December 14, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 8:38 a.m. in the Henry Wells Room.
Erna’s minutes from last meeting were approved and applauded for their coherency and completeness.
Scott reported that he had solicited the faculty asking for ideas on a new use for Zabriskie Hall. Out of the responses, he was able to fashion six sets of ideas which he shared with this subcommittee (see attached “Summary of Zabriskie Academic Adaptation Ideas”). Scott also distributed drawings of current floor plans and square footage of Zabriskie ( see attached). He asked that we use this meeting to start the process of ranking the suggestions and express the reasoning behind our priorities.
Scott urged us to use this time to get moving. Arthur made similar comments. He urged the subcommittee to endorse the master planning process. He suggested that there may be funding possibilities for Zabriskie, but they may not last if we wait too long to make our decisions. Furthermore, without a decision about what should happen in Zabriskie, administration and BOT may slow down progress on new science building. Arthur said that this subcommittee should try to work in partnership with BOT and administration.
Crawford expressed some dismay that we were being asked to prioritize from a list that we had just received. He urged that we take more time to reflect about possibilities, scenarios. Melissa made a similar point. Arthur and others noted that we had met over the summer, had extensive tours of the buildings, and had already much information at hand.
Dean Hall pointed out that the BOT were going to be on a retreat this February and hence not making a lot of decisions about buildings at February meeting. She seconded Arthur’s idea that we should endorse the planning process. She said that we need to work with the understanding that some disciplines will move to new places. She suggested the need that we make real steps toward a decision about Zabriskie decision. We still don’t have final approval for science building.
Ellen also said that we need to think of academic clusters, of grouping disciplines together: that we need to look at what’s feasible technically, what makes sense in terms of the academic program, and what scenarios would follow from particular suggestions. But we have to start by first focusing on Zabriskie, and then go from there. She noted that there is some concern that the new science building is on hold—so we need to show that we are working and finding a solution for Zabriskie and want to move ahead.
Scott then went through 6 suggestions. (See attached for original sheet.)
1. Use a large space as an online/media (smart) class room,
2. A suite of rooms to serve as an Academic Support/Learning Center.
3. Rehearsal and production spaces for Theater, Dance
4. Rehearsal and production spaces for Theater, Dance, and Music
5. Humanities and Social Sciences faculty and teaching spaces
6. Studio and Book Arts
Early reactions to this list:
Crawford noted the shortage of printers during peak times and urged that we consider adding more capacity to print—perhaps by expanding number of computer labs.
Crawford also suggested that it would be much better to attach a Black box theater and production spaces to Macmillan , closer to Phipps. Others agreed.
Scott reported that Diane Koester no longer was suggesting an academic learning center in Zabriskie, for that would mean taking it away from the Writing Center and Math clinic in Macmillan (although Koepp noted that perhaps all three could be together there or somewhere else).
Ellen spoke up in favor of an academic quad: a grouping of buildings perhaps linked together in some way. For example, we could strengthen the connections between social sciences, natural sciences, and computer science (think of neuroscience, environmental studies or animal psychology as fields with roots in several disciplines). One could put the social sciences in Zabriskie: with social science labs into existing labs, special observational labs fitted with one way windows/mirrors, close access to GIS labs. Perhaps computer science could also be there with their labs; perhaps even the photo labs and graphics could be here. In this scenario we should consider making spaces flexible—rooms that could be labs or classroom. Laura mentioned that we ought always to remember the need for growth: that social sciences would need more square footage than they currently occupy in Macmillan. Grace said that she had tried to project more space based on faculty surveys, etc. Laura also wondered if a new library might be designed to contain faculty offices or classrooms.
If the social sciences were to move to Zabriskie, then we could move the foreign languages/literatures to Macmillan into the spaces they formerly occupied, thereby freeing up Cleveland Hall (the most flexible space, according to the architects). There would no doubt be technical things we would need to consider carefully.
The subcommittee next agreed to eliminate # 3 on the sheet, as a black box
theater and production support spaces
seemed better to be in or near Phipps.
Discussion of Master
Planning Process:
At this point Arthur again urged approval of the master planning process in principle principle. And the group discussed the status of the master planning document. Crawford said that he was not willing to sign on the old master plan. Others on the subcommittee said that master plan document as it stands is open to change and future decisions that we and others would make, based on all information available to us, but that it was the process that we should support. Our long term goal, as the Dean and others suggested, was to make sure that every program has first class facilities.
