1 / 47

CAMPUS PRESENTATION| APRIL 30 , 2012

TITAN STUDENT UNION FEASIBILITY STUDY. CAMPUS PRESENTATION| APRIL 30 , 2012. PRESENTATION OUTLINE. OBJECTIVES PARTICIPATION & PROCESS PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FEE SENSITIVITY SATELLITE OPERATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT CONCEPT NEXT STEPS DISCUSSION. OBJECTIVE.

palila
Download Presentation

CAMPUS PRESENTATION| APRIL 30 , 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. TITAN STUDENT UNION FEASIBILITY STUDY CAMPUS PRESENTATION| APRIL 30, 2012

  2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE • OBJECTIVES • PARTICIPATION & PROCESS • PROGRAMS AND SERVICES • FEE SENSITIVITY • SATELLITE OPERATIONS • EXISTING CONDITIONS • PROJECT CONCEPT • NEXT STEPS • DISCUSSION

  3. OBJECTIVE To provide a comprehensive feasibility study of the options available to the ASI as it considers expanding the Titan Student Union facilities in order to improve service delivery to the CSUF campus community.

  4. KEY QUESTIONS 1) Which program elements and services are underserving the campus community and which of these spaces deserves greatest priority in the future expansion of the TSU? 2) What is the fee sensitivity of CSUF students and what scope of the facility expansion could be entertained through the increase of the existing mandatory Campus Union Fee? 3) What other campus locations are students interested in having student union services and should the TSU potentially invest in establishing satellite operations?

  5. KEY QUESTIONS 4) What extent can existing facility mechanical systems can still be utilized and/or which systems upgrades should be considered? 5) What scope of facility expansion can be financially supported through existing ASI resources (cash reserves)? 6) What scope of facility expansion can be financially supported through other contributing resources (e.g., donor funds, debt capacity, 3rd part capital investment, etc.)?

  6. PARTICIPATION • Conversations with approximately 200 students in 10 total focus groups/intercept interviews • 6,400 completed survey responses • Valid statistical data • Sample representative of University population

  7. PROGRAMS & SERVICES

  8. FOCUS GROUPS • Many visit the TSU for food during lunch time or to meet with friends & study; TSU was described as being “good but could be better” and “it feels like an office building” • Spaces & services of the TSU enjoyed by students: • Games room, bowling alley, & outdoor courtyard • Alumni lounge & meeting rooms for studying • Food court options – Panda Express, Juice it Up, & Togo’s • Spaces & services of the TSU not enjoyed by students: • Student org. offices, Portola Pavilion, & Titan Theater • Inconvenient hours of operation – Food court closed on weekends; not enough seating in food court area

  9. BENCHMARKING

  10. PROGRAMS & SERVICES Q6-23. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following amenities and spaces in the TSU (n=7,470): Students were very satisfied/satisfied most with main level outdoor space, non-food retail, and TSU Food Court dining

  11. PROGRAMS & SERVICES • TSU Primarily Viewed as a Lunchtime Destination – Food is a Significant Driver • Average Student Visits Less Than 2 Times Per Week • Comfortable Place to Relax, Better Parking, New Furniture Top Improvements to Increase Use • Email Kiosks and Commuter Lounge Most Desired New Spaces • Price/Value, Food Selection and Variety, Hours of Operation are Top 3 Areas of Improvement for Food Service

  12. DEMAND BASED PROGRAMMING • Demand for drop-in Union Spaces • Depth and Breadth • Activity Prioritization • Space Reconciliation

  13. DEMAND BASED PROGRAMMING Population is based on current CSUF enrollment.

  14. DEMAND BASED PROGRAMMING

  15. DEMAND BASED PROGRAMMING Population is based on current CSUF enrollment.

  16. PROGRAM AREAS • Lounge Spaces – 6,000nsf to 8,000nsf • Student Organization Spaces – 5,000nsf to 7,000nsf • Conference & Meeting Rooms – 5,000nsf to 8,000nsf • Multicultural Center Space – 1,000nsf to 2,000nsf • Study Space – 1,000nsf to 1,500nsf • Food Service Seating – 1,000 to 1,500nsf • Support Space – 8,000nsf to 12,000nsf

  17. FEE SENSITIVITY

  18. FEE SENSITIVITY • The approval of Option A ($85 to $95 per semester) would offer : • An expansion of approximately 60,000 gross square feet (nearly half of the size of the current TSU) and be able to include all of the spaces below: • Dedicated informal lounges with soft seating, tables, and study areas, • Small group study rooms, • Dedicated spaces for student organizations and clubs, • State of the art meeting rooms for clubs and organizations, • Expanded food court, and • Additional ballroom for large campus events. • Additionally, the Titan Student Union would undergo a moderate renovation of nearly 70% of existing spaces. This renovation would bring portions of the facility up to the same standards and feel of the expansion. Some of these renovated spaces could include the entry lobby, courtyard, meeting rooms, and food court.

