ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS SCHOOL AND …faculty.arch.utah.edu/miller/Case_Study_Final_2.pdf · tee (DOVA), chaired by Bob Herman, was to cre-ate a case for a new building and

1

ProgrammingSchematic DesignIdeasBudgetConstruction

Firm IdentityServicesFirm StructureProtocols

DFCMWeber State UniversityFacultyDonors

StoriesSummary

ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS SCHOOL AND CENTER

Weber State UniversityOgden, Utah

PRESCOTT MUIR ARCHITECTSPrescott Muir, AIA, Design PrincipalJack Robertson, AIA, Project ArchitectLisa Arnett, Design Associate

SYNOPSIS CLIENTS DESIGN TEAM DELIVERY MEASURES

CASE STUDY

Prepared by:Bill CalderTodd KelseyBrenda RobertsRob Waters

Architecture 6965College of Architecture + PlanningUniversity of Utah

2




StoriesSummary

ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS SCHOOL AND CENTER

Weber State UniversityOgden, Utah

PRESCOTT MUIR ARCHITECTSPrescott Muir, AIA, Design PrincipalJack Robertson, AIA, Project ArchitectLisa Arnett, Design Associate


CASE STUDY

3




Summary

I. SynopsisII. Clients


III. Design TeamFirm IdentityServicesFirm StructureProtocols

IV. DeliveryProgrammingSchematic DesignIdeasBudgetConstruction

V. MeasuresSummary


TABLE OF CONTENTS

main floor plan

Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center

Weber State University

Prescott Muir Architects

20’


SYNOPSIS

Not having an art building that equaledthe teaching talent found at Weber StateUniversity’s Department of Visual Arts was theprimary drive for a new facility. A new buildingwith improved physical resources would allow theUniversity’s art program to become more com-petitive in the Intermountain West and potentiallyattract a more diverse body of students. The fa-cility would allow instructors to teach with a dif-ferent pedagogy, more compatible with the groupproblem solving and critiquing methods foundwithin the artistic community.

In addition, the need for a cultural resourcefor the City of Ogden was spawned from a wealthy,local family’s desire to donate their art collectionto the city. Regrettably, the city lacked an appro-priate facility in which to house such a gift, andeventually they placed the collection at the UtahMuseum of Fine Arts on the University of Utahcampus in Salt Lake City, approximately 35 milesaway. This was a poignant milestone in the longstruggle towards a new art facility on the WeberState campus.

Situated on the main quadrangle of build-ings at Weber State, the Visual Arts School standsas an expression of the activities found within. Itreflects the desire to serve both the communityand the students through the successful marriageof gallery space with the educational goals of thevisual arts school. The building integrates the vari-ous programmatic parts with architectural expres-sion that allows for an understanding of the com-plex nature of the whole. This is accomplishedthrough the massing of the building as well as

the exterior materials and interior finishesthroughout the project.


SYNOPSIS

Prescott Muir Architects (PMA), a Salt LakeCity-based design firm was chosen for both theprogramming and design of the new school. Theynot only had experience in designing art centers,museums, and cultural facilities, but also an inter-est and involvement in the local art community thatdemonstrated their excitement and interest in thisparticular project. By finding ways to balance thewants and desires of the students, faculty, com-munity and donors, the Visual Arts School servesas a mechanism facilitating the successful inte-gration of different agendas through architecture.

The value of this case is to study the par-allels between the educational goals of WeberState University’s Art program and the design ap-proach of Prescott Muir Architects. The variousdepartments within the school have been providedwith appropriate levels of interaction so that knowl-edge can be shared through dialogue among thestudents, faculty, and the visiting public. The de-sign of the school was carried out in a similarmanner. The differing entities involved in theproject maintained a dialogue, as well, that allowedPrescott Muir to gain input from and accommo-date the needs of the constituencies while devel-oping the overall vision for the Ethel Wattis KimballVisual Arts School and Center.

The design team was composed of princi-pal Prescott Muir, Jack Robertson as the projectarchitect with Lisa Arnett as the design associate.Other consultants participating in the venture wereDave Christensen, landscape architect; Van

Boerum & Frank, mechanical engineers;Spectrum Engineering, electrical engineers,Great Basin Engineering, civil engineers; andComtrol as general contractor. In the span ofone year, this team of professionals createda structure that is an invaluable asset to thefuture of Ogden and Weber State University.


CLIENTS

CLIENTS-The concept for the Visual Arts Center

stemmed from the desire to create a building toprovide a new educational facility incorporatedwith a community art museum space on the We-ber State University campus. With its beginningsmore than a decade ago, the principal focus ofthe Department of Visual Arts Advisory Commit-tee (DOVA), chaired by Bob Herman, was to cre-ate a case for a new building and advocate for itwith the University administration. Through theyears, the committee built its case, developing abuilding program, a preferred site location, a com-parative institution analysis, funding options, andso on. Many on this committee were instrumen-tal, especially in this advocacy and fund-raisingphase, including Jim MacBeth and Richard VanWagoner, past-chairmen of the DOVA, and com-mittee members Gwen Williams, Frances Hawk,Gaylor Schmitt, Telitha Lindquist and CarolynNebeker.

This committee (DOVA) then took a lessactive role as the actual programming and designphase of the Visual Arts Center began, though stillremaining a presence in the process. For ex-ample, during the programming phase, the DOVAcommittee participated in a workshop conductedby PMA’s team, providing expectations for the fa-cility--especially the gallery--on behalf of the com-munity. In addition, with the project’s funding com-ing solely from private donors, which is more com-monly seen in higher education’s buildings today,the desire of the donors to house an art gallery in

DFCMWeber State UniversityFaculty and StudentsDonors


CLIENTS


this facility was noteworthy for the designers.Throughout the programming and design process,the collective voices of the clients became thedriving force for the entire project.

For the Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual ArtsCenter, the constituents consisted of several par-ties: The state entity, the Division of Facilities Con-struction and Management (DFCM), representedby Blake Court; the public/community of donorsled by Vice President Ann Millner, Ph.D. as theUniversity liaison and Bob Herman, AIA, as Chairof the Community Advisory Committee; and We-ber State University, along with the faculty andstudents, represented by Jim Jacobs and later,Jim Harris, who was later brought on board tomanage the construction phase. In this category,the project from the schematic phase through de-sign development was informed by a committeecomprised of the following individuals: Ann Millner,then Vice-President for Community Relations;David Eisler of Provost; Alan Simpkins, Vice-President of Administrative Services; Craige Hall,Associate Vice-President of Administrative Ser-vices; Mike Perez, Director of Facilities Manage-ment; Jim Cox, Architectural Services; and JunePhillips, Dean of the College of Arts and Humani-ties.

While some participants were not as vo-cal as others, this committee proved influentialon the design of the building. David Eisler, inparticular, had a strong interest in the project and

lent his influence, while giving Jim Jacobs asignificant voice in all matters. Four repre-sentatives from Administrative Services alsostrongly participated in the design phase, voic-ing their opinions on many facets of the de-sign. These representatives channeled thedesires of those whom they represent to thedesign team, which turned idea into reality.

8


CLIENTS

DFCM-The state of Utah was involved because

the proposed facility was to be located at a state-owned institution, Weber State University, andwas intended for use by state employees anduniversity students in addition to a museum-go-ing public. DFCM’s main role in this project wasto insure that the project was completed on time,with no delays or trouble from state auditors, andwith as little litigation as possible. This involve-ment differed from other DFCM-related projectsbecause private funds, as opposed to publicfunds, were utilized. Mr. Court’s role in thisproject was contract administrator and budgetkeeper; he solicited proposals, wrote contracts,and made payments for the various tasks per-formed. Because this project was privatelyfunded more interaction transpired between theend user and the architect than with the state.

Ultimately the state’s voice was heardthrough the DFCM by contract language andMr. Court’s participation in meetings. The statealso had a role in the project through WeberState planning and administration.


9


CLIENTS

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY-During the initial programming and design

phases of the project, the University was repre-sented through the Art Department and otherspreviously mentioned. Six weeks into the con-struction of the project, Mr. Jim Harris, the Cam-pus Master Planner, was brought in to serve asthe Project Manager. His role was to manage theconstruction budget and to voice his opinions inthe interest of the University. This was accom-plished by working directly with and holding weeklymeetings with the Project Manager, the Architect,the Contractor, and the DFCM. Again, the collabo-rative process of decision-making allowed prob-lems to be solved fairly and easily because of therelationship that existed at that group level.

The evolution and maintenance of theentire campus and how this building fit into thatscheme was of utmost importance. Mr. Harris’sdepartment was also responsible for site plan-ning. The location of the structure to requiredparking areas and campus utilities became themain topics of concern. In addition, anotherimportant concern was the maintenance ofsafety for students and faculty, ADA accessibilityand service vehicle routes into campus duringconstruction.


