Getting the vision right
What works: Planning for the long-term, given the institutional mission, identity and context
Convenor: Jeanne L. Narum- Director, Project Kaleidoscope

Students learn in both formal and informal spaces on college campuses. Spaces that “work” serve students learning, accommodate effective pedagogies, support the integration of technologies into the learning environment, and also anticipate the future. During this session, we begin to examine some of the important questions that need to be addressed in planning spaces that “work.” From burning questions submitted by participating teams:

• Recognizing that this will be a long planning process, and that we are arriving at some pretty specific goals for student learning, what can we do in the “mean-time” to retrofit existing spaces for learning? Another, but related question: What are ways to structure and equip laboratories to improve student learning most creatively; how do we create new space to allow more group projects in classroom and lab?
• How can we incorporate green building methods? Is it possible to arrive at one that is mostly field- energy self-sufficient? Can a green building support our field-oriented and conservation focused majors? How to build an environmentally sound and sustainable science building within available resources (and make the case for doing so, within and beyond campus)?
• How do we design a facility that will promote the kind of community of scholars that is particularly important for an urban, commuter campus?

Getting the people right
Who needs to be at the table

Panel:
Convenor: Marianne Jordan- Director of Corporate & Foundation Relations, Bowdoin College
Architect: Charles Kirby- Principal, Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture & Engineering
Project shepherd: Nancy Jannik- Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Winona State University
Technology: Phillip D. Long- Associate Director of Outreach and Opportunity, Office of Education Innovation and Technology- DUE , Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Pedagogy: Walter Chromiak- Associate Provost & Associate Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College

This session will explore the breadth of planning issues that influence the development of undergraduate science, engineering and mathematics facilities from the viewpoint of the different members of the planning team. Timelines, critical organizational decisions, the roles of the project shepherd and planning committee, as well as the composition and responsibilities of the programming/design team will be discussed.

An examination of how planners and users of spaces engage deeply with issues relating to the efficacy of technologies, the role of faculty as shapers and users of space, and the import of research on learning, given a particular institutional context.

Informal discussions
21st century student learning goals

We invite participants to discuss how spaces can serve specific goals for student learning, beginning with how spaces can foster the capacity for creativity, innovating, thinking outside-the-box that is called for in recent public reports. These will be unfacilitated, but there will be an opportunity on Saturday morning to present “aha” insights.

• Renovations/additions/new construction: Rick Heinz
• Renovations/additions/new construction: Michael Lauber
• STEM learning community: Charles Kirby
• STEM learning community: Bill Gustafson
• Institutional priorities: Scott Kimble/James Baird
• Institutional priorities: Dusty Rhoads
• 21st century pedagogies: Steve Imrich
• 21st century pedagogies: Phil Long
• 21st century science: Steven Ansel
• 21st century science: Ken DeBoer
• Issues relating to sustainability: Jeff Niesen
• Issues relating to sustainability: John Starr
• Challenges for large-enrollment campuses: Gary McNay
• Challenges for small-enrollment campuses: Richard Smith
• Challenges for small-enrollment campuses: Khalil Pirani/Jon Wiener
• Roles and responsibilities of early career faculty: Betsy Curtler
• Roles and responsibilities of senior STEM faculty Margaret DeBolt
• Roles and responsibilities of senior academic officers: Dennis Jacobs
• Roles and responsibilities of senior academic officers: Andy Newcomb
• Roles and responsibilities of the project shepherd: Nancy Jannik
• Roles and responsibilities of the project shepherd: Walter Chromiak
• Roles and responsibilities of budget officers: Marianne Jordan
• Roles and responsibilities of facilities officers: Mark Hartmann

Over the last 10 to 15 years, many colleges and universities have contemplated and completed renovations, additions, and new buildings for undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics teaching and research programs. This session will provide examples from different design professionals who have participated in successful projects that accommodate engineering, mathematics, life and the physical science programs. Although, the overall design of each example will be presented for context, the focus of this session will be the learning environments created and the nature of each project's success.

A. Linking planning of new spaces for science to institutional mission/long-range planning
Nancy Jannik- Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Winona State University
Marianne Jordan- Director of Corporate & Foundation Relations, Bowdoin College

A successful science construction project requires a clear conceptual framework that fits in with the objectives of the planning for the institution as a whole. This session will focus on the questions that need to be asked at the earliest stages of planning and the processes that need to be in place to develop the answers to those questions. The perspectives of the institution, the faculty, and the architect will be discussed.

