Meeting Report
Date: 8 December 2000 Date:
14 December 2000
Location: Long Library
Project: Wells College Master
Planning
Project No: 98048E
Subject: Academic Functional Space Programming with
the Division of Social Sciences
Attendees: Wells College Ellen
Hall, Dean of the College
Nan
DeBello, Acting Associate Dean
Laura
Purdy, Professor of Philosophy
Milene
Morfei, Assistant Professor Psychology
Victoria
Muńoz,
Associate Professor of Psychology
Pilar
Greenwood, Associate Professor of Spanish
Tukumbi
Lumumba-Kasongo, Assoc. Prof. of Political Science
HOLT
Architects Grace Chiang
Tina
Lacey
Discussion:
1. Functional space programming is a translation of
vision, pedagogy, and curriculum into facility need.
2. Space programming must address the issues of:
a. How much space should be provided.
b. How many different types of spaces should be provided.
c. How many students and faculty need to be accommodated.
d. What types of functions need to be accommodated.
3. G.
Chiang detailed the functional space programming process. The purpose of functional space programming is
to identify a list of spaces with square footage assignments. The goal of the process is to develop a list
of spaces with space size assignments and to determine the best functional
relationships between different areas of study. The process will include various means of gathering information
and data as described in the Academic Functional Space Programming handout
(attached). Space sizes will be
determined by assessing the use and the number of occupants or stations
required in the space. Nationally
recognized benchmark standards such as SUNY space standards, MIT/WICHE space
standards and others will also be consulted.
This first phase of academic functional space programming will result in
a document which records a list of spaces which are arrived at by the consensus
of this group along with a verbal description of each space. In the next phase of programming more
detailed testing of the spaces will result with prototype space layouts.
4. G.
Chiang explained that this meeting is a continuation of academic functional
space programming. The goal of the
charrettes is to establish an ideal space function and to develop and
understanding of relationships between programs and desired physical
adjacencies. This space programming
process needs to be conducted simultaneously with curriculum planning.
5. The
information gathered from the Space Data Sheets will help provide information
to the process by detailing:
a. The
type of rooms.
b. The
square footage.
c. The
number of people that utilize the space at any one time.
d. The
function of the room.
6. It
was suggested that renovating an existing space as a model “smart” classroom
would give the faculty and students the opportunity to test the space. Two areas suggested for such a renovation
project were either Macmillan 302/302A/303 or Macmillan 321.
7. Discussed
classroom size, a classroom that has 20
stations is obviously too small for a class of 23, however, classroom with 30
stations may feel too big for that same class of 23.
8. A
Social Science lab teaching space with enough computers or plug-ins for student
to interact with the computer resources is needed.
9. Office
space should also be provided for a technical assistant.
10. It
was noted that Macmillan 331 echoes and is therefore difficult to lecture in.
11. Enlist
assistance from student groups to learn about their perceptions of the space
needs. Suggestions for soliciting
student input included:
a. Talking
with a representative from each major.
b. Addressing
a large collective of students with a specific agenda.
c. Creating
a web site to solicit suggestions and thoughts about the campus.
d. Working
with a representative group of students to develop a set of questions to which
their peers would best respond.
e. Formulating
questions with the assistance of the Psychology Department in order to solicit
the most positive responses.
f.
Inclusion of recent alumnae.
g. Meeting
with small focus groups.
12. Dean
E. Hall will organize technology workshops to help faculty have a better overview
of possible current and future technology trends in teaching and how new
technology could be potentially incorporated at Wells.
13. A
faculty tour of recently renovated spaces around campus and a demonstration of
the equipment in Macmillan Art History Room was suggested.
14. Consideration
should be given to space for Emeritus Faculty.
A suggestion was made that they might have space assigned to them in the
Library.
15. It
was suggested that some academic spaces such as seminar spaces, teaching
alcoves and academic offices might be considered for inclusion in the college
library.
16. It
was also suggested that every academic building should include informal meeting
spaces. This could be in the form of a
faculty or faculty/student lounge.
