1 / 34

January 26, 2012

January 26, 2012. Key Themes from User Groups 01.16.12. 1 ) Historic character of the building a. All groups adamant about keeping the building’s historic character and restoring what has been changed (i.e.: windows/natural lighting)

ellie
Download Presentation

January 26, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. January 26, 2012

  2. Key Themes from User Groups 01.16.12

  3. 1) Historic character of the building a. All groups adamant about keeping the building’s historic character and restoring what has been changed (i.e.: windows/natural lighting) 2) Energy efficiency, temperature control and ventilation a. All internal groups had this as a top priority 3) Parking and traffic a. More parking to get students off the streets b. Better traffic patterns around and to campus c. Keep students on campus! Make them want to stay! 4) Food Service/cafeteria a. Need larger seating area to reduce the number of lunch periods b. Keep as many students on campus as possible c. Need a space students want to be in 5) Technology in instruction areas a. Faculty and students recognize the need for technology to be incorporated everywhere in the buildings and not just added on

  4. 6) Safe connection between the campuses a. Safety from slippery surfaces b. Protection from the elements c. Protection from vehicles d. Energy consumption from opening doors e. Internal circulation pinch point f. Security-multiple access points 7) Commons and info commons a. With food and beverage b. With connection to technology c. With good restroom facilities d. With display space for student work/accomplishments e. Formal and informal performance spaces 8) Bathrooms and plumbing a. Adequacy in numbers b. Quality

  5. 9) Safety and security issues(Architect/ Planner Issues) 1. IT building is in a really bad location a. Building is too small and limited in growth potential b. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic conflict c. Blocks potential N-S pedestrian traffic 2. Campus traffic is completely disorganized a. Pedestrian b. Vehicular 3. No good space for Small Learning Communities (SLC) 4. No good main entrances to building a. Several entrances but not convenient to parking b. The ‘real’ main entrance is buried c. South entrance/exit is jammed at class change d. delivery areas 5. Lighting a. Natural b. Man-made-adequate for the space usage 6. Educational use issues a. Fine Arts b. Industrial technology c. Library d. Culinary arts

  6. Setting Priorities

  7. Setting Priorities • Infrastructure for existing building • Heat/ ventilation • Windows • Technology • New spaces • Commons • Food service • Connections to south campus • Site work / traffic / parking • IT building (stay or go?) • SLC space creation

  8. Preliminary Information

  9. Scheme A

  10. Scheme A Notes • Leaves no large touches to original building (south hallway extension only) • Puts commons & food area (noisy) next to other busy/noisy spaces (field house) • Ties field house levels together • Commons/food areas great overflow for events (field house and auditorium) • “Green” roof over commons/food area • Minimal visual impact on campus • Visual to and from stadium • Great outdoor spaces • Between field house & stadium • Green roof • (if IT goes) creates a great “mall” on west (main) side of building • 4th Ave S utilities must be rerouted • Eliminates vehicle/pedestrian cross traffic • Opening up 20th Street S takes pressure off 3rd Ave S (focus traffic to the west) • Covers up the “ugly” face of Swarthout field house – new construction will be more compatible with original building • Use “no man land” to south of field house for future SLC area(s) • Parking on north & east sides for faculty and staff only – heavily landscaped and bermed (re: civic center) • Uses traffic pattern already defined (from existing hall) (will need to clean up hallway) • IT curriculum must be addressed off campus • SLC space creation

  11. Scheme B

  12. Scheme B Notes • Connects two existing vertical circulation areas (main building elevator/stair and field house/south campus) • Simply addressed floor elevation differences • Commons/food service areas – great overflow/event space with field house • IT building can stay or go (now or later) (a bit awkward if it stays) • Connection walkway covers a bit of the west elevation of the main building • Good visual connection to/from stadium area • Great outdoor spaces for students • Stronger visual impact on campus than Scheme A but less than C or D • Ties field house levels together • Puts noisy/busy areas away from academic/quiet areas • Eliminates vehicle/pedestrian cross traffic • Multi-level connection to main building possible • Does cover up much of Swarthout Building (+ or -) • Parking on north & east for faculty and staff only

  13. Scheme C

  14. Scheme C Notes • Elevated pedestrian bridge allows use of 4th Ave S • Elevated bridge allows existing utilities to remain in street ($savings) • Least cost scheme • IT must be addressed off campus • Repurpose IT building - (makes commitment for the building to stay long-term) • Ties field house levels together with new vertical circulation • Minimum site impact • Greatest visual impact on main building • Some visual connection to to/from stadium • Not much better connection to outdoor spaces for students • Commons/food service not easily used for field house events • Commons/food service usable for stadium functions (but only for GFHS?) • Could expand underground to north & west for SLC’s/other space needs • Opening up 20th Street S and reopening 4th to limited traffic simplifies vehicular traffic

  15. Scheme D

  16. Scheme D Notes • Several “touches” to original building – (treat with historic context) • Centralize – commons and food service • Commons/food service not immediately adjacent for overflows/joint usages • Commons/food service not able to be used for field house event overflow • Addition between buildings is great academic space growth for traditional or SLC’s (fine arts especially) • Larger visual impact on campus (+ or -) • Leaves IT building in place for IT (could also add-on if needed) • Increased parking close to buildings • Ties field house levels together • Ties all buildings together with simple traffic pattern • 4th Ave S utilities must be rerouted • Scheme places commons & food service closer to academic areas (+ or -) • Open 20th Street S for cleaner traffic on east side of campus • Not good connection to/from stadium • With IT building the original building is blocked (view and traffic) • Parking on north & east for faculty and staff only - landscaped and bermed • Service area on NE corner of campus (not great for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts) • Can use “no man land” south of field house (may need to reroute utilities) • Utilizes existing pedestrian traffic pattern from main building (south corridor)

  17. Images

  18. Key Themes

  19. KEY THEMES Identified by Stakeholder Groups, Oct 2011 – Jan 2012 • Historic Character • Energy, Ventilation, Temperature Control • Parking and Traffic • Food Service / Cafeteria • Technology • Safe Connection between Campuses • Commons • Bathrooms • Safety and Security

More Related