Living Learning Project Design Advisory Group Workshop DRAFT      return to 5.19.03 page      return to Living Learning home page

Participants: Fred Tepfer, Alex Gordon, Larry Gilbert, Michael Fyfield, Steve Pickett, Drew Morgan, Jen English, Tom Driscoll, Garry Fritz, Nancy Wright, Mark Foster, Jerry Waters, Alyson Rogers, Mike Eyster

1. In our first workshop, we initially generated approximately twenty site concepts for the Living Learning Center. We then selected nine of these to develop further for this meeting. The purpose of this workshop shall be to select the three most viable site concepts for further development over the next two weeks. The concepts presented today seek foremost to expose spaces along the promenade in order to enliven this corridor and transform it into a "Living Learning Mall." In this way, the Living Learning Program becomes something we may begin to develop beyond this project.
2. In order to better understand the size of the actual program established for this project, let us compare it to that of the Hamilton residence Halls. (See Housing Bars Diagram) While the number of beds in the new building is far fewer than those in the Hamilton complex, the larger size of the new rooms dictates that the program sizes of both building are about equal. This assumption was based on a 160,000 GSF total for the LLC program. The square footage devoted to student rooms was laid out as a bar 42’ wide and 805’ long.

Explanation of Concepts:

3. To evaluate the viability of this program on each site, the 42’X 805’ housing bar was broken into several smaller modules. These smaller pieces were then arranged on each site to show their size relative to adjacent buildings. Concepts show the entire program placed on these sites:

1. On the open space South of the EMU
2. South from Carson, demolish Dyment, and build in center of Walton

1. Between Chapman and the Art Museum
2. North and South of the tennis courts, similar to concept A

1. South of Carson, and on the north end of tennis courts. (Courts would move as far south towards 15^th Ave as possible).

1. A number of smaller sites along the Living Learning Mall: At the north end of the tennis courts, south of Carson, and south of bean on existing basketball courts.

1. The question was raised, Are there design criteria/principles guiding the nature of the Living Learning Mall? Does this process involve more than mapping a program?
2. While developing each concept, ZGF asked a series of questions::

• Does the concept reinforce the Living Learning Program on Campus?
• Does the concept promote the Living Learning Mall Concept?
• Does the concept maintain or strengthen existing pedestrian circulation?
• Can the concept organize and reinforce the Campus Open Space Diagram?
• Does the concept activate the 15^th Avenue Corridor?
• Can it leave existing residence halls intact?
• Does it maintain the tennis courts undisturbed?
• Can it leave existing parking undisturbed?
• Does it relocate the Department of Public Safety to the edge of campus?
• Can it optimize solar exposure?

1. We are in search of a larger set of design intentions to guide these questions and the planning of the campus. Is there a larger concept that constitutes more than adjacency issues? Can the various concepts be tested against a set of assumptions/principles guide the LL Mall idea? We haven’t yet developed this concept, and the hope is that we generate this larger idea as a group. How does this concept appear to this group?
2. We want an appropriate terminus for the Living Learning Mall that pertains to this idea–it should not be a building housing unrelated services. Although the site south of Bean may not be the site selected for this project, future development must strengthen the Living Learning Mall idea, if that is indeed a principle that guides this project.
3. We are all in agreement that the LL Mall Concept is a good one–but is it feasible? We should stay open to other guiding ideas that may emerge today or at a later date.
4. Can a living learning complex interact with existing Residence Halls?
   
   

Analysis of the Concepts:

5. After arranging the housing bar modules on the various sites, it became quickly apparent that some sites would simply not accommodate a program of this size. For those that would or possibly could accommodate the program, we created a second set of diagrams in which the housing bars were manipulated to work best within the given sites. An Analysis of these diagrams follows:

A-1: (Tennis Courts Site) Similar to Gary Moye’s Conceptual Study from last year–Diagrams do not yet take into account basement area–what programming is appropriate for the basement?

D-1: (Site on green between Rec. Center and EMU) A courtyard scheme may reinforce the idea of an energized 15^th Ave. corridor. There is concern that this concept builds on EMU master plan space and on a designated university open space.

F-1: (Site south of Bean) Simple three bar scheme–receives 15^th, reinforces terminus of Living Learning Mall. Will accommodate Campus Security. If this concept is built as a residence w/o LL facilities, this is not much of a precedent. This site seems more viable in a context of a more developed East campus 15 or 20 years from now. There would be no café at this site, which reduces the chance for "random interactions" among students and faculty. Can this scheme be broken up to emulate concept N and integrate itself with other residences on campus?

G-1: (Between Chapman and the Art Museum) To accommodate the program, we would also have to build on two additional sites: Between Collier and Hendricks, and across the quad, just north of Susan Campbell. This seems too much bldg for so little space. We must also consider whether we really want to put residential programming in this part of campus. There are substantial challenges to this site–other academic buildings have been planned for this site south of Chapman.

H-1: (Create a residential quad between Earl and Walton) Make a large open space parallel to the promenade and 15^th Ave. Spaces in Walton that face inward onto the new quad can become classrooms leading out onto a terraced green. This concept can be established in phases–but it needs a vision that encompasses final product. Operational issues exist, but may be absorbed by Earl. Problems with Open Space Plan are minimal. This concept reinforces a well-worn pedestrian path. Adams is removed to create an open space. Uses existing classrooms at center of Walton–minimizes rebuilding costs. Strengthens green space by connecting back to promenade and 15^th at north and south ends, respectively. Scheme would relocate Campus Security (currently in Earl). Integrates Walton and Earl–but might it also engage Carson? Perhaps in a later phase, Carson may be incorporated into program.