These kind of spaces tend to encourage ad hoc collaborative
learning. In a larger building like
Macmillan it was suggested that one space on each floor would be ideal. The spaces should have comfortable
furnishings, maybe a small meeting table and writing board, data jacks, coffee
maker, etc.
17. Similarly,
carving out nooks and alcoves off of corridors that encourage spontaneous
student/faculty interaction is desirable.
These spaces might also include comfortable durable chairs or benches, a
wall mounted writing surface, tack surface, racks for newspapers and
periodicals, electrical outlets and data jacks.
18. Faculty
expressed the desire to have access to samples and information about
furnishings which might make their spaces, offices and classrooms, more
efficient. HOLT indicated that if the
college desired they could assist in this effort.
19. Consider
solar power and “green” and building materials for renovations and
construction.
20. Discussed
the usefulness benchmarking by visiting peer institutions who have new
facilities and who may have included
creative facility solutions to challenges.
A suggestion was made that a portfolio of pictures and building plans
from other institutions be created and kept.
Visits to institutions by the group or by individuals could be shared
with all.
21.
G. Chiang emphasized the importance that faculty provide details
concerning the spaces they use. It was
determined an efficient way to gather space needs for general classrooms
requirements would be for each faculty member to outline classroom space needs for each
current and future course To facilitate
the gathering of this material with a level of consistency please outline the
following for each type of space.
a.
Describe and evaluate existing spaces:
i.
Identify each space by building and room number.
ii. Describe the positive and
negative aspects of furnishings and teaching equipment: A/V equipment, writing
surfaces, teacher’s station etc.
b.
Describe what is needed to improve the existing space.
c.
Imagine and describe the ideal classroom.
This work will also help
the college evaluate improvements that need to be undertaken in the near future
in order to support he academic programs.
d. HOLT
will forward prototype
classroom layouts that were created during the Science Building charrettes
for review and evaluation by the faculty.
22.
HOLT distributed a functional space program
for review and to serve as a basis for discussion at the next meeting. It was noted that some of the existing
classroom data, number of occupants and size of space seem incorrect. HOLT will be taking an on-campus detailed
survey of all the classrooms spaces and update this information.
Post meeting note:
Please note examples of general classroom have been forwarded separately. Also note directions for assessing current
and future needs for general classroom spaces.
Please provide this information to HOLT before the next round of
meetings. E. Coon will forward all
materials submitted to HOLT.
Prepared by,
HOLT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Tina
Lacey
c: Attendees, L. Ryerson, J. Woolford
Academic Functional Space Programming
Wells College
Goals
and Process
1. Goals
of Program Study
a.
Establish ideal space
program.
b.
Discuss current and
projected space needs.
i.
Appropriate
relationships between program areas/divisions/areas of study.
2.
Space Needs
Programming
a.
Programming charrettes.
b.
Faculty and staff
develop background/base information for space programs.
i.
Define and describe types
of spaces needed to conduct current and future academic programs.
(1)
Define current space use
issues.
(2)
Describe current space
allocation.
(3)
Identify needed space
allocation.
ii.
Describe activities of
each academic program.
iii.
Consider shared common use
spaces to maximize interdisciplinary use.
iv.
Discuss the impact of
emerging technologies, changes in pedagogy and curriculum.
(1)
Computer technologies,
how can technology support curriculum.
(2)
Distance learning.
(3)
Multi-disciplinary
curriculums.
v.
Determine critical
relationships between spaces.
c.
Solicit input from
students.
i.
Define their needs
ii.
Determine constituency
to include.
d.
Documentation.
3.
Space Needs
Tabulations
a.
Develop preliminary
space programs and relationship diagrams based upon programming charrettes and space
data sheets collected.
i.
Compare space needs to
benchmark standards.
ii.
Develop idealized
program.
iii.
Prioritize program.
iv.
Develop space
relationship diagrams.
b.
College review of
preliminary programs.
4.
Match Programs with
Facilities
a.
Assess required program
adjacencies.
b.
Develop alternatives for
program locations
c.
Preliminary testing of
programs against space available in proposed facilities.
d.
Formulate recommendations.
Return to Notes from Campus Planning Charrettes home page