Asociația ARCHÉ

 3 septembrie la 12:20 · 

Castle BreakÎmi place pagina

30 august la 19:24 · 

Castele cu turnuleţe, creneluri şi blazoane. Palate cu piste de bowling. Case boiereşti ce aduc mai degrabă cu un country house englezesc decât cu un conac româ…

Vezi mai mult

Constanța / Haga, 14 septembrie 2018 – Europa Nostra, principala organizație de patrimoniu din Europa, și Institutul Băncii Europene de Dezvoltare au publicat astăzi un raport tehnic și financiar privind reabilitarea Cazinoului din Constanța, România, clădire listată ca una dintre cele mai periclitate 7 situri din Europa în 2018, în urma nominalizării sale de către Asociația ARCHÉ.

Construit în 1910, Cazinoul din Constanța a devenit un reper al țărmului Mării Negre. Daniel Renard, arhitectul româno-elvețian care a proiectat clădirea, a optat pentru expresivitatea opulentă a Art Nouveau-ului pentru a ilustra modernizarea României în timpul domniei lui Carol I. După trecerea repetată a clădirii din administrația statului în cea privată și înapoi, Cazinoul a fost abandonat în anii 2000.

Raportul tehnic și financiar a rezultat în urma unei vizite de lucru de patru zile în România, desfășurată în perioada 8-11 iunie 2018, în timpul căreia reprezentații Europa Nostra și ai Institutului Băncii Europene de Dezvoltare au evaluat Cazinoul din Constanța și s-au întâlnit cu părțile interesate, atât la nivel local, cât și regional.

Raportul propune o serie de măsuri și recomandări, pe care le puteți consulta în comunicatul de presă.

