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: 30 May 2001 Report Date: 5 June 2001
Location: 300
Macmillan
Project: Wells College
Master Planning
Project No: 00068
Subject: Science Building
Schematic Design Meeting 2
Attendees:
Wells College Ellen
Hall
Candace
Collmer
Niamh
O’Leary
Margaret
Flowers
Christina
Wahl
HOLT
Architects, P.C. Grace
Chiang
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. G.
Chiang reviewed the most current revisions to the proposed Science
Building. She commented that LeCesse
Construction the Construction Manager has made a preliminary review of the
project and early indications are that the costs are higher than budgeted. This has resulted from a combination of
higher costs per square foot and the higher gross square footage of the current
building layout compared to the original projections of the January 2000
Revised Program. The current L-shaped
footprint, which resulted from the site constraints, and the space of the
atrium have caused much of the increase in square footage. There have also been a few areas where the
sizes of the spaces have crept up in size, such as the aggregate area of
storage and prep. Over the next few
weeks HOLT will be reviewing the plans and making suggestions for ways to
reduce the gross square footage. At
this time there is no intent to compromise the agreed upon program spaces of
the agreed to program. Spaces that
exceed that program will be identified for discussion. As this evolves this will be reviewed with
the group.
2. Proposed
First Floor:
a. The
Lecture Hall –
i.
Orientation of the lecture hall was discussed. Faculty voiced concern that the number of
seats may still be insufficient to accommodate all the larger college
functions.
ii. G.
Chiang discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a horseshoe shaped seating
layout. This shape is most
appropriate for interactive discussion, debate and case studies. This configuration will not be the best
arrangement for courses that depend heavily on A/V presentations. Seats at the outer ends of the horseshoe
will be at acute angles to the screen and will have extremely poor sight lines
to the screen at the teaching wall.
The faculty agreed this would be problematic for many science courses
that rely on projected information.
HOLT will continue to make alternative suggestions for layout, and will
incorporate ideas that arise from the planned field trip (see below).
iii. C.
Wahl offered to arrange a visit to some lecture spaces and lab spaces at
Cornell Vet school. HOLT will
coordinate this field trip with the faculty to also visit a range of other
lecture spaces at Cornell and lecture and science lab spaces at Ithaca
College.
b. The
door between the prep room door and Lab type E will be eliminated.
3. Proposed
Second Floor:
a. The
door between the prep room and Lab Type D will be eliminated.
b. The
door between the prep room and Type B will be eliminated.
4. Proposed
Third Floor:
a. The
door between the prep room and lab Type D at the north will be eliminated.
5. Proposed
Teaching Lab type G:
a. Provide
a minimum of one pair of electrical receptacles at each student station. It was noted that it is desirable to have
fully flush top surfaces on the benches.
G. Chiang noted for safety reasons the outlets cannot be flush with the
top surface of the bench, however, the receptacles could be on the face or
underside of the benches.
b. Provide
one gas outlet and one sink for each 8 seat-bench group.
c. Student
benches: 27 or 28 inches high fixed
benches. The companion stools need to
be adjustable. It would be ideal to
accommodate a storage cabinet to accommodate 2 microscopes, front to back, for
each pair of students (24 total).
d.
In addition tall storage cabinets at the perimeter
of the room are needed to accommodate 48 more microscopes, a storage capacity
of 72 microscopes total in the lab.
e. Two
large work sinks should be located the far ends of the perimeter bench with a
centrally located fume hood.
f.
Several wall cabinets should have glass
fronts. Base cabinets should be a
combination of cabinets and shallow drawers.
Mineral sample collection requires shallow + 6 inch high drawers
. Some of this storage might be in
the Storage Room.
g. Each
lab will be designed and wired for current and future A/V requirements.
h. Space
for a locker under the perimeter counter.
M. Flowers will verify size.
i.
The adjacent Lab prep/storage space needs to
accommodate:
i.
(1) Full size refrigerator.
ii. (1)
Large sink.
iii. (2)
Paraffin ovens each approximately 1 ½ feet
x 1 ½ feet to be used on the counter in the Prep area when in use and
stored in a cabinet when not.
iv. (1)
Slide warmer 2 feet x 2 feet to be used on the counter in the Prep area when in
use and stored in a cabinet when not.
v.
(1) Drying oven 2 feet x 2 feet.
vi. (1)
Water bath.
vii. Incubator.
6. Proposed
Teaching Lab Type D-Second Floor
a. More
storage cabinets are needed around the perimeter of the room. HOLT will review the current proposed layout
and will slightly reduce the width of the space between the student benches and
try to add counter and cabinets along the south wall at either side and
underneath the windows.
b. Student
benches: 6 feet wide x 5 feet deep 4-student sitting height fixed benches with
a center base storage cabinet storage between the students. Post meeting revision: Change to standing height benches.
c. Locate
the fume hood at the far corner of the lab near the window.
d. Locate
sinks at perimeter bench in the center and at the end near the teaching
station.
e. One
sink at the end of each four-seat bench is adequate.
f.
