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: 5 April 2001 Report Date: 10 April 2001
Location: Henry Wells Room, Long Library
Project: Wells College
Master Planning
Project No: 00068
Subject: Science Building
Schematic Design Meeting 2
Attendees: Wells
College Ellen
Hall
Candace
Collmer
Harriet
Barone
Tom
Vawter Niamh
O’Leary
Chris
Bailey
Margaret
Flowers
Scott
Heinekamp
Christina
Wahl
HOLT
Architects, P.C. Grace
Chiang
Graham
Gillespie
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. G.
Chiang distributed two classroom needs assessment analyses based on statistics
from Fall semester 1999. One was an
actual classroom needs analysis and the other projects a 30% increase in
enrollment (please see attached).
These serve as replacement pages for the duplicated Spring semester 1999
included in the revised program report as discussed at the last meeting.
Existing plans of Zabriskie Hall were also distributed as requested by the
faculty at the last meeting.
2. Two
sets of space relationship diagrams were distributed. These were prepared to promote dialogue about critical space
relationships and space adjacencies.
The first set illustrates a possible distribution of spaces for a
two-story building; the second example illustrates some possibilities for a
three-story building. G. Chiang noted
that these diagrams are bubble relationship diagrams and that once ideal
relationships are determined strategies for the actual building site will be
developed. This will include size,
shape, orientation of the building to the views, and the potential for a
portion of the building being subterranean.
The possibility of the green house on the roof was also discussed.
3. M.
Flowers voiced concern over the loss of wooded areas and open space on the
campus. The current site for the new
science building is the location of the existing parking lot between Macmillan
and Long Library. G. Chiang explained
that there are plans for expansion of the woods parking lot to replace parking
spaces that will be lost in the Macmillan lot, as well as to relocate other
parking currently taking place in the center of campus along the roads. The current plan is to expand the woods lot
to the north and west (into the stand of pines). The hope is to not disturb the area east of the current lot. However, there may be some constraints
imposed by the existing water lines (which run from the lake to the water
tower) and underground reservoir, which currently exist on the property just
north of the existing lot. The actual
footprint of the new parking lot has not been finalized. If difficulties are encountered in the area
north then expansion to the east may also be necessary.
4. Discussion
concerning the space relationships and the function of the spaces ensued with
the following comments:
a. Storage
& Prep Space
i.
C. Collmer continued the discussion begun last week
that the space for storage and prep in the current proposed program seems
insufficient. Equipment that currently
resides in hallways or offices must be given space consideration in the storage
and prep spaces. The equipment includes
centrifuges, glassware dryer, incubators, freezers, etc. It was noted that some equipment is likely
to be replaced with new models. While
the new equipment might vary a little in size from the existing equipment,
making a list will begin to address the issue of space. HOLT suggested that the faculty assemble a
list of all anticipated equipment requirements, with equipment dimensions noted
whenever possible and a rough square foot estimate of additional storage
needs. This detailed information will
assist in the current evaluation of storage and prep space adequacy and will be
used later in the design process for equipment and furnishings layouts.
ii. As
previously discussed, much of the equipment currently located in the corridors
and teaching labs should be relocated to storage and prep areas. Equipment should be dispersed among the
storage and prep rooms throughout the building. Care must be taken in planning the location of the
equipment. The equipment must be
compatible with other equipment or chemicals in the same space. For example, the autoclave should not be
located in any areas where dry chemicals are stored.
iii. Storage
and prep areas should be located adjacent to teaching labs as shown on the
diagrams.
b. Support
Space
i.
It would be desirable to have the Shop space on the
same floor as the physics lab.
c. Labs
i.
It was noted that the small physics lab, with
stations for 12 students should be windowless.
ii. The
organic chemistry lab and the instrument room should be located on the same floor. An adjacency would be desirable.
iii. The
32-seat general chemistry lab could be immediately adjacent to the inorganic
research lab and the two could share storage and prep space.
iv. The
general chemistry lab and the biology labs could be on the same floor.
v. Ecology
and environmental science labs should be located near an exterior
entrance. The entrance should
accommodate temporary van parking. C.
Wahl commented that the loading area should be a back door function and be
located away from the general public path of travel.
vi. It
is not necessary to locate the both of the chemistry labs on the same floor.
vii. The
computer lab will serve both GIS and other general lab functions. This lab does not have a critical proximity
to any other space.
viii. All
labs will be wired for computer hookup and have dedicated a/v teaching
equipment.
ix. It
would be advantageous to locate teaching labs and research labs near one
another to facilitate sharing of equipment.
Teaching labs may be utilized as overflow research lab space.
d.
Office Facilities
i.
Offices with lake views would be desirable.
ii. Faculty
noted that it is unnecessary to have the office spaces open directly into
research lab spaces. Proximity is
necessary but immediate adjacency is not critical.
iii. The
Lab Technician’s office should be centrally located.
e. Classrooms
/ Support
i.
The large, currently 80 seat, lecture hall could be
a windowless interior space. This would
eliminate the problems of needing room darkening devices.
ii. Faculty
wondered if the 80-seat lecture hall was large enough.
iii. The
prototype diagram on page 16 of the report shows a lecture hall that is entered
from the front. It would be desirable
if the lecture hall could be entered from the rear, or from both the front and
the rear in order to minimize disruptions by late arrivals.
iv. There
is currently one 30-seat classroom space programmed. It was suggested that perhaps there should be two 30-seat
classrooms and one 20-seat seminar.
v. Teaching
spaces should be distributed throughout the building rather than all grouped
together. It was agreed that the
lecture hall should be on an entry-level floor for easy access from the
exterior.
f.
Special Use Facilities
i.
HOLT noted that the ideal location for the
greenhouse is on the south side of the building with the main axis in the north/south
orientation.
ii. One
lab should be located with easy access to the greenhouse.
iii. The
animal facility should be a windowless space and does not need to be
immediately adjacent to any particular space.
C. Wahl will be asked to forward animal facility space details.
iv. The
proposed darkroom appears to have adequate square footage.
v.
The cold room should be located on the same floor
as the research labs for chemistry and bio-chemistry.
g. General
Comments
i.
Each lab, classroom, lecture will have the
potential to be equipped with several computer stations as well as full
multi-media presentation abilities.
ii. A
mix of lecture, classroom, seminar, research, office and lab space on each
floor is desirable.
iii. It
was the overall consensus among faculty that the diagrams which distribute the
program on two floors is more desirable than three floors. The activity created
by the two floor distribution will help interaction and a sense of
community. Discussion led to the
conclusion that interaction among the disciplines results from space
adjacencies as well as the provision of common use spaces, such as lounges,
atriums, etc. It was agreed that
teaching labs do not need to be located with the consideration of promoting
interdisciplinary interaction.
iv. T.
Vawtner noted roof access would provide opportunities for astronomy
observation.
v. It
is desirable to have lounge spaces near the research labs.
vi. C.
Collmer commented that an open stair at the center of the building would help
in the feeling of everyone feeling connected.
G. Chiang explained that while building code will require rated and
enclosed fire stairs, typically at the end of corridors, an unenclosed
inter-communicating stair between two floors may be possible.
vii. Research
labs, faculty offices and teaching labs should be proximate to one another but
not necessarily immediately adjacent.
Access across corridors is not a problem.
viii. HOLT
noted that an elevator is required for accessibility by persons with
disabilities.
5. The
next meeting will take place at 4:30 PM on Wednesday 11 April 2001.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina
Lacey
Cc: Attendees, L. Ryerson, D. Hutchinson, A. Rollo, J. Woolford