B. Considering implications of renovations, additions, new construction
Michael J. Reagan- Director of Science & Technology, Burt Hill
Charles Kirby- Principal, Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture & Engineering

This session will review the issues typically considered when developing a plan for the creation of new and/or renovated space. Issues to be discussed will include the development of space needs, assessment of existing facilities, impact of available funding on the possibilities and the challenges of renovating existing facilities.

This session will explore the differences and similarities between new construction, additions, and renovations. For instance, all new and renovated projects must begin with a description of the area and functional requirements. Often called a facility program, this document summarizes the quantity, type, and arrangement of rooms and areas required by the project.

If the project includes a stand-alone building, often the facility program is sufficient to allow a design professional to proceed with the design services commencing with the Schematic Design Phase of the project. However, if the project involves renovated space, additional efforts are required before the design services can commence.

This additional effort is often referred to as a Feasibility Study that includes:

• Confirmation of fit of the facility program requirements
• Identification of operational impacts
• Phasing schedule
• Preliminary cost of construction

This session will include a number of case studies of renovations, additions and new buildings- exploring issues of cost, phasing and scheduling while considering location, image and 21st century STEM space.

C. Sustainability
Jeffery T. Niesen- Vice President for Construction Management, The Boldt Company
Michael C. Lauber- President, Ellenzweig Associates

New STEM facilities are a compelling application for sustainable design. Science and technology facilities are among the most energy-intensive on campus, and consequently demand thoughtful and effective energy-conservation strategies. Further, these sustainable design strategies can themselves become part of the educational mission of the building, serving to illustrate issues about climate, material science and the interdependence of technology and society. Finally, sustainable building projects can serve as a powerful symbol of an overall commitment to sustainability, if this aligns with the greater institutional mission.

This session will provide an overview of sustainable design - what it means, how to measure it, and how to accomplish it, describing the role of architects, engineers, builders, faculty, facilities' staff, and senior administration. The session will include introductory/overview material, a description of the LEED rating system ("Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" - one measure of sustainability), and illustrations of sustainable design projects. Half of the session will be devoted to answering participants' questions and encouraging discussion of participants' experience with sustainable design projects."

D. The Dickinson College story
Walter Chromiak- Associate Provost & Associate Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College
Dusty Rhoads- Partner, Rhoads Siegel Architects Inc.

Dickinson College is building a 21st century undergraduate science complex designed to support innovative science pedagogies, interdisciplinary programs, and student-faculty research collaborations. Construction has begun on the first two of three halls that will house programs in biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, chemistry, neuroscience, and psychology, and initiatives in bioinformatics and nanoscience. The first two halls (Stuart and James Halls) will be completed in 2008.

Beginning with Workshop Physics in the mid-1980s, Dickinson faculty have developed a reputation for using innovative science pedagogy that focuses on active learning strategies. A recent study of undergraduate science education found that Dickinson was first among 136 schools in the amount of external grants awards for teaching and pedagogy between 1991 and 2000.

Planning for the new complex began in 2000 with informal faculty discussions. In late 2001, the biology, chemistry, and psychology faculty chose a project shepherd, and formal planning for the project began. The first major decision was to pursue LEED's (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification from the U. S. Green Building Council. Dickinson trustees approved hiring a project architect in 2004. Zimmer-Gunsul-Frasca (ZGF) were chosen, along with Research Facilities Design (RFD), a firm that specializes in designing laboratories and science classrooms.

In this session, we will describe how Dickinson's design incorporates our project goals of (1) planning for the increasingly interdisciplinary and international nature of science, (2) highlighting the connections between faculty teaching and faculty scholarship, and student-faculty collaborations, (3) engaging students and faculty across the entire campus both in and out of the classroom, (4) promoting a sense of community among those in the complex, and (5) demonstrating Dickinson's commitment to the wise use of scarce resources.

We will also address such matters as: how to get people focused, developing shared ownership, dreaming BIG and making dreams come true, balancing departmental goals with interdisciplinary goals, and conveying excitement.

E. The University of Notre Dame story
Steven W. Ansel- Principal, S/L/A/M Collaborative
Dennis C. Jacobs- Vice President & Associate Provost, University of Notre Dame

Jordan Hall is designed to foster inquiry and facilitate investigation at the cutting edge of science. Labs, classrooms, and public spaces invite discovery and collaboration. The facility supports the most innovative and interactive approaches to the teaching and learning of science. In recognition that imaging is becoming increasingly important within all the sciences, Jordan Hall makes visible that which is commonly obscured - from individual atoms to distant galaxies.

