Você está na página 1de 110

Prepared For

Prepared By

13 January 2012

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study


Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Required Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Art Museum Building Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Museum Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Program Summary Art Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Program Summary River Heritage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Individual Building Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Limitations of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 General Structural Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 General Mechanical Design Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 General Electrical Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Site Accessibility Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Site Concept and Test-Fit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Laundry Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Test Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Engineering Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Test Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Powerhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Test-Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc. Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

General Ofce Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Test Fit Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Mule Barn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Structural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Mechnical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Administration Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Architectural Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Structural Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Mechanical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Electrical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Site Accessibility Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Combined Art and River Heritage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Powerhouse Building Test Fit Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Combined Art and River Heritage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . 35 General O ce Building - Test-Fit Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Building Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Overview and Next Steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Detailed Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Evaluation Criteria Score Sheets - Overall Appendix A - Meeting Minutes Appendix B - Grand Canyon Art Collection

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Executive Summary

Grand Canyon Association contracted with Westlake Reed Leskosky (WRL) and Coe & Van Loo (CVL) to prepare an Art Museum Concept (as indicated in the GCA RFP) Study and Building Assessment of six (6) existing buildings. is report contains evaluations, conceptual studies, cost estimates, program usage and test t plans that were used to rank and determine the appropriate venue to adapt to a new Art Museum and Gallery space. e buildings selected for assessment are as follows: 1. Laundry Building 2. Engineering Building 3. Powerhouse Building 4. General O ce Building 5. Mule Barn 6. Administration Building (also referred to as Building 1 or park Superintendents residence and rst visitor center). e proposed Art Museum will display the collections of the Grand Canyon Association (GCA) and the Grand Canyon National Park Service (NPS), and allow room for future acquisitions. e Art museum is also planned to function as a gallery and event space, for seasonal events, such as the annual Celebration of Art event, currently held in the Kolb Studio Gallery. WRL and CVL met with representatives from the GCA, the NPS, and other key stakeholders to develop the program for the Art Museum, and to develop the evaluation criteria used in the building assessments. Minutes from these meetings are included in Appendix A. In addition to stakeholder meetings and interviews, the following reports were referenced during programming and assessment: Village Interpretive Center (2004) concept plan: is site plan was utilized as a guideline for future implementation. Conceptual Design Cost Plan (March 3, 2004) Class B Cost Estimate for historic Powerhouse Stabilization (January 4, 2007) Grand Canyon Art Gallery Building Evaluations (February, 2010) Historic Structure Report First Administration Building (June 2008) Feasibility Study of the Grand Canyon River Heritage Museum (June 7, 2010)

Required Programming

e program for the proposed Art Museum was developed using the current collection size as a benchmark, while providing room for expansion through future acquisitions. e collection will incorporate art, artifacts, sculpture, and traveling exhibits. e program also addressed functional and support spaces, such as docent space, gift shop, restrooms, storage rooms, and mechanical rooms. A summary of programming needs are outlined on the test individual t plans. Cost estimates are included on page 39.

Evaluation Criteria

e project team developed a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for comparing and ranking the alternative building locations. is data is located on page 9 A summary of each building assessment is included for review on page 13.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 1

Executive Summary

Art Museum Building Recommendation


Addition ft2
3,750 6,400 -

Completion of the building assessments, based on the proposed program and evaluation criteria, yielded the following ranking and recommendations: Building
Laundry with addition Engineering with addition Laundry Powerhouse General Ofce Engineering

Ranking
1 2 3 4 5 6

Actual ft2
7,650 2,675 7,650 17,200 24,282 2,675

Total ft2 with Addition


11,400** 9,075 -

Required Program ft2

Estimated Cost*

9,048 $5,224,061 9,048 $4,161,313 9,048 9,048 9,048 9,048 $3,381,259 $5.970,824 $4,093,019 $1,715,313

*These costs are intended to be used for fundraising efforts and not as nal construction costs. **The total ft2 noted for the Laundry with addition, is based on the Proposed River Heritage program established prior to this study.

During the building assessment stage, it became apparent that renovation of either the Mule Barn or the Administration building would be too di cult and costly to accommodate the required program. For this reason, they were removed from further consideration or study. e data supporting this decision is outlined in the individual building assessment. Combined Art and River Heritage Museum Recommendation As an additional exercise the feasibility of combining the Art Museum and the proposed River Heritage Museum was evaluated. e number 1 (one) choice is the vacant Powerhouse with the General O ce building as number 2 (two). Test t plans for each of these scenarios is provided in the individual building assessments on pages 34 and 35. If, however the museums are to remain separate, it is recommended that the River Heritage collection be housed in the Powerhouse.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 2

Executive Summary

GRAND CANYON VILLAGE


TRAIN STATION

MUSEUM ENTRY

SCULPTURE GARDEN

PROJECT NORTH

Full Master Plan


Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

80

160

320 FEET

11/29/11

Museum Program
Program Summary Art Museum
To develop the program for the proposed Art Museum, WRL and CVL met with the GCA, NPS, and other stakeholders; and toured the current NPS art and artifacts collection at the Grand Canyon. Following this meeting, the GCA provided a list of their current art collection for review. is includes 80 paintings and photographs, with the largest painting measuring 138 x 92 (though the majority of the collection is 36 x 48 or smaller) and is located in Appendix B. Using this information we have arrived at the program presented in the following pages. e following assumptions were used in determining programming needs: NPS collection storage will remain in its current location; the proposed curation room will have limited storage intended only for paintings being rotated into or out of the gallery, as well as work space for restoration. Temporary gallery space is recommended for events such as the annual Celebration of Art. e size for this gallery is modeled after the Kolb Studio (1375 ft2), only slightly larger (1500 ft2). GCAs current art collection can be housed comfortably in the proposed gallery space of 1500 ft2. With the addition of a dedicated GCA storage space of 400 ft2, the Art Museum would be able to easily accommodate twice the current collection. Gallery spaces are shown as individual spaces, GCA Collection, Temporary Gallery and NPS Collection; we would anticipate, and have shown in the testt plans, a much more integrated gallery experience for the visitor, where the spaces are uid in their layout. e Grand Canyon NPS collection would feature paintings as well as artifacts, such as pottery, and tools. Programs marked as additional are not essential to the art museum function, but would be incorporated where and when space is available. Programming for the Combined Art and River Heritage museum has been provided for the Powerhouse and General O ce (on pages 34 and 35). e River Heritage program is based upon the June 7, 2010 study, for the Laundry Building. See table below for speci c programming recommendations.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 4

Museum Program

Art Museum Program Recommendations


Area ft2 Entry Entry Lobby Museum Store Subtotal Gallery Space GCA Collection Temporary Gallery NPS Collection Subtotal Building Support Ofce Break Room/Docent Curation Room GCA Storage General Storage Catering Kitchen Audio Video Closet Data Room Restrooms Mens Womens Family/ Unisex Separate Staff Subtotal Total Net Program Gross Program Additional Spaces Classrooms Youth Art Room Seminar Room Exhibit Space Tribal Gallery Subtotal Total Net Program w/ Additional Spaces Gross Program 400 400 70 70 3,020 7,540 9,048 7 xtures 7 xtures 1 xture 1 xture 240 200 400 400 300 300 120 120 2 ofces at 120 ft2 400 120 520 1,500 1,500 1,000 4,000 Connected to entry Comments

Space for ~90 paintings Space for ~90 paintings Space for paintings

Space for ~ 96 paintings

1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and infrastructure

300 500 500 1300 8,840 10,608

Approximately 10 to 15 students Approximately 20 to 25 people

1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and infrastructure

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 5

Museum Program

Program Summary River Heritage Museum


River Heritage Museum Program Recommendations
Area ft2 Exhibit Spaces Display Area Boat Display Demonstration Area Theater 5,220 1,684 510 Comments

Connected to entry Potential to share with the Seminar space in the art museum program, if space does not allow for both

Subtotal

7,414

Administrative/Shared Programs Work Room 202 Storage 361 Mechanical Room 555 Restrooms Mens Womens Subtotal Total Net Program Gross Program Additional Spaces Classrooms Youth Art Room Seminar Room Exhibit Space Tribal Gallery Subtotal Total Net Program w/ Additional Spaces Gross Program 230 230 1,578 8,992 10,790 1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and infrastructure

300 500 500 1300 10,292 12,350

Approximately 10 to 15 students Approximately 20 to 25 people

1.2 multiplier accounts for circulation and infrastructure

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 7

Museum Program

Individual Building Assessments


Limitations of Assessment
A site visit was made on October 24, 2011, by the engineering/architectural team to evaluate and assess general architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and site access conditions for 5 of the six subject buildings. (note: the General O ce was added to the study following this initial visit) Observations were limited to those areas where the existing structure is exposed and visually accessible. Areas concealed by drywall, plaster, or paint, or physically or visually inaccessible are not included in this assessment. No destructive forensics was conducted. Additional building assessment information produced by previous rms was also utilized to prepare this report. A general outline of each subject discipline is provided below as well as a detailed individual building assessment following this summary section. Evaluation Criteria e initial meetings and previous reports established the following building evaluation criteria: Site Infrastructure Flexibility of Interior Space Site/Pedestrian Accessibility Quality of Display Space Site and Building Security Historic Preservation Concerns Site Access & Parking HVAC Site Presence Plumbing / Sprinkler Site Lighting Electrical and Interior Lighting Identity/Entry Experience Structural Upgrades Exterior Building Envelope UV control Interior Modi cations Building Accessibility/ADA Concerns

General Structural Design Criteria

All additions, modi cations, and new construction shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the most current editions of the International Building Code (IBC) and International Existing Building code (IEBC). Any repairs, alterations or change of occupancy shall be investigated and evaluated. A structural evaluation describing, at a minimum, a complete load path and other earthquakeresistant features shall be prepared. Additionally, the report would describe each feature that is not in compliance with these provisions and shall demonstrate how the intent of these provisions is complied with in providing an equivalent level of safety. e design live loads applicable to an art museum are anticipated to be as follows: Lobbies, rst oor corridors, stairs: 100psf. is live load will be used in addition to the typical dead, wind, snow, and seismic loads. e seismic design criteria applicable to this location are as follows: Seismic Design Category D Soil Site Class D Occupancy Category III Importance Factor I = 1.25

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 9

Individual Building Assessments

e wind design criteria applicable to this location are as follows: Wind Exposure C 90 MPH Velocity Occupancy Category III Importance Factor I = 1.15 Structural Recommendations A new geotechnical report will be required for all buildings to determine new foundation requirements. Further investigation is required to quantify the amount of seismic retro tting for life- safety level of performance in a moderate earthquake.

General Mechanical Design Criteria

All additions, modi cations, and new construction shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the most current editions of the International Mechanical Code (IMC). All buildings will require HVAC upgrades to meet the requirements for temperature and humidity control in an exhibit space. Each building is unique but will require similar systems. e proposed HVAC systems will consist of multiple heating and cooling units consisting of high e cient ltration, cooling and heating coils, and steam humidi cation at each unit. Space temperature, and humidity levels and tolerances shall be based on ASHRAE 2011 Applications guidelines for general museum spaces. e space temperature shall be maintained at 70oF +/-4oF, and space humidity shall be maintained at 50% relative humidity +/-5%. e con guration of each unit will have a 30% lter, fan, 95% lter, cooling and heating coils, and steam humidi er at each unit. Mechanical Recommendations Each building would utilize a Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) heating and cooling system. is type of system will allow for tight temperature and humidity control for each space within the museum and also provide ultra-high e ciency with Seasonal Energy E ciency Ratio (SEER) above 16. With smaller indoor units the system will allow for tighter temperature and humidity control as smaller areas will have individual controls.

General Electrical Design Criteria

e design intent is to provide the electrical and lighting system design upgrades as required to meet the requirements of the current applicable codes including the following: NFPA 70 - e National electrical Code, 2011 NFPA 72 - e National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code NFPA 101 e Life Safety Code e International Building Code, 2009 e International Fire Code, 2009 National park Service Design Guidelines American with Disabilities Act Guidelines New electrical systems shall be sized to support the increased power requirements related to heating, ventilating, air conditioning, humidi cation and dehumidi cation inherent in an appropriate art museum design. In general, larger systems bene t from a higher distribution system voltage of 277/480 V., 3-phase, and smaller systems use 120/208 V., 3-phase. If a higher system voltage appears
Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 10

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Individual Building Assessments

bene cial, large HVAC system loads and uorescent and HID source lighting would be served at the higher voltage with general use power and incandescent lighting loads to be served at the 120/208 V level. e lighting design shall incorporate the use of general ambient lighting and artwork showcase lighting. Lighting control strategies to be pursued will be dependent on project budget and may include individual space dimming, multi-level switching, occupancy sensors, daylight harvesting, astronomical time clock controls and central lighting control and dimming systems. In many areas these control strategies can be combined for maximum savings. Natural lighting of exhibit areas may need to be controlled to limit UV in ltration and glare. e lighting system will be coordinated with the architectural design to accommodate and adjust for di erent conditions. e Art Museum building design shall provide an addressable re alarm system with sprinkler supervision. e noti cation system will have audible and visible appliances to comply with ADA. Electrical Recommendations Due to the increased power needs associated with an art museum HVAC system with humidi cation controls, specialized display lighting, as well as the age, condition, and revised occupancy of the existing proposed buildings, it is anticipated that each building, will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring. e services for the Powerhouse or the Laundry Buildings may be able to be located in the basement areas. New lighting should be energy e cient and selected based upon intended uses, such as ambient lighting, or display lighting. Some of the original RLM style luminaires in the Powerhouse or the Laundry Building may be refurbished and reused to maintain the historic character of the buildings. New exterior building lighting and adjacent site lighting will provide security near the building entrances but will be minimal to conform to the parks natural environment. A new addressable re alarm system is proposed. be monitored o -site. e re alarm system shall

A new low voltage voice/data distribution system will be designed to meet the new building use. e building services, power and low voltage voice/data are proposed to be routed to the building below ground.

Site Accessibility Design Criteria

Access to the proposed Art Museum will be through several entry points, all based upon the 2004 Interpretive Campus Plan. A parking lot will be provided immediately west of the Interpretive campus, along with a bus drop o . A second bus drop o will be provided from the south, with a new bus stop along the existing road. Additionally, pedestrian access will be addressed from the Grand Canyon Village through a proposed pedestrian bridge, which negotiates the signi cant grade change from the Village to the Interpretive Campus, as well as the train tracks that lie in-between. Paved pedestrian paths, with grade and slope to comply with ADA requirements would need to be provided to the art museum, and eventually all campus buildings,

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 11

Individual Building Assessments

as part of the development of the campus plan. ese would be necessary from each of the proposed entry locations, including bus stops, parking lot to the west and the pedestrian bridge. Based on the existing site grading, several buildings will need additional ramps and stairs to provide accessibility to the main level of the building. e Powerhouse has an approximately 6 foot grade di erential, which will require a fairly extensive ramp. As shown in the Concept Site Plans, the ramp and stair provided would be integral with the proposed amphitheater and pedestrian bridge (as indicated in the Interpretive Campus Plan). e Engineering Building currently has a ramp to the main entry, with the implementation of the art museum in this building, railings and slope would need to be ADA compliant.

