Laserfiche WebLink
Once the alternatives were developed Urban Studio developed an order of magnitude cost <br />estimate for each of the alternatives (see attachment). Costs were developed utilizing unit costs <br />obtained from Continental Bridge, additional unit costs obtained from R%Aeans, Building <br />Construction Cost Data (2004) and previous experience developing costs. The cost estimate is an <br />order of magnitude estimate only, was prepared using a standard of care consistent with that <br />degree of skill ordinarily exercised by members of the architecture profession practicing under <br />similar conditions and should be further reviewed at every subsequent implementation step to <br />assure its usefulness. <br />Utilizing the alternatives described below and the cost estimates, this findings memorandum was <br />then prepared. <br />Alternatives <br />Urban Studio prepared six alternative approaches to bridge Macarthur Boulevard as follows <br />Option 1 — this option spans Macarthur Boulevard diagonally from the southeast corner to the <br />northwest corner of the intersection with Imperial Promenade. This scheme is estimated to cost <br />approximately $1,500,000. access to the pedestrian bridge is via stairs and/or elevators. The chief <br />advantage of this option is that the landings are directly associated with the proposed <br />developments, Macarthur Place and Geneva Commons. The major disadvantages of this scheme <br />are that the length of the span is maximized and access is via elevators, increasing first costs. <br />Option 2 — this option is similar to Option 1. To reduce costs one stair and one elevator are <br />replaced by a ramp at the northwest landing. The ramp is placed in this location to minimize <br />interference with proposed Macarthur Place retail components. The estimated cost of this option is <br />$1,250,000. <br />Option 3 — this option places a short span bridge at the south leg of the intersection of Macarthur <br />Place with imperial Promenade. Reducing the span from the diagonal configuration reduces the <br />cost to $1,250,000. <br />Caption 4 — this option is similar to Option 3, and has a similar cost ($1,250,000) but places the <br />span at the northern leg of the intersection. Both Option 3 and 4 require that a third party, either the <br />existing hotel or the existing retail center participate in the conception and implementation of the <br />pedestrian bridge. <br />Option 5 — this option is similar to Option 3 and Option 4 but substitutes accessible ramps for <br />elevators and stairs. This reduces estimated costs to $850,000. Based upon preliminary review of <br />the options, the major advantage of this option is its lowest cost. The major disadvantage is the <br />requirement to work with an additional private party with regard to implementation. <br />Option 6 — this option provides the pedestrian bridge connection at the far northern leg of the <br />intersection as well as an elevator and stair that links the Geneva Place podium level and /or <br />parking levels directly to surrounding uses on both sides of the street. The location of the <br />pedestrian bridge is designed to link with the most public portions of the amenity deck provided by <br />the developer of Geneva Common while maintaining a private pool area at this level for the <br />residents of this project. The goal of this option is to recognize that bringing people back to street <br />level from pedestrian bridge levels may not optimize pedestrian utilization of surrounding amenities <br />0210A 041025 JK_JT.M.doc II Page 2 of 4 <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />