PROGRAM OF REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE FACILITY

TEAM Ninad Chavan Navaneethan Rajan Chandrajit More Amruta Deshpande

CONTENT

I-INTRODUCTION

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAMMING PROCESS

PROJECT GOALS

FORM

FUNCTION

SUMMARYOF BUSINESS CASE

MASTER PLAN GOALS

II-FACTS

USER DESCRIPTIONS

EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES

SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL PROJECTIONS

SITE ANALYSIS

URBAN CONTEXT

MICRO CONTEXT

LOCATION

ADJACENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN CHARACTERISTICS

LAND USE

TRAFFIC VOLUME

WALKING DISTANCES

TOPOGRAPHY

TREE COVER

CLIMATE ANALYSIS

ZONING REGULATIONS

III-NEEDS

SPACE REQUIREMENTS

PARKING REQUIREMENTS

IV-CONCEPTS

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

PRIORITIES

OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS

V-PROBLEM STATEMENTS

APPENDIX

INTERVIE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS

I – INTRODUCTION

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

The proposed Construction Science and Interdisciplinary Building would be housed in a site

located in the north-west corner of Ross Street and Bizzell Street intersection, near Langford

building-complex, in Texas A&M University.

The new facility will serve the needs of the construction science department for at least ten

years from the date of completion of the facility. It will also provide options for future expansion,

to address the growing nature of the department and the University.

The new facility will function well in accordance with the existing Langford buildings and other

related university buildings. It will provide state-of-the-art facilities to faculties and students. And

also, it will be a sustainable building addressing the environmental needs of the society.

THE PROGRAMMING PROCESS

A) Interviews of stakeholders:

1. Students:

- Graduate

Amruta Naiknavre

Komal Patel

- Undergraduate

Adeel Metha (junior)

Ricky Bowler (junior)

Erika (junior)

2. Staff:

- Department Head

Dr. Joe Horlen

- Program coordinators

Dr. Debra Ellis

Dr. Julian Kang

- Professors

Dr. James Smith

Dr. Jose Solis

- Administrative staff

Mrs. Amanda Holmes

B) Findings from interviews

C) Setting of Goals

D) Analysis of facts

E) Setting Concepts

F) Finalizing the needs of space and quality

G) Problem statement

PROJECT GOALS The project goals presented here are worked out based on the discussions with the identified user groups and stake-holder groups. These goals will serve as a guideline to achieve a creative design output that serves the exact needs of the new facility. Form To represent the facility’s era of construction, without disturbing the overall ambience of the surrounding space. To represent the unique characteristics of construction science discipline in the building appearance Function To accommodate the projected student strength of 1100 and faculty strength of 50 To complete the facility with LEED Platinum Certification To create more interactive spaces for students and faculties To cluster the spaces based on the user groups To function in accordance with the existing Langford Buildings and other related university buildings

SUMMARY OF THE BUSINESS CASE:

Total gross building area allowed : 60000 sq.ft.

Maximum Total Project Cost (TPC) : 20 million u.s.d

MASTER PLAN GOALS

The building heights, elevation details, form of the building will follow the context and

streetscape.

The proposed campus plan shows the COSC building, marked in green.

Central axis: Vision 2020 defines the central axis of the campus as the spine of the

campus, giving it strong directionality.

Designer: The strong directionality should be considered while orienting and designing

the building.

Main entry plaza: Williams building forms the main entry plaza at the entrance from the

New Main Drive. The 2 parking buildings proposed flanking Williams building have been

removed from the proposed future plan to retain its present glory.

Designer must take into consideration the main entry plaza as the site in its close

proximity.

II - FACTS Summary of Statistical Projections: User groups: STAFFING: Present: Faculties: 21 Head of the department: 1 Coordinators: 3 Predicted: Faculties: 50 Head of the department: 1 Coordinators: 3

STUDENTS: Present: Graduate students: 107 Undergraduate students: 700 Predicted: Graduate students: 150 Undergraduate students: 950

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Present Predicted

Graduate

Undergraduate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Professors coordinators Head of department

Present

Proposed

Source of information: Staff interview / Department of

Architecture Space Data

Source of information: Staff interview / Department of

Architecture Space Data

Existing Space Occupancy of Staff, Labs & Support

Sr.

No. Description

Unit Nos. AREA (SF) Unit Area/SF

1 Faculty Offices 21 2838 135

2

COSC Computer

Lab 1 1328 1328

3 COSC Storage 4 324 81

4

General

Administrative

Office 2 363 182

5 Staff Office 3 462 154

6 labs 5 1954 391

7

Conference

Room 1 312 312

8 support 4 540 135

Total 8121

Data from last two years is analyzed to establish a range of class size.

0153045607590

105120135150165180195210225240255270285300315330345

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64

CLA

SS

STR

ENG

TH

COURSES

Class Size Range

FALL'08

SPRING'08

FALL'07

SPRING'07

Average Class Sizes:

0 To 15 20%

16 To 30 26%

31 To 45 36%

46 To 75 7%

75 To Above 11%

Required No. of Classes: Estimation No. of classes offered now (avg.) : 64 Predicted No. of classes after 10 yrs : 100 Total Class-Hours per week (3/class) : 300 Total Work-Hours per week (8/day) : 40 No. of classes at any given point of time in work days : 8 (7.5) After considering preferred class time at morning hours, No. of classes at a time : 12 This is then multiplied by the percentage distribution of class sizes to get the number of classes in each size-category.

SITE ANALYSIS:

URBAN CONTEXT:

Location: College Station, Texas.

Site is located on the fringe of the campus, interacting with the university main campus

on one side and the surrounding urban context on the other side.

Designer should take the urban context into consideration as the building is on the

edge.

This satellite image shows the university Campus and the green spot marked on the top

illustrate the site location.

The building density is comparatively high on the University side, which should be

considered by the designer.

University drive and new main drive are the Main streets in the context which connect

the campus to the surroundings.

With some exceptions, the campus follows a Grid Iron pattern in its development.

MICRO CONTEXT:

Due consideration should be given to understand the characteristics of the campus plan.

Located on the main campus, the density of buildings around is high and so is the

population. Designer must take this into regard while planning.

Being located on an ‘L’ junction, the site provides an opportunity to enhance the

proposed building’s massing and elevation.

The surrounding context of Civil Engineering building, Weisenbaker building and the

Williams building provides an opportunity to make the proposed structure a combination

of historical as well as contemporary architecture.

SITE:

Weisenbaker building

Modern context

Civil engineering building

Traditional context

site

- Site area: 40000 sq.ft. approximately.

- Site interacts well with the Langford and Williams Complex.

- Parking spaces are available near the site location.

- Being a site for an interdisciplinary facility, it has huge benefit by having the related fields

of Architecture and Civil engineering buildings nearby.

- The main access to the site is from Ross and Bizzell streets. - The university’s proposal for closing the Ross street should be considered by the

designer for planning pedestrian circulation around the site. Designer is also welcome to make suggestions in this regard.

A – Proposed Site

B - Civil Engineering Block

C – Langford Complex

D – Williams Building

E – Wisen Baker Building

SITE ADJACENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL & URBAN CHARACTERS: Buildings must engage and define the streets, quadrangles, outdoor landscape areas and pathways of the campus by architectural composition of its facades relative to outdoor spaces, adjacent buildings, and the location and form of their entrances, emphasizing spatial axes, and giving spaces, specific identity and character Source: campus master plan Building Courtyards: Courtyards are to provide shade; to create a semipublic/semiprivate communal places for the users of the buildings, and to provide an extended transitional space between indoors and outdoors. Building form should enclose courtyard or make similar spaces with neighboring buildings. The courtyards may be closed on three sides, or on all four sides. Source: campus master plan

Building Façade: Facades are not restricted to particular styles. However building needs to address campus spaces with its facades. A clear relationship should be established between the new building and the existing buildings and the outdoor spaces surrounding it. An example of this at Texas A&M is the way the Williams Administration Building’s west facade gives definition, scale, and order to the East Quadrangle.