Scott and Melissa also expressed concern about precisely what we could endorse at the meeting and how it would be worded.
Ellen said she always assumed that we would need to reduce square footage on campus. For example, the auditorium is in Zabriskie, but it is to be used by everyone. She too urged that we speak up in favor of a vigorous master-planning process, saying that we need to make a statement that we are moving ahead.
Ann Rollo pointed out that we were not agreeing to a specific plan but to the process of master planning.
Jay noted that we did have the process going for a few moments there as we began to discuss scenarios and the consequences of moving programs. He witnessed it.
Arthur mentioned the five buildings in the report and the need for our subcommittee to see whether or not any of them were viable.
Next we worked on fashioning a statement which in the end read as follows:
The APPC SLRP is enthusiastic about working with the administration and the BOT toward accomplishing the master planning goals (as cited in “Master Planning: Goals and Objectives” document) in order to move campus planning forward. This motion presupposes that all academic programs will have excellent facilities in which to carry out their work. Now the subcommittee is moving forward with suggestions for the possible uses of Zabriskie Hall and the effect that that will have on other academic facilities.
At this point the subcommittee members supported this statement with a voice vote with one vote in opposition.
Discussion of
buildings and scenarios.
We discussed briefly Morgan Hall and its possibilities, if Book Arts were moved to Zabriskie. Grace and Jay pointed out that Cleveland Hall would likely be the easiest building to reconfigure by virtue of its open spaces.
Scott suggested that we keep in mind three criteria as we sort through possible scenarios.
1. Fundability
2. Practicability
3. Smoothness of transition
Then we as a group went through some scenarios.
A. Moving Theater, Dance, and or Music to Zabriskie
What are some of the implications?
Such a move would empty Barler and Ballroom of Student Union, but would not open up other spaces.
Ideally these disciplines need flexible spaces, as well as specific spaces: green rooms, dressing rooms, box office, costume shop, scene shop, lighting, etc.
We might end up having to duplicate some spaces if located too far from Macmillan
Great need for black box theater—probably should be near Phipps, so that supporting offices and shops, dressing rooms etc could be shared.
B. Moving the Visual Arts Center
Including studio arts, book arts,
Would empty Campbell and at least some of Morgan
(could also include art history and slide library)
(could include graphics lab now in Morgan)
Zabriskie seems well suited for visual arts in some ways:
Large, open spaces, long walls,
Good lighting,
Book arts and studio arts have some of the same needs
These fields work with equipment, paint, ink, etc-
so would need good air handling capabilities
Good programming of relative clusters.
Then perhaps Morgan could become learning and advising support center?
On face of it, seems cost effective as far as move itself
Life safety issue, codes, upgrades important
Visual arts seems fundable and coherent.
C. Social Sciences, Education, math, computer science, (graphics lab)
Get adjacencies with science building. Creates a science complex.
Access to auditorium, GIS, etc
Provide space for new kinds of labs needed for social sciences in future
Esp. neuroscience labs, observation labs, etc
Frees up space in Macmillan which is currently overcrowded.
Could move FLLC to Macmillan which would free up Cleveland
Perhaps all learning centers could go in Zabriskie or Macmillan?
(Should we think about Morgan for arts then?)
We should remember that Education is part of Social sciences.
Somewhat fundable
Good programming connections in this scenario
Plan D. Humanities, Book Arts, (and perhaps FLLC, Graphics Lab, slide library)?
Frees up a lot of space in Macmillan
Opens up possibilities of more space for theater
(though maybe not in the right places)
Good academic cluster, related fields and interests
Empties Morgan
Empties Cleveland
Seems fundable and smooth transition
We need to think carefully if either Morgan or Cleveland are feasible for arts and music.
_____________________
Koepp suggested that we consider possible changes to the Sommer Center too, which is currently an underused space.
Is there a new use for it? As a campus hub: mail room or fitness center?
Ann Rollo pointed out that we would need to work with donor to make changes here
Scott then said that now is the time to play with numbers, keeping in mind the square footages, academic coherency, potential feasibility, and fundability for the four rather flexible combinations. We will keep discussing these issues next time
We adjourned at 11:20 a.m., after deciding to meet on Jan 28 at 9:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia J. Koepp