I have been following discussion of alterations to the current city hall dating back to July 29th 1966. At the time we were considering what form the ‘Guide for Change’ and eventual ‘General Development Plan’ would take. A team of university students with the guidance of professors C. Theodore Larson and John W. Hyde submitted a projection of what the city might resemble in 1985. The proposal amongst other things, suggested a ‘city beautiful’ strategy in its establishment of a civic center. A speculative addition to the city hall was also illustrated.

Consideration of an addition began more seriously in the 1980s when a $20 million expansion of the Guy C. Larcom Building was voted down. It is significant to note that our present need for space first appeared at this time. A number of other studies have been conducted since, the details of which would be too lengthy to include here.

Voters are rightly skeptical in questioning such large investments of money. However, these decisions are not being made out of haste as some comments would assert, but have become more urgent as a result of distrust. Most cities are unable to receive approval for such construction until they illustrate money has been lost for some time leasing properties at an expense far outweighing the cost of new construction. By the time approvals are granted considerable money has been lost and the space needs have changed since the process began. For example, the most accurate space needs assessment to date was compiled by Plante & Moran CRESA in 2004. Space needs were considered as far into the future as 2014. Keeping in mind that the average life span of a city hall building in North America is ~50 years and construction is anticipated to be completed by 2010 what are the chances this addition will be adequate in decades to come?

We take great pride in our community as a group of highly intellectual and occasionally visionary citizens. Yet, the short sightedness and general reluctance of our voting community to consider a new city hall as anything more than an expense, will perpetuate the cheap construction characteristic of many Michigan city halls today. A city hall could be more than a dismal office building, say, a community center or simply a nice to work, however, that would cost more than the minimum.