Science Building Design Kickoff Meeting, March 27, 2001

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:      27 March 2001

Report Date:         3 April  2001

     Location:         Henry Wells Room, Long Library, Wells College

  Project No:         00068

        Subject:         Science Building design kickoff meeting

 

Attendees:        

Wells College                                                                                                    Tom Vawtner

                                                                                                                        Niamh O’Leary

                                                                                                                        Chris Bailey

                                                                                                                        Candace Collmer

                                                                                                                        Harriet Barone

                                                                                                                        Jay Woolford

                                                                                                                        Ellen Hall

 

                                                                                                                        Jay Woolford

 

HOLT Architect, P.C.                                                                                      Graham Gillespie

                                                                                                                        Grace Chiang

 

 

Discussion:

1.             Introduction of the project team

a.             HOLT :

i.               Grace Chiang

ii.             Graham Gillespie

b.             M/E Engineering from Rochester, New York will be designing the mechanical and electrical engineering systems.  Unfortunately, Charlie Wilson who has been involved with us to date is too busy to stay on as part of the team.

c.             HOLT will also be bringing in other consultants who will be involved with the structural system design, acoustical and A/V systems, landscape architecture and civil engineering.  These consultants will not all be involved in the charrettes but as the project progresses some of these specialty resources may join some us from time to time.

d.             Ellen Hall will be leading the effort to ensure that the building meets the college’s long-term academic goals and mission.

e.             Diane Hutchinson will be involved in making sure the building develops within the financial budgets that have been established, and the planning and construction schedules for the college administration.

f.              Jay Woolford will be assisting the college in securing the funding for the project and assisting the college with project management.

g.             The college will retain a Construction Manager/Contractor within the next month to assist with planning for construction, budgeting and pricing, and establishing construction schedules.

 

2.             The schedule that we are striving to achieve is as follows:

a.             Complete schematic design by early summer, in approximately 3 months.

b.             Complete design development by late summer, in approximately 3 months.

c.             Complete Construction Documents around the end of 2001, in approximately 4 months.

 

3.             It is desirable to initially meet as a whole group, later breaking down into smaller groups to discuss detailed needs for each space.

a.             During schematic design the building footprint will be established, building plans will be worked out and three-dimensional development of the building will be determined.  General principles about the arrangement of each space will be affirmed.

b.             During design development detailed development of the spaces will be worked out.  For example exact cabinet details, outlet locations, and finishes would be discussed during this phase.

c.             Construction documents, drawings and specifications, are then prepared to represent the work to date for the CM/contractor to construct the building.

 

4.             Would like to meet weekly, mostly as a group for the remainder of this semester as schematic design is developed. Given the stated schedule it is important that we have the opportunity to meet during the summer, which is when most of design development will be completed.  At this time the thought is that 2-4 four meetings over the course of the summer might satisfy this need.   This will need to be reassessed as the time gets closer and we know how much has been accomplished during the rest of this semester.

 

5.             Review of the revised program dated 15 April 2000.  This material was distributed to the faculty for review prior to this meeting.  The following comments and discussion ensued:

 

a.             It was noted that a layout for Lab Type C is missing from the report.  Grace responded that Lab Type C was not deemed to be a desirable layout during the review of Lab Types and so it was excluded from the final report.

b.             In the Classroom Needs Analysis section of the report Spring Semester 1999 is included twice.  Grace will review which semesters were analyzed, and replace with missing information at the next meeting if required. 

 

6.             Lecture hall and classrooms:  Ellen pointed out that the site selected for the science building is very central relative to the other college academic facilities, therefore, an argument for including general teaching spaces for use by the entire college in this new building may be logical.  Jay indicated that the square footage for these spaces have in fact been included in the budget.  It was further clarified that the lecture hall should be a dedicated lecture hall and not try to serve too many purposes (e.g., it should not also be a concert hall, performing space).  The design will move forward with the inclusion of these spaces.

 

7.             Offices: the revised program on Page 8 indicates offices of 160 net square feet while the larger diagrams on page 28 indicate 150.  HOLT confirmed that the 160 is included in the tabulated total square footage numbers that have been used for budgeting.

a.             It was noted that each faculty member at Wells may very well teach a wider range of courses than faculty at a larger institution.  This results in the need for keeping more course materials in each person’s office.  There was continued discussion about the adequacy of the 160 net square foot office.

b.             Also discussed whether one additional office is required for visiting faculty, temporary faculty (e.g., sabbatical replacements), taking the total faculty offices to eleven.  In the end it seemed that the one additional office currently included in the program is adequate, so the total will be kept at ten.  It was noted than many of the existing offices in Zabriskie are +200 net square feet.  However, it was also noted that in the new program, all research activities would be conducted in dedicated research space and not in offices, while the current offices serve both these functions.

 

8.             Lounge: 

a.             Discussed the possibility of dividing the 400 net square feet, which is allotted to lounge space.  It was agreed that this might be desirable, perhaps having one lounge on each main floor level. 

b.             Discussed whether it is necessary to have a dedicated faculty/staff lounge.  Consensus seems to be that this was probably not required.

 

9.             Storage and Prep rooms

a.             Some concern was expressed about the size of prep and storage rooms.  The number of rooms indicated in the revised program may not be adequate.  It was agreed that the number of rooms could change by simply dividing up the total square footage assigned to these areas differently.  However, there was also concern that perhaps not enough total space was allotted to this function.  Faculty will think in detail about equipment and materials that should be located in these spaces and how these spaces will support the teaching and research labs.  (E.g., where will teaching microscopes, laminar flow hood, incubator, etc. be located.)  This discussion will continue at the next meeting

 

10.         It was questioned whether the number of labs programmed would be able to support the course schedule.  HOLT suggested that a mock-up schedule be run.  It was agreed that this would be an important issue to confirm.  Ellen and the faculty will pursue.

 

11.         Chris B. noted that he was planning on holding some of the small upper-level specialized chemistry courses in the research lab.

 

12.         The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday April 5, 2001 at 4:30 PM.   At that time we will try to conclude the confirmation and review of the functional space program and concurrently begin discussion about space relationships and proximities.  HOLT will bring some bubble diagrams outlining possible space relationships to assist this dialogue.

 

 

Prepared by,

 

HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.

 

 

Grace Chiang, AIA

Vice President

 

 

Cc:          Attendees, L. Ryerson, D. Hutchinson, A. Bellinzoni, M. Flowers, S. Heinekamp, L Schwab, C. Wahl