Building Boom Begins With A Bang -- Construction On Capitol Campus Is Starting With Huge Headquarters

OLYMPIA - Within walking distance of the Capitol dome sits a three-block-long hole in the ground where the state has quietly begun building what will be by far the biggest, most expensive building on the Capitol campus.

That massive hole represents the beginning of a new $73 million headquarters for the Department of Natural Resources and two other agencies - the opening spadeful of a construction boom that may surpass $200 million in the next few years.

The state's expansion of office space stems from an attempt to offset the expensive leasing arrangements that now account for $53 million in rental payments annually.

The 20 percent growth in state agencies has not only led to the construction of the Natural Resources Building but also to a $63 million headquarters for the Department of Labor and Industries, a $53 million home for the Department of Ecology and a new State Patrol office building.

Even so, the 900,000 square feet of new office space will barely put a dent in the 7 million square feet the state now leases. The big rent payments will continue.

The state's building boom comes at a time when political leaders are finding the state has done a poor job of planning for future construction, managing its long-term debt and maintaining the buildings it already owns. The capital budget, said a study group headed by Gov. Booth Gardner, is the most overlooked, mismanaged and misunderstood chunk of taxpayers' money.

Across the street from the Capitol, the erection of the giant Natural Resources Building will determine more than anything else whether that perception remains accurate.

Already there are signs of trouble.

From the beginning, officials in charge of the project have angered residents of the Capitol neighborhood and troubled others.

For example, a decision to ignore the city of Olympia's complicated formula for a building-height restriction exemplified, some said, an arrogant attitude by the state. The official response didn't soothe many tempers.

Jack Brown, the state's Capitol campus development manager, said the state isn't bound by the height limit, which is designed to protect views of the Statehouse. Although the new building will exceed the city's ``arbitrary mathematical formula'' by 70 feet, Brown said, it protects most views of the Capitol dome and therefore meets the spirit of the law.

Some architects also have complained about the design of the Natural Resources Building, which dwarfs its surroundings. Other critics are nervous about the unusual fast-track approach for the building's construction, which has crews working on the foundation even before blueprints are finished.

Brown bristles at the criticism. He believes the public had ample opportunity last spring to review a design that is unusually aesthetic - as well as functional - for a government structure.

And the fast-track ``design-build'' approach will save taxpayers $3 million to $4 million, he says. ``The good news is, with design-build we're on schedule, we're on budget and we're going to get this building built.''

Given the project's history, Brown never assumes getting the building built will be easy.

There was a similar plan 10 years ago to build a three-agency headquarters at a price - less than $30 million - that sounds like a bargain now. But the design was found to be inefficient, and delays and revisions raised the cost to $55 million.

By 1981, with the state in recession and the state budget in shambles, the Legislature shelved the whole idea.

This time around, the memory of that failure created a sense of urgency that led to the design-build construction schedule.

Normally, an architect is hired after a design competition; then contractors bid for the right to build the architect's design. In design-build procurement, which was developed in the private sector and still is relatively new for public buildings, the two steps are combined.

Teams of architects and builders submit joint bids showing how they would design a building of given specifications, promising to build it at a price set by the client, in this case the state.

For the Natural Resources Building, the winning team's design is a sweeping half-circle of white stone, with a large rotunda foyer that admirers say is uncommonly elegant for a government office building.

It's also huge. At 285,500 usable square feet, it's far bigger than Office Building 2, the current king. There's room for 1,240 employees.

Paul Ingman, an Olympia architect, says that's far too much, at least for the three-block site. He complains the building takes up nearly the entire lot, with no areas set aside for open space.

As headquarters for the Natural Resources Department, this building ``more than any other should be one with nature,'' Ingman says. ``But the building site's open space is generally dedicated to parking and not to people. The key scenic vistas and outstanding panoramic views of the Olympics, Mount Rainier, the hillsides and Puget Sound would be obstructed.''

The complaint by Ingman and other local critics is that because of the fast-track building schedule, the public didn't get much chance to question, or even review, such decisions.

The state held one public hearing this year during preparation of an environmental-impact statement, but only 12 people attended. Joan Dubiell, a leader of the Capitol neighborhood group, says nobody showed up to testify because the hearing, on March 7, was held before the state even had a final design.

The fact that Olympia residents seem to be the only critics shows only that people in the rest of the state were unaware of the plans, Dubiell says.

A consultant for the project, Jim Steinmann of the Los Angeles firm Steinmann, Grayson, Smylie, says the beauty of the design-build approach is that it circumvents laborious public review.

Steinmann says the public gets its chance to give its opinion through the design-build jury, which consists of appointed citizens.

``If you have 10 or 15 knowledgeable people, each giving 20 hours of their life to review these plans, that is public scrutiny,'' he says. ``And that's far more valid than some local person who doesn't understand the objective of the project or architecture or design spending 15 minutes looking it over then taking a potshot in the public eye.''

Brown, the project manager, acknowledges design changes are continuing even now, with pile drivers hammering 12 hours a day at the big hole.

He also says there's no turning back. The lessons of 1981 taught him that.

``As I said, the good news is that we'll get a building built on schedule. The bad news is that once you start you can't stop,'' he says. ``There is a likelihood that stopping the project for further review could put an end to it.''