Raportul tehnic și financiar complet privind reabilitarea Cazinoului din Constanța, România, se găsește pe siteul web al programului „Cele Mai Periclitate 7 Monumente”: http://7mostendangered.eu/reports.The 7 Most Endangered 2018 Programme run by Europa Nostra, the Voice of Cultural Heritage in Europe, in partnership with the European Investment Bank Institute Constanta Casino Romania Technical Report Table of contents 1. Summary 2. Purpose, location 3. Context 4. Description 5. Technical aspects 6. Implementation 7. Procurement 8. Environment, sustainability, social 9. Use, market, demand 10. Operation 11. Investment cost 12. Financing possibilities 13. Conclusions: Proposed actions and recommendations Appendices: 1. References, mission details 2. Recent photographs 3. “Appropriate methodology for restoration of an historical monument” by Prof. Arch. Barbara Van der Wee Peter Bond Technical Consultant, EIB Institut 2 1. Summary The purpose of the project is to restore the dilapidated and abandoned Casino to its former state as a fine Art Nouveau building and adapt it to new relevant uses. The Casino, situated on the sea promenade, was completed in 1910 and was operated successfully as a casino up to the Second World War. It was significantly extended several times and suffered war damage. After 1950 it was repaired and converted to social uses under the Communist regime. A further major repair programme took place in 1980 after which decline set in. After 2000 the Casino was abandoned and left to deteriorate and it is now closed and in very poor condition both inside and outside. The project is to restore and refurbish the building to modern standards for multiple cultural uses such as concerts, theatre, cinema, conferences and exhibitions and to include a restaurant and café. It will require some structural repairs and changes to the configuration to modernise for the new functions. The restoration of the special features and the decorations will be a major work. The upgrading and repair of the surrounds and improvement of the sea defences are also required. Emergency works to protect the building from further damage before restoration starts are envisaged. The owner and operator of the Casino is the Constanta City Hall (CCH) who hands over the construction and design phases to the National Investment Company (NIC) through an Agreement with the Ministry of Regional Development (MRDPA). This will be valid until early 2019 and requires works to have started by then. Preliminary studies into the condition of the building have been carried out in the past and a Feasibility Study to update these studies is in hand under the NIC. The project will be implemented on the basis of these preliminary investigations through a “design and build” contract following an international tender. This is the third attempt to launch the project by NIC under similar arrangements, with the inadequate quality of contractors causing the recent cancellation. There are major concerns on these proposals which seem to cede responsibility for detailed design to the contractor with light administrative supervision by the NIC. This approach is considered totally inappropriate to restore and modernise this sensitive heritage building. Also due to the nature of the work changes during construction are inevitable and these must be controlled firmly by the Administration and not by the contractor. Under the proposed arrangements, the risk of poor quality work and contractual problems with costs and timing will be unacceptably high. A different approach is deemed essential. The estimated costs including VAT of the Main Construction (NIC) is €12.6 M and the Subsidiary Works (CCH) is € 0.30 M. Both these estimates are preliminary and will be reviewed and revised by the Feasibility Study. The total overall financing requirement is thus estimated, probably optimistically, at about €13 M. 3 It appears that funding for NIC of €12 M is assured by Government and the Subsidiary Works will come from CCH finances, perhaps through EU funding or otherwise. Construction may take 2 years or more, so completion could be by 2021/2. To address these serious concerns, it is strongly recommended that NIC and CCH review the overall arrangements for the project preparation and contract strategy and make fundamental changes to reduce the perceived high risks. The main proposals to help this process are summarised below:  Ensure the extension beyond early 2019 of the Agreement between CCH and the MRDPA concerning the NIC management of the construction/design phases.  Recognise the complex nature of the restoration and modernisation of this building which requires enhanced preparatory work and design with strong management, much more than currently envisaged. A serious review is needed.  Instigate further investigations and a detailed design phase before tender by competent consultants to cover all aspects notably the structure, the actual needs, the modernisation, and the repair/adaptation of the special features.  Ensure that the tender and the associated works’ scope/specifications are appropriate, using traditional “construction only” contract(s). These should be refined to allow flexibility for the nature of the works and also for potential changes during the works. The contract(s) should be firmly managed, preferably by experienced independent Consultants, under the administrative aegis of NIC.  Establish a coordinating Project Implementation Unit (PIU) or equivalent under the aegis of MRDPA to have overall control of the direction and progress of the project. It would be the key control and decision maker driving the project.  Establish within the CCH a focal point at once and a Casino Contact Group with senior CCH personnel, representatives of NGOs and others to liaise with the PIU, and to prepare for the operational phase and to coordinate with the public.  Ensure that the CCH immediately start with the Emergency Works to protect the Casino from further damage prior to the main works contracts starting.  