Item #23 on last week’s agenda was the approval and funding of an contract for architectural services for the construction of an African-American library in the city of Houston. Strangely, the backup was missing from the RCA stored online by the City Secretary’s office. Just to remind everyone, the RCA/agenda backup is not normally available via the internet, even though the document is online. It is stored solely within the city’s intranet, and is not available publicly.

The minutes and prior agendas are available online here, but they’re running a bit behind, and the 7/5/06 agenda isn’t stored there yet. Presumably, the minutes aren’t stored until officialy adopted, but they’re a week behind on those too. I noticed that the 7/5 preliminary minutes were available (edit: on the intranet), and also managed to find some info on the African American library, which I extracted, and it is available here. High points are below the fold.

The item was delcared an “emergency”, which as I’ve noted before, is a dodge to get around it spending a week on the agenda. After all, someone might notice these things and raise inconvenient questions, such as:

And where, might I add, is the Hispanic Library? And the Chinese Library? And the Indian Library? And the Greek Library? And the German Library?

Kudos to Laurence for a howlingly funny (if politically incorrect) response to that question.

The contract is turn the Fourth Ward’s old Gregory Elementary School “into a research library dedicated to the collection, preservation, and dissemination of historical documentation and cultral information about the African American Experience in Freedman’s Town and the Greater Houston Area.” Basics: it’s a 1926 vintage structure covering 22,000 square feet, concrete and wood frame, liisted as a State Archeological Landmark by the Texas Historical Commission. The contract says it is “inhabitable due to existing environmental, structural, and cosmetic related issues, all of which can be considered severe,” but I suspect they meant uninhabitable. Plans are to demolish an adjacent 1962-vintage two story building.

Here’s where the first “Arrruugh?” occured for me (emphasis added):

The City of Houston has invested years into the development of this project and has compiled volumes of information through various consultants. Due to the ongoing nature of the project and the involvement of new stakeholders, there is a need to determine the project’s current values, goals, and requirements. Consultant shall a document that clearly outlines and communicates the projects architectural mission, space requirements and constraints, financial feasibility, and scheduling options.

There’s so much mind-boggling in this paragraph, where do I begin? Years? Gee, lets try to make this sound like we’d be throwing money away to stop now, or something. Speaking of which, how much money have we thrown away prior to this $89,000? Then there’s the whole “ongoing nature” and the “need to determine the projects values” and goals. Say what? First off, are we going to have to go through spending more money everytime a new stakeholder enters the game? Why don’t they pay for the services? Not to mention: who are they? And values/goals? I don’t know about how the city does things, but most of us try to figure out what our values and goals are before we start pouring money down the rat hole. We’re paying for architectural services, not a museum’s raison d’etre!

Here’s the Basic Services, straight from the contract:

The Consultant will provide pre-design services as follows :
1. Owner – Supplied Data Coordination
a. Obtain and organize previously completed reports and correspondence for the project .
b. Review, separate and prioritize this information based on current relevance.
c. Disseminate this information to project subconsultants based on the subconsultants’ responsibilities .

Translation: The Consultant will shuffle paper produced by his predecessors.

2. Facilities Assessment
a. Review previously completed assessment reports for applicability to current requirements .
b . Perform visual walk thru of the existing facility to perform a current and up-to-date structural conditions assessment in regards to its future use as a library building .
c. Gather information related to the proposed site and its respective opportunities and constraints utilizing reports previously completed.

Translation: Read the predecessor’s reports, look at the building, and tell us if they were full of shit, or had a clue.

3 . Program Review and Evaluation
a. Identify the projects values, develop specific project goals and constraints and/or opportunities.
b . Gather information related to similar facilities that may have been constructed or are being planned.
c . Identify major space needs and establish the size and relationships of these spaces . A detailed list of spaces and their sizes will be included.
d. Establish and document furniture and equipment requirements as it relates to the interior space requirements . This includes exhibits.
e. Facilitate meetings with community stakeholders and designated committee members to define archival content for inclusion in the facility.
f. Establish design guidelines in regards to the requirements required of the Texas Historical
Commission
g. Establish a conceptual project budget and schedule.

Translations:
a. Tell us what you think we ought to do, since neither we nor the new stakeholders seem to have a clue.
b. Steal as many ideas from elsewhere as you can.
c. Do some actual architectural work, you know.
d. And some more of the same.
e. Suck up to all the right people.
f. Handle the damned state paperwork
g. Tell us how much more we’re going to have to spend on soak the taxpayers for all this.

And of course, as I noted in the headline, the contract was approved unanimously (Though Wiseman was absent). Is that what we’ve come to? Cultural blackmail is so ingrained that not one council member will speak up and ask why we’re pandering to one segment of the electorate?

Sad, really.