Site Concept and Test-Fit

e attached Site Concept Plans A and B illustrate the potential for a site entry building, which would be in addition to the Art Museum and serve as an amenity for the entire campus. e function of this building would be to provide common restroom facilities for the campus, thus reducing the need for some of the restrooms in the individual buildings, re ected in some of the test t plans as well and would provide a small orientation kiosk, where events that are scheduled at the interpretive campus could be posted for visitors. We have shown two options for this entry building; A where the building is a stand-alone feature and B where an open-air trellis connects the Laundry and Engineering buildings, providing some protection from the elements, with the entry building in-between. Also illustrated in the Site Concept Plans are options for connecting the General O ce Building to the interpretive campus. As it is physically remote from the campus buildings, we are proposing a system of paths and trails that would lead east from the Interpretive Campus to the General O ce Building. As an additional option that would strengthen the pedestrian experience, we have illustrated the potential for re-locating the village loop road to the south side of the General O ce Building. is would provide a more seamless pedestrian experience. We understand that the Historic Grand Canyon Village Plan is designated as a campus, which includes the roadways; we are proposing that the road would be maintained, but re-purposed as a pedestrian plaza. e potential for museum functions, such as the sculpture garden, to occupy this space presents a strong entry experience for visitors

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 12

Individual Building Assessments

GENERAL NOTE: SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS PLAN

GRAND CANYON VILLAGE


ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

MUSEUM ENTRY

SCULPTURE GARDEN GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING

GREENSPACE

PROJECT NORTH

Full Master Plan


Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

80

160

320 FEET

1/10/12

GENERAL NOTE: SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS PLAN

EXISTING LODGING

STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RAMP AND STAIR FOR ACCESS TO MAIN FLOOR LEVEL GREENWAY AMPHITHEATER

POWERHOUSE ENTRY BUILDING - WITH CAMPUS RESTROOMS ENGINEERING BUILDING PROPOSED TRELLIS ENTRY PROPOSED SHUTTLE DROP-OFF COMMUNITY BUILDING PROPOSED PARKING ENTRY

GREENPLAZA

MULE BARN

ENTRY MULE CORRAL

PROJECT NORTH

Interpretive Campus Concept Plan A


Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

80

160

320 FEET

1/10/12

GENERAL NOTE: SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS PLAN

EXISTING LODGING

POWERHOUSE LAUNDRY BUILDING SHOWN WITH PROPOSED ADDITION COVERED TRELLIS / WALKWAY BETWEEN ENGINEERING AND LAUNDRY BUIDLINGS ENTRY BUILDING WITH CAMPUS RESTROOMS ENGINEERING BUILDING SHOWN WITH PROPOSED ADDITION SHUTTLE DROP-OFF COMMUNITY BUILDING MULE CORRAL ENTRY

STEEL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE RAMP AND STAIR FOR ACCESS TO MAIN FLOOR LEVEL GREENWAY AMPHITHEATER

GREENSPACE

MULE BARN

ENTRY

PROJECT NORTH

Interpretive Campus Concept Plan B


Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

80

160

320 FEET

1/10/12

Laundry Building
Architectural Review
While utilizing many of the design characteristics of the larger Powerhouse, the Laundry Buildings overall visual impact has been lessened by a series of nonconforming additions that would need to be removed to allow for its restoration. While its smaller size is a challenge programmatically, the possibility of an addition would negate those issues. e Laundry Building also bene ts from an open warehouse design that allows greater exibility without having to sacri ce architectural or preservation concerns. An existing small basement area could also be utilized by engineering systems or storage. Limited mezzanine space would also be available for secondary functions.

Structural Review
Roof Framing

e Laundry building structure consists of steel roof framing with deep trusses, in lled with steel channel purlins. Wood nailers are bolted to the sides of the channel purlins. e roof appears to be sheathed with 2x3 straight decking laid upright spanning over the tops of the purlins and is assumed to be fastened to the nailers. e steel roof trusses span to concrete bearing/ shear walls and to interior steel columns. e bottom chords of the trusses are horizontally cross braced with steel angles in several locations wall to wall. A wood framed mezzanine with plywood sheathing occurs on one end of the building which appears to be used for storage. Some of the exterior walls are covered with large sharp angular stone veneer which appear to be adhered to the concrete walls with concrete or grout. e lateral force resisting system is classi ed a concrete shear wall. e building appears to be in good condition. Structural Recommendations New plywood sheathing on the roof Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 13

Laundry Building

Wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall sti ening for out-of-plane seismic loads Anchorage of stone veneer

Mechanical Review

e Laundry Building HVAC consists of gas red unit heaters in the original storage area with exhaust fans for natural ventilation in the warmer months. e new addition on the west side of the building utilizes evaporative cooling and a gas furnace for heating. Restrooms are located in the basement and are not in use, a large water heater located in basement is also not it use. Mechanical Recommendations e Laundry building will be a good t for the HVAC systems as the lower north and south side areas will allow for air distribution to be at a lower level along and have the ability to serve the center area from a level elevation.

Electrical Review
Ventilation Fan

e existing electrical service to the building is at the north end of the east wall of the building. It is served overhead, with the riser at the south end of the east wall, and appears to be 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire. e main distribution appears to be original, primarily fusible disconnects and does not indicate an overall ampere rating. Building branch circuiting appears to be served primarily through two newer load centers. e historic building general lighting is primarily via industrial luminaires using T-12 lamps. Some RLM type luminaires, probably historic, remain in the open storage areas. e expansion o ce area uses primarily 2x4 recessed uorescent tro er xtures with T-12 lamps. e building has minimal exterior lighting. e building has an existing Noti er SFP 1024 re alarm panel. Low voltage voice/ data service to the building is routed overhead. Electrical Recommendations e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Electrical Service Entrance

Site Accessibility Review

e Laundry Building is well situated on the site to take advantage of parking and pedestrian accessibility.

Test Fit Plans

Concept plans for the Laundry Building were developed based on 2 programmatic approaches: 1. Provide full program with a proposed expansion (expansion is based on the feasibility study done for the River Heritage Museum), 2. To provide a reduced program scheme where the maximum gallery area is t into available square footage of the existing building, without expansion. (Options A & B). Exterior access is provided to the lower basement level as the grade falls away from the building along the east site.
Building Access Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc. Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 14

Laundry Building

Where the full restroom square footage is not provided, this reduced scheme would require a common restroom facility within the interpretive campus, only a small convenience restroom is provided (see site plan concept A and B which illustrates a small entry building, which could act as site orientation and amenities, such as restrooms). In each scheme, the gallery space leverages the softer natural light provided by the clerestory space, and is located along the northern exposure of the building, providing softer natural light, which is ideal for glare and UV exposure to the artwork. Opportunities Prominent site location adjacent to proposed shuttle stop and parking (based on 2004 Interpretive Campus Plan). HVAC system can be easily integrated into exposed structural framing. Strong building character to unite with the surrounding Engineering and Powerhouse buildings, and very desirable quality of natural light with the overhead clerestory windows. Challenges Large volume may cause greater temperature and humidity swings in the gallery space than desired.

Summary

As highlighted in the evaluation criteria scoring, we feel that the Laundry building is the most desirable for an art museum. e building has great character, re ecting the history of the Grand Canyon, as well as prominence as viewed from the Grand Canyon Village. ough both the existing and expanded Laundry building can provide ample gallery space, the proposed expansion to the Laundry building provides additional gallery space which is ideal for a temporary exhibition gallery. is would allow room for the GCA and Grand Canyon National Park collections to grow, while keeping dedicated space for temporary exhibits, including the annual celebration of art event.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 15

Laundry Building

Engineering Building
Architectural Review
Not adequately sized to accommodate even the minimal museum program, the Engineering Building would require an addition to meet the programmatic needs. Limited mezzanine space would also be available for secondary functions. e exibility of its open interior would lend itself well to rehabilitation. With some of the architectural features characteristic of the surrounding structures, the Engineering Building has an excellent visual presence towards the area that would most likely become the main site parking.

Structural Review

e Engineering Building is similar to the Laundry and Powerhouse building in that it has a basic roof and wall construction. e di erence lies in the corrugated steel deck used for the roof in lieu of wood deck. It too has stone veneer on the exterior walls. One end of the building has a second oor but the framing was not accessible to view. e lateral force resisting system is classi ed a concrete shear wall. e building appears to be in good condition. Structural Recommendations New plywood sheathing on the roof Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors Wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall sti ening for out-of-plane seismic loads Anchorage of stone veneer

Corrugated Steel Deck

Mechanical Review

e engineering building is heated and cooled with gas furnaces, electric baseboard, gas unit heaters, and split system A/C units, along with evaporative coolers. Mechanical Recommendations e engineering building is limited in ceiling space for HVAC and would require extensive re-working of the spaces to accommodate the new ventilation system.

Ventilation System

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 17

Engineering Building

Electrical Review

e existing electrical service to the building is at the southeast end of the building. e service is served overhead and appears to be 400 A., 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire, with two 200 A pull-out disconnects. e building distribution also serves a separate temporary containerized o ce structure to the west. ere is an existing feeder with conductors routed and exposed below the east eaves. e service feeds other individual circuit breaker panels throughout the building. e historic building general lighting is primarily via industrial luminaires, or other assortments of luminaires using T-12 lamps. e building has minimal exterior lighting. e building has an existing Fire-Lite 5024-UD re alarm panel located on the second level. Low voltage voice/data service to the building is routed overhead.

Electrical Service

Electrical Recommendations e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility Review Test Fit Plans

ADA access to the west side of the Engineering Building can be achieved with ramps.

Concept plans for the Engineering Building were developed based on 2 programmatic approaches: 1. Provide full program with an addition, with the option of a basement (Options A & B) 2. To provide a reduced program scheme where the maximum gallery area is t into available square footage of the existing building, without expansion. Where the full restroom square footage is not provided, this reduced scheme would require a common restroom facility within the interpretive campus, only a small convenience restroom is provided (see site plan concept A and B which illustrates a small entry building, which could act as site orientation and amenities, such as restrooms). Both schemes for the Engineering Building eliminate the mezzanine, as the small amount of square footage gained is nearly negated by the lift or elevator that would be required for ADA accessibility. is would then open the entire space to a double height volume enhancing the visitor experience of the gallery. Opportunities Prominent site location adjacent to proposed shuttle stop and parking (based on 2004 Interpretive Campus Plan). HVAC system can be easily integrated into exposed structural framing. Strong building character to unite with the surrounding Laundry and Powerhouse buildings, and a desirable quality and volume of natural light.

Drainage

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 18

Engineering Building

Challenges Large volume may cause larger temperature and humidity swings in the gallery space than desired. e proposed addition is roughly double the size of the existing building, and will be challenging to maintain the historic integrity. Careful consideration will need to be taken to not diminish the scale of the existing structure.

Summary

e engineering building, with the proposed expansion is a close second choice, as it possesses many of the same character attributes as the Laundry building. is expansion would be much larger, and essentially double the size of the existing Engineering Building. e design of this building would need to carefully consider the massing of the expansion, to prevent visually diminishing the presence of the original, historic structure, as re ected in the criteria scoring. Without an addition, the Engineering building does not seem su cient to meet the program goals of the Art museum. One potential scenario where the Engineering Building, without expansion, is feasible would be as a temporary exhibit gallery only, while one of the other buildings in the study serves as the permanent gallery for the GCA and NPS collections.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 19

Engineering Building

Powerhouse
Architectural Review
As the second largest of the structures examined, the Powerhouse Building provides the necessary square footage to house the entire Art Museum Program without the need for a building addition. Its monumental presence and historic character would enhance the museum experience. e exibility of the open warehouse lends itself well to the proposed program. e tall ceilings would allow for the addition of a mezzanine level that could house displays or serve as secondary exhibit space. Multi-level changes located in the secondary spaces of the Powerhouse would add additional expense to accommodate site and ADA accessibility. e current basement would remain inaccessible to the public, modi cations would allow for certain areas to be used for engineering systems or storage.

Roong

Structural Review

e Powerhouse building is a much larger version of the Laundry Building as far as basic roof, steel column and wall construction, but is a large high bay warehouse type building with an average roof height elevation of approximately +45-0 above ground level. It also has the same stone veneer exterior as the Laundry building, but at a much taller and massive scale. In the basement concrete columns support the main oor, bearing walls, massive cast in place walls and spread foundations

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 21

Powerhouse

support the machinery that was located above (much of which has since been removed). Connected to the west of the main space of the Powerhouse building is the Icehouse, which is a lower roofed two story structure with steel wide ange roof and oor beams spanning to concrete bearing/shear walls. e roof and oor appear to be sheathed with approximately 2x3 decking laid upright. e building and the addition contain mezzanines that are not tied to the buildings structural system. e lateral force resisting system is classi ed a concrete shear wall. e building appears to be in good condition. Structural Recommendations is portion of the narrative outlines possible structural modi cations required to renovate the buildings for use as an art museum. A new geotechnical report will be required to determine new foundation requirements. Further investigation is required to quantify the amount of seismic retro tting for life- safety level of performance in a moderate earthquake. It is anticipated that the following items would need to be installed or altered in this building for its new use: New plywood sheathing on the roof Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors Wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall sti ening for out-of-plane seismic loads Anchorage of stone veneer

Operable Windows

Mechanical Review

e powerhouse has no heating or cooling within the building, only operable windows. ere is an existing water pumping station in the basement that has new pumps and expansion tanks install, this system is supplying domestic water to facilities to the north of the area. Mechanical Recommendations One of the main challenges for the HVAC system in the power house will be large volume space as the air distribution would be from a very high elevation and higher temperature and humidity uctuations may occur. A more e ective approach would be to supply heating and cooling air from below, but would require oor penetrations and oor registers, but this would allow for the HVAC equipment to be located in the basement space and would not be visible.