Review the sea defences to ensure long term protection and take appropriate action including the possibility of an offshore breakwater to the east.  Consider the more detailed recommendations in the text and summarised in §13. In summary: A very worthwhile and interesting initiative, but with serious concerns on the manner in which the project is being prepared and proposed for construction, with high risks of serious under-performance (in quality, cost and timing). Radical changes are proposed to the contract strategy and to enhance the project preparation to limit these risks. 4 2. Purpose, location The purpose is to restore the dilapidated and abandoned Casino building to its former state as a fine Art Nouveau building and to modernise and adapt it to new relevant uses. The Casino is in Constanta, Romania, on the Black Sea coast and situated prominently on the seafront promenade. 3. Context Constanta, with a population of 280 000, is the most important Romanian city on the Black Sea. It is an ancient settlement and active in Roman times and before. It comprises the largest port in the country being the outlet of the Danube – Black Sea canal and is the regional centre for the country’s Black S 5 aquarium and was redecorated externally. In the 1930s other significant extensions took place on the east end of the Casino with two storeys of mainly technical facilities housed in an ornate extension with curved towers at each end. These works were in keeping with the Art Nouveau style although not under the original designer Daniel Renard. Other changes included adding a ramp access to the kitchen area on the east end. The Casino suffered serious damage in both World Wars and major repairs were carried out between 1928 and 1930 and also between 1951 and 1952, the latter repairs being undertaken by unskilled conscripted labour with the inevitable effect on quality. In 1947 under the Communist regime the Casino was designated for cultural activities and called the Cultural House of the Unions. The significant earthquakes of 1977 and 1986 inflicted damage on the building. A major restoration took place in the 1980s to modernise it for the new functional needs and to upgrade the decorations. There were many changes in the detail of the original design and again the attention to detail and quality was not high. With time and lack of maintenance and general neglect the Casino gradually became run down and in about the year 2000 the building was finally abandoned and left to the elements. An initiative to sell the casino to an Israeli group in 2005/6 failed. Being on an exposed sea shore, the building deteriorated rapidly and is now unsafe with access forbidden to the public except under special conditions. The immediate concern is the damage resulting from the rain entering through the damaged sections of the roof and the windows and the encroaching dampness throughout the building. 4. Description The building is of rectangular form, oriented east/west with the two major façades facing the land and the Black Sea. It is richly decorated with flamboyant Art Nouveau forms, many with a marine connection, and topped by an elegant roof. It comprises three floors, a basement level with services, a ground floor level with the main entrance at the west end, and the first floor – the piano nobile – with the large main public rooms, the former gambling salons. The first floor was expanded to provide further space and this leads to the seaside terrace. At the east end later additions provide toilet and other facilities. A technical access has been added to the east end with a tunnel to the basement. Floor access is by the staircases there being no lifts in the building and the building has no airconditioning, just natural ventilation. The building has overall dimensions of 52m long, 27m wide and 25m high with a total floor area of about 4000 m2 and the piano nobile area of 1270 m2. The vertical structure is variously of brick, stone and steel, with some concrete columns inserted as World War II damage repairs. Some floors are of steel I beams with brick arches and some are in reinforced concrete. The roof is a steel frame with a metallic covering. 6 The Casino is situated on an artificial platform with a concrete structure and this is surrounded by a sea wall with concrete block protection. A breakwater close offshore protects the southern approach from storms. The project is to restore this dilapidated and abandoned building and to modernise it for use as a Community and Cultural Centre. The works main components are:  the repair and renovation of the vertical and horizontal structures.  the refurbishment of the façades and the replacement of the windows and the external doors.  the repair and modernisation of the roof and its structure.  the adaption and modernisation of the interior for the new usages.  the conservation, repair or replacement of the interior decoration.  the modernisation of the services including heating, ventilation, lighting, toilets and lifts to meet current standards and expectations.  the upgrading of the utility services (water, waste water, gas and electricity).  the repair and renovation of the surrounds and the terrace.  