This session will focus on the evolution and built result of the new Jordan Hall of Science at The University of Notre Dame. The path from imagining possibilities, to balancing competitive interests of the science constituencies, to a completed project will provide a thematic structure for discussion.

Resolving the balance of what to build new in a large College of Science, where it is not feasible to build all new, versus what remains behind in existing facilities is a critical choice. Allowing for departmental cohesiveness, while encouraging interdisciplinary communication, is another decision point.

A building that is "owned" by students and faculty is one characteristic of success. In such an environment the opportunities for formal and informal learning increase exponentially.

Learning spaces range from well established forms and functional organization to those that existed nowhere except in a statement of "what if". There is the need to provide a physical environment for more intense, collaborative and meaningful learning experience, particularly for participants in large- enrollment introductory courses. At the same time, for those students who seek a career in science, specialty labs and other related facilities are essential to support advanced courses of study.

A building can exist to be a seamless part of a campus fabric and context, one that is recognized by all constituencies to be of the place and its community. Yet, at the same time, it may offer a new range of experience and opportunity that will quickly become part of the tradition and identity of the institution.

A. Sustainability
Jeffery T. Niesen- Vice President for Construction Management, The Boldt Company
Michael C. Lauber- President, Ellenzweig Associates

New STEM facilities are a compelling application for sustainable design. Science and technology facilities are among the most energy-intensive on campus, and consequently demand thoughtful and effective energy-conservation strategies. Further, these sustainable design strategies can themselves become part of the educational mission of the building, serving to illustrate issues about climate, material science and the interdependence of technology and society. Finally, sustainable building projects can serve as a powerful symbol of an overall commitment to sustainability, if this aligns with the greater institutional mission.

This session will provide an overview of sustainable design - what it means, how to measure it, and how to accomplish it, describing the role of architects, engineers, builders, faculty, facilities' staff, and senior administration. The session will include introductory/overview material, a description of the LEED rating system ("Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" - one measure of sustainability), and illustrations of sustainable design projects. Half of the session will be devoted to answering participants' questions and encouraging discussion of participants' experience with sustainable design projects."

B. Classrooms
Michael J. Reagan- Director of Science & Technology, Burt Hill
Steven W. Ansel- Principal, S/L/A/M Collaborative

21st century STEM students rarely learn as a spectator sport, thus classrooms need to serve a variety of pedagogies and learning styles, from collaborative and problem-based learning to mini-lectures. How does the architect work with the campus community to explore practical solutions for classroom designs that support teaching practices and learning styles for the current and coming generations of STEM students?

This session will focus on the various types of classrooms and the process used to determine the type and quantity of classrooms needed. The type of classroom can range from small, extremely flexible spaces that allow a variety of planned and impromptu activities as well as larger fixed classrooms that support a variety of purposes.

The methods used to determine the type of classroom are similar to those used to determine the requirements of other science facility spaces. Essentially a discussion of the desired functions and activities must precede any discussion about room size, equipment and furniture. The discussion should include all potential users including the individual(s) responsible for scheduling these classrooms. The range of activities may include didactic learning, large group discussions, small group "break-out", or a combination of many different activities.

Another trend is to integrate classrooms and teaching lab functions. If properly designed, lectures can be accommodated in these class labs increasing the utilization of these rooms but occasionally at the cost of a higher area per person.

The integration of audiovisual and digital technology, acoustics and appropriate sightlines will be examined for various classroom sizes and formats. It is important to consider teaching walls, podium design, and alternative seating configurations that encourage interaction. Classrooms and lecture halls at any scale can be configured to for dynamic collaborative learning and multiple personal styles for students and faculty.

C. Incorporating 21st century pedagogies and technologies
Walter Chromiak- Associate Provost & Associate Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College
Phillip D. Long- Associate Director of Outreach and Opportunity, Office of Education Innovation and Technology- DUE , Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Even as technology advances at an almost incomprehensible rate, college classrooms and the learning activities found there look almost identical to those at the start of the 20th century. In this session, we want both to present and imagine what pedagogies of the 21st century should aim for and entail. We plan to cover three emerging innovative approaches to STEM education: case studies, problem-based learning and future technologies in support of learning. Participants will come away with concrete ideas and examples as well as dreams for the classroom of the future.