Electrical Service

Electrical Review

e existing electrical service to the building is at the south exterior and is served overhead and appears to be 600 amperes, 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire. e utility feed to the building appears to be less. e main distribution is exterior to the building and serves two small panels inside. e historic building general lighting is very sparse, using possibly historic RLM type luminaires. e building has minimal exterior lighting, although more than the Laundry Building. A raceway serving an exterior luminaire was noted to be separated exposing conductors to the elements. is condition should be corrected to avert the occurrence of an electrical fault or incident. e building is not currently in use. e building does not appear to have a re alarm system.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 22

Powerhouse

e building houses generators and control switchboards which served site electrical distribution. ese elements are historic and will remain in the building. Electrical Recommendations e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility Review

ADA access to the Powerhouse will be more challenging and most likely will require a lift or ramp. ere is about a 6 (six) foot grade di erential on the east side of the building from the ground to the main oor level.

Test-Fit Plans

Plans for the Powerhouse preserve the existing equipment and machinery within the space, surrounding them with gallery spaces. Centrally located restrooms serve as a solid volume within the open space of the Powerhouse, and provide a mezzanine level above. Administrative and storage functions are located on both levels of the Icehouse, and are accessible through a new elevator provided in the space, which also connects to the proposed mezzanine level. With large, expansive windows, careful interior shading will need to be provided to protect artwork from harmful UV exposure, particularly along the south and east sides. Outside the building, a proposed ramp and stair provide an accessible entrance to the main level, and connect to the central Interpretive Campus green space (as proposed in the 2004 study), as well as the amphitheater further east. Programmed areas located in the basement can be accessed via the proposed elevator or from the exterior, north side of the building. Based on the assessment visit, much of the piping that reduces the ceiling height can be removed, but would need to be con rmed with a full, detailed building assessment. Opportunities Most iconic structure on the campus with monumental site presence Large open space allows a exible, open approach to space planning Opportunity to create loft spaces to utilize the high open volume space Challenges Large volume may cause larger temperature and humidity swings in the gallery space than desired. Requires extensive modi cation to address accessibility / ADA. Seismic / Structural upgrades are extensive, and magni ed due to the size of the building.

Summary

e Powerhouse is an impressive, heroically scaled structure which speaks strongly to the history of the Grand Canyon, and in any study would maintain the machinery that made the original lodging accommodations, such as El Tovar possible. Even more so than the adjacent Laundry building, the Powerhouse is a prominent structure from the vantage point of the Grand Canyon Village and would be a clear destination for visitors. e extent of work to be done at the Powerhouse to make the art museum feasible, including ADA access to the main oor level, and to the
Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 23

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Powerhouse

various levels within the building, including the partial levels of the original icehouse are challenges that would be presented. With large windows, particularly on the south elevation, a strategy to control sunlight would need to be part of successful museum implementation, which could be achieved with either window lms or internal shading, to preserve the historic exterior quality. With an appropriate UV control strategy, the visual connection of the interior gallery spaces to the Grand Canyon Village would be an inspiring aspect of the Powerhouse.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 24

Powerhouse

General Ofce Building


Architectural Review
O ering the largest amount of available square footage, the building is more than su cient to house the museum program. While the structure does not carry the same sort of monumental presence as the Powerhouse, its faade is composed stylistically with a palette of materials that ts well into the character of the existing historic structures. e interior o ers few ADA or historical concerns and would leave a exible space available for the new program after interior demolition was complete.

Wood Trusses

Structural Review

e General O ce Building is a one-story structure with a gabled roof consisting of wood trusses, straight sheathing and stone veneer on the exterior walls. Based on the construction of the other buildings and photos observed, it is expected that the perimeter walls are composed of concrete or masonry bearing walls. e building appears to be in good condition. Structural Recommendations New plywood sheathing on the roof Roof and mezzanine to wall anchors Wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall sti ening for out-of-plane seismic loads Anchorage of stone veneer

Evaporative Coolers

Mechanical Review

e General O ce building has roof mounted evaporative coolers and roof mounted A/C units with gas heat and gas furnaces. Mechanical Recommendations e General O ce building would require minimal work to accommodate the HVAC system as there are large amounts of attic space that could be utilized. Roof mounted equipment could also be utilized to save ground space.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 26

General Ofce Building

Electrical Review

e general o ce buildings existing electrical service is located on the north side of the building and is an overhead, 120/240 V, service which appears to be relatively new. e interior lighting is primarily via uorescent source luminaires. e garage portion uses industrial luminaires, while the o ce areas have surface mounted wrap-lensed luminaires. Exterior lighting is limited and uses both incandescent and HID sources. e building does have a re alarm system. Electrical Recommendations e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility Review


West Entrance

Study re-location of road immediately west of General O ce Building to be re-routed to the south side of the building.

Test Fit Plans

Concept plans for the General O ce building were developed based on 2 programmatic approaches: 1. e art museum program occupies only the east portion of the building. area currently serves as the garage service bays (Option A). 2. e art museum program occupies only the west portion of the building (Option B).

is

Each scheme is viable, option A provides an entry o the existing parking and service areas, which would become the dedicated museum parking lot, and option B provides a stronger connection as the terminus of the interpretive campus. Although more physically remote, a system of pedestrian paths would be proposed to connect the buildings at the interpretive campus to the general o ce, making it a terminus to the campus. Strengthening this connection would be the re-location of the road to the west of the entry, as noted on the test t plan. Opportunities Approximately double the amount of necessary space, additional uses (to be determined) can share the cost of renovating the building. (this could be a challenging if there is no additional user identi ed at this time). Close proximity to both the train station and nearby lodging (El Tovar and Bright Angel Lodge), existing pedestrian access would negate the need for a bridge or crossing over the railway. Adjacent parking can provide access for those only visiting the art museum. Challenges Physically disconnected from the Interpretive Campus Concept and other potentially related programs that could create a synergy at this portion of the park. ( e museum functions would seem ideal as a core element of this campus.) Additional cost of re-routing the existing road to connect with the Interpretive Campus, as well as challenges with the Historic Plan that is in place, and includes the road layout.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 27

General Ofce Building

Lacks the historic character of the Engineering, Laundry or Powerhouse buildings. Relocation of the existing garage.

Summary

e nal viable museum location is the General O ce building. With respect to the previous structures mentioned, the General O ce Building lacks the historical character and inspiring presence that the other buildings possess. Minimal windows allow limited connection to the exterior and very little natural daylight into the space. e General O ce is much closer and more accessible to the lodging and would be potentially the rst building encountered from visitors arriving via the train. One potential drawback is the distance from the Interpretive Campus, where as other cultural amenities are implemented in this area, the art museum, would logically is at the core of this cultural experience. e general o ce would be connected to the larger campus with a system of pedestrian paths, and in one study, the road is even re-routed (see graphic on the next page) to the east side of the building to allow a stronger pedestrian connection, but remains physically more removed. e size of the General O ce Building can be either an advantage or disadvantage, as less than half of the building is needed for the art museum program. Should a compatible user for the remaining portion of the building, such as expanded artistin-residence program accommodations, or youth art + education retreat space, some of the renovation and construction costs could be shared amongst the two users.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 28

General Ofce Building

GENERAL NOTE: SITE PLANS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON 2004 INTERPRETIVE CAMPUS PLAN

GRAND CANYON VILLAGE


ADMINISTRATION BUILDING TRAIN STATION

EXISTING ROAD AND SIDEWALK ALONG RAIL LINE

EXISTING HISTORIC ROAD - PEDESTRIAN PLAZA MUSEUM ENTRY

GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING

SCULPTURE GARDEN RE-ROUTED ROAD CONFIGURATION

PARKING UTILIZES EXISTING MAINTENANCE YARD

PROJECT NORTH

Road Alignment
Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study, Grand Canyon, Arizona

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

40

80

160 FEET

1/10/12

Mule Barn
Architectural Review
e usable space of the Mule Barn would make the minimum requirements of the art program attainable; the addition of a secondary structure to accommodate the full art program would be infeasible due to topography and building structure. Also, the congested oor plan that is characteristic of a working stable, while a de ning feature of the Mule Barn, would need to be heavily modi ed to accommodate the art program, this modi cation would also have a detrimental e ect on the buildings historic fabric. Additionally, challenges with the exterior building envelope, lack of natural lighting, and overall exibility of the space; does not make the Mule Barn a good candidate for the art museum program.

Structural Review

Wood Trusses

e Mule Barn is a one-story structure with an attic loft consisting of wood frame construction. e roof framing consists of wood trusses spanning to perimeter wood stud bearing walls and interior beams and posts. It appears that a line of beams and posts was added where the roof rafters meet the collar ties on only the north side of the building, and not symmetrically added on the south side. is could indicate that the roof sagged at one time and needed to be propped back up, perhaps from uneven snowdrifts. e attic oor is sheathed with straight sheathing. e roof and walls are sheathed with 1xstraight sheathing. e foundation appears to be continuous concrete spread footings at the perimeter walls and isolated spread footings at interior posts. e lateral force resisting system is classi ed as a wood shear wall. e building appears to have a large of amount of solid shear walls and roof wood diaphragm capacity and appears to be in good condition. Structural Recommendations Add perimeter blocking at rafter between roof sheathing and double top plate of walls to transfer horizontal roof diaphragm shear to the shear walls. Add adhesive or epoxy anchor bolts from wall sill plate to foundation as needed. If interior posts are to be removed new transfer beams with new end posts and footings would be required to support the existing attic oor joists.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 30

The Mule Barn

Mechnical Review

ere is no existing HVAC in the Mule barn, a gas furnace has been added to the wood shop for heating needs. e wood shop also currently has a dust collection system. Mechanical Recommendations With the Mule barn currently having a dirt oor this building could allow for an even more energy e cient HVAC system. Since a new oor slab would need to be installed a radiant heating and cooling oor could be designed, this would require a chilled and heating water system. e exterior walls will need to be upgraded for insulation and vapor barriers so the temperature and humidity could be controlled.

Gas Furnace

Electrical Review

e mule barn does not have a dedicated utility service. e buildings electrical distribution is served from the Livery Stable building to the southwest. e livery Stable service is 100 A., 120/240 V., 3-phase, 4-wire. e feeder to the mule barn appears to be 100 A. e feeder runs the length of the livery Stable, overhead across to the Mule Barn and enters the Mule barn at the west end. e feeder connects to the rst panel at the center south of the building. erefore, the existing utility source is located quite a distance away with voltage drop a concern for any meaningful sized loads. e service feeds two individual circuit breaker panels. e general lighting at the east side of the building is primarily via industrial luminaires, using T-12 lamps. e lighting along the west side and the second level appears to be via RLM type luminaires with incandescent lamps. e building has minimal exterior lighting at the east side.

West Site Access

e building has an existing Ademco re alarm panel. Low voltage voice/data service to the building is routed overhead. Electrical Recommendations e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring. .

Site Accessibility Review

ADA access to the west side of the Mule Barn will be di cult due to the grade di erential and limited area to construct a ramp.

Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building Summary


e mule barn, presented a structural challenge, where to provide a desirable gallery space, much of the existing structure would need to be removed to allow larger column bays. Providing a conditioned environment, suitable for displaying artwork would prove di cult, as the exterior envelope would need to be drastically modi ed, resulting in much of the historic fabric being concealed with new, insulated walls. e recommendation was made that this building is better suited for seasonal events, where the un-insulated structure could be utilized and the historic fabric remain intact. In this capacity, the Mule Barn could be a common facility for the interpretive campus.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 31

The Mule Barn

Administration Building
Architectural Review
e Administration building while a visually pleasing structure, presents several challenges. e buildings small size, di cult site location and multiple grade and level changes make this site incapable of meeting the minimum required art program. Any modi cations to accommodate ADA and program needs would completely alter, detrimentally, the historic character of the structure.

Structural Review

Drop Ceiling

e Administration building is a two-story wood framed structure with gabled roof. Per a previous structural building review, the roof consists of collar tied rafters and ceiling joists supported on wood stud walls. e structural oor framing and wall framing were not visible as they were covered with nishes. It appears that the roof is supported on multiple interior bearing walls. ere are a lot of exterior stone masonry walkways, site walls, retaining walls, chimneys and stone masonry pilasters built up on portions of the structure. e lateral force resisting system is classi ed as wood shear wall. is building is similar to residential construction and appears that it would perform well in a moderate earthquake with minor structural upgrading due to its height and redundancy of wood shear walls and horizontal diaphragms. e building appears to be in good condition. Structural Recommendations Add perimeter blocking at rafter between roof sheathing and double top plate of walls to transfer horizontal roof diaphragm shear to the shear walls. Add adhesive or epoxy anchor bolts from wall sill plate to foundation as needed. Anchorage of stone veneer.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 32

Administration Building

Mechanical Review

Evaporative coolers are utilized to cool the Administration building, and electric baseboard heat on the perimeter of the interior of the building provides the heat for the building. Mechanical Recommendations e Administration building is limited in space for HVAC equipment to be installed. e exterior of the building does not allow for ground mounted equipment and roof space is limited for roof mounted equipment. e interior of the building is also limited in space for interior HVAC equipment to be installed.

Electrical Review

e existing electrical service to the building is at the east end of the building. It is served overhead and is 200 amperes, 120/240 V., single phase, 3-wire. e distribution consists of a fusible main disconnect serving two branch circuit panel boards. e building general lighting is primarily via surface mounted o ce luminaires or di erent styles using T-12 lamps. e building has minimal exterior lighting. e building has an existing Noti er SFP 1024 re alarm panel. Low voltage voice/ data service to the building is routed overhead. Electrical Recommendations e building will require a completely new electrical system including service entrance, distribution panels, feeders and branch circuit wiring.

Site Accessibility Review

Given the surrounding grades associated with site topography, negotiating site access to the entry of this building presents many ADA challenges. Solutions for overall site ADA accessibility will be costly and extensive due to numerous grade and level changes within and surrounding the existing building.