Building Heights: In order to adequately define the public spaces of the campus and preserve the quality of outdoor spaces, building should generally be three to five floors in height above grade Building Entrances: Be clearly visible and recognizable, and should have a direct relationship to the public open space on which the building fronts. Primary lobby and circulation spaces inside the building should be designed as extensions of the campus spaces outside.

III - NEEDS SPACE PROGRAM The following detailed schedule of space requirements reflects a consensus between the Department of Construction Science administration, user groups and other identified stake holders interviewed. As the design progresses there may be modifications to the final size, dimensions, and functional layout of space as a result of additional user input, building site and utility requirements, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP), electronic technology, life safety code, and handicapped accessibility requirements. The general space planning based on the parameters of sizing the spaces include the following assumptions. SPACE PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

1) The current faculty strength of the department is 25 and is expected to become 54 in the next ten years.

2) The current student strength including both undergraduate and graduate program is approximately 800 and is expected to become 1200 in the next ten years.

3) The department will need two computer labs accommodating 40 students each.

4) The department will need new lab facilities to facilitate research work.

5) The seating capacity of the new facility should be able to accommodate a minimum of 60 students (5%).

6) The new facility should have more spaces for interaction and recreation of the students and faculties.

Space Designation No. AREA (Sq ft)

Per

Unit

Area

(Sq

ft)

A Faculty & Staff

Dept Head 1 135 135

program coordinator 3 360 120

Faculty Offices 50 6750 135

Student Advisor 2 270 135

Staff Office 6 720 120

Lounge & Pantry 1 550 550

File Storage 1 to 2 200

Sub Total 8985

B Conferences

Small Conference Room for 20 to 25

people 2 1350 675

Large Multipurpose Conference Room for

50 people 1 1500 1500

Lounge and Pantry 1 400 400

Auditorium for 200 persons 1 3000 3000

AV Equipment Room 1 100 100

Projection Room 1 80 80

Storage 1 100 100

Sub Total 6530

C Computing Center

computer lab for 40 students 2 2800 1400

Computer support help desk 1 180 180

Plotting/ printing 1 60 60

storage 1 100 100

Sub Total 3140

D Classrooms

Classroom Type A (0 to 15 persons) 3 1575 525

Classroom Type B (15 to30 persons) 3 2700 900

Classroom Type C (30 to 45 persons) 5 6750 1350

Classroom Type D (45 to 75 persons) 1 2250 2250

Subtotal 13275

E Common Facilities

Seating Capacity (min 60 - max 120)

Lounge and open area 2175 2175

Library / Research Center 1 2250 2250

Canteen 1 1000 1000

Subtotal 5425

F Rest Rooms

Men's Restrooms 4 720 180

Janitor 4 160 40

Women's Restrooms 4 720 180

Janitor 4 160 40

Subtotal 1760

G Laboratories

Material Testing 1 450 450

Soil Lab 1 500 500

BIM Lab 1 250 250

Research Lab 3 1350 450

Subtotal 2550

H Special Use Room

Industry Interaction 1 350

Product Display Room 1 250

Student Association Room 1 250

Subtotal 850

K Support

Mechanical Room 5 750 150

Electrical Room 6 480 80

Elevator Mechanical Room 2 170 85

Storage 1 100 100

Subtotal 1500

Total 44015

35% Circulation Space 15405

Gross Floor Area 59420 Parking Requirements: There is no need of new parking spaces, as the existing surface parking spaces near Williams Administration Building will serve the Proposed Construction Science Facility.

Land Use:

This diagram illustrates the zoning of spaces on campus and off-campus based on usage. It

clearly illustrates the density of buildings on one side and the huge open spaces on other side of

the site. The proposed site acts as a transition between the dense mass of existing buildings

and the free open spaces and parks.

TRAFFIC VOLUME:

The following data could be used to determine the nature of open space around the proposed

building, the site access, the entrance and the relationship between vehicular and pedestrian

accesses.

PEDESTRIAN PATHS

This Circulation diagram shows the major pedestrian path and the pedestrian active zones on

campus. It also demonstrates the nodes with grade vehicular pedestrian access.

BUS TRANSIT PATHS

This Circulation diagram shows the possible bus transit corridors in the future. The possibility

of closing the Ross Street for vehicles should be considered in the process of design

development and space adjacencies.

BIKE TRANSIT PATHS

This Diagram shows the possible circulation pattern for bikes on campus, which can be

considered while determining the circulation pattern around the site.

WALKING DISTANCES:

Campus plan showing a ten minute walking radius centered around the Simpson Drill Field. This

data could be used by the designer to make assumptions regarding the available major facilities

near the site.

SITE TOPOGRAPHY:

The topography of the site is relatively flat.

TREE COVER:

The proposed site has around 10 trees around its fringe. The central portion of the site is

relatively free of any tree cover and is covered with lawn. This situation should be considered

while planning the outdoor spaces of the proposed structure and their relationship with the road,

entrance and the structure itself.

CLIMATE ANALYSIS:

The temperature range data provides valuable information regarding decisions to be taken for

natural and artificial ventilation within the proposed structure.

Weather Summary

The weather data summary can be used as a guideline to take decisions regarding day lighting,

artificial lighting, natural and artificial ventilation with respect to the proposed structure.

GOVERNING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS:

1) Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations: International building code (www.icc state.org) NFPA 5000 (www.nfpa.org) National electrical code National plumbing code Uniform Building Code Standard Building Code 2000-ICC completed International Code services

2) PHS Manual; HHS Office Standards

3) Applicable Policies, Standards and Guidance

4) Applicable State & Local Statutes, Regulations, Permit & License Conditions

5) Applicable Industry Standards

6) ASTM, ANSI, ASHRAE, AALAC, LEED, JCAHO, MDE, Green Building Council.

IV - CONCEPTS

1) ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Consideration should be given to cluster the spaces based on activities and user groups

2) FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS The circulation should be kept free flowing from both interior and exterior context with a central interactive space

Research

Student Interaction

Course -work

Faculty

Under-Grad

Grad

The central interactive space can have elements of water and plants to enhance the

user experience of the facility.

The North and South face of the building should be in Harmony with the adjoining

spaces to maintain the ambience of the space.

The Accessibility to the facility should be available from both southern and eastern part of the side.

3) PRIORITIES

The importance to spaces can be given in the following order, Primary Activities: lecture rooms, auditoriums, studios, labs and conferences,

Administration, faculty offices, computer and media services.

Secondary Activities: Cafeteria, storage for labs & other maintenance works,

workshop.

4) OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS The spaces in the administrative block should be well connected based on the

communication pattern of the staffs, visitors and coordinators.

Student meeting spaces and industry relation spaces can be connected well.

Admin.

Secretary

Storage

Waiting

Visitors

Consideration should be given to provide centralized services for the facility

Both horizontal and vertical circulation of the building should be segregated

based for users and service providers. Consideration should be given to make the class room spaces and other spaces

multifunctional.

Both active and passive energy conservation measures should be addressed in the

design solution to achieve a platinum certified facility.

V – PROBLEM STATEMENT

FUNCTION:

A symbiosis should exist between the new facility and the existing Langford Complex. The

design solution should be able to achieve a free flowing space that caters the need of the

interdisciplinary users of the facility.

Stress should be given to achieve multi-functional spaces within the facility.

Sustainability is one of the prime considerations. The new facility should be designed to get

LEED Platinum certification.

FORM:

Following the master plan guidelines is of prime importance to merge with the architectural

characteristics of the Texas A & M Campus.

Form must be responsive to the climate, topography and accessibility considerations.

It should be a blend of the traditional and contemporary architectural styles.

ECONOMY:

The maximum Total Project Cost should not exceed twenty million Dollars.

Total life cycle cost should be considered while designing, to achieve a facility with lower

operating and maintenance cost.

Sustainable solutions should also be cost effective.

TIME:

Time is negotiable. The designer should come with multiple options of schedule with associated

costs involved.

APPENDIX INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES Interview with Department Head – Dr. Joe Horlen

1) Why do you think is the proposed building of ‘Department of Construction Science and

Interdisciplinary Building’ essential?

