The following report was prepared by the
Architect and will be assumed to be correct unless written exceptions are
received within two weeks of publication date.
Meeting Report
Date: 7 December 2000 Date:
12 December 2000
Location: German Culture Room, Long Library
Project: Wells College Academic
Functional Space Programming
Project No: 98048F
Subject: Academic Functional
Space Programming with the Division of Arts
Attendees: Wells
College Ellen
Hall, Dean of the College
Nan
DeBello, Acting Associate Dean
Rosemary
Welsh, Associate Professor of Art History
Jeanne
Goddard, Associate Professor of Dance
Nancy
Gilbertson, Lecturer in Music
Crawford
Thoburn, Professor of Music
Theodore
Lossowski, Associate Professor of Fine Arts
Bill
Roberts, Professor of Art
Susan
G. Sandman, Professor of Music
HOLT
Architects Grace
Chiang
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. Functional space programming is a translation of
vision, pedagogy, and curriculum into facility need.
2. Space programming must address the issues of:
a. How much space
should be provided.
b. How many different types of spaces should be provided.
c. How many students and faculty need to be accommodated.
d. What types of functions need to be accommodated.
3. G.
Chiang detailed the functional space programming process. The purpose of functional space programming
is to identify a list of spaces with square footage assignments. The goal of the process is to develop a list
of spaces with space size assignments and to determine the best functional
relationships between different areas of study. The process will include various means of gathering information
and data as described in the Academic Functional Space Programming handout
(attached). Space sizes will be
determined by assessing the use and the number of occupants or stations
required in the space. Nationally
recognized benchmark standards such as SUNY space standards, MITWICHE space
standards and others will also be consulted.
This first phase of academic functional space programming will result in
a document which records a list of spaces which are arrived at by the consensus
of this group along with a verbal description of each space. In the next phase of programming more
detailed testing of the spaces will result with prototype space layouts.
4. B.
Roberts asked whether the proposed removal of a building reflected on any sort
of proposal to eliminate the program(s) housed in the building. What is the future of art at Wells? E. Hall and G. Chiang responded that it is
absolutely the intent that the arts remain a core and important part of the
Well curriculum. This process is to
help insure that better facilities be planned for all. It was pointed out that this programming
process would not be necessary the intention were to eliminate the programs.
5. Discussed
the issue of future programs and needs and how to account for future space
requirements? N. DeBello responded
that evaluation of current program curriculum and space needs must occur
simultaneously to make judgments for the future curriculum.
6. The
question of utilization was raised and it was pointed out that it is
unrealistic to assume that specialty spaces such as those which serve the arts
could achieve as a high a utilization rate as more general use spaces. G. Chiang agreed that specialized spaces are
assumed to be not as well utilized as other curriculum space but it is the goal
of a building project to make the best utilization a space by creating
environments that are as flexible and sharable as possible.
7. J.
Goddard commented that during this process consideration must be taken in
regard to spaces that are not formally used for classes but are utilized
throughout the day as project and informal teaching areas.
8. It
was agreed that class scheduling could be improved to allow for better
utilization.
9. A
suggestion was made to provide space for “casual” users. Facility space should be considered to
accommodate student organizations and non-majors that frequently utilize Art
Department space and supplies. It was
suggested that a place to make banners, darkroom, music practice room and like
spaces could be appropriately incorporated in space planning for the student
union.
10. E.
Hall comments that a goal of the master plan is creating better
adjacencies. Faculty should be giving
consideration to adjacent relationships.
11. B.
Roberts commented that the design, the character, the architecture and ample
space are equally important in either renovation or new building. The SUNY spaces he has seen lack character
and are aesthetically very bad. G.
Chiang clarified that the use of SUNY space standards is for space size only,
not for space design or character.
12. G.
Chiang requested suggestions concerning solicitation of student input, faculty
suggested the following groups for solicitation:
a. Sr.’s
and Art Majors
b. Recent
Alumni
c. Invite
Sr.’s to gather information from peers.
d. Student
Groups
i.
Henry’s VIII
ii.
A Capella
iii.
Kastalia
e. Piano
Students
f.
Wells Consort
g. It
was suggested that faculty be kept separate from the student input process.
13. J.
Goddard offered to forward a copy the report Future of Dance that
details student input concerning their opinions of where dance as Wells is
headed in the future.
14. G.
Chiang reminded faculty that completed space data sheets, for each required
current and future space, provide much of the base data for the academic
functional space programming assessment.
Erna Coon can provide blank forms and will forward completed forms to
HOLT.
15. A
suggestion was made that if and when a faculty administrative support position
is realized that person should be located near the front door and also serve a
reception function.
The next round of meetings will be arranged by
field of study: visual arts, music and dance/theater. E. Coon will schedule these meetings for the beginning of the
Spring Semester.
Post meeting note:
Please note examples of general classroom have been forwarded separately. Also note directions for assessing current
and future needs for general classroom spaces.
Please provide this information to HOLT before the next round of
meetings. E. Coon will forward all
materials submitted to HOLT.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina Lacey
Cc: Attendees, L. Ryerson, J. Woolford
Academic Functional Space Programming
Wells College
Goals
and Process
1. Goals
of Program Study
a.
Establish ideal space
program.
b.
Discuss current and
projected space needs.
i.
Appropriate
relationships between program areas/divisions/areas of study.
2.
Space Needs
Programming
a.
Programming charrettes.
b.
Faculty and staff
develop background/base information for space programs.
i.
Define and describe
types of spaces needed to conduct current and future academic programs.
(1)
Define current space use
issues.
(2)
Describe current space
allocation.
(3)
Identify needed space
allocation.
ii.
Describe activities of
each academic program.
iii.
Consider shared common
use spaces to maximize interdisciplinary use.
iv.
Discuss the impact of
emerging technologies, changes in pedagogy and curriculum.
(1)
Computer technologies,
how can technology support curriculum.
(2)
Distance learning.
(3)
Multi-disciplinary
curriculums.
v.
Determine critical
relationships between spaces.
c.
Solicit input from
students.
i.
Define their needs
ii.
Determine constituency
to include.
d.
Documentation.
3.
Space Needs
Tabulations
a.
Develop preliminary space
programs and relationship diagrams based upon programming charrettes and space
data sheets collected.
i.
Compare space needs to
benchmark standards.
ii.
Develop idealized
program.
iii.
Prioritize program.
iv.
Develop space
relationship diagrams.
b.
College review of preliminary
programs.
4.
Match Programs with
Facilities
a.
Assess required program
adjacencies.
b.
Develop alternatives for
program locations
c.
Preliminary testing of
programs against space available in proposed facilities.
d.
Formulate recommendations.
Return to Notes from Campus Planning Charrettes home page