Test Fit Plans - Not prepared for this building Summary


Multiple Levels

e administration building presented several concerns when considering its functionality as an art museum. One of the foremost concerns was providing ADA access to this multi-level building, both from the exterior due to surrounding grades, as well as within the building. e extent to which the building would need to be modi ed to make it compliant would be costly, and negatively impact the ability to provide adequate display space for galleries. Also, the size of the interior spaces is not adequate for a collective gallery space, where larger, open spaces are more desirable.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 33

Administration Building

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum


Powerhouse Building Test Fit Plan
As a shared museum, the Powerhouse has ideal interior volume to provide an additional mezzanine level. In addition to providing more programmable space, this added mezzanine would enable visitors to experience the museum from multiple perspectives. e structure lends itself to potential suspended exhibits, such as river boats hanging from the structure above. In this scenario, visitors could experience a 3 dimensional display of exhibits from various perspectives. As shown in the attached plans, the art museum program is located on the proposed mezzanine level. At 3,500 ft2 (which is at the maximum size based on building code requirements) nearly the full proposed gallery program is accommodated at this level. e main level would predominately house the River Heritage Museum program, with some exible space that is shared between the two museums. is ex space could server as temporary or traveling exhibit space. Administrative functions are located at the lower level of the Icehouse and basement, along with shared functions of the Seminar / eater and Youth Art rooms. As in the Art Museum plan, historic machinery and equipment remains in-tact, with mezzanine and gallery exhibit space wrapping around this existing context, and adding a strong connection to the history of this site for museum visitors. Opportunities e most iconic structure on the campus with monumental site presence. Large open space allows for a exible, open approach to space planning. Opportunity to create loft spaces to utilize the high open volume space which is particularly attractive for shared museum use. Challenges Large volume may cause larger temperature and humidity swings in the gallery space than desired. Requires extensive modi cation to address ADA accessibility. Seismic / structural upgrades are extensive, and magni ed due to the size of the building functions of the seminar / theater and youth art rooms.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 34

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum | Powerhouse Building

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum


General Ofce Building - Test-Fit Plan
Due to the size of the General O ce Building, which is more than double the proposed Art Museum program, there is more than enough space to accommodate both museum programs, as well as approximately 2,500 ft2 of additional shared space between the two museums. e art museum is shown as occupying the west side of the building, which is currently o ce space, while the river heritage program is toward the east, utilizing the higher ceilings for the larger scaled river boat exhibits. Shared functions such as the theater, seminar, and youth art room link the two programs together as a common use and administrative space between the two exhibit areas. Opportunities Approximately double the amount of necessary space. Additional users (to be determined) can share the cost of renovating the building (can be a challenge without an identi ed additional user). Close proximity to both the train station and nearby lodging (El Tovar, underbird and Bright Angel Lodges), without the need for a bridge or crossing over the railway. Adjacent parking can provide access for those only visiting the museum. Challenges Physically disconnected from the Interpretive Campus and other potential related programs that could create a synergy at this portion of the park. ( e museum functions would seem ideal as a core element of this campus.) Additional cost of re-routing existing road to connect with the Interpretive Campus, as well as challenges with the Historic Plan that is in place, and includes the road layout. Lacks the historic character of the Engineering, Laundry or Powerhouse buildings. Sizeable existing garage use that would need to be relocated elsewhere in the park.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 35

Combined Art and River Heritage Museum | General Ofce Building

Building Recommendation

e number one (1) recommendation for the Art Museum program is the Laundry building, with the proposed addition. e Engineering building, with the proposed addition, is ranked number two (2). Of the six (6) subject buildings evaluated, only four (4) buildings are best suited to the Art Museum. ese include the Laundry, Engineering, Powerhouse and General O ce buildings. Both the Mule Barn and Administration buildings have been taken out of contention. is decision was based on several factors and agreed upon by all GCA and NPS stakeholders. By eliminating these two buildings early on allowed the design team to focus e orts on the 4 buildings, as indicated above.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 37

Building Recommendation

Overview and Next Steps

Overall, the prospect of co-locating the proposed River Heritage and Art museums within the same building has distinct advantages in terms of cost (construction and operational), fundraising, and as a bold vision to inspire development adjacent programs at the Interpretive Campus. Should the museums remain separate, we would recommend the Laundry Building for the Art Museum, and the Powerhouse for the River Heritage Museum, where the height of the interior space could be leveraged by suspending the river boats. e potential for the two to have a shared outdoor courtyard between them has very attractive potential. Once a decision is arrived at, based on the information included in the report, and subsequent discussions amongst the GCA and NPS, our recommendation is to pursue a more detailed feasibility study, focused on the selected building and surrounding site. is will allow for a more focused design concept to be developed, the proposed program to be con rmed and adjusted if necessary to the available building area. From this more detailed concept study a more precise cost estimate can be developed to allow for a focused fundraising e ort. Along with the feasibility study, we recommend developing preliminary exhibit design concepts. is along with rendered views of the architectural and site improvements to the building will be key documents to present to potential donors. is will be the opportunity to begin illustrating the vision of the Grand Canyon Art Museum, and crafting this story for potential stakeholders. We would anticipate this would be an approximately 2 to 3 month e ort, and would involve a similar level of involvement from key stakeholders with the NPS and GCA, as involved with this concept study, to have multiple perspectives represented as the vision moves closer to reality.

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 38

Overview and Next Steps

Detailed Cost Estimate

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study | 39

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs

9th January, 2012

SUMMARY
Description NPS Estimates Estimated Cost Break out Cost Contingency F,F & E A & E Fees Allowance of LSI; final of Structural & Owner figures to be Upgrades Expenses; Allow negotiated with ($'s are incl in concessioner Estimated Costs) Allow; $ $ $ 12.5% 7.0% 10.5% $ 2,791,471 Estimated Total Cost (Excl LSI)

Laundry Laundry with Addition Laundry Option A Laundry Option B Powerhouse Building Powerhouse Building River Heritage/Art Museum Option Engineering Building Engineering with Addition Engineering with Addition; Basemt A Engineering with Addition; Basemt B Engineering Building; No Addition

3,927,441 2,542,025 2,819,205


n/a $ 815,666

279,458 279,458 285,678 1,279,447 1,279,447 186,092 186,092 186,092 186,092 199,780 198,297 n/a 210,173 n/a

490,930 317,753 352,401 561,107 824,954 391,059 493,449 550,849 161,196 384,641 412,220 159,275 606,421 38,088

309,286 200,184 222,012 353,497 519,721 246,367 310,873 347,035 101,554 242,324 259,699 100,343 382,045 23,995

496,404 321,296 356,330 567,363 834,152 395,419 498,951 556,991 162,994 388,929 416,816 161,051 613,183 38,512

5,224,061 3,381,259 3,749,948 5,970,824 8,778,455 4,161,313 5,250,866 5,861,663 1,715,313 4,093,019 4,386,493 1,694,869 6,453,018 405,295

4,488,856 6,599,629 3,128,469 3,947,593 4,406,789 1,289,570

General Office $ General Office Option A General Office Option B (excl Road) Premium Opt B for Road re-alignmt River Heritage/Art Museum Option Common Site Requirements Entry Building incl restroom

3,471,678

3,077,126 3,297,759 1,274,200 4,851,369 304,700

Note: 1 All costs are current. No allowance for escalation. 2 No specific costs included for environmental issues.

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs

9th January, 2012

BASIS OF ESTIMATE 1 These Final Concept Opinion of Probable Costs are based on the draft concept designs prepared by Westlake, Reed Leskosky during December/January, 2011/2, and the assumptions listed below. 2 The following costs are not included in the numbers:Land costs Overtime working Equipment supplied by owner Moving & Relocation costs Inspection fees Telecom equipment Removal or abatement of hazardous materials. Lead paint abatement Artwork/Exhibits These costs should be carried in a separate budget. 3 The following assumptions have been made:- Concept site plan estimate not included at this stage. - Interior fit out concept to generally be an open, industrial type concept. - The options for General Office building not utilizing full space assume remaining unused building space to be seperately funded. - 10% Design Contingency included on the Summary, combined with a 2.5% allowance for Owner expenses.. - Costs excluded for any environmental issues. - 38.5% has been included for Contractor Mark-up's which includes General Conditions, location factor, state taxes, bonds, insurances and fee. 4 Estimates also include some costs reported in the following previous reports:- Historical Powerhouse Stabilization dated 1/4/07 - Conceptual Design Cost Plan dated 3/3/04 5 This estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost and is based on the assumption that a minimum of four open competitive bids will be received from General Contractors' ,with similar coverage from sub-trades. The estimate represents our best judgement as professional construction consultants, however we cannot and do not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs for this project will not vary from these estimates.

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Laundry Building GFA Basement Laundry Building incl Addition 1st GFA 11,400 sf Addition Total: Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Structural upgrades as noted above; pr previous est Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Patch repairs where building addition removed Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upg Interior Construction: Waterproof existing basement Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,450 5,200 3,750 11,400 Quantity Unit

9th January, 2012

Rate

Total $ 65,025

7,650

sf

8.50

7,650 sf 3.50 incl below incl below incl below incl below 1 ls 175,000 $ 279,458 1 1 1 ls ls ls 25,000 25,000 60,000

26,775

175,000

25,000 25,000 60,000

7,650

sf

6.50

1,010 7,650 5,000 900 940 400 410 1,530 7,650

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

15.00 20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

7,650 7,650 7,650 1 7,650 7,650 7,650

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

49,725 15,150 153,000 100,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 4,920 15,300 68,850 65,025 30,600 214,200 100,000 45,900 114,750 76,500

Carried Forward

1,477,600

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description New Addition Excavate for basement Backfill w/space Remove dig Foundations Basement walls Waterproofing Slab on grade Exterior closure above grade Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) Roofing to addition Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Finishes Specialties Conveying Systems: Two stop elevator incl shaft/pit Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

Quantity Unit Brought Forward 1,100 500 600 3,750 1,900 1,900 5,250 3,900 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750 1 3,750 3,750 3,750 cy cy cy sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

Rate

Total $ 1,477,600 13,200 4,250 6,000 16,875 53,200 11,400 31,500 195,000 75,000 30,000 82,500 67,500 33,750 175,000 22,500 15,000 105,000 22,500 37,500 30,000 150,000 101,000 50,000 30,000

12.00 8.50 10.00 4.50 28.00 6.00 6.00 50.00 20.00 8.00 22.00 18.00 9.00 175,000 6.00 4.00 28.00

incl above 3,750 sf 3,750 sf 3,750 sf

6.00 10.00 8.00

1 1,010 1 1

ls sf ls ls

150000.00 100.00 50,000 30,000

2,836,275 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% 1,091,166 $ 3,927,441

Estimated Total Cost for Laundry Building with Addition:

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

GFA Laundry Building "A" GFA 7,650 sf Basement 1st Addition Total: 2,450 5,200 0 7,650 Quantity Unit

Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Demolish existing additions Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner Structural upgrades as noted above; pr previos est Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Patch repairs where building addition removed Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upg Interior Construction: Waterproof existing basement Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate

Total $ 65,025 32,075 26,775

7,650 1283

sf sf

8.50 25.00

7,650 sf 3.50 incl below incl below incl below incl below 1 ls 175,000 $ 279,458 1 1 1 ls ls ls 25,000 25,000 60,000

175,000

25,000 25,000 60,000

7,650

sf

6.50

1,010 7,650 2,500 900 940 400 2,910 1,530 7,650

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

15.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

7,650 7,650 7,650 1 7,650 7,650 7,650

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

49,725 15,150 168,300 50,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 34,920 15,300 68,850 65,025 30,600 214,200 100,000 45,900 114,750 76,500 1,504,975

Carried Forward

Page 3

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

1 1,010 1 1

ls sf ls ls

150,000 100.00 50,000 30,000

Total $ 1,504,975 150,000 101,000 50,000 30,000

1,835,975 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% 706,050 $ 2,542,025

Estimated Total Cost for Laundry Building Option A:

Page 4

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Laundry Building Laundry Building "B" GFA 8,933 sf Basement 1st Existing Addition Total:

9th January, 2012 GFA 2,450 5,200 1,283 8,933 Quantity Unit

Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Partial demo of existing addition Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner Structural upgrades as noted above; pr previos est Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Patch repairs where building addition removed Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow New Entry canopy Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upg Interior Construction: Waterproof existing basement Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate

Total $ 75,931 20,000 31,266

8,933 1

sf ls

8.50 20,000

8,933 sf 3.50 incl below incl below incl below incl below 1 ls 175,000 $ 285,678 1 1 1 1 ls ls ls ls 25,000 10,000 60,000 50,000

175,000

25,000 10,000 60,000 50,000

8,933

sf

6.50

1,010 8,933 3,000 900 940 400 3,693 1,787 8,933

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

15.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

8,933 8,933 8,933 1 8,933 8,933 8,933

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

58,065 15,150 196,526 60,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 44,316 17,866 80,397 75,931 35,732 250,124 100,000 53,598 133,995 89,330 1,705,105

Carried Forward

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Laundry Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

1 1,010 1 1

ls sf ls ls

150000.00 100.00 50,000 30,000

Total $ 1,705,105 150,000 101,000 50,000 30,000

2,036,105 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% 783,100 $ 2,819,205

Estimated Total Cost for Laundry Building Option B:

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building GFA Engineering Building & Add GFA 9,075 sf 1st Loft Addition Total: 2,675 0 6,400 9,075 Quantity Unit 2,675 1 2,675 1 1 1 1 $ 186,092 1 1 sf ls sf allow allow allow allow

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Demolitions; Gut interior space Remove loft mezzanine Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate 8.50 15,000 3.50 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000

Total $ 22,738 15,000 9,363 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000

ls ls

15,000 40,000

15,000 40,000

2,675

sf

6.50

2,675 2,675 900 940 400 435 535 2,675

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 12.00

2,675 2,675 2,675 1 2,675 2,675 2,675

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

17,388 53,500 53,500 16,200 20,680 10,000 5,220 5,350 32,100 22,738 10,700 74,900 100,000 16,050 40,125 26,750

Carried Forward

732,300

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description New Addition Foundations Slab on grade Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) Exterior closure above grade Roofing to addition New entry canopy Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

Quantity Unit Brought Forward 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 5,000 sf 6,400 sf 1 ls 6,400 2,125 870 400 3,005 1,000 6,400 sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

Rate 4.50 6.00 22.00 50.00 8.00 75,000 22.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

6,400 6,400 6,400

sf sf sf

6.00 4.00 28.00

Total $ 732,300 28,800 38,400 140,800 250,000 51,200 75,000 140,800 42,500 19,140 10,000 36,060 10,000 57,600 38,400 25,600 179,200 38,400 64,000 51,200 150,000 50,000 30,000

incl above 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 6,400 sf

6.00 10.00 8.00

1 1 1

ls ls ls

150,000 50,000 30,000

2,259,400 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 869,069 3,128,469

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Addition

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building GFA 1st Engineering Building + Base Add; "A" Addition GFA 10,875 sf Add Base A Total: Ref Description Demolitions; Gut interior space Remove loft mezzanine Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 6,400 1,800 10,875 Quantity Unit 2,675 1 2,675 1 1 1 1 $ 186,092 sf ls sf allow allow allow allow

9th January, 2012

Rate 8.50 15,000 3.50 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000

Total $ 22,738 15,000 9,363 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000

