Architect Santiago Calatrava’s withdrawal in September from DIA’s $500 million South Terminal expansion project was foreshadowed by months of bad blood between the star designer’s firm and the contractor in charge of the venture.
A review of hundreds of pages of correspondence from Calatrava’s firm, Festina Lente; the contractor, Parsons Transportation Group; and Denver International Airport shows an increasingly dysfunctional relationship, especially between Festina Lente and Parsons, with DIA mostly on the sidelines, alternately clueless to the problems or attempting to referee the mud-wrestling.
The documents detail an escalating clash of wills among prominent international figures in architecture, aviation and engineering, with the struggle complicated by budget strictures that reduced Calatrava’s “signature” vision for the project as well as the noted architect’s illness in the period before he pulled out of the venture.
DIA’s two-year quest to get Calatrava-designed structures for the South Terminal expansion ended Sept. 7 when Tina Calatrava, the architect’s wife and business partner, told airport officials in a letter that they were withdrawing from the project.
Festina Lente had given up on the hope of “salvaging a process that has been plagued by financial constraints, unnecessary time delays and deep divisions between the design team and the program managers at Parsons and DIA’s representatives,” she said.
DIA, through Parsons, had paid Calatrava and Festina Lente about $13 million for work the architect and his firm had already performed.
For two months, lawyers have been hashing out a settlement that will define those elements of Calatrava’s design work the airport can use going forward.
Terms of the agreement are nearly final; they are expected to allow DIA to construct a project that incorporates the vision Calatrava unveiled publicly in July 2010, DIA manager Kim Day said.
“There are little signature elements that we are likely not going to be able to use, but the overall concept as you know it will be what we go ahead with,” she said. “I’m very pleased.”
If DIA had to redesign the South Terminal project, “we would have lost considerable time, so I think we’re very fortunate to be where we are,” Day added. “And I am going to give a lot of credit to the Calatrava firm for helping us being in this good spot.”
“Significantly” pared budget
Parsons, an international engineering and construction firm, won the $160 million program management contract for the South Terminal project in the summer of 2009.
The company was to manage a venture with a total budget of $650 million, which called for design and construction of a commuter-rail station at DIA’s terminal for RTD’s FasTracks train to the airport; a large public plaza extending from the terminal’s fifth level; a 500-room hotel atop the plaza; and, if financially feasible, a bridge for the DIA train over Peña Boulevard.
Calatrava revealed his initial designs for that complex 15 months ago, but in February, airport officials said the budget for the project was being pared to $500 million.
In April, DIA said it would not spend money on a Calatrava-designed rail bridge and the airport returned responsibility for constructing the span to the Regional Transportation District.
Shrinking the project’s budget and scope helped fuel the Calatrava team’s dissatisfaction with the venture, although Day said the architect successfully redesigned the project to accommodate the reduced budget.
Documents show Calatrava’s firm and Parsons at odds with each other throughout the summer.
In a June 23 letter to Festina Lente, Parsons design executive Scott Wood ard said Calatrava’s firm was behind schedule delivering a work plan for design of the project.
Festina Lente’s Frank Lorino soon shot back a letter accusing Parsons of violating its agreement with Festina.
In an escalating tit-for-tat, Parsons senior official Dwight Pullen on July 7 told Lorino, “Festina Lente has demonstrated that excessive use of overtime is the standard for your operations.”
To that, Lorino responded: “Putting aside the unprofessional and astonishingly insulting tone of your letter . . . we do not feel we are being unreasonable in our position.”
The same day, Parsons’ Woodard told Lorino, “Festina Lente’s failure to start schematic design is putting other members of the team and the program at risk.”
As these letters were being exchanged, Tina Calatrava wrote Day that “factors beyond our control” seem destined “to vitiate the project which is already months behind schedule and significantly reduced from its original budget.”
Of the poisonous Festina Lente-Parsons relationship, Day said recently, “I really believe from the get-go they had problems. I don’t think there was anything that caused a rift. I think they never came together as partners.”
The recriminations continued throughout the summer.
On July 11, William Bricker, Festina Lente’s New York-based lawyer, told Pullen in a letter that “Parsons stands in breach of its contract with Santiago Calatrava/Festina Lente.”
On July 25, Lorino wrote that “Parsons has no right to proceed with the development of a copyrighted Calatrava design without SCFL’s (Santiago Calatrava/Festina Lente) participation.”
Five days later, Day e-mailed Ginger Evans, Parsons’ Washington, D.C.-based senior vice president: “I am very concerned about the lack of progress in resolving the issues between PTG (Parsons Transportation Group) and SCFL.”
Tina Calatrava wrote Day on Aug. 10: “I have doubts if the concept can be developed, procured and constructed within the remaining time frame since we have lost five precious months from what was already a tight schedule.”
DIA caught in the middle
DIA is obligated to deliver the commuter-rail station to RTD in January 2014.
On Aug. 19, Tina Calatrava added: “It is incumbent upon DIA and Parsons to exercise professional competence and create the conditions under which we have the ability to perform our work. . . . It is no secret to say that we lost all confidence in Parsons.”
Day was again in the middle when Evans e-mailed her on Aug. 21, “Calatrava’s actions continue to indicate they are in a position hostile to the city and to Parsons. They continue to delay and are nonresponsive.”
On Aug. 28, Evans told senior DIA officials in an e-mail: “We strongly recommend that the City proceed to negotiate with a new architect for a new design concept while concurrently trying to resolve Calatrava’s issues.”
Soon after, Tina Calatrava sent her letter announcing the withdrawal of Santiago Calatrava from the project.
Lawyers then started work on the settlement agreement.
In a Sept. 14 e-mail to Day, Evans said she had reached Calatrava lawyer Bricker in Paris and “he was snippy, combative and, as always, arrogant. He explained that they were not delaying matters, but that he was dealing with a client in Switzerland, who was, in turn, dealing with ‘personal issues.’ “
Santiago Calatrava’s European base is in Zurich. The architect had been ill during the late summer and those close to negotiations among the parties say it is likely that the illness contributed to Calatrava’s decision to withdraw from the project.
Jeffrey Leib: 303-954-1645 or jleib@denverpost.com
