April 4, 2002
Plans for the new science building are well underway, and the most recent task assigned to the subcommittee was future possible uses of the Zabriskie Building. In mid-November, co-chairs Heinekamp and Purdy polled the faculty for suggestions for adaptation of the spaces. Nine suggestions were received, and five distinct proposals, which may be workable for Zabriskie, were devised. The purpose of this open meeting was to present these scenarios and invite further comments and ideas regarding the use of Zabriskie.
Chair Heinekamp gave an overhead presentation of these draft scenarios, explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal (see attached handout). In the development of the scenarios, it was assumed that there would be no major addition of useable space and that an elevator and second exit staircase (most likely outside the existing building) would be provided. It was stressed that the overheads were sketches of what might be possible and were meant to be no more than that. All scenarios will require additional charrette-style discussions with the disciplines involved and continued interaction between all affected parties before they become realistic plans. It was pointed out that the science faculty met over the course of two years to draw up the plans for the new science building.
During the presentation, clarification was sought on the number of faculty offices proposed in some of the scenarios. In some it appears that classroom space is being compromised, while in others the number of required faculty offices was not accommodated. Ms. Chiang explained that the scenarios were based on the "ideal" programs proposed in the charrette sessions with the various disciplines and were not challenged to see if they would be workable programs. During the discussion of the Studio Arts scenario, Professor Roberts asked if skylights would be installed. This is possible but it has not been discussed. Again it was stressed that the scenarios were just sketches of possible uses of the building and are not realistic plans at this point. Chair Heinekamp stated that all five scenarios could work, but some appear more workable than others. The Studio Arts proposal appears to be the most problematic because of the ventilation issues.
The purpose of the subcommittee's task was to explore configurations that might fit and might be feasible. Zabriskie is one of the most prominent and centrally located buildings on campus, and it is important that the building not stand empty once the new science building is completed. In addition, the sooner a consensus can be reached regarding the academic programs to be housed in Zabriskie, the sooner the fund raising process can begin. It will also be necessary to project where other departments will go once programs are vacated from their present spaces, which could be the next stage of the subcommittee's work.
The question was asked if the subcommittee was working under the assumption that Barler and Campbell would be demolished. Chair Heinekamp made it clear that this assumption was not part of the subcommittee's work. The need to come up with the scenarios was driven by the fact that Zabriskie would be empty once the new science building was completed. The question of a space or building being taken out of use or service was pressed. The Board of Trustees have retracted their endorsement of the Master Site Plan as presented to the community in Fall 2000, but Mr. Woolford stated that as we move down the line and add an additional 55,000 square foot building, the fiduciary responsibility will be to make sure that operating costs do not get out of hand. It was suggested that if the Master Site Plan is off the table, the model in the library be removed. It was agreed that this should be done.
The subcommittee was thanked for their hard work and careful deliberations. The consensus was that it was very helpful to have a visual presentation of the possible adaptations for Zabriskie. The plans and drawings will be placed in Macmillan 317 for public perusal. Chair Heinekamp asked that any new ideas or additional comments on the scenarios be sent to him for the subcommittee's discussions.
At this time, Dean Hall discussed the role of the subcommittee and its reporting structure to the Academic Program and Policy Committee. She explained the awkwardness of carrying out the duties of the subcommittee, especially during the summer months when APPC does not meet. In addition, the scope of the work of the subcommittee is no longer limited to academic program planning. There is also a need to consider student life and campus environment issues. A small group of the subcommittee, representing all the constituencies of the college, met to discuss these concerns and have drafted a rationale for changing the role of the subcommittee. The proposal will be taken to APPC for their endorsement. Once it is approved by APPC, the joint groups shall request that the President of the College constitute the group as the Wells College Campus Environment Planning Committee. Concerns were raised because the present structure has served the community so well. It did, in fact, take us out of a crisis. Without this structure in place, some felt it would be setting the college up for another disconnect. Dean Hall explained that if the subcommittee were approved as a regular college-wide committee, subcommittees among its membership would be established to represent various areas of the entire campus environment. The subcommittees would include additional members of the community for information gathering purposes. Professor Garrett clarified that the academic program subcommittee would still report to APPC and still take their charge from them. It would work exactly like it is now. Establishing a regular committee would alleviate APPC from dealing with non-academic issues. In conclusion, Dean Hall stated that the new proposed structure would not break any connections, but would, in fact, open up new pathways and communication.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erna Coon, Secretary pro tem