LAST WEEK, the Emporia City Commission discussed whether a new fire station should be built in a new location because there are problems with Fire Station 2, which is 35 years old.
Problems with the building range from maintenance issues like a leaky roof to mold to concrete problems and a poor HVAC system.
Obviously, we need buildings to be safe and you can’t blame the fire department for wanting a new facility.
But the real problem here is that public buildings should last longer than 35 years, and taxpayers should be upset about this situation.
I am surprised that city officials are talking about where to build a new station instead of about who should be held accountable for the problems in the current building.
But city leadership changes and years may pass before a building begins to reveal its problems. Then the question leaders need to ask is whether the problems are in the design, construction or maintenance after construction?
Before there is talk about having taxpayers build a new fire station, we should first have a good community conversation about what is an acceptable lifespan for a public building. Is it 35, 50, 100 or 150 years?
The problems at Fire Station 2 are not unique. The medical office building at the hospital had construction issues that ended up in court. The hospital did win a million-dollar judgment, but the decision was overturned by the Kansas Court of Appeals.
There is also talk that the new animal shelter has building issues. Fortunately, the new Lyon County Courthouse seems to be in good shape.
I struggle with understanding why buildings today don’t show promise of lasting hundreds of years.
I work in a 107-year-old building. This building was built before the day of structural engineers, building codes, building inspectors or even power tools, yet the building has no major structural problems. Why does the construction industry, which has so much more information about how to build buildings than it did 100 years ago, have trouble constructing buildings that will last?
Right now, taxpayers are paying to have buildings built, but are we being cheated by how long those buildings last?
Before more buildings are built, taxpayers need to have some assurances of how long a building will last and a plan to maintain accountability for construction quality and building maintenance even as city management changes.
Christopher White Walker
Editor & Publisher
spectator (anonymous) says...
"Why does the construction industry ... have trouble constructing buildings that will last?" It's because of something called "low bid" i.e "whatever is cheapest we can get by with." I can't but speculate on the rest of Station 2's woes but it was a problem from the beginning with uneven floors; the large doors wouldn't seal at the bottom and rain blew in at every storm. The floors also developed cracks within weeks of completion. The powers-that-be knew but little was done.
January 2, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
Brinkman and Hagen are not here anymore. Did high standards die with them?
January 2, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
theres stories of an underground stream near kansas avenue school could there be something like that under the firestation that causes the ground to settle? kansas avenue school has been in good shape so that isnt affecting it, way would the floors be so uneven at the fire station?
January 2, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Roofs don't last 35 years,HVAC systems don't last 35 years,freezing and thawing of Kansas soils are like a wrecking ball to concrete. Maybe we need to get estimates to make the repairs I guarantee it will be less than the price of a new building. If the fire-men need a bigger building then lets just say that instead of pointing out everything thats wrong. I'm sure that the building has some issues lets take care of them.
January 2, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hickory (anonymous) says...
Why should the taxpayers be upset? They don't want to spend the money to have anything done right. People have a problem with thinking ahead. All they want is a quick fix and let other people worry about it in 20 years or so. How many buildings are built now entirely of concrete and brick? Look at the Civic Building, it's been around for about 68 years now. But, if the Commission doesn't spend some money on maintenance before long, it's going to end up like Station#2. They don't stop to think how many tax dollars the Civic Building brings to this town every year, with tournaments, trade shows and other events. One of these days it's going to end up looking like the Historical museum with 2 to 3 inch cracks in the brick if they don't spend some money on tuck pointing. The whole n/w corner of the museum is going to fall out one of these days, because no one will spend money on the up keep. Why can't the county find a different building for the museum? They seem to find buildings for other departments with no problem. You have to spend money on building upkeep once you build something. The trouble with our commissions has always been waiting until it's too late and it seems like this commission is no different than the past commissions. I wish they would look more closely at some of these low bidders previous projects that they've constructed, before considering low bids on any new construction.
January 2, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )