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
Date: 17 May 2001 Report Date: 22 May 2001
Location: 320
Macmillan Hall
Project: Wells College
Master Planning
Project No: 00068
Subject: Science Building
Schematic Design Meeting
Attendees: Wells
College Candace
Collmer
Harriet
Barone
Tom
Vawtner
Niamh
O’Leary
Chris Bailey
Christina
Wahl
Ann Rollo
HOLT
Architects, P.C. Grace
Chiang
Graham
Gillespie
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. G.
Chiang reviewed the latest revisions to the proposed Science Building and noted
the plan continues to evolve. A massing
model of the proposed building showed the building orientation on the proposed
site and first thoughts about roof lines.
Preliminary elevations of the south and west facades were as presented
for discussion.
2. Proposed
First Floor:
a. As
discussed during last week’s charrette the technician’s office has been
relocated to second floor location in the southwest corner formerly shown as a
lounge.
b. An
area was created for building maintenance.
Materials, equipment and cleaning supplies for maintaining the atrium
and entrance area can be stored in this area.
c. Faculty
noted that distilled water is necessary.
G. Chiang noted there is ample space in proposed mechanical rooms to
accommodate necessary equipment.
d. Lecture
Hall:
i.
Faculty determined that the horseshoe shaped
lecture as shown on page ?? of the revised program is the desired layout. This layout allows for more interactive
discussions. HOLT will revise plans to
accommodate.
ii. Faculty
noted some desirable for the large lecture space:
(1) Carpet,
at least in the aisles, provide an acoustical benefit. Issues of maintenance and cleanliness can be
addressed by having a cleanable surface under the seats.
(2) A
poster ledge around the perimeter of the room like that seen at Phillips Hall
101, Cornell is highly desirable.
e. The
Shop space will be reoriented so that its door is directly opposite and door in
the southeast corner of Lab Type ????.
3. Proposed
Second Level:
a. Faculty
Offices
i.
The faculty offices on the second and third floors
in the east wing have been repositioned relative to the exterior wall to reduce
the length of the walls of the adjacent research lab and stair protruding from
the building to the north perpendicular to the windows of these offices. A small gathering space has been created at
the entry area outside of these offices.
This solution was deemed better than before but perhaps still not ideal.
ii. Discussed
separating the doors to these offices as far from each other as possible.
b. Greenhouse
i.
The wall between the greenhouses and the atrium
could be glazed to bring more light into the atrium.
c. The
instrument room will be reoriented so that its door is directly opposite and
door in the southeast corner of Lab Type B.
d. The
lab bench arrangement of the Lab Type D in the southeast corner of the east
wing has been changed to be in conformance with the idealized layout of the
revised program to address concerns raised in the last meeting.
4. Proposed
Third Level:
a. Faculty
noted that the Cold Room should have direct access from the corridor as well as
from the Greenhouse area. HOLT will
adjust the layout.
b. The Collections space will
be reoriented to stack on top of the Instrument room on the second floor.
c. The
lab bench arrangement of the Lab Type D in the southeast corner of the east
wing has been changed to be in conformance with the idealized layout of the
revised program to address concerns raised in the last meeting.
5. General
Comments:
a. The
number of toilet room fixtures has been reduced to a total of 10 toilet
fixtures. It has been determined that
this is the minimum permitted by code.
b. Faulty
will confirm that the current proposed location and size of the Instrument
room, 10’x20’, is adequate.
c. Storage
and Prep space doors:
i.
Provide doors between the prep space and teaching
or research labs on either side.
ii. Provide
a door between the prep space and the corridor.
iii. Provide
doors between prep and storage spaces.
d. Currently
2 elevators are proposed. After some
discussion about the necessity of tow elevators it was agreed that it would be
ideal to have a passenger elevator located near the main entrances of the
building. It was noted that those
coming into a handicap parking space would likely be entering the building from
the east. It was also noted that it
would be desirable to have an elevator near the loading dock which can handle
the dirty and messy materials coming into and going out of the building. However, it was also agreed that should
there be budget problems the elimination of a second elevator could be
considered.
e. Concern
was expressed again about the adequacy of storage for labs, both in storage
spaces and within the albs themselves.
For example microscopes need to be stored in or immediately adjacent to
the labs where they will be used. There
may be at least one Biology lab that needs to accommodate three different types
of microscopes, one for each student.
G. Chiang noted that the next series of meeting will be to discuss in
detail the layout and detailed space accommodations of each of the lab
spaces. Quantities and sizes of equipment
that needs to be accommodated from the faculty will be crucial information for
these sessions.
f.
C. Wahl asked whether the sloped roofs will have
overhanging eaves. G. Chiang noted that
this has yet to be decided.
g. Attending
faculty noted that they ran a mock schedule and believe that the number of
classrooms and labs will be adequate.
h. Hooks
immediately inside the door at each lab, or lockers and a coatroom were
discussed as possible means to provide storage for student belongings while in
lab. Faculty noted that the current
conditions where students throw backpacks and coats in the floor of the lab is
extremely hazardous.
i.
Transitional strips between flooring materials must
not impede the movement of arts and other equipment on wheels.
j.
It was determined a field trip(s) to other campuses
to visit lecture halls, labs, and other teaching spaces could be informative
and desirable. It was agreed that
everyone would bring suggestions of places to visit to the next meeting.
The
next meeting is tentatively scheduled for 9:00AM Wednesday May 23. This will be coordinated and finalized
through Erna Coon The next series of
meetings will
be to discuss the lab spaces in detail.
It was agreed that it would be to everyone's benefit for all to
participate in as many of these charrettes as much as possible, even when the
discussion is not specifically about that individual's area, since there are
likely to be things learned and ideas shared from one lab to the next. HOLT will propose a schedule and agenda for
these next meetings.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina
Lacey
Cc: Attendees, L. Ryerson, D. Hutchinson, M. Flowers, S. Heinekamp, E. Hall, J. Woolford