10



CLIENTS

FACULTY AND STUDENTS-The future building users also had input

in the design of the art center. Mr. Jacobs, thefaculty chair, represented the art department’sperspective. Initially, Mr. Jacobs acted as a liai-son between the faculty and the school’s admin-istration. Together they needed to decide howmuch money to allocate to the project, and choosean architect and construction company that wouldbe the best in achieving their goals for the project.Through steering committees, Mr. Jacobs heldconsiderable influence in all stages of develop-ment. DFCM and campus administration took aless active role as the project progressed, whilefaculty, students, and donors all participated moreassertively in the decision-making process.

Through the initial programming process,the constituents began to develop the group prob-lem solving theme. Interaction between studentsfrom a variety of art disciplines helped stimulatediscussion, and the potential for involvementacross the several artforms taught at the schoolwas identified. This democratic and resourcefulway of generating dialogue was the underlyingconcept that drove most of the decision-making.This theme applies to the art faculty as well. Theywanted to emphasize interdisciplinary discussionbrought out into a more public forum, which inturn could engage students in discussion. Thesegoals informed the architect’s design, and led tothe creation of the large hallways and corridorsfound throughout the building that act as circula-tion paths as well as extensions of classrooms.

11


CLIENTS

DONORS-Because the Visual Arts Center was funded

privately, the donors had significant influence inthe project’s development. The donor committeewanted to elevate the notoriety of the school andbring art awareness to the surrounding commu-nity. Mr. Herman, the donor committee chair, rep-resented their desires, while negotiating with theother parties involved. His being a licensed archi-tect was advantageous to all, for he contributedknowledgeable insight to the tasks at hand. Mr.Herman’s role was critical and his political influ-ence was essential for creating a successful prod-uct. If too much or too little influence were to beimposed by the donors the building would havesuffered. The donors wanted a public art galleryas the main feature of the facility. The galleryneeded to be spacious and be in a prominent lo-cation. Mr. Herman helped to negotiate these de-sires while working with the architect and othersto maintain an art center that would be both func-tional as an educational building and cohesive inits concept and design.


12



DESIGN TEAM

FIRM IDENTITY-Prescott Muir Architects was founded in

1976 by Prescott Muir, and in its 28 years of prac-tice has developed a national reputation for theirdesign of uniquely crafted buildings and urbaninterventions. It is a small office located in theheart of Salt Lake City that employs a number ofprofessionals dedicated to a work grounded in alocation, people, culture, and time.

After receiving a Bachelor of Architecturedegree from the University of Southern Californiain 1972, Mr. Muir continued his education at theUniversity of Utah, graduating in 1982 with a Bach-elor of Fine Arts degree with an emphasis in paint-ing and drawing. He went on to study at Colum-bia University and received his Master of Sciencein Architectural Design in 1986. In addition toheading up the firm, Mr. Muir also participates asa studio critic and has taught a design theory/his-tory course at the College of Architecture + Plan-ning at the University of Utah. He has lecturedand exhibited his work at the University of South-ern California, at Carnegie Mellon University, theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte, the LasVegas Center for Contemporary Art, and the SaltLake Art Center.

Mr. Muir’s endeavors include extensiveamounts of time devoted to community and pro-fessional services. He has served as the Presi-dent of the Utah chapter of the AIA; has partici-pated as a member of the Salt Lake City PlanningCommission; has served as Chair of the Board of

1 Taken from the firm’s website,www.prescottmuir.com

Directors of the Salt Lake Downtown Alliance;Salt Lake Olympic Cultural Affairs Committee;Salt Lake Art Center Board of Trustees;Governor’s Envision Utah Scenarios Commit-tee; Utah Transportation Management Asso-ciation Executive Committee; and the Townof Alta Planning Commission.

SERVICES-

Prescott Muir Architects is dedicatedto providing solutions to architectural chal-lenges by corroborating a narrative foundedon client, community and architect commu-nication. This informs each project’s re-sponse, whose physical expression growsfrom the assemblage of incremental, ordetailed “proofs” or solutions mediated bythe inherent tension between use andrepresentation.

The firm has established itself as anaward-winning firm with a diverse body ofwork, ranging from performing arts centersand art museums to private residences andaffordable housing projects. In addition,they participate in the programming processof project proposals.