- The current building has four different departments – Architecture, Visualization,

Landscape Architecture and Construction Science. The present facility is not big

enough to house all the above four departments efficiently. Since, the department of

Construction Science has reasonable funds and industry support, it can afford to

move out of the present facility into a new building.

2) How big should the department be in terms of number of faculty, students and staff?

- The new building should be able to accommodate 1200 students, 50 faculty

members and 10 support staff.

3) What should be the image / expression of the proposed building?

- We need a state of the art building that represents the latest technology. For

example, to cater to the MEP course, we could have a class with false ceiling

displaying the various components related to the course.

4) What additional learning facilities should be provided in the proposed building?

- The department would need additional material labs, computer studio labs. There

could be 6 empty rooms open for booking for the various faculty during the academic

semester. In this way, the function of the rooms could be flexible providing the

needed classes when due.

5) Should there be any facilities in addition to the existing ones in the department?

- There could be two small conference rooms, each seating eight people. One large

conference seating 25 people and one more that could seat the total of fifty faculty

members. Also, we could have two midsized seminar halls, each seating 120

people, and as far as the large auditorium is concerned, the present one should be

used ( Preston Geren ), as constructing a new one would not be efficient.

6) With respect to your individual office, are there any specific requirements?

- The waiting space for the office should be completely different from that of the

program coordinators office. There should be no conflict in the movement and

seating of people visiting the department head ( Industry professionals, etc.)and the

program coordinators ( students ) .

- Need additional staff and storage space.

- Faculty lounge / gathering space, since currently no such space for faculty recreation

in the department.

Interview with Graduate Coordinator – Dr. Julian Kang

1) What is the need for the proposed ‘Construction Science and Interdisciplinary Building’ ?

- The department demands more space in comparison to the present situation.

2) What is the structural organization of the department at present?

a) One Department Head

b) Three Coordinators – Undergraduate Coordinator, Graduate Coordinator,

Coordinator for Industry Relations

c) Five secretaries

d) Faculty members

3) Whether the functions of the Williams building will be shifted in the new building?

- They may be shifted or only certain functions may be shifted.

4) Are there any more specialized fields expected to be introduced in the Construction

Science Department?

- There are chances of introducing new courses in the department to meet the new

expectations. More advanced and needed courses needed according to industry

requirements. E.g. Robotics lab.

5) What facilities are expected to be expanded in the new building?

- It may be a good idea to incorporate an auditorium, which could be half the size of

the Geren Auditorium.

- As far as the computing facility is concerned, there could be a policy to expect

students to get their own laptops, thus no need to buy new computers for lab facility.

- There could be BIM labs. If needed advanced labs could be there – e.g. simulation

labs, also labs for research facilities.

- Library facility may not be expanded.

Interview with Undergraduate Co-ordinator – Debra Ellis

1) What image / expression should the building have ?

- The Building should be a result of the combination of modern + historical concepts. The

example of the Texas State Capitol could provide the appropriate approach in this

regard, where the extension of the capitol was constructed keeping in mind the existing

structures theme of using the seal of Texas on the flooring. This helped maintain the

tradition of the structure. At the same time, it should also be modern in the way it

functions.

2) How important should sustainability be for the new building?

- The new building should set an example for the university in terms of sustainability , as

the university does not have a single structure at the moment which can be termed

‘sustainable’. The building could have a green roof / garden top. Water harvesting and

photo-voltaic installations could also be worked out for the new building.

3) How big should the computing facility be for the new building?

- The new building should have at least 2 / 3 computer labs similar to the one currently on

level one of building A.

4) How many students would be expected in the upcoming building?

- The facility should be able to accommodate 900 / 1000 undergraduate students as

against 700, the current number.

5) How could the current department of Construction Science be used when the proposed

structure comes up?

- Certain spaces could be used as storage for some of the specialty labs (

Earth/Concrete/Timber. etc. )

6) Does the proposed structure demand certain new spaces currently not provided in the

Department?

- There should be a space for student within the building – Like a lounge, where the

students study or use it for recreation.

- The concept of outdoor lectures could be also incorporated, where the students and

professors could sit in a garden, or may be an open air amphitheatre.

Interview with Academic Co-ordinator – Amanda Holmes

1) Are there any suggestions with reference to the layout of the current administration block

of the department?