1 1

ls ls

15,000 40,000

15,000 40,000

2,675

sf

6.50

2,675 2,675 900 940 400 435 535 2,675

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

2,675 2,675 2,675 1 2,675 2,675 2,675

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

17,388 53,500 53,500 16,200 20,680 10,000 5,220 5,350 24,075 22,738 10,700 74,900 100,000 16,050 40,125 26,750

Carried Forward

724,275

Page 3

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building Ref Description New Addition Foundations Slab on grade Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) Exterior closure above grade Roofing to addition New entry canopy Basement A Excavate for basement Backfill w/space Remove dig Foundations Basement walls Waterproofing Slab on grade Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Conveying Systems Three stop elevator incl shaft/pit Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: Quantity Unit Brought Forward 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 5,000 sf 6,400 sf 1 ls 1,250 500 750 1,800 2,050 2,050 1,800 1,800 8,200 2,125 870 400 4,805 1,640 8,200 1 8,200 8,200 8,200 cy cy cy sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf ls sf sf sf Rate

9th January, 2012

4.50 6.00 22.00 50.00 8.00 75,000 12.00 8.50 10.00 6.00 28.00 6.00 6.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00 250,000 6.00 4.00 28.00

Total $ 724,275 28,800 38,400 140,800 250,000 51,200 75,000 15,000 4,250 7,500 10,800 57,400 12,300 10,800 36,000 180,400 42,500 19,140 10,000 57,660 16,400 73,800 250,000 49,200 32,800 229,600 49,200 82,000 65,600 150,000 50,000 30,000 2,850,825

incl above 8,200 sf 8,200 sf 8,200 sf 1 1 1 ls ls ls

6.00 10.00 8.00 150,000 50,000 30,000

12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 1,096,768 3,947,593

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Basement Addition "A": Page 4

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building GFA 1st Engineering Building + Base Add; "B" Addition GFA 12,875 sf Add Base A Total: Ref Description Demolitions; Gut interior space Remove loft mezzanine Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 6,400 3,800 12,875 Quantity Unit 2,675 1 2,675 1 1 1 1 $ 186,092 1 1 sf ls sf allow allow allow allow

9th January, 2012

Rate 8.50 15,000 3.50 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000

Total $ 22,738 15,000 9,363 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000

ls ls

15,000 40,000

15,000 40,000

2,675

sf

6.50

2,675 2,675 900 940 400 435 535 2,675

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

2,675 2,675 2,675 1 2,675 2,675 2,675

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

17,388 53,500 53,500 16,200 20,680 10,000 5,220 5,350 24,075 22,738 10,700 74,900 100,000 16,050 40,125 26,750

Carried Forward Page 5

724,275

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building Ref Description New Addition Foundations Slab on grade Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) Exterior closure above grade Roofing to addition New entry canopy Basement A Excavate for basement Backfill w/space Remove dig Foundations Basement walls Waterproofing Slab on grade Superstructure (floors/roof/columns) Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Conveying Systems Three stop elevator incl shaft/pit Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: Quantity Unit Brought Forward 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 6,400 sf 5,000 sf 6,400 sf 1 ls 2,250 1,000 1,250 3,800 3,000 3,000 3,800 3,800 10,200 2,125 870 400 6,805 2,040 10,200 1 10,200 10,200 10,200 cy cy cy sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf ls sf sf sf Rate

9th January, 2012

4.50 6.00 22.00 50.00 8.00 75,000 12.00 8.50 10.00 6.00 28.00 6.00 6.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00 250,000 6.00 4.00 28.00

Total $ 724,275 28,800 38,400 140,800 250,000 51,200 75,000 27,000 8,500 12,500 22,800 84,000 18,000 22,800 76,000 224,400 42,500 19,140 10,000 81,660 20,400 91,800 250,000 61,200 40,800 285,600 61,200 102,000 81,600 150,000 50,000 30,000 3,182,375

incl above 10,200 sf 10,200 sf 10,200 sf 1 1 1 ls ls ls

6.00 10.00 8.00 150,000 50,000 30,000

12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 1,224,414 4,406,789

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Basement Addition "B": Page 6

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building GFA 1st Engineering Building; No Addition Loft GFA 2,675 sf Addition Total: Ref Description Demolitions; Gut interior space Remove loft mezzanine Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner New canopy structure Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (as planned for River Heritage); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with upgrad Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 2,675 0 0 2,675 Quantity Unit 2,675 1 2,675 1 1 1 1 1 $ 186,092 1 1 sf ls sf allow allow allow allow ls

9th January, 2012

Rate 8.50 15,000 3.50 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000 35,000

Total $ 22,738 15,000 9,363 25,000 15,000 10,000 75,000 35,000

ls ls

15,000 40,000

15,000 40,000

2,675

sf

6.50

2,675 1,900 0 70 0 705 535 2,675

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

2,675 2,675 2,675 1 2,675 2,675 2,675

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

17,388 53,500 38,000 1,540 8,460 5,350 24,075 22,738 10,700 74,900 100,000 16,050 40,125 26,750

Carried Forward

701,675

Page 7

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Engineering Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

1 1 1

ls ls ls

150,000 50,000 30,000

Total $ 701,675 150,000 50,000 30,000

931,675 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 357,895 1,289,570

Estimated Total Cost for Engineering Building with Addition

Page 8

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Powerhouse Building GFA Powerhouse Building GFA 17,200 sf Basement 1st Mezzanine (Optional) Total:(excl mezz) 9,070 8,130 1,500 17,200 Quantity Unit

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Partial gut historic fabric to remain Powerhouse Stabilization As Estimate dated 1/4/07 Foundations Superstructure Exterior Closure Roofing Escalation Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Incl above Roof Coverings Incl above Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Historic fabric to remain Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) Electrical to historic space to remain

Rate

Total $ 90,168 26,368 56,500 196,928 429,825 156,555 83,981

10,608 6592

sf sf

8.50 4.00

$ 1,279,447 excl -

excl

10,608 4,500 800 940 400 2,200 1,768 6,592 10,608 10,608 17,200 17,200 1 10,608 10,608 10,608 6,592

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf ls sf sf sf sf

22.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 no work 9.00 8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00 15.00

233,376 90,000 14,400 20,680 10,000 26,400 17,680 95,472 90,168 68,800 481,600 100,000 63,648 159,120 106,080 98,880

Carried Forward

2,716,629

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Powerhouse Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Conveying Systems: Three stop elevator incl shaft/pit Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow ADA ramp Stair

Quantity Unit Brought Forward 1 ls

Rate

Total $ 2,716,629 250,000 150,000 50,000 30,000 35,000 10,000

250,000

1 1 1 1 1

ls ls ls ls ls

150,000 50,000 30,000 35,000 10,000

3,241,629 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: Estimated Total Cost for Powerhouse Building: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 1,247,227 4,488,856

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Powerhouse Building Powerhouse Building; Combined River Heritage/Art Museuems GFA Basement 9,000 1st 8,934 GFA 17,934 sf Mezzanine 3,500 Total:(excl mezz) 17,934 Ref Description Quantity Unit Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space 9,288 sf Partial gut historic fabric to remain 8946 sf Powerhouse Stabilization As Estimate dated 1/4/07 Foundations Superstructure Exterior Closure Roofing Escalation Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: $ 1,279,447 External Walls Incl above excl Structure Additional foundations/structure for mezzanine: 3,500 sf Roof Coverings Incl above excl Interior Construction:Art Musuem Partitions/Doors 9,288 sf Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space 4,150 sf Youth Art/Seminar 400 sf Restrooms 940 sf Entry 350 sf Kitchen 300 sf Office/Storage/support 1,600 sf Communal/grossing space 1,548 sf Historic fabric to remain 8,946 sf Specialties/fittings/ 9,288 sf Systems Plumbing installation 9,288 sf Fire sprinkler system 17,934 sf HVAC installation 17,934 sf Electrical installation New service 1 ls Power & Distribution 9,288 sf Lighting 9,288 sf Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) 9,288 sf Electrical to historic space to remain 8,946 sf River Heritage Museuem Costs Fit out existing space to accommodate museum functions 8,104 sf Carried Forward Page 3

9th January, 2012

Rate

Total $ 78,948 35,784 56,500 196,928 429,825 156,555 83,981

8.50 4.00

125.00 437,500 204,336 83,000 7,200 20,680 8,750 6,000 19,200 15,480 83,592 78,948 71,736 502,152 100,000 55,728 139,320 92,880 134,190 891,440 3,990,653

22.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 20.00 12.00 10.00 no work 9.00 8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00 15.00 110.00

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Powerhouse Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Conveying Systems: Five stop elevator incl shaft/pit Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Cultural demonstration area Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow ADA ramp Stair

Quantity Unit Brought Forward 1 ls

Rate

Total $ 3,990,653 400,000 150,000 75,000 50,000 30,000 50,000 20,000

400,000

1 1 1 1 1 1

ls ls ls ls ls ls

150,000 75,000 50,000 30,000 50,000 20,000

4,765,653 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% 1,833,976 6,599,629

Estimated Total Cost for Powerhouse Bldg; Combined River Heritage & Art Museuem $

Page 4

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building GFA General Office Building; "A" GFA 11,213 sf 1st; Programmed 11,213 11,213 Quantity Unit

9th January, 2012

Total: Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate

Total $ 95,311

11,213

sf

8.50

11,213 1 1 1 1 $ 199,780 1 1

sf allow allow allow allow

3.50 40,000 2,500 15,000 35,000

39,246 40,000 15,000 15,000 35,000

ls ls

25,000 60,000

25,000 60,000

11,213

sf

6.50

11,213 5,000 900 940 400 3,973 2,243 11,213

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

11,213 11,213 11,213 1 11,213 11,213 11,213

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

72,885 224,260 100,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 47,676 22,426 100,917 95,311 44,852 313,964 100,000 67,278 168,195 112,130

Carried Forward

1,841,329

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Access road from west Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

1 1,010 1 1 1

ls sf ls ls ls

150000.00 100.00 50,000 50,000 30,000

Total $ 1,841,329 150,000 101,000 50,000 50,000 30,000

2,222,329 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 854,797 3,077,126

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "A":

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building GFA General Office Building; "B" GFA 10,907 sf 1st; Programmed 10,907 10,907 Quantity Unit

9th January, 2012

Total: Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate

Total $ 92,710

10,907

sf

8.50

10,907 1 1 1 1 $ 198,297 1 1

sf allow allow allow allow

3.50 40,000 2,500 15,000 35,000

38,175 40,000 15,000 15,000 35,000

ls ls

25,000 60,000

25,000 60,000

10,907

sf

6.50

10,907 5,000 900 940 400 3,667 2,181 10,907

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

10,907 10,907 10,907 1 10,907 10,907 10,907

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

70,896 218,140 100,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 44,004 21,814 98,163 92,710 43,628 305,396 100,000 65,442 163,605 109,070

Carried Forward

1,800,631

Page 3

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks (excl Road re-alignment): Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Earthworks/grading/landscape re-work Road re-alignment from east incl storm drainage Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire

1 ls 150,000 1,010 sf 100.00 1 ls 250,000 1own seperately 1 ls 50,000 1 ls 30,000

Total $ 1,800,631 150,000 101,000 250,000 50,000 30,000

2,381,631 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 916,128 3,297,759

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "B" (Excl Road): Premium Costs for Road Re-Alignment Road re-alignment from east incl storm drainage Additional site paving adaptations; allow Additional site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire Add General Contractor Mark-up's: Premium Costs on Option B for Road Re-Alignment:

1 1 1

ls ls ls

850,000 50,000 20,000 38.5% $

850,000 50,000 20,000 920,000 354,200 1,274,200

NOTE: No costs included for any work to remaining unused spaces in these Options as assumed will be funded seperately.

Page 4

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building General Office Building;Combined River Heritage & Art Museum GFA 1st; Art Programmed 13,357 GFA 24,178 sf Heritage (as 6/7/10); 10,821 Total: 24,178 Ref Description Quantity Unit Art Museuem: Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space 13,357 sf Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Kitchen Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Added Multi-purpose/classroom/Display areas Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) River Heritage Museuem Costs Fit out existing space to accommodate museum functions

9th January, 2012

Rate

Total $

8.50

113,535

13,357 1 1 1 1 $ 210,173 1 1

sf allow allow allow allow

3.50 40,000 2,500 15,000 35,000

46,750 40,000 15,000 15,000 35,000

ls ls

25,000 60,000

25,000 60,000

13,357

sf

6.50

13,357 5,800 800 300 1,025 400 2,482 2,550 2,671 13,357

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 20.00 10.00 9.00

13,357 13,357 13,357 1 13,357 13,357 13,357

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

86,821 267,140 116,000 14,400 6,000 22,550 10,000 29,784 51,000 26,714 120,213 113,535 53,428 373,996 100,000 80,142 200,355 133,570

8,104 sf Carried Forward

110.00

891,440 3,047,371

Page 5

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Cultural demonstration area Remodel existing restrooms Access road from west Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow Note: Excludes Road Re-alignment

1 1 1,010 1 1 1

ls ls sf ls ls ls excl

150,000 75,000 100.00 50,000 50,000 30,000

Total $ 3,047,371 150,000 75,000 101,000 50,000 50,000 30,000

3,503,371 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% 1,347,998 4,851,369

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Bldg Combined River Heritage & Art Museum$

Page 6

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building GFA General Office Building; "A" GFA 11,213 sf 1st; Programmed 11,213 11,213 Quantity Unit

9th January, 2012

Total: Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate

Total $ 95,311

11,213

sf

8.50

11,213 1 1 1 1 $ 199,780 1 1

sf allow allow allow allow

3.50 40,000 2,500 15,000 35,000

39,246 40,000 15,000 15,000 35,000

ls ls

25,000 60,000

25,000 60,000

11,213

sf

6.50

11,213 5,000 900 940 400 3,973 2,243 11,213

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

11,213 11,213 11,213 1 11,213 11,213 11,213

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

72,885 224,260 100,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 47,676 22,426 100,917 95,311 44,852 313,964 100,000 67,278 168,195 112,130

Carried Forward

1,841,329

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Access road from west Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow

1 1,010 1 1 1

ls sf ls ls ls

150000.00 100.00 50,000 50,000 30,000

Total $ 1,841,329 150,000 101,000 50,000 50,000 30,000

2,222,329 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 854,797 3,077,126

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "A":

Page 2

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building GFA General Office Building; "B" GFA 10,907 sf 1st; Programmed 10,907 10,907 Quantity Unit

9th January, 2012

Total: Ref Description Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone veneer Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc)

Rate

Total $ 92,710

10,907

sf

8.50

10,907 1 1 1 1 $ 198,297 1 1

sf allow allow allow allow

3.50 40,000 2,500 15,000 35,000

38,175 40,000 15,000 15,000 35,000

ls ls

25,000 60,000

25,000 60,000

10,907

sf

6.50

10,907 5,000 900 940 400 3,667 2,181 10,907

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 10.00 9.00

10,907 10,907 10,907 1 10,907 10,907 10,907

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

70,896 218,140 100,000 16,200 20,680 10,000 44,004 21,814 98,163 92,710 43,628 305,396 100,000 65,442 163,605 109,070

Carried Forward

1,800,631

Page 3

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks (excl Road re-alignment): Sculpture Garden Remodel existing restrooms Earthworks/grading/landscape re-work Road re-alignment from east incl storm drainage Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire

1 ls 150,000 1,010 sf 100.00 1 ls 250,000 1own seperately 1 ls 50,000 1 ls 30,000

Total $ 1,800,631 150,000 101,000 250,000 50,000 30,000

2,381,631 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 916,128 3,297,759

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Building "B" (Excl Road): Premium Costs for Road Re-Alignment Road re-alignment from east incl storm drainage Additional site paving adaptations; allow Additional site utility adaptations; elec/water/fire Add General Contractor Mark-up's: Premium Costs on Option B for Road Re-Alignment:

1 1 1

ls ls ls

850,000 50,000 20,000 38.5% $

850,000 50,000 20,000 920,000 354,200 1,274,200

NOTE: No costs included for any work to remaining unused spaces in these Options as assumed will be funded seperately.