D. The University of Richmond story
Andrew Newcomb- Dean of Arts & Sciences, University of Richmond
Betsy S. Curtler- Assistant Vice President of Foundation, Corporate & Government Relations, University of Richmond
Charles Kirby- Principal, Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture & Engineering

This session will tell the story of how the University of Richmond achieved its vision of proving that Science matters. We will review:

• How the University made its case for the project.
• How the facilities achieve the vision.
• How the investment is paying off.

Making the case: Our team will explain the deliberate institutional steps that the University followed to shape and tell a vision to invest in the Sciences:

• Elevating the profile of the teacher/scholar.
• Emphasizing and supporting faculty scholarship.
• Attracting the best and brightest students with an interest in the Sciences.
• Stressing the importance of interdisciplinary initiatives in the future of science.

Achieving the vision: We will explain how the Design Team and the University used budget realities to frame solutions that:

• Examined what the University had- to maximize utilization.
• Surgically repaired/removed what was broken.
• Added only what was missing.
• Infused the themes of commitment, connections and community throughout the facility.

The impact: We will explain the impact of the University's investment in the few years since the project's completion, including that:

• Applications are at an all time high.
• The increased case for external grants- and the increased success of these grant proposals.
• Students and faculty are populating the building as never before, late into the evenings and throughout the weekends- doing more science.

E. The Winona State University story
Gary C. McNay- Associate Principal for Academic Science & Technology, Perkins & Will
Nancy Jannik- Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Winona State University

This story will share how many obstacles were overcome to deliver a state of the art, technology rich, highly flexible science building that is also a campus destination and regional resource. Strategies for successfully overcoming funding and approval obstacles, reductions in budget, new construction and renovation,and phasing over several years will be explained. A photographic tour of the facility in use will show real examples of multi-discipline labs, shared sub-discipline labs, building as teacher, and instructional media delivery. This presentation will also discuss how the building has responded to changes is curriculum, meeting the demands of science education for a campus of 7000 students. The impact of a new science building on enrollment, faculty and student recruitment and retention, and the institutional brand will be discussed.

This building teaches 24/7 with an instructional geology wall, expression of the geography of the region and dozens of symbols of the science disciplines built into seating and floor surfaces. An extensive collaboration between the science faculty, the architect, and the artist have produced the most memorable public space on campus. A destination for K-12 tours, prospective students and anyone interested in science , the atrium serves as a focus for campus wide events and regional conferences.

Nancy Jannik served as the project Shepherd and Dean of the Colleges of Science and Engineering, coordinating faculty input, balancing institutional priorities and leading the collaboration for the art that teaches science. Gary McNay served as the Science design principal, with responsibility for programming and design of the science learning spaces.

A. Fundraising
Betsy S. Curtler- Assistant Vice President of Foundation, Corporate & Government Relations, University of Richmond
Marianne Jordan- Director of Corporate & Foundation Relations, Bowdoin College

This breakout session will address funding issues related to science facilities from the perspectives of institutional planners and fundraisers. This session will provide a template for funding analysis as well as illustrations from a recent project. Issues to be considered include the relationship of funding and institutional mission, the timing and sequence of likely funding, collaborative fundraising for equipment, and the role of foundations and corporations.

B. Campus aesthetics
Andrew Newcomb- Dean of Arts & Sciences, University of Richmond
James Baird- Principal, Holabird & Root

Twenty-first century academic facilities are designed toward the over-arching goal of building and enhancing a sense of community. They will serve as:

• a venue for informal gatherings of the community
• a point from which to gain access to information, mail, departmental and support services of interest/value to the community— individually and collectively
• a forum in which to discuss, debate, explore, and learn about what is known about the man-made and natural worlds
• an agora for the exchange of ideas through formal and informal discussions, poster sessions, displays of collections, and informal classroom settings.

These facilities are designed as social spaces, in that they are responsive to the needs of the users for a sense of personal space, with a variety of spaces that accommodate the casual “meeting and greeting,” the surprise interactions that add to campus life and permit the student to become participating members of a community.

C. Project shepherd and the people of the planning process
Dennis C. Jacobs- Vice President & Associate Provost, University of Notre Dame
Nancy Jannik- Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Winona State University

This session will describe how to identify and assemble the people to be involved in the planning process, and outline the steps through which designs move from the programming stage to the point of construction documents.

