1 / 17

AGENDA – PUBLIC FORUM July 9, 2009

AGENDA – PUBLIC FORUM July 9, 2009. Welcome and background Rod Lehnertz Flood Task Force Update Gregg Oden Site Selection Studies Joe Hibbard Public Discussion 8:30 Closing . Site Selection for Hancher, Voxman, Clapp Replacement Facilities. Public Forum July 9, 2009.

hasad-zimmerman
Download Presentation

AGENDA – PUBLIC FORUM July 9, 2009

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. AGENDA – PUBLIC FORUMJuly 9, 2009 • Welcome and background Rod Lehnertz • Flood Task Force Update Gregg Oden • Site Selection Studies Joe Hibbard • Public Discussion • 8:30 Closing

  2. Site Selection forHancher, Voxman, Clapp Replacement Facilities Public Forum July 9, 2009

  3. Alternative Sites for HVC Replacement Facilities

  4. HVC Building Program Requirements Used in the Site Selection Process • Existing HVC Building: 296,924 gsf • Proposed Base Program for HVC Replacement 315,675 gsf • Proposed Base Program Plus Possible Upgrades 418,881 gsf

  5. HVC Parking Program Requirements Used in the Site Selection Process • Existing HVC area parking serving HVC and Theatre Building 1018 spaces • Proposed HVC and Theatre Building parking 1300 spaces

  6. Site Selection Assumptions • The HVC building program requirement for site testing purposes will be 418,881 gsf, and parking demand will be 1300 spaces • Hancher, Voxman and Clapp should be located together as a single complex on a single site • The School of Music should be within reasonable walking distance of the undergraduate classroom core of the campus • Project should be a model for sustainable design strategies

  7. LAND Ownership status Site size Site shape Expansion potential Utilities availability Topography, flood exposure Proximity to related programs Existing use and possible displacements Competition for future University uses CIRCULATION 10. Vehicular access and traffic impacts 11. Parking availability; event and daily use 12. Service access 13. CAMBUS access 14. Pedestrian access SENSORY ENVIRONMENT 15. Appropriateness of architectural scale and massing 16. Views and visual impacts 17. Open space impacts 18. Image and character 19. Symbolic associations – historical and cultural values 20. Potential for creation of quality outdoor spaces 21. Solar exposure, shadow and microclimate impacts Site Selection Criteria

  8. LAND Ownership status Site size Site shape Expansion potential Utilities availability Topography, flood exposure Proximity to related programs Existing use and possible displacements Competition for future University uses CIRCULATION 10. Vehicular access and traffic impacts 11.Parking availability; event and daily use 12.Service access 13. CAMBUS access 14. Pedestrian access SENSORY ENVIRONMENT 15. Appropriateness of architectural scale and massing 16. Views and visual impacts 17. Open space impacts 18. Image and character 19. Symbolic associations – historical and cultural values 20. Potential for creation of quality outdoor spaces 21. Solar exposure, shadow and microclimate impacts Site Selection Criteria - critical factors

  9. Evaluation of Alternative Sites for HVC Replacement Facilities Sites with Critical Flaws Site 2: lack of proximate parking Site 3: inadequate size; flood exposure; inadequate parking Site 4: flood exposure at Ralston Creek 100 yr floodplain; inadequate parking Site 5: inadequate size Site 7: inadequate parking; flood exposure Site 8: inadequate parking; utilities not available

  10. Viable Site Options Park Road West site Clinton Street Burlington Street East site

  11. Site 1, West Site Option

  12. ADVANTAGES Site is owned by University Adequate land area Above 500 year flood plus two feet elevation Land available for possible geothermal well fields Site is served by CAMBUS Prominent visibility of Hancher from Dubuque St. and Park Rd. Continues the historic association of HVC with the Arts Campus and Iowa River ISSUES Distance from the undergraduate classroom core, student services, and related Arts Campus facilities Functional and visual impacts on Levitt Center Will require building new parking spaces to make up for those displaced by new buildings Parking will be distant from the Hancher front door because of site shape constraints Impacts on river park green space Preliminary West Site Evaluation

  13. Site 6, East Site Option

  14. ADVANTAGES Close to undergraduate classroom core, student services and support functions in downtown Facilitates a pedestrian oriented campus Adequate land area Above 500 year flood plus 2 feet elevation Least cost scenario for utilities Tangible contribution to vibrancy of the east campus and downtown Served by City transit and CAMBUS ISSUES Requires acquisition of land Distant from other arts programs located on the Arts Campus May require parking coordination with City ramps, or increase of University parking supply on Lot 11 Displacement of the Engineering Research Building Preliminary East Site Evaluation

  15. Studio Arts Facility Site Selection Program Requirement: 86,000 gsf to 116,873 gsf Adjacency Need: Close proximity to Art Building West

  16. River Street Art Building West Viable Sites for Studio Arts Facility

  17. end

More Related