Provide electrical receptacles similar to those in
Lab G noted above.
g. Provide
one gas outlet for each four-student bench cluster.
7.
Proposed Teaching Lab Type D Third Floor –
North
a.
Locate the fume hood in the corner, adjacent
to the teaching wall.
b.
Student benches: 6 feet wide x 5 feet deep standing
height benches for four students. Each
station needs a gas outlet, electrical and data. Would ideally like to have a cabinet below the bench that would
hold four microscopes, 2 per station.
It was noted that this may not be achievable.
c. A
small narrow shelf, several inches above the bench with a 6 – 8 inch wide
surface would serve for to hold small equipment. Electrical and gas for each station could also be located
here. Consider a sink trough located
along the centerline of the bench between facing students. One sink at the end of the bench is
sufficient.
d. Closed
cabinets and shelving are preferred.
e.
It was agreed that a minimum + 5 feet should
be allowed between back-to-back student station.
f.
More cabinets are necessary. HOLT will review the current proposed layout
and will slightly reduce the width of the space between benches to add to a
length of 18-inch deep cabinets along the north wall.
g. Additional
storage cabinets at the perimeter of the room are needed for 24 more
microscopes. If the student bench
cabinets can only accommodate one microscope per station than the perimeter cabinet
storage would need to be increased to accommodate 48 microscopes for total
microscope storage capacity in the room for 72 microscopes.
h. A
two-person sitting height section of bench at the perimeter bench is needed for
specialized microscope work. The
remainder of the perimeter bench would be at standing height.
8.
Proposed Teaching Lab type D Third Floor –
East
a. Standing
height benches with comfortable adjustable chair stools. Consider the possibility of having a
computer monitor shared between every two to four students. Provide a microscope cabinet to hold one
microscope for each student at the benches.
b. Gas
outlets at the perimeter bench would be sufficient.
c. A
small narrow shelf, several inches above the bench would serve to hold computer
monitors.
d. Provide
a knee space and storage cabinets under a countertop hood
e. Microscope
storage for an additional 24 microscopes is necessary in wall cabinets, for a
total storage capacity in the lab for 48 microscopes.
f.
Consider a sink trough located along the centerline
of the bench between facing students.
g.
Consult Tom Vawtner for additional requirements in
this space.
9.
General Discussion about Biology Teaching
Labs:
a. Storage
or hooks should be provided for coats either immediately inside the door to the
lab or in a central location in the corridor.
G. Chiang commented that coat hanging in the corridor would have to be
within a fire rated enclosure since all the corridors in the building are part
of building code required means of egress.
Everyone agreed that if the provision is made behind a door it would be
highly unlikely that the students would sue it.
b. A
full size refrigerator is needed in each teaching lab except Lab D on the
Second Floor.
c. It
was the consensus of the faculty that all fume hoods should include sinks large
enough for ease of cleaning.
d. Distilled
water is needed available in each lab.
e.
Acid/Base storage needs will be evaluated and
cabinets provided in the prep and storage space.
f.
All labs must have convenient and quick access to
eye washes and emergency showers.
g.
The teaching station will be moveable.
10. General
Discussion:
a. It
was agreed that a single elevator for the building would be acceptable as cost
saving measure.
b. It
is to be assumed all teaching labs will be wired for computer and ceiling mounted
video projection equipment. The
research labs will also have data and telephone jacks in multiple
locations. These details will be
reviewed with the faculty at a later date.
c. Discussed
the pros and cons of markerboard writing surfaces vs. chalkboards. The traditional chalkboard is preferred by
many faculty. The disadvantage of the
chalkboard is the associated chalk dust which may be incompatible with
sensitive equipment and computers.
Faculty noted that the disadvantage of markerboards is that proper
markers seem to never be available and that if an incompatible marker is used
it can leave unremoveable marks.
Concensus was not reached. This
matter will continue to be considered and discussed.
d. Provide
a teaching-wall writing surface that has a permanent grid guide on 30-50% of
the writing area.
e. G.
Chiang noted for information that the cost of furnishings and equipment is in a
separate budget from the construction budget.
f.
Drinking fountains currently do not appear on the
proposed plan. They will be provided in
the area of the toilet rooms.
g. Window
locations have not been finalized and will be further developed in conjunction
with the building exterior elevations.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina
Lacey
Cc:
Attendees, L. Ryerson, D. Hutchinson, A. Rollo, C. Bailey, S.
Heinekamp, T.
Vawtner, L. Schwab, H. Barone, G. Gillespie, J. Woolford