1 / 25

AN APPLIED PHILOSOPHY OF FACILITIES PLANNING

AN APPLIED PHILOSOPHY OF FACILITIES PLANNING. Robert A. Francis, Ed.D., HAIA Vice President for University Facilities Drexel University. GOALS OF FACILITIES PLANNING. Support teaching and research Improve the quality of campus life Enhance the public image of the institution

ziven
Download Presentation

AN APPLIED PHILOSOPHY OF FACILITIES PLANNING

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. AN APPLIED PHILOSOPHY OF FACILITIES PLANNING Robert A. Francis, Ed.D., HAIA Vice President for University Facilities Drexel University

  2. GOALS OF FACILITIES PLANNING • Support teaching and research • Improve the quality of campus life • Enhance the public image of the institution • Comply with statutory and environmental obligations • Conserve capital and operating costs

  3. GOALS OF FACILITIES PLANNING ARE ACCOMPLISHED BY APPLYING THREE PRINCIPLES • Dematerialization of mass • Preservation of function • Adaptation of labor

  4. DEMATERIALIZATION OF MASS The continuous process of making objects lighter, using less physical input with less waste Top: The Sorbonne Bottom: Illinois Institute of Technology

  5. PRESERVATION OF FUNCTION The ability of space to deliver benefits after the dematerialization of components Top: Library of Congress Bottom: Illinois Institute of Technology

  6. ADAPTATION OF LABOR The process by which workers with less experience or artistry than their predecessors are able to deliver dematerialized spaces with preserved functionality Top: Drexel University Bottom: JCLS

  7. DEMATERIALIZATION OF MASS • Smaller and lighter materials • Scaled-down functional requirements • Improved net/gross • Infill and build-over

  8. THE FUNCTIONS OF MASS • Support load • Resolve lateral thrust • Appeal aesthetically Top: Oxford University Bottom: University College London

  9. EVOLUTION OF DEMATERIALIZATION

  10. EVOLUTION OF DEMATERIALIZATION

  11. DEMATERIALIZATION AT PENN

  12. DEMATERIALIZATION AT IIT

  13. DEMATERIALIZATION AT DREXEL

  14. DEMATERIALIZATION AT DREXEL

  15. DEMATERIALIZATION AT DREXEL

  16. DEMATERIALIZATION AT DREXEL

  17. EVOLUTION OF DEMATERIALIZATION Factory-built components generate • Closer tolerances • Higher repeatability • Greater reliability • Less waste Than field-erected components Drexel University: Exterior Panel Fabrication

  18. EVOLUTION OF DEMATERIALIZATION

  19. DEMATERIALIZATION AND INCREASED FUNCTIONALITY Though the modern period (ending in the 1960s), dematerialization increased functionality by: • Increasing span • Increasing height • Decreasing cost

  20. THE LIMITS OF DEMATERIALIZATION

  21. THE LIMIT OF DEMATERIALIZATION The limit of dematerialization is achieved when increased functionality is no longer possible, and preservation of function becomes the goal

  22. SCALING FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS SCUP Planning Standards • Classroom 28 • Office 48 • Study 26 • Support 16 • Storage 10 • General 47 • Subtotal 175 • GSF @ N=.67G 261

  23. IMPROVED NET TO GROSS

  24. INFILL AND BUILD-OVER

  25. EXTERIOR FUNCTIONALITY

More Related