Home > Meetings > CUR 2002 Workshop Summaries > General Workshops
 
 

CUR 2002 Workshop Report
 
CUR 2002 Planning and Building Facilities for U.G. Research Planning: Part A

DATE:  Thursday June 20, 2002
TIME:  2:15 - 3:00 P.M.
TOPIC:  CUR 2002 Planning and Building Facilities for U.G. Research Planning: Part A
SPEAKERS:  Arthur J. Lidsky, AICP / Dober, Lidsky, Craig & Associates, Inc. 
MODERATOR:  Julio De Paula / Haverford College
REPORTER:  Richard M. Heinz / RFD
 
  • First Steps:

    • Start with Mission, Academic Plan, Curriculum & Pedagogy before listing facility needs and before starting design process.
    • How should students learn? - What should they know how to do?
    • How should science departments approach these questions?
    • Then, ask what and how much? Establish priorities.
       
  • Planning Process: 3-4 year process minimum, even if funding is secured.

    • Campus Planning
    • Facility Programming
    • Schematic Design
    • Design Development
    • Construction Documents
    • Construction
       
  • Mission and Academic Plan:

    • "Process of creating a mission statement is as important as the statement itself."
    • Facility needs should be coordinated among departments.
    • Don't just fix what is broken, but plan for the future.
    • Involve both senior and younger faculty, encouraging active discussion.
    • Tour other facilities elsewhere. Learn from others.
       
  • Curriculum and Pedagogy: 

    • Plans for new programs?
    • Any anticipated changes in graduation requirements?
    • Any new majors or minors planned?
    • Potential for interdisciplinary activities?
    • How should departments be located?
       
  • Faculty

    • Projected FTE by department?
    • How much faculty research?
    • How much faculty turnover in next 10-15 years?
    • Technology Integration
       
  • Facility Development Strategy:

    • New or renovation or combination?
    • What goes in new vs. renovation?
    • Space Description / Qualification 
    • Justification / Rationale
    • Vision / Intent
    • Site
    • Space Relationships - Diagrams
    • Participating process leading to consensus
    • This forms basis of design for the architects
       
  • Planning Rules of Thumb:

    • Net area - Space that are assignable to departments, etc. 
    • Gross area - includes walls, corridors, toilets, stairs, mechanical space, etc. In addition to net area.
    • Net gross ratio - efficiency is impacted by building layout. For science buildings, net gross range is 56-63% Average = 60%
    • Space standards - DLC+A benchmarking database for different types of spaces. 
    • Classrooms - tables/chairs takes more space than tablet-arm chairs.
    • Laboratories should be planned on basis of a "planning module", usually around 300-330 nsf per module.
       
  • Peer Comparisons:

    • Net SF per faculty FTE by department (excluding non-departmental classrooms & library space). See where your department stands in comparison to peer institutions.
       
  • Planning Rules of Thumb:

    • Design with assumption that spaces will change. 
    • Don't design too specifically for the individual, but for the function. 
    • If cost of renovation approaches 60-70% of cost of new, build new!
    • Don't leave a department out
       
  • Have Fun!!

 
Questions and Answers - Conclusions:

  • Some spaces will be more flexible than others - Organic chemistry laboratories with lots of hoods will be less flexible. 
  • Stub-out utilities to each room for future use even if not needed initially. 
  • When does "green" architecture come into the process? Impetus should come from faculty and institution - has potential cost impact, so should be considered early.
  • The way a facility works is impacted by relationship between offices and labs.
  • When does the issue of "cost constraints" come into process? Should be considered early and often at increasing level of detail / accuracy as planning progresses.



 

 


Copyright © 2002 Council on Undergraduate Research. All rights reserved.