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: 8 December 2000 Date:
12 December 2000
Location: Long Library, Henry Wells Room
Project: Wells College Master
Planning
Project No: 98048F
Subject: Academic Functional
Space Programming with the Division of Humanities
Attendees: Wells
College Ellen
Hall, Dean of the College
Nan
DiBello, Associate Dean of the College
Miguel
Gil, Professor of Spanish
Waltraut
Deinert, Professor of German
Linda
Lohn, Associate Professor of English
Nancy
Gil, Lecturer in French
Pilar
greenwood, Associate Professor of Spanish
Beatrice
Farnsworth, Professor of History
Michael
Groth, Associate Professor of History
Cynthia
Koepp, Associate Professor of History
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. G.
Chiang explained that this meeting is a continuation of academic functional
space programming. The goal of the
charrettes is to establish an ideal space function and to develop and
understanding of relationships between programs and desired physical
adjacencies. This space programming
process needs to be conducted simultaneously with curriculum planning.
5. The
information gathered from the Space Data Sheets will help provide information
to the process by detailing
a. The
type of rooms.
b. The
square footage.
c. The
number of people that utilize the space at any one time.
d. The
function of the room.
6. Dean
E. Hall commented that the College is working toward the goal of being
financially “robust” and stable than it has been in recent years. A 450 student residential population and a
50 student non-residential population is the current College goal. Consideration for adding academic programs
will continue to be discussed in the curriculum planning process.
7. The
smallness of the college and its rural location make it more challenging to
attract and retain students, while the small size of the classes is an attribute.
8. Space
consideration will be made for potential additional faculty positions, a
technical assistant and academic administrative support staff.
9. Macmillan
lacks an adequate amount of seminar classroom space for current needs. There are 16-17 faculty members in the
humanities. Faculty thought that a
minimum of 4-5 seminar rooms would needed to fulfill the needs of
humanities. Currently seminars are
primarily taught in 3-hour blocks during the mostly in the afternoon and sometimes
in the evening. HOLT will be continuing
to develop recommendations for total number of classrooms for the College
through analysis of the registrar’s information and information gathered from
the faculty and the Dean’s office.
10. The
following maximum class sizes were suggested for these particular types of
courses:
a. Language
class – 15 students/ stations
b. Writing
class – 12 students/ stations
c.
300 Level English class – 12 students/
stations
11. There was consensus that
better space utilization might result if scheduling allowed seminars to be
scheduled with flexibility during other days and times of the week.
12. It
was suggested as a short-range goal should be to construct model “smart”
classrooms, one in each academic building would be ideal. This would allow use of these model facilities by all to sort
out design features that should be
carried forward as more extensive renovations are undertaken.
13. For
technology to be useful and convenient it should be as built-in and as user
friendly as possible. The current
“crash cart” of equipment is unwieldy to move and takes up valuable space in
the classrooms.
14. Consideration
should be given to space for Emeritus Faculty.
A suggestion was made that they might have space assigned to them in the
Library.
15. Discussed
the usefulness benchmarking by visiting peer institutions who have new
facilities and who may have included
creative facility solutions to challenges.
A suggestion was made that a portfolio of pictures and building plans
from other institutions be created and kept.
Visits to institutions by the group or by individuals could be shared
with all.
16.
Enlist assistance from student groups to
evaluate their perception of the space needs .
17. G. Chiang emphasized the importance that faculty provide details concerning the spaces they use. It was determined an efficient way to gather space needs for general classrooms requirements would be for each faculty member to outline classroom space needs for each current and future course To facilitate the gathering of this material with a level of consistency please outline the following for each type of space.
a. Describe and evaluate existing spaces:
i. Identify each space by building and room number.
ii. Describe the positive and negative aspects of furnishings and teaching equipment: A/V equipment, writing surfaces, teacher’s station etc.
b. Describe what is needed to improve the existing space.
c. Imagine and describe the ideal classroom.
This work will also help the
college evaluate improvements that need to be undertaken in the near future in
order to support he academic programs.
d. HOLT
will forward prototype classroom
layouts that were created during the Science Building
charrettes for review and evaluation by the faculty.
18. HOLT
distributed a functional space program for review and to serve as a basis for
discussion at the next meeting. It was
noted that some of the existing classroom data, number of occupants and size of
space seem incorrect. HOLT will be taking
an on-campus detailed survey of all the classrooms spaces and update this
information.
The next round of meetings will be arranged to
devote the first half of the meeting for the languages to discuss the
multi-cultural center and the second half of the meeting would be with the
large group to discuss general classroom spaces and the faculty media
center. 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