J-1: (Building out from Carson, moving tennis courts south, and building north from new courts) This concept redefines this section of the promenade as a much smaller, different open space. Does this scheme leave enough green space around it? It may be too much building for this site.

N: (Breaks up the Living Learning Program, siting it in three distinct locations: the North end of the tennis courts; south of Carson and the health center; and south of Bean on the existing basketball courts) DAG envisions the LLC as a catalyst to solicit support from faculty community–would a disassociated scheme inhibit this goal? There may be room to rethink the placement of these smaller buildings so that their adjacent open spaces provide the most pleasant experiences; they might find more strategic locations elsewhere in the LL Mall corridor. Does breaking up the program make it a less efficient set of buildings? Might this concept require more infrastructure and leave less room for programmable space? There also may be maintenance/staffing issues. Smaller buildings may provide an economic advantage–they can be less expensive because construction costs are lower. Additionally, smaller buildings multiply relationships between indoor and outdoor spaces. Construction may go faster for a set of smaller buildings–three separate crews can work on three separate buildings simultaneously. Finally, Concept N disperses opportunities to create LL facilities among campus buildings and could potentially transform the residential campus into multiple destinations.

6. Is the LL Mall the only place we are considering a site? What about 15^th? The longer-term issues of development/improvement to both the 15^th Avenue corridor and the East Campus might provide suitable contexts for a Living Learning Center.
7. As we consider and evaluate these and other concepts, we must maintain a sensitivity to access issues–a single building is logistically easier for individuals with disabilities. But buildings that rely on elevators can also be detrimental. If we decide to disperse the program along the LL Mall, we must create smooth transitions between spaces/services.
8. The service drive between Carson and the Health Center provides potential for a well-defined green space which maintains more discreet service access between these two buildings.
9. Back to the larger idea: we must define the principles, which guide the larger concept. Concept–large idea. Scheme–an expression of this idea. We are hoping to develop a set of schemes that respond to a single concept (or several concepts). If we define the principles that guide this concept, we can proceed next week with a very clear set of instructions to follow.
10. Brainstorming of criteria

• Re-envisioning the student-teacher relationship
• Redefining the residence hall
• Transforming the freshman experience
• Connecting/Integrating all student housing
• Redefining Public/Private Spaces; Front Door/Back Door Dialogue

• Residential Quad/Residential College
• Living Learning Mall
• Residential District
• East Campus Emphasis
• 15^th Ave corridor
• Attract faculty: visibility and presence

• Add housing units
• Create LL environments
• Initiate a long-range scheme for renovation/replacement of existing housing with LL programs
• Strengthen campus open space network
• Create attractive housing for recruitment/investment purposes.
• Adapt to changing programs over time: res. rooms; common and mtg. space
• Add vibrancy and activity to campus community

1. It will be crucial to remember that the programming concepts guide the program and not necessarily the concept for building. We want to focus on these broader principles and concepts for the present. This project has the opportunity to change the way people perceive this part of campus, and it will be these larger concepts that help to focus how we want to shape this perception.
2. Universal Ownership of Public Spaces: can we create a building that becomes part of the faculty’s image of the campus so they feel as comfortable as the building’s residents?

Review of Concepts

3. Eliminate Concepts A, B, D, E, and G.

Explore and Develop concepts F, H, and the combination of J with N as modified for the next workshop.

4. Further Concerns with remaining concepts:

F: This concept includes remodel in existing facilities to improve living/learning opportunties. It provides space for existing programs that are currently in the way of full development of the other remaining schemes. It also is the only scheme that can be built within the Long Range Campus Development Plan density limits. On the other hand, it doesn't provide visibility and presence, it is too far from the academic campus to teach more than FIGS and Freshman Seminars, and the lack of food service might diminish the opportunties for informal interaction among students and faculty.

N: The proposed building masses in this concept are more compatible with surrounding scale. But might these buildings compromise future development? Is this scheme a variation of concept J? Operationally difficult. Eliminate bldg btw Hamilton and Bean–it would present operational difficulties and other problems. It may also be too remote. Could concept N grow into something more like concept H? An Internal concept–can we get more presence outside of the central area bounded by 13^th and 15^th, and University and Agate? Can we build out more from Carson to compensate for squeezing the program elsewhere? If we relocate the building between. Hamilton and Bean, we may have to move tennis courts south (as in concept J) to make room for it. However, this doesn’t help reinforce an active connection to 15^th.

J: This concept leaves virtually no flexibility for defining open space–it creates a 40 ft. corridor between the two new buildings. This proves to be a real pinch of open space and changes nature of open space in this section of the promenade dramatically. This is the only scheme that argues to redefine the whole open space between. Carson and the Tennis Courts, and it may be a difficult point to argue.

H: What might this open space feel like? The open quad space would be similar in scale to the area between the sidewalk at Huestis and Deschutes Halls. Is there a way to define an edge from the promenade to 15^th so that the two are more literally linked?

5. Can we combine concepts J and N? And add connectivity to 13^th?
6. How much program can we eliminate? Does squeezing the program get us more open space? Test the program with 64 fewer beds-leaving a total of 350.
7. Density issues:

-Political

-Visual

-Number of occupants

8. How do we define Open Spaces–can they be defined in terms of how densely they are occupied? Why do we want to redefine Open Space? What is missing?

-no front door

-little spatial definition

-introverted programs: buildings do not maintain an integral relationship with the circulation spaces around them

Next Steps:

9. Concepts to develop further:

1. J and N
2. H
3. F

1. Guiding Concepts:

. 32. Other Issues to consider as we move forward:

Adjourned
return to 5.19.03 page      
return to Living Learning home page