- Advisors of various departments should be located close by in order to make

communication easier between them, however, those of the undergraduate

programs should be located separately.

- Layout of the current administration block a bit tight. There is a need for each

advisor to have a bigger seating, in order to seat at least 5 people at a time.

- The assistants of the graduate and undergraduate co-ordinators also need a cubicle

to organize their working space more efficiently. Currently, they are housed in the

existing waiting area, giving them no privacy.

2) Are there any requirements specific to your working space?

- The office needs a bigger filing space. Circulation should be comfortable within the

cubicle, currently it is too compact.

3) Does the administration block need any additional spaces?

- There is a need for a conference for administrators, in order to cater to meetings, etc.

- Also, there is a need for a faculty / staff lounge. It can act as a recreation space for

them.

4) Is the café in the department good in terms of scale and layout?

- Currently, it is too chaotic. The height seems to be a problem. Lesser height would

help curb noise level in the café. It should be located away from classrooms to avoid

disturbing them.

5) Any comments on the passages, lobbies and restrooms within the building?

- Pasages and stairways seem to be fine. However, the restrooms need maintenance

regularly. Certain doors are stiff. Even the elevator could be a slightly fast moving

one.

6) Any comments on other services to which the department is related?

- The postal service could be more smooth. Currently, the packets received by post

need to be collected by the concerned individual from a single point at level one of

the department. It would be better if the delivery goes specifically to the concerned

individual / department.

Interview with Faculty – Dr. James Smith

1) What additional learning facilities do you anticipate in the future for the proposed

‘Construction Science and Interdisciplinary Building’?

- There should be provision for interdisciplinary work. Individuals as well as small

teams from different interests should be able to work in the classes.

- Labs like material testing, concrete and steel should be provided.

- Space for display of materials necessary – e.g. – wood.

2) Are further subdivisions in COSC faculty desired?

- It is not necessary to subdivide the faculty, since many of the faculty are overlapping

with the courses of graduate and undergraduate students.

3) What kind of a structure do you anticipate the new building to be?

- It should be an intelligent building. The building should be able to accommodate

changes in technology.

- It should be flexible. With an introduction of new coursework, it should be able to

absorb all its course requirements. ( e.g. BIM requires a computer studio + lab .)

- The classrooms should be multifunctional. Should be able to be used as labs as well

as lecture rooms.

4) What are the space requirements with respect to your individual office?

- The area of the office is 160sq.ft , which is adequate. There is no necessity of any

additional requirement.

5) Is there a need for a personal outdoor space close to your office?

- Such a space is not likely to be used much, since in winter it would not be desirable.

It has a low priority.

6) How frequent is your interaction with other faculty members and the Department Head?

- Meeting with department head happens once or twice a week and with other faculty

members quite regularly.

Interview with Faculty – Dr. Jose Solis

1) What are the space requirements specific to your office?

- The area is 120 sq. ft. The current office space is good enough.

2) Are further subdivisions in COSC faculty needed?

- Subdividing faculty can be a good idea. Faculty with common research interests

could be clubbed together. This would give communication between them a

better chance.

3) What kind of personal space requirements do you have?

- The option of clubbing faculties of similar interests can be a good idea. The

circulation space between their workspaces could act as good interactive spaces

and may act similar to outdoor spaces.

4) What additional learning facilities do you anticipate in future?

- Material resource lab could be provided

- There could be a space like a general lab area and a BIM lab

- There should be space dedicated to student leadership activity groups.

- Space to put up presentations and hold competitions.

5) How is your co-relation with other departments under the college of Architecture?

- Architecture department is visited on a daily basis. Landscape Architecture

department is visited once a month.

6) Are there any other suggestions for the proposed structure?

- Certain design concepts could be incorporated – like, having a transparent roof

for the material lab, so that it is visible from the upper floor level.

Interview with Undergraduate Students Adeel Metha, Ricky Bowler and Erica

B.2.1- Are the existing facilities sufficient and their utilization and relationship to other facilities within the same general area?

a. Sufficient

b. Just fine

c. Insufficient

B.2.2. Is there a need for a new COSC building?

a. Strongly needed

b. Better

c. Not needed

B.3. Is the staff easily accessible in the present facility?

a. Yes

b. No

F.1. Is there any particular facility required which is not available in the present facility? Are

there any particular space requirements for it?

