I'm certainly familiar with those examples, but don't recall whether either of those others got as far as an RFP proposal winner being announced. Can they honestly pull the rug out from someone whom was announced as the winner, as in this case?
Well, if the State pulls something like that often, then they should expect either/both very low quality proposals (i.e., low sunk cost invested) in response to future RFPs or lawsuits aiming to recoup investments toward RFPs that were essentially fraudulent. Come to think of it, it's no wonder we get shite for design proposals in response to these...
www.lmp.com
The question is whether they actually have been issued a contract or not. Just winning an RFP is not signing a contract.
I think it is a safe presumption that there is a contract. The timetable suggests that construction would begin by the end of CY 2025, to allow for a 2028 occupancy of the redeveloped building.
If it were between the two, this version is somewhat better--it looks the worst from the "drone view", but the while height fetishists might be upset that the towers are shorter, the visual impression from within the courtyard (and presumably from the street as well) is less bulky and obstructive than the original renders posted a couple pages back. It's still a Frankenstein that pays nearly zero respect to the original, yet... those tall columns on the courtyard view do suggest some connection. The major concern with this is that it appears it obliterates the rotunda in the courtyard... I would hope that this would not be allowed to pass.For reference:
Not sure if you read what I posted but the lindemann has several dozen people who live there. They are getting care. The rotunda is the front yard for residents. I would be careful with saying “encouraging them to congregate there”—many of the residences have programs in the day and there’s a mental health clubhouse on Bowker St around the corner for occupational rehab and additional activities and skills building. Is all of this underfunded? You bet. But I’d say if you’re worried about “the farm” mentality, that’s only gonna increase when well to do people have to share outdoor space with people with serious mental illness, who were here first. And then you’ll see a push for moving all these services way out to some far flung suburban location nobody can get to, but that keeps the people out of the hair of all the well heeled bourgeois—and all under the auspices of precisely the opposite claims, stuff like “out in rural environment there will be more space for dedicated services” and stuff like that. That’s why, btw, I don’t like the whole rebuild the bridge plan to Long Island. Underneath all of the “asylum” ideas of having nice remote places for the mentally ill and addicted to go for treatment, there’s also a “let’s bus them as far away from normal society as possible” mentality underneath it all that is insidious as it’s the very opposite of the supposed justification of caring and concern being espoused.