Page 4

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building General Office Building;Combined River Heritage & Art Museum GFA 1st; Art Programmed 13,357 GFA 24,178 sf Heritage (as 6/7/10); 10,821 Total: 24,178 Ref Description Quantity Unit Art Museuem: Remodelling Existing Building: Demolitions; Gut interior space 13,357 sf Structure New plywood sheathing to roof Add wall anchors to roof & mezzanine Add wall to foundation anchors Concrete wall stiffening Allowance for anchoring existing stone venner Stuctural Upgrade Sub Total incl Mark -up's: External Walls Exterior walls; minor repairs; allow Upgrade windows (programmed area only); allow Roof Coverings Remove/re-fix/replace roof coverings in connection with up Interior Construction: Partitions/Doors Fit out of functional spaces: Gallery space Youth Art/Seminar Kitchen Restrooms Entry Office/Storage/support Added Multi-purpose/classroom/Display areas Communal/grossing space Specialties/fittings/ Systems Plumbing installation Fire sprinkler system HVAC installation Electrical installation New service Power & Distribution Lighting Special systems (data, FA, Security etc) River Heritage Museuem Costs Fit out existing space to accommodate museum functions

9th January, 2012

Rate

Total $

8.50

113,535

13,357 1 1 1 1 $ 210,173 1 1

sf allow allow allow allow

3.50 40,000 2,500 15,000 35,000

46,750 40,000 15,000 15,000 35,000

ls ls

25,000 60,000

25,000 60,000

13,357

sf

6.50

13,357 5,800 800 300 1,025 400 2,482 2,550 2,671 13,357

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

20.00 20.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 12.00 20.00 10.00 9.00

13,357 13,357 13,357 1 13,357 13,357 13,357

sf sf sf ls sf sf sf

8.50 4.00 28.00 100,000 6.00 15.00 10.00

86,821 267,140 116,000 14,400 6,000 22,550 10,000 29,784 51,000 26,714 120,213 113,535 53,428 373,996 100,000 80,142 200,355 133,570

8,104 sf Carried Forward

110.00

891,440 3,047,371

Page 5

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study: Final Opinion of Probable Costs: General Office Building

9th January, 2012

Ref Description

Quantity Unit Brought Forward

Rate

Siteworks: Sculpture Garden Cultural demonstration area Remodel existing restrooms Access road from west Site paving adaptations; allow Site utility adaptations; allow Note: Excludes Road Re-alignment

1 1 1,010 1 1 1

ls ls sf ls ls ls excl

150,000 75,000 100.00 50,000 50,000 30,000

Total $ 3,047,371 150,000 75,000 101,000 50,000 50,000 30,000

3,503,371 Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: 12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% 1,347,998 4,851,369

Estimated Total Cost for General Office Bldg Combined River Heritage & Art Museum$

Page 6

Associated Construction Economists

Grand Canyon Art Museum Study; Final Opinion of Probable Costs: Site Entry Building Entry Building; (Common All Options): Restroom Miscellaneous function: GFA: 800 sf 200 sf 1,000 sf Quantity 1,000 Unit sf Rate

9th January, 2012

Ref Description Entry Building Building complete Associated Siteworks: Allow for utility hook-up's, paving, fixtures etc

Total $ 200,000 20,000 220,000

200.00

ls

20,000

Mark-Up's General Conditions Taxes, Bonds & Insurances Location Overhead & Profit Add General Contractor Mark-up's: Estimated Total Cost for Entry Building:

12.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.5% 38.5% $ 84,700 304,700

Page 1

Associated Construction Economists

Evaluation Criteria Score Sheets - Overall

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

Grand Canyon Association - Art Museum Concept Study Building Evaluation Criteria - 01.13.12

BUILDINGS
Laundry
11,400 sq.ft. With Addition

Engineering 7,650 sq.ft. (Options A + B) 4 (YES) 1 (NO) 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 3 3,749,948.00 2,791,471.00 6,541,419.00 , , 55


9,075 sq. ft. With Addition (A & B)

Powerhouse 2,675 sq.ft. 1 (NO) 1 (NO) 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1,715,313.00 815,666.00 2,530,979.00 , , 50 17,200 sq.ft. 4 (YES) 4 (YES) 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 3 5,970,824.00 N/A 5,970,824.00 , , 54

General Office 24,282 sq.ft. 4 (YES) 4 (YES) 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 4,386,493.00 3,471,678.00 7,858,171.00 , , 54

Mule Barn
(NOT IN CONTENTION)

Administration Building
(NOT IN CONTENTION)

9,758 sq.ft. 4 (YES) 1 (NO) 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 4 N/A $ 39 $

3,780 sq.ft. 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 N/A 37 (NO) (NO)

Meets Program Needs Min. Program Only Desired Program Site / Pedestrian Accessibility Site Access + Parking Site Presence Identity / Entry Experience Building Envelope Interior Modifications Building Accessibility/ADA Flexibility of Interior Space Quality of Display Space Hist. Preservation Concerns Building Infrastructure: HVAC Plumbing/Sprinkler Electrical Structural Upgrades UV Control Total Estimated Project Cost $ LSI cost (estimated) $ Total including LSI $ Total Score Preliminary Ranking CRITERIA LEGEND

4 (YES) 4 (YES) 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 5,224,061.00 2,791,471.00 8,015,532.00 , , 59

4 (YES) 4 (YES) 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3,749,948.00 815,666.00 4,565,614.00 , , 56

EVALUATION CRITERIA ERIA

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

1
1 Criticalconditions Existingconditions completelypreventor makeitextremelycost prohibitivetomeetthe evaluationcriteria

3
2 Seriousconditions Existingconditionspose seriouschallengesto meetingtheevaluation criteria

N/A

N/A

3 4 Moderateconditions Minorconditions Evaluationcriteriacanbe Criteriaiseithercurrently metwithareasonable metbytheexisting amountofeffort buildingorcouldbemet withminormodifications

GeneralNote:Criteriathatwasevaluatedanddeterminedtobeequivalentfor allbuildingsincludethefollowing: SiteInfrastructure,BuildingSecurity,SiteLighting,&InteriorLighting LSIfiguresarebaseduponestimatesprovidedbytheNPS Generalofficewasaddedfollowingtheassessmentvisitdataisbasedupon briefvisittothegeneraloffice.

1/11/2012

Grand Canyon Association - Art + River Heritage Museum Concept Study Building Evaluation Criteria - 01.13.12

BUILDINGS
Powerhouse 17,200 sq.ft. Meets Program Needs Min. Program Only Desired Program Site / Pedestrian Accessibility Site Access + Parking Site Presence Identity / Entry Experience g Envelope p Building Interior Modifications Building Accessibility/ADA Flexibility of Interior Space Quality of Display Space Hist. Preservation Concerns Building Infrastructure: HVAC Plumbing/Sprinkler Electrical Structural Upgrades UV Control Total Estimated Project Cost $
LSI cost (estimated) Total including LSI $

General Office 24,282 sq.ft. (YES) (YES) 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 8,778,455.00 $ $ $ 54 6,453,018.00 3,471,678.00 9,924,696.00

(YES) (YES)

4 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 3 N/A 8,778,455.00 54

EVALUATION CRITERIA ERIA

Total Score Preliminary Ranking CRITERIA LEGEND 1 Criticalconditions Existingconditions completelypreventor makeitextremelycost prohibitive hibi i tomeetthe h  evaluationcriteria

1
2 Seriousconditions Existingconditionspose seriouschallengesto meetingtheevaluation criteria i i

2
3 4 Moderateconditions Minorconditions Evaluationcriteriacanbe Criteriaiseithercurrently metwithareasonable metbytheexisting amountofeffort building bemet b ildi orcould ldb withminormodifications

1/11/2012

Appendix A - Meeting Minutes

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

MEETING NOTES
Client: Project: Comm. No.: File No.: Grand Canyon Museum Kickoff Grand Canyon NPS Headquarters South Rim 10.19.11 Time: 10.24.11 Grand Canyon Association Grand Canyon Art Museum Study 11124.00 B02

Purpose: Location: Meeting Date: Date of Notes


Distribution

1:00 pm

Present

Name David Uberuaga (DU) Bonnie ODonnell (BO) Michael Terzich (MT) Leah McGinnis (LM) Susan Schroeder (SS) Colleen L. Hyde (CH) Kim Besom (KB) Catherine Lentz (CL) Ellen Brennan (EB) Barclay C. Trimble (BT) Mary Killeen (MK) Palma Wilson (PW) Beth Hickey (BH) Vince Leskosky (VL) Kristi Duce (KD) Dan Clevenger (DC) Kathleen Fitzpatrick (KF)

Company/Department NPS - Superintendant GCA Dir. of Dev. NPS Project Manager NPS GCA - CEO GRCA - Museum Collection GCA - Museum Collection NPS NPS - Cultural NPS NPS NPS GCA WRL WRL WRL CVL

Email bodonnell@grandcanyon.org michael_turzich@nps.gov leah_mcginnis@nps.gov sschroeder@grandcanyon.org colleen_hyde@nps.gov kim_besom@nps.gov catherine_lentz@nps.gov ellen_brennan@nps.gov barclay_trimble@nps.gov mary_killeen@nps.gov palma_wilson@nps.gov bhickey@grandcanyon.org vlesk@wrldesign.com kduce@wrldesign.com dclev@wrldesign.com kfitzpatrick@cvlci.com

AUTHOR: Dan Clevenger NOTE: The following meeting notes constitute our understanding of the items discussed. Unless Author is notified of any additions and/or corrections within five (5) days after receipt, the following is assumed complete and correct.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 1 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Continued ACTION REQD BY Info. TARGET DATE NO.: 1. ITEMS DISCUSSED: Integration with Previous Master Plan Efforts DU provided an overview of the previous interpretive center master plan done in 2004 and associated programs. x Main greenspace to remain primarily pedestrian, parking should not extend beyond what is shown in the concept study. x Theater program proposed for the Mule Barn has now been completed at the new Visitors Center x Laundry Building is currently proposed as a River Heritage Museum, but this does not preclude other potential uses for this building. x Identity / Interpretive Center program proposed for the Powerhouse has since been completed at the new Visitors Center x New Artist in Residence accommodations have been provided since this study. x New bike rental and coffee shop to be provided at the visitors center next year, bike rental will no longer be planned for the basement of the powerhouse as previously considered. MT confirmed the following related to the interpretive master plan: x There are plans to relocate the substation that is currently west of the Powerhouse. x Plan was vetted by SHPO x Plan did not rely or reference light rail as primary transportation. (Decision was made prior to this plan that Light Rail would not be implemented at this time) x Previous planning efforts were termed as an Interpretive Campus because it was more than just Heritage which implies primarily history the plan was more inclusive of other programs. x Mule corral will remain Other potential uses for surrounding buildings can be proposed by architectural team as part of site study, however, the main focus should be the art museum assessment and concept study, site uses are secondary. The following considerations should be made for these proposed uses: x Need to be revenue generating options x Food service will need to be part of this campus x Should serve as its own destination in the park, not relying only on the adjacent hotels and lodges to generate visitors. x Connection to nearby Community Building which includes some meeting and office space, can these buildings enhance this use? x Space for seminars and large conferences this could be an alternative to Shrine Auditorium. Evaluation Criteria x DU confirmed that Disruption of Existing Operations should not factor into the evaluation criteria. Existing uses can easily be relocated. x Building Security to be added (particularly in consideration of valuable artifacts and artwork) x Historic Impact to the existing building to be added as a factor. (How easily can exhibit spaces be implemented without impacting the historic impact?) WRL recommends getting

2.

Info.

3.

Info.

4.

Info.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 2 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Continued SHPO involved early on. Need to consider how to physically link the visitor experience to the utility area while keeping the historic context in mind. x Add leasehold surrender to cost criteria GC will provide WRL with figure. x O&M will not be part of WRL scope x Consider future expansion only if it works with historic integrity. Museum Program Art Museum to be designed considering the following required program elements: x Art Collection of the Grand Canyon to be displayed (including paintings, photography, pottery and artifacts) x Art Collection of the Grand Canyon Association to be displayed (see note below regarding items to be provided) x Art Museum should include a temporary gallery space that will allow for rotating exhibits. x Future Celebration of Art events to be held in the new gallery space, larger than the Kolb Studio due to the increasing popularity of the events. (Kolb studio dimensions are approx 25 x 50) x Storage for the Grand Canyon Association Collection (pieces not currently on display) x Grand Canyon collection storage will remain in existing building x Small art staging / curation room to house art between storage and display. x Provide Museum Store in conjunction with reception area. Art Museum to include the following desired program if possible given available space: x Youth Art Room x Outdoor Sculpture Garden x Seminar Space x Cultural Demonstration Space (weaving, pottery making, etc.) x Temporary exhibit space dedicated for tribal art. x Consider Tactile elements that can provide an interpretive perspective of the canyon for those with visual impairments Consider Artist in Residence program celebrates all of the arts, including but not limited to: x Painting x Photography x Music x Video x Poetry x Sculpture New museum to include integrated modern technology to allow for video art, documentary / film presentations, audio for lectures, music, spoken word. Allowance for Fundraising & also FF&E to be included in Cost Estimate Items to Provide WRL to Include with Study BO to provide: x Inventory / list of GCA art collection x Concept Studies + Assessment for Laundry Building MT to provide: x Concept study of greenway to the south of the buildings in the concept study x

5.