Answer – There used to be computer labs for open use around the clock. I don’t like how

everything is so scattered now. For example, if the printers are not working, you have to

print to a different cluster, located on different floors. Where the old computer labs were

(107A/107B), now serve as graduate studio classrooms. So, if we do get a new building,

the COSC department should invest in computer labs that are all in close proximity to

one another and so that the architecture students can use the existing facility to the best

of its capability. The system engineering is very chaotic.

F.2. The present allocation of space per person is sufficient:

a. Strongly agree

c. Strongly disagree

F.3. Present allocation for support space is sufficient:

a. Strongly agree

c. Strongly disagree

H. System engineering i.e the functionality of the present building is good:

a. Agree

b. Disagree

DESIGN CRITERION:

SITE

A. Present site utilities, parking, sidewalks serve well

a. Agree

b. Disagree

B. Present site layout works well climatologically and functionally

a. Agree

b. Disagree

C. Landscaping for the building is:

a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Bad

D. Present building has good storm water retention/management

a. Agree

b. Disagree

ARCHITECTURAL:

A. Orientation & placement of structure to consider natural lighting views, heat loss/gain, energy conservation and optimizing energy is good: a. Agree

b. Disagree

B. Building aesthetics (Architectural Context):

a. Pleasing

b. Good

c. Bad

C. Building envelope structurally and aesthetically suitable

a. Agree

b. Disagree

D. Interior Circulation is as per requirements: a. Agree

b. Disagree

E. Any problems with acoustics/HVAC/lighting?

No

F. The building is easily accessible

a. Agree

b. Disagree

G. Building seems structurally safe

a. Agree

b. Disagree

Any particular problems noticed w.r.t deterioration? No, doesn’t seem like it.

H. Building is safe during emergencies and fire:

a. Agree

b. Disagree

FUNCTION SPECIFIC:

Do the following facilities serve well, if not what are the problems faced?

a. Studio- Studios are scattered everywhere. Keep them together. It will help

centralize the students, their mess, and their work

b. Library – Should stay open longer.

c. Classrooms – 102B is very hard to move around in, and the studios in room 107 a/b

need to move back up stairs or into buildings B or C

d. Computing facility – Centralize them!!! Also, possibly create a print center that

distributes copies like the SCC.

e. Labs

f. Conference center

g. Meeting rooms

h. Parking – Make faculty parking lot bigger if possible and add 30 minute parking

zones.

ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT: It’s not

completely necessary, but I think after seeing architecture classes move to the pavilion,

and scattering computer labs and printers, studios, and faculty offices, students find it

frustrating to work in Langford and end up stressing out more.

Interview with graduate students Amruta Naiknavare, Komal Patel

B.2.1- Are the existing facilities sufficient and their utilization and relationship to other facilities within the same general area?

d. Sufficient

e. Just fine

f. Insufficient

B.2.2. Is there a need for a new COSC building?

a. Strongly needed

b. Better

c. Not needed

B.3. Is the staff easily accessible in the present facility?

a. Yes

b. No

F.1. Is there any particular facility required which is not available in the present facility? Are

there any particular space requirements for it?

Answer – There is a need for more discussion and interaction spaces. Secondly,

computing and media facility available is not enough. The classes available for certain

lectures are not sufficient which puts constraints on the timings of classes. Also there

are no material labs which are needed for construction science students to understand

subjects in better ways. Interaction with the industry is needed on a more frequent basis

which demands for an industry interaction area.

F.2. The present allocation of space per person is sufficient:

a. Strongly agree

c. Strongly disagree

F.3. Present allocation for support space is sufficient:

a. Strongly agree

c. Strongly disagree

H. System engineering i.e the functionality of the present building is good:

a. Agree

b. Disagree

DESIGN CRITERION:

SITE

B. Present site utilities, parking, sidewalks serve well

a. Agree

b. Disagree

There is a need for a larger parking area and a better segregation of pedestrian

and vehicular traffic.

