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: 11 April 2001 Report Date: 16 April 2001
Location: 300 Macmillan Hall
Project: Wells College
Master Planning
Project No: 00068
Subject: Science Building
Schematic Design Meeting 2
Attendees: Wells
College Ellen
Hall
Candace
Collmer
Tom
Vawter
Niamh
O’Leary
Chris Bailey
Scott
Heinekamp
Christina
Wahl
HOLT
Architects, P.C. Grace
Chiang
Graham
Gillespie
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. G.
Chiang shared space relationship diagrams that were evolved from the comments
of last week’s meeting. These diagrams
also begin to reflect actual site issues: terrain, solar issues and pedestrian
and vehicular access. This set of
diagrams suggest a 3-story building arrangement with the east end of the lowest level
underground into the hill.
2.
Proposed First Floor
a. The
main entrances to the building are proposed to be located at this level. One entrance might open toward the west, or
Zabriskie Hall, and a second toward the south, or the front of Macmillian. This
arrangement could support both the existing pedestrian patterns as well as the
proposed concept of a pedestrian spine that traverses the campus between campus
buildings along a north south route.
b. This
proposed arrangement would allow a main mechanical space to be located
underground and largely out of sight at the east end of the site.
c. It
was determined at last week’s meeting that it would be ideal to locate the
80-seat lecture hall to be easily accessible for out-of-building users and
should be a windowless space to eliminate conflict with infiltrating natural
light.
d. The
12-seat physics lab should also be a space without windows so it seems to make
sense to locate it in the windowless area of this floor. S. Heinekamp commented that it would be
desirable to locate the 24-seat lab to be used by physics in proximity to the
12-seat lab. It would be preferable to arrange all faculty offices away from
activity centers and intermixed with faculty of all the science
disciplines. He further commented that
locating the labs used by physics on two different floors would also be
acceptable, but that the labs should be no more than 1 floor apart.
e. Perhaps
another alternative would be to locate all faculty offices on the top two
floors.
f.
It was noted that the darkroom could also be
located on this level.
g. The
physics research lab was left off these diagrams. This will be corrected by HOLT.
It would be ideal to locate it near either the physics faculty offices
or the physics teaching labs or both.
h. It
is suggested by the diagrams that the administrative assistant’s office and
supporting administrative storage be located on the entry level floor. It was agreed that this function should be
located close to the main entry door since it is anticipated that this staff
person will also serve as building receptionist.
i.
A suggestion was made that consideration be given
to locating the library and computer room on the main entry level, thereby,
perhaps making these spaces more accessible to students. C. Collmer noted that moving these programs
to the ground floor without supervision of faculty could be problematic. However, it was also pointed out that no
matter where these spaces are located, the faculty are not in the building all
hours of the day. This discussion will
be continued at the next meeting.
j.
The animal facility and supporting spaces are
suitably located at this floor level.
Concern was raised about smells from the animal facility and whether it
may be a problem to locate these facilities near the main entry lobby. G. Chiang noted that the stringent
mechanical ventilation systems that are required for animal facilities should
eliminate the need for concern about any of these issues.
3. Proposed
Second Floor
a. It
is proposed that the loading dock would be located on this level and approached
from the existing road from the east.
G. Chiang commented this was a natural location for the loading dock due
the natural grade.
b. Discussed
the possible locations for the Greenhouse. C. Wahl commented that the
greenhouse should be located where it will receive the maximum amount of sun
throughout the winter months and less than direct sunlight during the summer
months.
c. G.
Chiang commented that HOLT will be undertaking sun/shade studies to help
determine the best location for the greenhouse. HOLT will develop some preliminary studies for the next meeting.
d. The
pros and cons of locating the greenhouse at the front entrance of the building
were discussed. This discussion was not
concluded and will be continued at the next meeting.
e. It
was determined that several adjacencies revolve around the greenhouse. Environmental/ aquatic/ ecology, botany/
plant and organic chemistry labs could be located nearby.
f.
The Environmental Biology lab should be
located adjacent to the loading dock area.
g. The
collections room could be moved to another floor. T. Vawter commented that it
might be appropriate if the collection was adjacent to a lab where Vertebrate
Zoology is taught.
h.
The 16-student organic chemistry lab needs to be
adjacent to the instrument room.
4. Proposed
Third Floor
a. General
chemistry will use the 32-seat lab, so it may be preferable to locate it on a
lower floor for easy access. It should also have the cold room nearby. The cold room will be used
primarily for research in the chemistry department.
5. General
Comments
a. G.
Chiang noted the current space relationship diagram suggests both a service and
passenger elevator. At a minimum a
passenger elevator is required to satisfy building accessibility code
requirements, however, a second elevator could address service issues. Faculty noted, and it was agreed, that while
this would be a nice amenity, it may not be absolutely necessary and should be
weighed against the cost implications.
b. It
seems to be desirable to have the faculty offices throughout the building for
both closer student supervision and for proximity to research labs.
c. Locating
the greenhouse at the same level as the loading dock seems advantageous to
facilitate easy movement of heavy supplies and materials.
d. It
was noted that the greenhouse complex should have direct access from the
corridor (not be through a lab).
e. Faculty
requested that offices be located to take advantage of views and natural
light. The view of the ravine or the
lake would be preferable over a view of Zabriskie or Macmillan. Some feel that south light might be
preferable over north light, however, there was no consensus on this issue.
f.
An idea for a 3-story atrium space was discussed
and deemed desirable by all. It is
thought that this sort of vertical visual connection would be particularly
desirable to help promote the feeling of connection between all building
residents.
g. Small
lounges are currently proposed for each floor.
Additionally, the idea of gathering spaces outside faculty offices and
or research spaces will be carried forth as floor plans are developed.
h. Display
cases lining the corridors are desirable.
Storage underneath the cases would be ideal. G. Gillespie noted that main classroom corridors must maintain an
8’ clearance to satisfy the building code.
i.
Bulletin boards or tackable surfaces in all
circulation spaces, as well as in teaching spaces, are necessary. The boards do not need to be behind glass.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina
Lacey
Cc:
Attendees, M. Flowers, H. Barone, L. Ryerson, D. Hutchinson,
A. Rollo, A. Bellinzoni, J. Woolford, J Diamond, J. Dredger