  19. FEE SENSITIVITY $50 - $60 - Option B $85 - $95 - Option A $20 - $30 - Option C

  20. FEE SENSITIVITY Q80. Which option to improve the TSU do you prefer? (n=6,480) • The preferred option is a tuition increase of $20 to $30 per semester.

  21. FEE SENSITIVITY Q84. How high a priority should CSUF place on improving the TSU? (n=6,437) • 58% of All Students said improving the TSU is a Moderate to High Priority

  22. FEE SENSITIVITY Q82. If CSUF improves the TSU to better meet your needs, how often would you use it? (n=6,462) Before Improvements After Improvements • The number of visits per week would increase an additional 42% for all students from 1.9 to 2.7 times/week – Largest increase would be from non-core users

  23. SATELLITE OPERATIONS

  24. SATELLITE OPERATIONS • Students are most commonly in McCarthy or Mihaylo Hall throughout the day; however, largest number of students leaves the campus from 5PM-8PM • Mihaylo Hall provides coffee shop/grab-n-go food concept (Starbucks) with lounge and table seating on 1stfloor • Potential opportunity to provide convenience store concept or lounge space near McCarthy Hall, limited need for other union spaces

  25. EXISTING CONDITIONS

  26. ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT • Disjointed Wayfinding, Stratification of Levels, Separation of Quiet Versus Loud Areas • Disjointed Circulation, Multiple Stairs • No Central Node, Gathering Space, Building Focal Point • Underutilized Lower Level – Garden Courtyard • Compartmentalized Second Floor • Food Court Kitchens Require Significant Investment

  27. MECHANICAL ASSESSMENT • Existing TSC Plant Does Not Have Capacity to Accommodate Expansion • Requires New Systems, Connection to Univ, or New Plant • 16 AHUs are Obsolete and Will Need Replacement • Systems Controls are Outdated • Single Pane Glazing Should be Replaced with Efficient, Low-E, Double-Glazing • Heating and Cooling in Cooking Areas Not Properly Addressed

  28. ELECTRICAL / PLUMBING ASSESSMENT • Electrical Capacity at Panels is Maxed Out • Older Lighting Fixtures Have Already Been Replaced With New • Old Pipes are Creating Domestic Hot Water Issues • Only Portions of the TSU are Sprinklered

  29. PROJECT CONCEPTS

  30. CONCEPT DRIVERS • Address Program Shortfalls • Align with Budget • Maximize Value of Improvement to Existing and New Spaces

  31. EXPANSION POTENTIAL • Focus on Southeast Corner of TSU • Capture Lower Games Court • Redefine Entry/Focal Point • Work with Existing Building Perceptions- Quiet / Loud • Improve Connection to Bookstore and Campus Arteries Rec Center Book- store TSU Vis Arts CPAC

  32. NO FEE INCREASE • New Construction Only, No Renovation • Addresses Some Needs of Student Community • TSU Infrastructure Issues Still Remain • $6M Construction Cost • $10M Project Cost • Reserve Funded • Opens Fall 2016

  33. ENROLLMENT HISTORY FROM 1970 Project Opens Expansion Opens 36,100 TSU Opens 36,000 24,400 21,500 Today

  34. FEE COMPARISON

  35. $30 / SEM FEE INCREASE • $11.1M in New Construction • $5.6M in Renovation • $2.1M for Food Service • $2.9M for Infrastructure • $1M for Site / Bookstore Connection • $32.2M Project Cost

  36. STUDENT LOUNGE STUDENT LOUNGE COMMUTER LOUNGE

  37. GROUP STUDY AREA GROUP STUDY ROOMS GROUP STUDY AREA

  38. STUDENT ORG LOUNGE MULTICULTURAL CENTER STUDENT ORG WORK AREA STUDENT ORG WORK AREA

  39. PROJECT COSTS • $30 Per Semester Increase • Collections Start Fall 2013 • Reserves Contribute $10 M • Opens Fall 2017

  40. RISKS/UNKNOWNS • Campus Enrollment Growth • Projected at 0% for the Next Years, the Increasing • Construction and Operations Inflation • Existing TSU Debt Service Payments • Opportunities to Fund Through Reserves • Refinance

  41. NEXT STEPS

  42. NEXT STEPS • Develop an Information Campaign to Education Students AND Faculty/Staff About Why the TSU Needs Improving • Timeline • Committees • Marketing Materials • Presentations • Partnerships

  43. NEXT STEPS • Identify Partners to Contribute Additional Funds or Other Nearby Improvements • ASC / Bookstore • Third-Party Vendor • Additional Funding will Allow for Additional Improvements to the Existing TSU

  44. TITAN STUDENT UNION FEASIBILITY STUDY CAMPUS PRESENTATION| APRIL 30, 2012

More Related