B. Present site layout works well climatologically and functionally

a. Agree

b. Disagree

C. Landscaping for the building is:

a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Bad

D. Present building has good storm water retention/management

a. Agree

b. Disagree

ARCHITECTURAL:

B. Orientation & placement of structure to consider natural lighting views, heat loss/gain, energy conservation and optimizing energy is good: a. Agree

b. Disagree

I disagree because the volume of the building is too large and the ventilation is

not sufficient nor is the lighting. The building depends a lot upon artificial light

and ventilation. The heating of the building is not sufficient during winter and

hence, leads to waste of energy and without optimum result.

B. Building aesthetics (Architectural Context):

a. Pleasing

b. Good

c. Bad

C. Building envelope structurally and aesthetically suitable

a. Agree

b. Disagree

D. Interior Circulation is as per requirements: a. Agree

b. Disagree

The internal circulation is problematic as the area allocated for different functions and

the spill-over areas are not sufficient.

E. Any problems with acoustics/HVAC/lighting?

The ventilation of the facility is not sufficient due to the large volume. It needs to be

supplemented with a better ducting.

F. The building is easily accessible

a. Agree

b. Disagree

G. Building seems structurally safe

a. Agree

b. Disagree

Any particular problems noticed w.r.t deterioration? No, doesn’t seem like it.

H. Building is safe during emergencies and fire:

a. Agree

b. Disagree

FUNCTION SPECIFIC:

Do the following facilities serve well, if not what are the problems faced?

i. Studio-

The studio space is not sufficient for the 800 odd students using it.

j. Library – The library is sufficient.

k. Classrooms –

The classrooms are scattered and so there is almost no interaction that would help the

students and the faculty to be more aware of the happenings. Also it would waste lesser

time. Communication between the same batch students and between different batches

is necessary.

l. Computing facility –

The computing facility presently is not sufficient and only 1 printer is assigned for the

entire cosc department. There is a need for a larger number of computers and the OAL

lab for computers should not be used for lectures.

m. Labs:

Material labs should be a part of the department to have a better understanding of

subjects.

n. Conference center and Meeting rooms:

Needed for having presentations and meetings to interact with students, faculty and

industry representatives.

o. Parking –

Present parking on campus is not enough and must be increased.

p. ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT: It

should be sustainable, convenient, centralized but in harmony with the existing

buildings of the college of architecture.

Interview with IT Services

1) What are your requirements with respect to the workspace?

- Workspace for two people, space for a scanner and printer

- Waiting space for the students / faculty

- Space for presentation sheets rack

- Two rooms for supervisors

- A print room

2) What co-relation do you have with other spaces like computer lab, staff, etc?

- Maintenance / repair work of computer lab is required occasionally, so proximity

to that is not a high priority.

- Staff needs to collect their corresponding mail packets from the IT services.

Thus, they should be located at a location easier for them to access.

3) Are there any specific requirements of the IT services?

- FedEx and UPS deliver all the mail related to the department at the IT services

office, approximately thrice a day. So it should be easily accessible to them.

- A separate storage space should be assigned for the mail received from postal

services.

- A service elevator should be installed in the new building, since there would be a

back up elevator needed in the event of the failure of the main elevator.

Findings from the interviews:

1) Significance to Sustainability:

2) Need for additional spaces with respect to :

- Administration Block ( Conference rooms)

- Academic Block ( labs )

- Recreation area ( student / faculty lounge )

- Student leadership activities ( CMA/FMSC/SHEA, etc.)

- Industry Interaction + Material Resource

3) Necessary to make the layout more functional, especially the administration block.

4) The architectural character of the building should be a combination of traditional and

modern concepts.

5) Need for the academic space to be flexible/multifunctional – use of rooms as lecture

halls/ labs/studios.

6) The buildings associated with the department of construction science should

complement it – Associating the functions existing in Pavilion, Williams, existing building

and the proposed new building.

7) The need to integrate interior and exterior of the building – Spaces like an open air

amphitheatre, garden which relates to the building space and can be used by faculty and

students to gather formally/informally.