OWNER: The Republic of Austria
ARCHITECT: Atelier Raimund Abraham, NYC
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING ENGINEER: Ove Arup and Partners, NYC
CURTAIN WALL CONSULTANT: R.A. Heintges Architects Consultants, NYC
CONCRETE SUBCONTRACTOR: Slattery Skanska, Whitestone, NY
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Hanscomb Inc., NYC
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER & GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Barney Skanska, NYC
DEVELOPER: Bundes Immobilien Gesellshaft, Austria

The Austrian Cultural Forum is a project that was almost never built. It began with a worldwide design competition and selection of a winner seven years before construction actually began.

In addition, the project had to be re-bid three times. By the time the project was bid for the third time, the New York construction community needed to be convinced it was worth bidding on because they already saw it as a "problem project."

Finally, a bid was accepted for the 22-story, 33,000-sq.-ft. building - a building whose design mandated an articulated sloped curtain wall, exposed architectural concrete and a zinc metal panel wall system.

In addition, the site, located mid-block with adjacent properties on three sides, was difficult to stage. It required careful analysis to develop an appropriate construction sequence. More significant was the building's 25-ft. wide by 80-ft.-deep footprint for a 278-ft.-high building which did not allow many options for placement of a hoist and tower crane. To meet this challenge, a logistics plan took into account these constraints and also factored in the means for completing a precise architectural concrete project with a complicated curtain wall system.

While the schedule was also key to the project, the budget was of even greater importance. The only solution was extensive value engineering to bring the project in at $20 million.
Value-engineered items included changing the exterior panels for the rear and sides of the building from a powder-coat metal to Rheinzink; a reduction in the amount of HVAC control systems; elimination of a solar panel at the top of the building; and less costly lobby finishes.

The building's infrastructure also posed a challenge. Elevators, bathrooms and all vertical service requirements for the mechanical and electrical systems had to be squeezed into the small footprint while maximizing usable area. The need to maximize the usable area also presented a challenge in determining the best type of mechanical system. Space limitations led to the use a unitary heat pump system. This eliminated the need for too many duct risers, resulting in a pair of mains that carry both the heating and cooling requirements for the structure. In addition, specifications for the building's infrastructure stipulated that the heat pumps would be located above the bathroom areas wherever possible to prevent them from taking up floor space.

Routing of the ducts from the various units to the zones they served was a great challenge due to space constraints. The solution required coordination of all of the structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing elements in a tightly constrained space.

The slenderness and height of the building also mandated that the building be a concrete structure. Another interesting structural point of interest is the building slopes 11 degrees to meet the zoning envelope requirements and the high levels of reinforcement and high level of high-strength concrete required additional care and supervision on the part of the contractor.

The jury said "every aspect of the project was a challenge from the site to the forming of the project." They called it a one-of-a-kind project European standards, precise tolerances and exacting dimensions.