Planning a new facility, even a single classroom or laboratory, is a defining moment in the life of an institution. Not because you will solve the problem of too little space for too many faculty and students, or the problem of inadequate hoods or leaking roofs, but because the process becomes a communal effort. In coming together to wrestle with the why and the how of new structures and spaces for undergraduate programs in science, mathematics, and engineering, your community will both shape and be shaped by debates and discussions about matters of broad and mutual concern.

Each of your projects committees, under the leadership of the project shepherd and the project manager, will face several challenges as you proceed. You will be challenged to think about the future of programs for the natural science community on your campus from the broadest possible perspective. You also may be challenged to think through whether to undertake renovations (minor or major) or build anew, and to consider how spaces and structures being planned can serve your institution in the most cost-effective and efficient manner for many years.

Constructing science buildings is expensive, typically representing the highest cost per square foot on campus. Determining the optimal design for a new undergraduate science building is paramount because the opportunity occurs only once every fifty to one hundred years on today's smaller campuses. The resulting building must support today's needs and adapt to tomorrow's advances in technology, the latest pedagogical theories, and potential changes in use.

This session will focus on different approaches to planning for flexibility, adaptability, and versatility in your next science building. The topics will include:

• looking at the context of the problem. What were the mistakes made by our predecessors (owners, architects and planners of the 1950's, '60's, and '70's) and what should we do to avoid repeating them?
• developing an adaptable 100 year building that supports multiple disciplines, each with its own "evolution" over time.
• integrating state of the art prototypes for laboratory and teaching spaces to facilitate long term building flexibility.
• addressing the importance of developing rigorously designed building systems to create flexibility, adaptability, and maintainability. The cost of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems approximates 40-50% of the total building cost in a science building. What can be done to get the greatest value added over the life of the building that accommodates cost effective building modifications?
• designing universal space for teaching, research, or administrative use. Is there a "kit of parts" approach that addresses both flexibility and cost effectiveness?

E. Budgets
Gary C. McNay- Associate Principal for Academic Science & Technology, Perkins & Will
William Gustafson- President, Ballinger

Budgets act as both enabling and constraining forces for all renovation and building projects. Before we can "respect" a budget, we need to understand the overall goals and objectives for any prospective undertaking. These must be mapped into a project's budget to see if the goals and objectives are realistic. One must also map goals and objectives onto the budget to see that a dollar-limited project is worth doing.

Budgets too are complex. Their origins can lie in one-time gifts, bonds, or in the institution's operating budget. There are budgets that cover the initial capital expenses (such as construction costs and fees), and those that cover on-going maintenance and operational costs. Both must be sufficient to sustain the project. As well, adequate contingency funds must be budgeted to deal with surprises, though disciplined planning can reduce the need for these funds.

This session will deal with these "explorations" of project budgets and identify factors and parameters we must keep in mind while doing so.

Strategies for effectively balancing budget and academic needs, managing funds across time on new and renovated construction, balancing "hard" and "soft" costs, and managing impact of time will be explained. The positive impact of sustainable design strategies will he explored. Casework flexibility and creative scheduling models and their impact on first cost and operational will be explained. Examples will show how projects on a tight budget can deliver remarkable results, creating centos of energy and building dynamic communities of science of science learning.

Facilities for undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have been changing dramatically in response to evolution of programs in these disciplines. The changes are being seen in new facility types and features, as well as in laboratory design. In this session, you will see a presentation on the latest trends in undergraduate sciences facilities, hear how changing pedagogies are impacting laboratory sizes and layouts for biology, chemistry and physics, and see alternative building floor plans that support various strategies for encouraging interdisciplinary interaction and collaborative learning. The challenges of renovating or expanding existing Sputnik-era science buildings will also be explored.

Critical benchmarking data for a variety of key area and cost ratios will be presented for recent projects, including new construction, additions, and renovations for undergraduate sciences facilities throughout the United States. This analysis will include a discussion of the factors that impact these ratios, and strategies for applying benchmarking data to projects on your campus.

Issues:

• How to talk with STEM faculty colleagues about why to incorporate spatial flexibility into the new facility in ways that would allow departments to become more closely integrated and teaching and research to be more closely integrated.
• How to talk with non-STEM faculty colleagues about why an investment in STEM facilities enhances institutional distinction, and will do so over the long-term.
• How to inform institutional leaders (trustees, senior administrators) about the value of the science facilities project, about its potential to enhance the distinction of the university over the long-term.