Join the Conversation

1 Comment

The RoundTable will try to post comments within a few hours, but there may be a longer delay at times. Comments containing mean-spirited, libelous or ad hominem attacks will not be posted. Your full name and email is required. We do not post anonymous comments. Your e-mail will not be posted.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I just sent the following letter to the City regarding some thoughts on the NCAC’s HVAC Feasibility Study:

    I just upgraded my 22,000 SF art center in Chicago, increasing usage from 40 studios to 100 studios. It cost me a little over $1.1M to increase the usage and bring it up to current code compliance, including a new roof with full insulation, tuckpointing, plumbing, heating, and new electrical service. Regarding full disclosure, I was on the Evanston Arts Council for a number of years, during which some of then NCAC upgrades were completed. My first thought for both my building and the NCAC related to the usage of the building. For 95% of the time the building is used by 10% of the tenants. I made a decision that air conditioning the entire building for such low usage is does not make energy-usage sense. Instead I maximized insulation of the roof and eliminated consideration of air conditioning. So, my maximum indoor heat without the insulation could be in the 90s. With the insulation it might hit 90 on a maximum day, but it’s only a couple of days a year and users can work around it. Also, my electrical bills are now a fraction of what they would have been with the air conditioning, possible 35% of the cost. Yes, I realize that the theater might have a need for special air handling. This could be done separately and used when needed. Again it would be an occasional cost. Also, at the time when I was on the council, the elevator was installed. We tried to get the City to extend it to the third floor for expansion of usable studio space. It would have been a fraction more to extend it up one floor. The core costs would have been the same. With more studios there would be more usage and more benefit to the community. Space is limited, but there are other issues that could be evaluated in a more holistic manner.

    There are other issues that I haven’t addressed, such as tenant space usage, rental revenue, sharing more expensive / low-usage spaces with others in Evanston, and costs of City vs. Private Management.