

In the likely event that we have more than 1 applicant for either of these roles it would be suggested that:-
  1. The applicants are then short listed by the Executive Committee in consultation with Tasman District Council,
  2. Short-listed applicants then asked to make a presentation to the Executive Committee and a Council representative
  3. As a result of the interview and presentations, a successful candidate will be appointed





-8-

REQUEST

On behalf of the Group of citizens behind making this proposal happen for the good of all residents in Golden Bay, I now request the Golden Bay Community Board:-

  1. Supports our proposal, as detailed in the Action Plan above.
  2. Recommends to the Tasman District Council that funding is made available to undertake:-
  1. The appointment of a Project Manager
  2. The appointment of an Architect
  3. The Initial Design (to concept stage only) and Feasibility Study, including costing, of the project
  4. Further public consultation




Dean Lund Peter Blasdale Jenny Pomeroy




















Facility Project Meeting

Facility Project Meeting. 11.a,m. 1st June 2011.

Those attending:Peter Blasdale (mountain biking etc), Jenny Pomeroy (bridge), Jenny Cooper ( project skills), Sally-Ann Neal (rugby, swimming), Glenn Thorn (TDC), Lloyd Kennedy (TDC), Mik Symmons GBCB, Carolyn McLellan GBCB, Karen Brookes GBCB, Leigh Gamby GBCB, Martine Boullier, Councillor.

Jenny P: We represent different groups. There are still some approaching us, e.g. roller derby.

They would like to include recreation and leisure and community groups in Recreation Park plans. A list is to be sent in.
Money ($750.00) in bank account to cover articles, publicity.
The GBW survey resulted in 76 contacts. 53 (70%) were positive, 21 (27%) were negative. 2 (3%) were neutral.
Also 6 letters have been received. 3 were opposed and 3 supported the project.
The negatives mentioned were related to whether there is need for a new facility, or to rates concerns.
These concerns can be addressed through public knowledge.
Scoping of projects is wanted. Knock-on effects of existing facilities needs consideration and education. A professional project manager and architect are needed from the outset for help with feasibility, costs and fund raising to save costs. Then results will be put to the public.
It is hoped that this project will bring the community together.
It’s an opportunity for sound investment. An architect will be needed to consult with building professionals for quality outcome.
Concept design
Develop design. Cost, time quality.
Planning approval. Building consent.
Action plan: existing group to be incorporated into a society with a full committee and would like Community Board support.

Lloyd: re funding. TDC can fund through facilities rate$20 to 25,000 for this. The Motueka pool project employed for their decision an architect who was offered a set price for a concept drawing only. This could be brought to the Community Board to apply to TDCfor money. It doesn’t trigger the facilities operation rate.

Glenn: offer to help architect.

Carolyn: There’s extra land that can be contracted for in reserves. You need to get to concept planning stage. Some things are already budgeted for. Don’t do the operation costs. That’s the project manager’s job.

Jenny C: Different phases to be discussed. We want work brought to budget. The concept is for toddlers to 90 year olds.

Mik: Ideal application for lotteries re Communities Facilities Feasibility funding. But is that now usable. There have already been previous Van Der Skog applications for this project. Only one is granted. My concern is whether our pot has been used up.

Carolyn: Investigate that option first . Nothing will be wasted you can still be getting other quotes Mik will talk with Kay Latham of Internal Affairs in Nelson

Lloyd: The TDC application isto be reduced by any Lotteries funding amount

Carolyn: Have preliminary talks with Kay Latham then go out to the community with “ This is the ideas and these are the add-ons and take offs” Pool is a huge cost. Look at viability.Duplications. Are you planning new squash courts?

No decisions on anything have been made at this stage, but the list we have includes new and existing things.

Lloyd: Look long term, 20 years for swimming pool.

Carolyn: Figures will speak for themselves

Mik: A way to spread funding e.g. lotteries grants, great.

Carolyn: If Lotteries are applied to and approve, you are then known.
What is the impact on rates of $3.4 million?

Peter: .79 cents per household per week.

Carolyn: $16.80 extra on rates and a further $30 for facilities operations rate.

Lloyd: TDC could change their policy to charging communities rates they don’t yet pay even if those communities don’t yet have a facility.

Carolyn: When do you plan to start fund raising?

Jenny P: Next year maybe. In 18 months.

Peter: It will be slower.

Carolyn: There will be 1 million having to be raised in this community shortly re other projects.

Lloyd: Canterbury earthquake will take up a lot of available money. Canterbury Trust will now put more into Christchurch.

Mik: Steve Mitchell of Moutere Hills can advise you. At the moment there are lots of groups and ideas. As it shakes down less will be possible. How do you see the common vision?

Jenny P: lots of crossover. Not much specific, some alternatives. Moutere Hills made$20,000 in their 1st year. They are making $120,000 now.

Mik:High school students are keen because of parent non-engagement at present because of venues on different sites.

Carolyn: There are other interests asking too. Arts, museum. We’ll see how this pans out.

Lloyd: We need concrete plans for the public. Ask through the Community Board for TDC seeding funding.

Petr to Glen: The work done re layout of pitches was to see if they would fit.

Glen; A building in the middle avoids cold and dark issues re the fields. Some sports wanting summer play too, which can compromise fields.

Peter: More parking is needed. Some of the new parking could be used by the Playhouse.

Jenny C: Individual clubs fund-raised separatelyin Picton for extras to improve their own particular needs.

Meeting ended 12. 15 p.m.
Minutes taken by Karen Brookes.



Sunday, May 8, 2011

Meeting of 28 April 2011

Golden Bay Shared Facility
Notes of Meeting 28 April – 7pm Rugby Club
Present
John Byrne, Faye Turnbull, Roger Tait, Dean Lund, Arlun Wells, Wayne Packard, Graham Pomeroy, Ricky Ward, Emma Trethewey, Tony Cunningham, Jean Wedderburn, Shane Johnston, Marguerite Dooley, Fleur Murray, Jenny Cooper, Dave Myall, Ann Jones, Jenny Pomeroy.
Apologies
Mik Symmons, Peter Blasdale and Kevin Winter
Community Board Presentation
Dean, Peter and Jenny P attended the Community Board meeting in Collingwood on Tuesday 8 March where Dean gave a presentation of our vision, target groups and progress to date for the Shared Facility. A copy of his presentation is on the blog www.goldenbayfacility.blogspot.com They felt that there was a positive response to the project, particularly from the public gallery (drew applause!) Stuart Borlase spoke to the Community Board about the Museum’s idea for a facility.
Carolyn McLellan, Community Board Chair has written to Dean thanking him for his presentation. Attached.
Concept Plan
Fleur has drawn a concept plan to scale of the project which has been on display in the library for the last 4 weeks. She stressed that this was just an idea not set in stone and really just an experiment to check that it fits on the site.
Arlun / Fleur both said that concept had to include some room for expansion both in the building and field space.
Feedback
The publicity (community board presentation, article in GB Weekly and concept plan) have drawn some feedback, both positive and negative. If the negative letters continue, it would be a good idea to invite these people to one of our meetings. If it carries on ask TDC to respond.
We now need some more concrete ideas and a plan with specifics before we seek more public opinion. (Roger, Jenny C).
A&P Show
Jean Wedderburn attended the meeting as she wants us to be mindful that the area created could still host the A&P Show – would still need enough space for horse events, be able to put pegs in the ground, somewhere for the cattle section etc.
There was some discussion about the Booth. Jean made it clear that a display area the size of Booth needed to be maintained.
Dean stressed that every group that was involved in the project should be going forward. No one should be taking a backward step. The group can work with the A&P Assoc.
Other Groups
There are several other groups in the Bay also looking at creating a facility – a swimming pool near the High School possibly using waste hot water from Fonterra; Museum and Arts Council.
Next Steps
Small group (Fleur, Dave, Ann, Jean, Marguerite, Wayne and Jenny P(Peter to be invited)) to meet on Weds 4 May to condense and rationalise wish lists
Dean to talk to Lloyd Kennedy to get some idea of costs (building and running) for big ticket items – building, pool, squash courts, astroturf. Also to ask Lloyd for some help with the next step – feasibility study.
Dean will set up a bank account (GB Facility Account) with Roger and Ann as signatories to pay for incidental expenses being incurred by individuals at present eg GB Weekly ads.
Visiting other facilities – would be a good idea for the same (consistency of information) members of the group to visit some of the other facilities in the area.
Ann to get hold of rules and regulations for indoor pools
Next Meeting Monday 30th May, 7pm Rugby Club.

Check out Pictons project website at   www.endeavourparkpicton.co.nz