 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Rise in Tornadoes, Floods Poses Risk to Colleges
What if the sort of extreme weather that has left the University of Iowa inundated in floodwaters is not a freak event? What if it is a sign of things to come? (Photograph by AP Images)
Art & Architecture Renovations Near Completion at Yale U.
Paul Rudolph's 1963 Brutalist icon is getting a makeover, plus an addition by Charles Gwathmey.
Guest Blogger: Anne Stephenson
Even the greenest construction project increases a college’s carbon footprint.
Other News
Land-Rich Universities Weigh New Options for Real-Estate Development
Universities are taking advantage of new ways to develop their holdings through corporate partnerships, a new report says.
U. of Iowa Begins Mucking Out and Assessing the Damage
The university's insurer spent the weekend starting to assess the damage to the auditorium and 19 other flooded buildings.
U. of Iowa Flooding Takes Costly Toll in Research and Equipment
Parking lots are under water, some roads leading to the campus are closed, and the campus utility infrastructure is damaged.
New campus buildings
Multimedia
A Green Building as a Billboard for Science
(A 2006 Chronicle video)
Subscribe
Subscribe to Buildings & Grounds in a feed reader.
Get the Buildings & Grounds widget for Facebook, Myspace, or your own blog.
About Buildings & Grounds
Buildings & Grounds is written by Scott Carlson (left) and Lawrence Biemiller (right). Scott Carlson writes about architecture, facilties, energy, and sustainability, among other topics. Lawrence Biemiller writes about architecture and facilities and contributes to Notes from Academe. What's happening on your campus? Let us know.
Mary Jo Olenick: Can Less Space Be More?
Mary Jo Olenick is this month’s Buildings & Grounds guest blogger.
 Mary Jo Olenick |
Over the past decade, we’ve heard a great deal about the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration on college campuses. Institutional policies now reward the “teaming” of formerly isolated disciplines in both teaching and research. Medical education, for example, increasingly includes courses in the humanities, and behavioral, social, and physical scientists increasingly work together in public-health research. In response, planners and designers have been asked to develop buildings that encourage interaction.
So why, when we walk into many of these shiny new buildings, do they feel so empty?
In a previous blog post, I observed that real interaction occurs in public spaces designed to support specific functions, not in spaces designed simply as generic gathering areas. Another impediment to interdisciplinary collaboration is the politics of space. In some respects, you might say that the politics of space is embedded in the traditional culture of academe—the more space you have, the more important you and/or your department are.
Even in colleges that are committed to sustainable design (where you might think wasteful space would be anathema), you find faculty members with multiple offices; research labs that are used for storage; and classrooms that remain underutilized for entire semesters. Frequently this phenomenon is perpetuated by hard boundaries between academic units. Wouldn’t rethinking how space is allocated allow us to use it more efficiently and effectively?
Another factor in this equation is the inflationary effect instigated, in many cases, by our revered industry practice of benchmarking. This is not to say that researching what other institutions are doing is not valuable—it is. However, over the past few years I have seen a steady creep in space benchmarks, particularly in research and residential categories. I have heard some clients say, “If XXX College is providing YYY square feet per faculty member for research and we offer a bit more, we can attract and retain high-caliber faculty.” Little by little, our academic buildings have become less densely populated.
We need to reinvigorate our buildings from a human-energy perspective. In large buildings, we need to think about creating nodes of occupied space. We also need to identify functions that will attract large numbers of people, creating a “beehive effect.” Technology could be our ally here if we can create shared spaces that incorporate the latest techno-communication tools—and that are different from the standard office or conference room.
I understand that academia is risk-averse. And certainly users have difficulty believing that less space could really offer them more. However, facility planners and programmers need to bring more than default positions to the table—that’s our obligation to building users, who may be brilliant teachers and researchers but who do not understand the art and science of building design.
Many users assume that, in debates over plans for new buildings, they need to fight for maximizing functionality and usable space because the architects mostly care about design. But it’s not an either/or equation. A tight fit may be one key to highly functional space that also sparks creativity.
Mary Jo Olenick is an architect who leads the S/L/A/M Collaborative’s higher-education practice. She has been contributing to Buildings & Grounds during March. Read her earlier posts here and here.
Lawrence Biemiller | Tuesday March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Contact usComments
Previous: Leaking Mississippi Valley State U. Building, 8 Years Old, Faces $13-Million in Repairs
Next: College Climate Commitments Pass 500 Mark
Unsupportable idealism of a sort I haven’t seen since my niece turned eleven. I can’t wait for someone in a subsequent blog post to argue that we can get Washington politicians to drop earmarks if we quietly explain why they should, taking care to enunciate clearly. Getting back to reality: high achievers — including pesky clients — are most productive when they can arrange things to be just so.
— S. Britchky Mar 18, 10:55 AM #
Face it – academia will always be populated by self-important, indulgent sorts for whom the rules that govern the rest of the world do not apply. How else to explain this shameless hegemony? Good luck trying to apply reason to the matter – you’re dealing with a parallel universe where reality is constructed to please and delight the rulers – nothing will change, i.e. align with reality, until the primacy of the academic is addressed and they are forced to become responsible to others and not just themselves…oh ,i can hear the howl now…
— chig Mar 18, 04:49 PM #
In contrast to cynical comments here, I find this post provocative and interesting. Use of built space at colleges is clearly a problem. Who says that space can’t be more dense? Who can afford to build buildings that sit empty?
— anon Mar 18, 10:36 PM #
The topic this time strikes me as similar to Susanne Susanka’s thesis in her book on “right sizing” home design. The goal there was focused on value rather than creativity, but I think the problems are closely allied. Quantifying functional desires should not be a sole focus for improving spatial shortfall, since sometimes it’s the qualities of space that make it functional, especially in the subjective zone of human performance. I first was hit by this when designing my first hotel. As the building neared completion and outfitting spaces began, it was clear that there was a novel (to me) design approach being taken to equipping all kinds of rooms. A vast collection of odd-ments started to appear that implied long and heavy use. Much of this stuff looked like flea market items with a thread of consistent age and culture, for lack of a better word. Occupancy became part of a continuum, rather than a one-off experience.
What makes a space seem hospitable and available for use is a hugely varied equation, and what works in a Marriot is not the same for a Pfizer lab suite. But one common factor is a level of intimacy, often particular to the kind of function that is implied. When that level is felt and approved, people lay claim to a space, whether it is St Marc’s Square or a library carrel, and they use the space to it’s fullest extent. Size matters, but so does a ton of other considerations.
— chris williams Mar 19, 02:18 PM #
When the parts of universities (colleges) have autonomy in deciding what their buildings look like, and they need to attract dollars and faculty, they will choose to ignore the space management issue to have a bigger and more spectacular new building than those on other campuses.
— Karen Dahood Mar 24, 01:42 PM #