Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shortlisting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Designer Selection Board to interview three finalists for U of M St. Paul campus student center
Summary
At its Feb. 3 meeting the State Designer Selection Board reviewed six proposals for the University of Minnesota St. Paul campus student center, discussed mass timber and tunnel/infrastructure constraints, and voted to advance three firms to interviews (20-minute presentation and 20-minute Q&A).
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The State Designer Selection Board reviewed six proposals Feb. 3 for a new University of Minnesota-St. Paul campus student center and voted to advance three finalists to interviews, the board said at the end of a day-long discussion.
Paul Lawton, the university’s architect, described the project as a new campus center to be sited at the McGraw Library location that will integrate dining, study and collaboration spaces, some classroom space and a library presence to serve students, faculty, staff and visitors. "We're looking at siting it on the McGraw Library site," Lawton said, adding the team will "innovatively integrate all the uses of that building," including a small catering kitchen.
Board members pressed firms on technical and programmatic details during a firm-by-firm review. Several members asked whether mass timber was being pursued; Lawton said the university is "definitely interested" and will explore mass timber "if [it is] an option for us economically." Members also flagged the campus tunnel and steam infrastructure beneath the McGraw site as a critical circulation and utility concern that must remain functional during construction.
The board discussed each of the six proposals in turn. The predesign firm (identified in the proposals as Firm D) received particularly positive comments for demonstrating continuity with prior work and for bringing deep project knowledge, while other firms were praised for aesthetics or engineering strength but questioned on Minnesota-based staffing, clarity of lead roles and evidence of prior collaborative work. Several board members asked for clearer descriptions of on-site engagement, sustainability leadership and academic library expertise among proposed consultants.
After the reviews, the board moved to interview three finalists using a 20-minute presentation followed by 20 minutes of questions and answers. The motion passed by voice vote. University representatives asked for a short off-record huddle to confirm which three firms they wished to advance; the board paused to allow that consultation.
In a separate procedural vote earlier in the meeting the board approved a motion to continue the current slate of officers through July (a statutory requirement to hold elections in the first meeting after June 30), also by voice vote.
What happens next: University staff will select and notify the three firms to be interviewed; the board will reconvene to conduct interviews and then select the shortlist for the project. No final designer selection or contract award occurred at the Feb. 3 meeting.