Info.

6.

Info.

7.

Info.

8. 9. 10. 11.

Info.

Info. BO MT 10/28/11 10/28/11

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 3 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Continued x Bright Angel Trailhead Study for Reference x Previous art study of Administration Building (sketchup) x Previous environmental assessments x Previous plans of solar implementation at the Powerhouse Environmental costs to be included with the cost estimate (not included with this scope, previous assessments can be accounted for in the new estimates) *Update from October 24th Site Visit: BO requested that WRL also consider Garage Building. Drawings to be provided, if available please confirm. Next meeting to be held Tuesday, November 8th at 1:00pm at the Maintenance Building at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. WRL to present initial program and test fit studies along with updated evaluation criteria for the proposed buildings. This will be a highly interactive presentation to solicit input from stakeholders.

12. 13. 14.

Info. BO/MT 10/28/11 Info.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11124_Meeting Notes_10.19.11.docx

Page 4 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Client: Project: Comm. No.: File No.: Grand Canyon Museum Design Meeting Shrine of the Ages Building 11.08.11 Time: 11.09.11 Grand Canyon Association Grand Canyon Art Museum Study 11124.00 B02 1:00 pm

Purpose: Location: Meeting Date: Date of Notes


Distribution

Present

Name Bonnie ODonnell (BO) Michael Terzich (MT) Leah McGinnis (LM) Susan Schroeder (SS) Colleen L. Hyde (CH) Kim Besom (KB) Catherine Lentz (CL) Ellen Brennan (EB) Barclay C. Trimble (BT) Mary Killeen (MK) Palma Wilson (PW) Beth Hickey (BH) Judy Hellmich-Bryan (JH) Pamela Wells (PW2) Paul Schmidt (PS) Helen Ranney (HR) Vince Leskosky (VL) Kristi Duce (KD) Dan Clevenger (DC) Kathleen Fitzpatrick (KF)

Company/Department GCA Dir. of Dev. NPS Project Manager NPS GCA - CEO GRCA - Museum Collection GCA - Museum Collection NPS NPS - Cultural NPS NPS NPS GCA NPS NPS GCA GCA WRL WRL WRL CVL

Email bodonnell@grandcanyon.org michael_terzich@nps.gov leah_mcginnis@nps.gov sschroeder@grandcanyon.org colleen_hyde@nps.gov kim_besom@nps.gov catherine_lentz@nps.gov ellen_brennan@nps.gov barclay_trimble@nps.gov mary_killeen@nps.gov palma_wilson@nps.gov bhickey@grandcanyon.org judy_hellmich-bryan@nps.gov pamela_wells@nps.gov pbschmidt@osogrande.com hranney@grandcanyon.org vlesk@wrldesign.com kduce@wrldesign.com dclev@wrldesign.com kfitzpatrick@cvlci.com

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

AUTHOR: Kristi Duce NOTE: The following meeting notes constitute our understanding of the items discussed. Unless Author is notified of any additions and/or corrections within five (5) days after receipt, the following is assumed complete and correct.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 1 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Continued ACTI ON REQ D BY Info.

NO.:

ITEMS DISCUSSED: Building Programs WRL reviewed proposed Building Programs for both a reduced (minimal) program and a full program (meeting all programming elements both required and desired by Grand Canyon Team). Programming square footages were based on typical standards for museums also including an increase for future growth. Reduced Program Includes: Entry@ 300 sq.ft. Museum Store @ 120 sq.ft. 2 Offices @ 120 sq.ft. each Breakroom @ 200 sq.ft. Restrooms (4 fixtures for each mens and womens) @ total 400 sq.ft. Curation @ 200 sq.ft. Storage @ 500 sq.ft. Data/AV Rooms @ 240 sq.ft. total Temporary Gallery @ 600 sq.ft. Gallery Space @ 1,600 sq.ft. total Tribal Gallery @ 500 sq.ft. Classrooms/Seminar (2 rooms) @ 800 sq.ft. total Outdoor Space @ 1,500 sq.ft. total Full Program Includes: Entry@ 400 sq.ft. Museum Store @ 120 sq.ft. 2 Offices @ 120 sq.ft. each Breakroom @ 200 sq.ft. Restrooms (7 fixtures for each mens and womens) @ total 800 sq.ft. Curation @ 400 sq.ft. Storage @ 700 sq.ft. Catering Kitchen @ 300 sq.ft. Data/AV Rooms @ 240 sq.ft. total Temporary Gallery @ 1,500 sq.ft. Gallery Space @ 2,500 sq.ft. total Tribal Gallery @ 500 sq.ft. Classrooms/Seminar (2 rooms) @ 800 sq.ft. total Outdoor Space @ 1,500 sq.ft. total

TARGET DATE

1.

2. 3.

Team agreed that full program is preferred. May want more display area and storage area to accommodate for future. The Powerhouse is the only building that will fit the full program within the existing building envelope. All other buildings will require additions. Building Evaluation Criteria & Scoring WRL reviewed programming criteria and scoring system for buildings. Based on scoring criteria, the Laundry Building with an addition scored highest overall. The rankings are as follows: 1. Laundry Building with an addition 2. Powerhouse as is 3. Laundry Building as is

Info. Info.

4. 5.

Info. Info.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 2 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Continued 4. Engineering Building with an addition The Mule Barn as is will fit the minimum program only. The Engineering Building as is and the Administration Building as is will not fit the desired program or the minimum program. *The correct Garage Building will be evaluated following the meeting. 6. Paul questioned how criteria are differentiated between subjective and objective criteria. Vince explained how both subjective criteria and objective criteria were examined with looking at elements such as entry experience and then elements such as required infrastructure and ADA upgrades. WRL noted that costs have not yet been examined. Programming/Fit Test package will now go to Cost Estimator to provide costing information for each option. Vince questioned if Laundry Building should be taken off table due to it already being planned for River Heritage Museum. Leah noted that they will be meeting internally on Thursday and should be able to find out more at that time so for now to keep it as an option. Fit Test Plans WRL reviewed through Fit Test Plans for each building. Catherine questioned the possibility of using two of the buildings to fit the full program. Positives and negatives were discussed with this option. Positives included: contributing to overall campus concept, ability to share functions between buildings (restrooms, offices, conference/classroom space, storage, etc.), allowing for program to fit within existing building envelopes without additions. Negatives included: it would not be ideal to have to transport art work between buildings if storage was in the other building, having to go outside to restrooms in another building may be undesirable to public, especially at events, may impact fundraising, would require staffing both buildings, would need to provide infrastructure to a certain extent to both buildings, loss of individual building identity, reality of combining uses if both buildings dont open at the same time. Would need to compare costs between building out two buildings as compared to one building with an addition. WRL will look at options for both concepts for the cost estimator building with addition to meet the full desired program and building as is with minimal program and use a second building for remaining functions. 11. Next Steps/Schedule Next Steps: Cost Estimate will be prepared. WRL will have draft of complete report 11/28/1. WRL can either provide draft report to GC team to review and provide comments and then WRL will finalize and present report. Other option would be for WRL to meet with GC team again following receipt of Cost Estimate. WRL would then finalize report based on meeting and send to GCA 12/15/11. Recommendation would be to meet with GC team prior to finalization of report Kristi will coordinate with Bonnie to determine date. Info. Info.

7.

Info.

8.

Info.

9. 10.

Info. Info.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 3 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Continued Test-Fit Options Summary: Gen Notes: 1) Gallery spaces will be contiguous, without rigid separation between GCA / Grand Canyon / Temporary Art gallery to allow for flexibility. They will be presented as separate program blocks to reflect the projected size of the collection only. 2) New basement areas will be studied under new additions that will be water tight, conditioned spaces, suitable for storage of irreplaceable artwork. 3) Existing basement areas proposed for storage will be of sufficient condition, based on assessment, to receive renovation suitable for valuable art storage. Any areas where there is the slightest concern of not providing a suitable environment will not be programmed for art storage. Studies to be presented at the next meeting Desired Program studies: A) Powerhouse: Study implementation of Desired program B) Garage Building: Study implementation of Desired program (this building has not been assessed based on brief tour, we expect this building to be more than capable of housing the Desired program.) C) Laundry Building with Addition: Study implementation of Desired program. Addition to be right sized for the art museum program, starting with the previous program, but expanding if necessary. D) Engineering Building with Addition: Study implementation of Desired program. Addition to be right sized for the art museum program, starting with the previous program, but expanding if necessary. (for the engineering building, the addition will be more significant to meet the program demands). Reduced Program studies: E) Engineering Building (reduce program square footage to fit existing building size, without addition) F) Laundry Building (reduce program square footage to fit existing building size, without addition) G) Mule Barn Study A Utilized as a storage building only for the Interpretive Campus including art storage. H) Mule Barn Study B Utilized as a temporary gallery / event space (potential venue for the annual celebration of art, as well as future events as demand grows). This can be an amenity for the full Interpretive Campus Interpretive Campus studies: I) Site plan study to be conducted to see if a Gateway feature, to connect the Laundry building and Engineering building through an open air canopy, with a small welcome center and common amenities could be provided. This would conceptually unite the two buildings, and serve as an entry to the Interpretive Campus.

Preliminary Conclusions: 1) Further study of the Administration Building will not be necessary due to the following: a. Lack of proper gallery and display are given the scale of the rooms / spaces b. Extensive work required to meet ADA / Accessibility requirements to the building 2) Mule Barn will not be further studied further as a candidate for the permanent gallery spaces, only as a potential event or temporary gallery venue. This building has been determined to be the least desirable space for a permanent gallery due to the scale of the interior space which feels confining, and lack of natural light.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\11-08-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 4 of 4

MEETING NOTES
Client: Project: Comm. No.: File No.: Grand Canyon Museum Design Meeting Web-Ex / Conference Call 12.12.11 Time: 12.13.11 (revised 12.14.11) Grand Canyon Association Grand Canyon Art Museum Study 11124.00 B02 9:30 am

Purpose: Location: Meeting Date: Date of Notes


Distribution

Present

Name Bonnie ODonnell (BO) Michael Terzich (MT) Leah McGinnis (LM) Susan Schroeder (SS) Colleen L. Hyde (CH) Kim Besom (KB) Catherine Lentz (CL) Ellen Brennan (EB) Barclay C. Trimble (BT) Mary Killeen (MK) Palma Wilson (PW) Beth Hickey (BH) Judy Hellmich-Bryan (JH) Pamela Wells (PW2) Paul Schmidt (PS) Helen Ranney (HR) Vince Leskosky (VL) Kristi Duce (KD) Dan Clevenger (DC) Kathleen Fitzpatrick (KF)

Company/Department GCA Dir. of Dev. NPS Project Manager NPS GCA - CEO NPS - Museum Collection NPS - Museum Collection NPS NPS - Cultural NPS NPS NPS GCA NPS NPS GCA GCA WRL WRL WRL CVL

Email bodonnell@grandcanyon.org michael_terzich@nps.gov leah_mcginnis@nps.gov sschroeder@grandcanyon.org colleen_hyde@nps.gov kim_besom@nps.gov catherine_lentz@nps.gov ellen_brennan@nps.gov barclay_trimble@nps.gov mary_killeen@nps.gov palma_wilson@nps.gov bhickey@grandcanyon.org judy_hellmich-bryan@nps.gov pamela_wells@nps.gov pbschmidt@osogrande.com hranney@grandcanyon.org vlesk@wrldesign.com kduce@wrldesign.com dclev@wrldesign.com kfitzpatrick@cvlci.com

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

AUTHOR: Dan Clevenger NOTE: The following meeting notes constitute our understanding of the items discussed. Unless Author is notified of any additions and/or corrections within five (5) days after receipt, the following is assumed complete and correct.

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\12-12-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 1 of 3

MEETING NOTES
Continued ACTI ON REQ D BY Info.

NO.:

ITEMS DISCUSSED: Building Programs WRL reviewed proposed Building Programs for a full program (meeting all programming elements both required and desired by Grand Canyon Team). Programming square footages are based on typical standards for museums also including an increase for future growth. Full Program Includes: Entry@ 400 sq.ft. Museum Store @ 120 sq.ft. 2 Offices @ 120 sq.ft. each Breakroom @ 200 sq.ft. Restrooms (7 fixtures for each mens and womens) @ total 800 sq.ft. Curation @ 400 sq.ft. Storage @ 700 sq.ft. Catering Kitchen @ 300 sq.ft. Data/AV Rooms @ 240 sq.ft. total Temporary Gallery @ 1,500 sq.ft. Gallery Space @ 2,500 sq.ft. total Additional Program (if room is available) Tribal Gallery @ 500 sq.ft. Classrooms/Seminar (2 rooms) @ 800 sq.ft. total Outdoor Space @ 1,500 sq.ft. total

TARGET DATE

1.

2.

3.

4.

WRL reviewed each building in consideration for the art museum, including the Laundry Building, Engineering Building, Powerhouse and General Office Building. For each building, an updated evaluation criteria score was provided, along with overall costs associated with each, and test-fit plans for each potential option. Site Planning Site ranking for the General Office Building will be re-evaluated. With this draft, the site scores were lower due to the distance from the interpretive campus. This will be revised to consider the building only, without consideration of the interpretive campus plans. Michael Terzich expressed concern that the proposed entry building closes the open green space of the campus. This will be revised to be shifted out of the main axis to keep the space open. Paul questioned the parking at the west side of the plan, and asked if more could potentially be provided. He anticipates that some of the parking will be used by visitors along the rim, thus reducing the available parking for the interpretive campus. The re-alignment of the village loop road would need to be carefully considered to align with the requirements of the national landmark district. One potential option could be to leave the existing road to the west of the General Office Building, but limit it to pedestrian use only. Nomination for the historic district to be sent to WRL as a PDF for consideration in planning approach. Leasehold Surrender figures to be provided to WRL.

Info.

WRL

WRL / CVL Info.

5.

6.

Info.

7. 8.

