The architectural firm that built the Petersen Events Center has accused Pitt of making it… The architectural firm that built the Petersen Events Center has accused Pitt of making it perform “substantial additional services” without compensation, as well as of using the building to increase the reputation and standing of the University and to take more money from students, alumni and faculty.

But Pitt has replied to Apostolou Associates/Rosser International’s latest charges, defending the Pete as a necessary addition to the University. The architects filed their counterclaim after Pitt filed a complaint against the them in December.

“While there is no contradiction between striving for excellence in the classroom and in athletic competition, the reputation and standing of the University is, first and foremost, the product of its academic endeavors, i.e. the teaching and research of its faculty and achievements of its student body,” Pitt said in its reply to the counterclaim.

“The Petersen Events Center was intended to replace aging, overcrowded athletic facilities and to provide a site for convocations, which previously had to be held at non-university locations,” Pitt said in response to the counterclaim.

The architects’ counterclaim, however, said the benefits of the Events Center came at a cost to members of the University community.

“The additional portions of the project designed by Apostolou/Rosser allowed the University of Pittsburgh to market improvements to increase its reputation and standing as a university, both increasing its income through increased costs to its student, increased alumni contributions and additional profits from the Petersen Center itself,” the architects’ counterclaim said.

Although Pitt denies building the Petersen Events Center to impress the public, the University has expressed great pride in it.

In a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, “Couple Gives $10 million to Pitt,” from June 1999, former Pitt Athletics Director Steve Pederson and Chancellor Mark Nordenberg both spoke about the Petersen Events Center.

“I know that, given the reaction we get now from students and their parents who tour campus, this is the kind of thing that is going to lead them to say, ‘Wow,'” Nordenberg said.

Pederson echoed Nordenberg’s enthusiasm.

“This isn’t a college gym. This is going to be a first-class building,” Pederson said.

In a Pittsburgh City Paper article titled “Running Forward,” former Pitt Sports Information Director Beano Cook showed his excitement for the building.

“Most of the top programs would give up a family member to have a facility like this,” Cook said.

Another instance in a long line of finger-pointing between the firm and the University is the issue of the budget for the building.

In their reply to the new matter and counterclaim, Pitt said the architects knew that they must design the Petersen Events Center to a constricted budget set originally at $50 million, but later increased to $55 million.

According to Pitt’s reply to the architects’ counterclaim, the architects agreed to prepare drawings for a $55 million building in March 1999. Pitt said the architects ignored these orders and would not stick to the budget.

In their reply, Pitt also said the architects did not meet the scheduled dates for completion of the design.

“After reasonable investigation, the University has no knowledge of how defendants developed their design budget, whether said budget was appropriate under the circumstances and whether they used more manpower resulting in significant costs,” Pitt’s reply said.

The University said in the reply that the Petersen Events Center was originally intended to be approximately 395,000 square feet, according to the initial sketches drafted in February and March 1999. The size of the building increased to more than 400,000 square feet in the final design, Pitt’s reply said.

Most of this increase was made by the architects to accommodate mechanical systems for the building, and not program additions made by Pitt, according to Pitt’s reply to the architect’s counterclaim.

The University also acknowledged that the Pete’s spot on the site of the former Pitt Stadium was not the originally intended site.

Initially, a tentative building schedule was set for a site near Trees Hall, Fitzgerald Fieldhouse and the OC Parking Lot.

The original site was smaller, because it did not include athletic offices and the recreation center.

In its reply, Pitt said that it paid the architects $627,300 for “wasted design,” plus more than $5 million for the new design.

The University claims that the design work of the original site was not destroyed and that the final stadium site should have actually been easier to create.

“The design work of the initial site was not totally wasted and Defendants did not start the stadium with a blank slate,” Pitt’s reply said.