the necessary works to ensure platform stability and the proper sea defences. The works and services are to comply with the current standards and in particular to respect the criteria for energy conservation with proper insulation (e.g. in roof and windows) and to respect notably seismic standards and those for fire and access. An immediate “Emergency Action” is planned to protect the building from further deterioration by rain and the elements. This would require, as a minimum, to ensure no leakage through the roof or the windows and to block off the exposed windows to avoid further damage. The definition of the works to be carried out is still not established in detail. The studies carried out in 2013 form the basis of the project. These general and preliminary studies concentrated more on the structure than on the decoration and ornamentation. Further clarity should be provided at the Feasibility Study stage where these previous studies will be updated at least to incorporate any recent deterioration. The new developments for the changed use are less well defined. As discussed later under § 6 Implementation, major concerns exist on the manner in which this is being managed with the detailed scope and specification of the works being a key concern. There would be an interest to investigate the provision of a new offshore breakwater to the east of the Casino, similar to that provided to the south. It is noted that damage to the east side of the building is more severe as it is much more exposed than the south side, which has the benefit of being partly protected by the main port breakwater. 7 5. Technical aspects The main problems arise from the highly corrosive environment on the steel, concrete and plaster work, the change of usage proposed on the structure and the loadings, and the application of modern standards and the insertion of new services. The structure of the building reflects the tradition at the time with brick and steel vertical structure and I beam and arch brickwork floors. The general state of the structure appears reasonably sound and some sample checks have been carried out to test this. Further investigation would be recommended before the design is finalised. For example, the effect of corrosion on the lowest floor with its exposed I beams in a humid enclosed environment should be checked. The roof’s wood planking may need attention, appearing to be in poor condition. Excessive crowd loading (e.g. jazz concerts) may be beyond the capacity of the existing floors designed for more sedate activities. The earthquake risk is significant in central Romania and Constanta has been hit in recent years (notably in 1977,1986, 1990). Appropriate design checks and reinforcement of the structure and joints will be required to comply with the seismic codes and preliminary studies show that full compliance might be difficult. In addition, the stability of the sea wall has been noted as a cause for concern. Note that even if thorough investigations have been carried out on the condition of the structure, it is quite likely that unexpected conditions will be discovered during construction when more of the structure is actually revealed. This needs to be clearly acknowledged in the site control and management arrangements. The unique feature of the building is its Art Nouveau design and decoration which must obviously be retained, to the extent possible. It is essential to make a detailed census of the existing details and to determine their history as to whether they were in the original building or when they were added. On the basis of this data, detailed decisions may be made about the restoration of each component, independent of the contractors. The result must be consistent with the overall design of the building but should also allow for the changes needed to meet modern standards and the proposed new usages, so subjective judgements may be required. As an example, the chandeliers in the main salons (which were not original but added after the 1980 upgrade) may be inappropriate in the revised room configuration aimed at theatre and concerts; special attention may be needed to the technical requirements for musical events (acoustics, stage form, back stage space). Another example is the large windows which feature Art Nouveau curved shapes formed by metal inserts astheir upgrading to modern standards of insulation may not be simple. Specialist advice should be sought to ensure the overall design and work quality are appropriate and to the necessary standards. There may well be problems from a shortage of skilled craftsmen able to undertake these works. See Appendix 3 for an appropriate methodology for the restoration process. 8 The approach should be pragmatic probably by restoring the Casino to its overall extent and state in its “heyday” and maintaining the spirit of the original concept in the details but by allowing modernisation to meet current standards and expectations. A challenging agenda which will require adequate time and considerable expertise. 6. Implementation 6.1 Responsibilities: The Owner of the Casino is Constanta City Hall (CCH). The CCH has the responsibility for the building and its surrounds up until it hands over to the NIC to prepare and execute the main works. CCH regains responsibility after construction for the operation phases including the maintenance. It is responsible also for any works on the platform underneath the building, its sea protection and the terrace and surrounds. The Project Administrator with overall responsibility for the construction contracts is the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA). Detailed responsibility for the main works, their preparation and site supervision is with the National Investments Company (NIC), a department of the Ministry. A protocol was agreed between the CCH and the MRDPA in 2014 to define responsibilities for the project’s execution by the NIC. This has been extended until early 2019 on condition that works start before that date. This seems improbable (see §6.4 Planning) and new arrangements will be needed to ensure continuity. The proposed transfer of responsibility solely for the construction phase for such a complex project is unusual and could create problems by splitting responsibilities. In order to minimise this risk, pragmatic cooperation between the principal parties, the Owner CCH and the Administrator NIC, is essential. Thus, regular reporting and meetings should be arranged as appropriate and it is unclear whether such arrangements are currently envisaged (see proposals later). 