NPS NPS
Page 2 of 3

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\12-12-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

MEETING NOTES
Continued (Estimate figures have been provided to WRL immediately following the meeting, to include with our evaluation criteria.) Only the Powerhouse does not have an LSI, and owned by the NPS. 9. 10. Fundraising Consideration LSI figures (see note above) to be included with fundraising goals. Pedestrian Bridge will need to be considered in the fundraising approach. (Note: As proposed with the 2004 Interpretive Campus plan, the associated cost was approx. $1.3m.) Cost estimate to be provided for a hypothetical new building, on a site TBD within the Grand Canyon National Park, though not as close to the existing South Rim Village as the buildings reviewed with this study. Building Planning Colleen Hyde questioned the function of the art storage areas and whether or not this would impact the Grand Canyon storage area the proposed storage is for the GCA collection storage only, with the Curation room providing space for upcoming exhibits to be stored for only a short term. All buildings will need to address the transmission of light to meet the needs of an art exhibit area. With the exception of the Powerhouse, all buildings are proposed to receive replacement window panes, where required based on condition (not including the frame unless damaged and in need of replacement), which could be provided with a coating, film or even translucent, to help control the light penetration into the space, and is accounted for in the cost estimate. The Powerhouse windows (panes only) are being replaced as part of a separate, on-going project for Xanterra. Additional solar control can be provided through internal shades, to preserve the historic integrity of the buildings. New basements proposed would need to be further vetted based upon soils conditions. Soils Evaluation is not part of this scope. Concern was raised regarding potential basement storage for artwork. Any proposed basement area proposed for storage (either as a new basement or existing to be renovated) will need to take art storage requirements into account and will be designed to be fully climate controlled. Test-fit plans to be studied which combine the Art Museum and River Heritage Museum into a single building. Both the Powerhouse and General Office building to be studied as their existing footprint will roughly accommodate both programs. Administrative and amenity functions, such as restrooms can be shared between the facilities. New opinion of probable cost to be included with the final report reflecting these new studies. Michael Terzich questioned the proposed structural stabilization approach for the Powerhouse building. The portion in questions is the securing of the stone veneer the approach we are recommending will be clearly outlined in the final report document. Next Steps Final Package to be delivered to the GCA by the second week of January. Final submittal will included assessments, opinion of probable cost, and testfit plans for the Laundry, Engineering, Powerhouse, and General Office Building. Info. Info.

11.

WRL / ACE Info.

12.

13.

Info.

14. 15.

Info. Info. / WRL

16.

Info.

17.

WRL

18.

WRL 01.13.11

X:\Job Name\Grand Canyon Museum\11124.00 Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study\B Meeting Notes & Project Info\B02 Client Meeting Notes\12-12-11 GC Art Museum Study Meeting Notes.doc

Page 3 of 3

Appendix B - Grand Canyon Art Collection

Westlake Reed Leskosky | Coe & Van Loo Consultants, Inc.

Grand Canyon Art Museum Concept Study

GCAPermanentCollection
Artist Aiken, Bruce Aiken, Bruce Aiken, Bruce Biddinger, Richard L. Biddinger, Richard L. Boyer, Richard Brown, Gordon Cogan, John Dawson, John DeLong, Cody Denhe, Frank Denzler, Nancy Dudley, Jack Durfee, Brian Dutton, Hayden Eder, Jim Figone, Allen Goldman, Robert Goldman, Robert Hawkins, William Hawkins, William Holmes, William Henry Holmes, William Henry Holmes, William Henry Hutchins, Julie Hylton, Marion Hymans, Liz Kabotie, Fred Kolb Brothers Kolb Brothers Kolb, Emery Kolb, Emery Mahaffey, Merrill Murray, Robert Title Nankoweap Wall Crystal Rapid Influence Triptych Sealed in Time Canyon Twilight A Journey Through the Canyon Breaking of Light Overlooking Kolb Studio GRCA: An Artist's View (70+ pieces) *see addtl spreadsheet Deep in the Canyon Dawn's Melody Descent on Bright Angel Trail The View GRCA Cliffs - Peregrine Falcons Atlases and artwork Triptych Drama Along the Bright Angel Trail Canyon Watchers Last Light Grand Canyon Clouds Landscape Painting Point Sublime Part I Looking East Point Sublime Part II Looking South Point Sublime Part III Looking West Mule w/Kolb Studio Sunset on the South Rim Sunset, Mather Point The Germinator (92/250 signed print) Hand-tinted photos (one) Hand-tinted photos (two) Scrapbook of hand-tinted photos Tilted Strata A Dusty Descent print print print Oil Pastel photograph Print Photos Photos scrapbook Acrylic Oil Medium Pencil Pencil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Acrylic Mixed giclee print Watercolor Oil Watercolor Acrylic Location GCA - Patty's office Kolb Living Room GCA HQ Kolb Balcony GCA - Hallway GCA - Hallway Flagstaff NPS-Lobby GCA - Jeanne's office 4 GCA Hall; remainder warehouse Flagstaff office Flagstaff NPS Flagstaff NPS-Barclay Kolb Balcony Kolb Balcony GCA Emmons Office Height x Width 25.25 x 20.75 23.25 x 20.5 138 x 92 27 x 22.75 20 x 16 27.25 x 37 28.5 x 38.5 14.75 x 17.75 Various 25x21 23.5 x 21.5 32 x 25.75 37.5x30 30 x 35 18.75 x 29.25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2008 2007 1995 Unknown 1998 1998 2007 Unknown $ $ 600 600 $ 3,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 42x23 16.5 x 22.75 Yes Yes 2010 2005 $ $ 5,000 720 $ $ 3,500 Price Paid 555 1,000 Estimated by JRP 600 Price Paid 600 Price paid 400 1,500 Market value 7,100 price paid 720 Price paid CoA Dudley Purchase Award Purchased from AFTP Minis updated 10-7-11 $ $ $ 133 per Dan Cassidy 133 per Dan Cassidy 133 per Dan Cassidy purchased purchased purchased Purchased from artist P the P Purchase Award Gift from artist Unknown Purchased (Gale Burak) Purchased (Gale Burak) gift from donor Framed Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Some Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yr Acq'd 2006 2006 2006 2005 2004 2005 1993 2009 1997 2009 2001 2006 1996 1999 Unknown 1994 2008 2008 2007 2006 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost 1,760 790 6,000 7,500 17,500 7,500 2,500 7,500 7,500 $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,500 Price paid 2,500 Price Paid 7,500 Price paid 7,500 Price paid 2,500 Estimated by JRP Est. based on curr. value of 1,500 artist's work Price Paid Price Paid $ $ 700 Price Paid 1,250 Price Paid Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Value Determined By 500 per JRP 500 per JRP 30,000 per Brad 1,760 Price Paid 790 Price paid 6,000 Price paid 7,500 Price paid 1,275 per artists Est. based on curr. value of 27,500 artist's work How Acquired Donated by artist Donated by artist Donated by artist Purchased from AFTP Purchased from AFTP Minis AFTP Purchase Award Commissioned by GCA Donated by artist Purchased collection Donated by artist AFTP Purchase Award AFTP AFTP Purchase Award AFTP Purchase Award Purchased Donated by artist Purchased from P the P Purchased from P the P Purchased from P the P Purchased from artist

Unknown -02,400 1,800 700 415

Wood block Kolb Parlor (over staircas36.5 x 80.5 Oil Oil Oil Oil Unknown Kolb Living Room Kolb Living Room Kolb Pantry GCA-Jeanne's office GCA - Hall GCA - Hall GCA - Hall Kolb Parlor GCA - Hall GCA - Jeanne's office Kolb Parlor Kolb Parlor Kolb home GCA conference room GCA - Hall 16 x 20 19x31 15x17 44.5 x 34.5 32.5 x 26.5 30 x 40.5 30 x 40.5 30 x 40.5 25x35 17.5 x 37.5 16.25 x 20.25 24.5 x 24 24.5 x 24

Flagstaff NPS - HR office15.5 x 25.5

Near Head of Bright Angel Trail on a Clear Day hand tinted phGCA - HQ

1 of 4

GCAPermanentCollection
Artist Ormsby, Lawrence Ormsby, Lawrence Ormsby, Lawrence Ormsby, Lawrence Ormsby, Lawrence Ormsby, Lawrence Posselli, Bonnie Quick, Bob Reil, Rebecca Reveal, Rodney Rogers, Roberta Rogers, Roberta Rogers, Roberta Schulz, Allan Schulz, Allan Schulz, Allan Schulz, Allan Skidmore, Ryan Slawson, Brian Spitz, Judith Steider, Doris Supplee, Serena Timmerman, Wes Timmerman, Wes Timmerman, Wes Timmerman, Wes Tinus, Arlene Title Agave Bighorn (Artist's proof) Rabbit (19/100 etching) Doves (Artist's proof) Grand Canyon scene Landscape Arch Powell Point Hozho Tsaye Canyon Approach On the Edge Supt.'s House (GRCA Bldg. No. 1) GRCA Train Depot GCA Office Building exterior West Mountain Near Santa Clara, Utah West Temple from Kolb Untitled Point Imperial (Triptych) Ladies in Waiting Canyon Magic Majesty Paean Clear Path to Awe Canyon Headwall Redwall Reflection Spring Storm Shinumo 2 Morning on the Colorado River Medium Print Etching Etching Etching Stone litho Etching Oil Pastel Oil Watercolor Watercolor Watercolor giclee print giclee print giclee print Watercolor Oil Oil oil Oil photograph photograph photograph photograph Oil Location GCA GCA - Laura's office GCA - Laura's office GCA - Hall Flagstaff NPS-Lobby GCA Warehouse Kolb dining room GCA - Entry GCA - Entry GCA - Entry GCA - Laura's office GCA GCA - Susan's office Kolb Bedroom Kolb Balcony Height x Width 24 x 21 16 x 19.25 14 x 17.5 14 x 21.75 29 x 35 30 x 51.5 18 x 36 30x22 17.5 x 21.5 20.25 x 28.25 20.25 x 28.25 25 x 31 15.25 x 18.25 52 x 71.5 52 x 73 (3) 27.25 x 33.25 Framed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Moab, Uta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1996 2004 2004 2006 2009 2008 2011 2009 2009 2009 2009 2007 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Price Paid Price paid (4.3 k) + framing (700) Nothing of value left, someone took - photos from boxes Est. based on curr. value of 25,000 artist's work 4,800 Price paid 7,500 Price paid $ $ $ $ Yr Acq'd Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2000 1995 2007 2009 Unknown Unknown Unknown Cost Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown $ $ $ $ 7,500 7,500 2,800 1,200 Value $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Value Determined By How Acquired GCA - Leah/Sunny office 26.25 x 14 300 Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist 400 Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist 225 Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist 225 Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist 400 Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist 200 Artist's replacement est.; 5/31/0Gift from artist AFTP Purchase Award - Aid to NPS 7,500 Price paid 7,500 Price paid 2,800 Price Paid 2,400 price paid 350 Per artist 350 Per artist 350 Per artist per Pam's files per Pam's files Est. based on curr. value of 90,000 artist's work 5,000 Price paid 6,000 4,500 price paid 9,000 Price Paid 4300 price paid AFTP Purchase Award Purchased from P the P Purchased from P the P Donated by artist Donated by artist Commissioned by GCA Unknown Unknown donated by artist sister $ $ $ $ $ Donated by Larsen family AFTP Purchase Award Purchased from AFTP Purchased from P the P Purchased from P the P CoA Dudley Purchase Award donated by artist donated by artist donated by artist donated by artist Purchased from P the P

GCA - Leah/Sunny office 30.5 x 24.25

oil on board GCA conference room

Unknown Unknown $ $ $ 350 100 75 Unknown -05,000 6,000 4,500 4,000 4300

Flagstaff NPS - Barclay 29 x 39 Kolb Parlor 24x18 28 x 22 48x30 Kolb Gallery

Egg Tempura Kolb Parlor (N.E.)

NPS Backcountry office 48 x 48 NPS Backcountry office 48 x 72 NPS Backcountry office 72 x 32 GCA - Susan's office GCA-Susan's Office 40.5 x 29.25 28 x 22

Various Walters, Curt Weatherbee, Frank Weber, Mark Christopher

Grand Legacy *see additional spreadsheet National Treasure Mule Train to Phantom Ranch Trees with a View

Photos & text panels Oil Bronze Oil

GCA - warehouse Kolb Balcony

Various 38.5 x 69

Some Yes N/A Yes

1997 1994 2002 1998

5,000 -0-

$ $ $ $

Commissioned by GCA Gift from artist & Grand Canyon Trust AFTP Purchase Award - Aid to NPS

Kolb Observation Room N/A Kolb Balcony 27 x 35

$ $

4,800 7,500

updated 10-7-11

2 of 4

GCAPermanentCollection
Artist Wheeler, Rick Widforss, Gunnar Widforss, Gunnar Title Prickly Pear Cactus Untitled #1 (Widforss Watercolor 1997) Untitled #2 (Widforss Watercolor 2005) Medium Watercolor Watercolor Watercolor Location GCA - Hall Kolb Dining Room Kolb Dining Room Height x Width 21.25x25 29.5 x 27.5 32.5 x29 Framed Yes Yes Yes Yr Acq'd 2004 1997 2005 $ $ Cost 600 11,633 -0Value $ $ $ Value Determined By 600 Price paid Est. based on curr. value of 45,000 artist's work 45,000 Appraisal Est. value based on current 2,500 prices of similar work. 5,000 Estimated by JRP How Acquired Purchased from the artist Purchased (5 Quail) Donated by McHenry family

WPA

GRCA Travel poster

Serigraph

Hoosier Cabinet - Originally owned by Emery KoFurniture

GCA HQ Kolb Residence (Kitchen)

14x19

No

Pre-1989 2007 -0-

$ $

Unknown Donated by Norman Henderson

$ 402,849

GrandCanyon'sGreenHeart:PhotographsfromtheexhibitownedbyGCA
Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

Tonto Platform Desertscrub (B482)

32 x 40.5

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Ladd, Gary

Approaching the Canyon Rim (S529)

40 x 32

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

North Rim Autumn (N834)

32 x 40

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

Botanical Wonderland (N5010

32 x 40.5

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

Vertical Wonderland (S666)

32 x 40.5

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

Floating the Colorado River (AW799)

30 x 24

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

updated 10-7-11

3 of 4

GCAPermanentCollection
Artist Title Medium Location Height x Width Framed Yr Acq'd Cost Value Value Determined By How Acquired Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg. Photograph on stretched Flagstaff Coconino canvas Bldg.

Ladd, Gary

Desert Waterway (P484)

30 x 24

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

Elves Chasm (Q699)

40 x 32.5

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

A Prickly Landscape (P662)

32 x 40

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

Ladd, Gary

Approaching Storm (BA405)

40.5 x 32

No

2010

1,000

Price paid

Grand Canyon's Green Heart Exhbit

updated 10-7-11

4 of 4

Você também pode gostar