6.2 The Approval Processes This major public project requires a special procedure for approval by the authorities, and the key stages are as follows: 1. A Concept Note and Design Brief by the Owner (CCH) to the Contracts Administrator (NIC). 9 2. A Feasibility Study leading to the Technical Document for Construction Authorisation (TDCA), being a comprehensive technical, historical and architectural assessment. 3. The Technical Project Documentation adequate for tendering. 4. The Execution Design Details required for construction. The Ministry of Culture has to approve the final proposals as this is a listed heritage building. Its role could be significant in ensuring the quality of the final outcome. 6.3 The Contract Strategy The Administration considers that the preparatory studies necessary for the TDCA are effectively already available and merely require a review and updating to be in order. The proposed approach seems to be to combine final design and construction in one overall “design and build” contract and in this context, it is unclear how the approval processes are to be implemented. This general approach is similar to two previous attempts to launch the project both of which have failed for legal and administrative reasons at the tender stages. These past setbacks should be a cause for caution. It is considered by the NIC that recent changes in the law on restricting firms disputing the selection procedure should avoid some of the past difficulties. The other reason for cancelling the tender seemed to be the perceived inadequate quality of the bidders, a serious on-going concern. These setbacks could reflect a wider problem of an inappropriate contract strategy being adopted to match the capability of the Romanian contracting industry. A large and unusual contract under “design and build” method requires very competent firms or groups of firms and preferably enough to provide good competition. Compounding this past experience, there are major concerns about the overall strategy proposed for this particular project: the restoration of an unusual heritage building, in poor condition and with a lack of detailed technical data and preparation. The main concerns in more detail are as follows:  The quality and scope of the existing studies, dating from 2013 and even earlier, are generally adequate as preliminary work but more detailed work is needed before proceeding to tender, as is acknowledged in these studies.  The studies and research to determine the functional use of the Casino have not been made available despite requests but they appear to be limited. The present proposal of use provides a reasonably sensible menu of activities but more work is required to confirm these choices and provide more relevant information for planning purposes. The functional design depends on these details so more and firmer information is important at an early stage not after construction is complete. 10  The Feasibility Study as proposed seems to be an exercise in confirming the previous work. The scale of the study is controlled by the budget of €50 000 with a duration of 90 days, which is unlikely to provide any substantial new contribution. In scope and depth, it is more like a feasibility study in the classical sense – an initial exercise to assess the data and test the feasibility or interest in continuing with the scheme, and also to recommend how to proceed. The present Study lacks any critical analysis or call for recommendations and does not provide any Cost Benefit Analysis or equivalent which would justify the “feasibility” title.  The NIC proposes to use this Feasibility Study as the basis for the construction contract which will be on a “design and build” basis. The “design and build” contract is most suitable for well-defined standard buildings where few changes are likely during the construction phase and thus the design and construction can be optimised by the contractor without much concern to the quality of the resulting works. The emphasis is on cost cutting for the contractor at the risk of works’ quality for the client. This is the exact opposite of what is required for this sensitive heritage project where the precise definition and specification of the works must be fixed by the Owner/Administrator aided by experts, outside the construction phase, and where the works’ quality is essential for success. In addition, it is likely that during the construction phase, when the real condition of the structure or state of repair of the items is revealed, that unexpected changes will be needed. It is not for the contractor to decide on these changes but for a strong independent consultant working under the auspices of the Owner/Administrator or his representative.  These weaknesses are compounded by the apparent lack of concern or understanding of the complexities involved in managing the restoration of a heritage building such as the Casino. Site supervision responsibility seems unclear with NIC providing a standard site presence to follow the administrative aspects of the project and perhaps a local site supervisory involved also. It is unclear what control there will be on the “design” carried out by the contractor and whether this will be by NIC personnel or outside specialists. The main issue is the lack of control of the works by the Administration and that the main responsibility for design and build is being ceded to a contractor. This is against a background of lack of detail knowledge of the state of the building and the proposed works together with a low-level of site control. The capacity of potential contractors is not of the highest standing and this would compound the problems. This combination presents a high risk of failure to achieve the laudable objectives of restoring this building to its former splendour. The result is likely to be poor quality work and a high probability of cost and time overruns spiced with contractual disputes. This is an iconic and very special work of art to be restored and it is being treated as if it were a standard building.