1

13


DESIGN TEAM

FIRM STRUCTURE-The architectural firm Prescott Muir Archi-

tects (PMA) is a small operation, headed byPrescott Muir. Two partners complete the firmstructure. Jack Robertson, AIA, is the partner whohas led the project management for most of thefirm’s major projects. Lisa Arnett, the second part-ner, has led and collaborated in the design effortsof many of the firm’s projects. The architecturalstaff includes from five to fifteen individuals withvaried responsibilities. Due to the close-knit na-ture of the firm, the three partners are able to workclosely on the projects that the firm takes on, whichleads to a more quality design. Each member ofthe firm is responsible for bringing to the team ef-fort all possible resources to meet the projectneeds. As projects come in, the partners collabo-rate on a work timeline, and assign appropriateresponsibilities, which vary from project to project.As assignments are dispersed, the team coordi-nates in a timely manner to insure that the client’sneeds have been heard and will be sufficiently met.


14



DESIGN TEAM

PROTOCOLS-As the initiative for a new art school and

museum evolved, the network of decision-mak-ing commenced. The task at hand was not a di-minutive one—the scheme was to create a visualarts school that would better serve the faculty, stu-dents, and community in the present as well asthe future. The involvement of various constitu-ents proved fruitful as their input synthesized andstructured the overall success of the project onmany levels.

Programming was the first step to createthis new Weber State University entity, withPrescott Muir Architects chosen to lead the team.DFCM, a campus steering committee from theWeber State campus facilities department, and anadvisory committee from the Art Department as-sembled to establish the building’s program re-quirements. After touring several other similar vi-sual arts centers to understand more fully the pre-vailing developments within visual arts education,they set to work to establish their needs and de-sires for the new facility. The local needs for anart museum coupled with faculty decisions as towhere the visual arts program was headed wereweighed in the developmental process. Shifts infuture visual arts education, such as the more fre-quent presence of digital methods while phasingout of more traditional analog methods, was dis-cussed, and flexible working spaces became asignificant factor to facilitate the group problem-solving methods used to educate students. Otherfactors affecting the development of the building’s

design requirements were the community part-nerships to be involved, and environmentalconcerns affecting the building and its users.

With the programmatic requirementsestablished, a State-managed selectionprocess determined the architect of recordfor the project. Prescott Muir Architects wasultimately chosen, and the relationshipspreviously established in the programmingphase allowed for a smooth transition intothe design phase of the project. WeberState administration appointees acted as theliaison coordinator for the venture, headingthe team as overseer of the project. Thekey constituents: Mr. Court, Mr. Muir and hisdesign team of Mr. Robertson and Ms.Arnett, Mr. Herman, Mr. Harris, and Mr.Jacobs met in a committee setting periodi-cally so all would remain informed andprovide input on the course of the design.

Whenever more than three entitiesare involved in the design and constructionof a building, inevitably there exists thepotential for disagreements in design,programming, and even construction. Whennumerous constituents bring their ideas,agendas, and priorities to the table, thesedisagreements can escalate unmanageably.Differences of opinion regarding issues ofstyle and placement of the structure, amongothers, proved to be a challenge for all

15



DESIGN TEAM

PROTOCOLS -involved. The administration at Weber Statewas said to be the most critical of every decisionto be made. With effort, according to Mr. Muir,he and his team used this discussion to theadvantage of the design. The constant assess-ment and criticism were perceived as opportuni-ties to advance ideas even further until a re-warding outcome ensued. Mr. Muir’s team,instead of trying to immediately dictate whatthey felt the facility should be, approached thisproject with a mindset that open lines of com-munication are the essential component of notonly a good design, but also good relations anda viable building that can stand the test of time.

It was discovered that each participantencouraged the design process, with the WeberState administration fully supportive of the visionof the art program. Mr. Harris, as the appointedproject manager and official university represen-tative, was responsible for voicing his opinionsand thoughts with the best interests of theuniversity in mind. In the end, DFCM had thedefinitive say; however, the entire workingrelationship was a success by way of clear,steady communication among all involved.

During the construction phase of theproject, weekly project progress meetings wereheld, with the Project Manager, Architect, Con-tractor and DFCM in attendance. Differences ofopinion were resolved with ease due to a pro-fessional atmosphere and respect for all in-

volved. In the end, most major decisionswere determined by costs, which werecontrolled by the project budget.

The successful fusion of ideas anddesires was difficult, but with excellentcommunication among the gifted parties anda working group problem solving method inplace, the end result is gratifying to all.

16



DELIVERY

PROGRAMMING -When the opportunity arose for Prescott

Muir Architects to participate in the programmingphase of the Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Cen-ter, they accepted the challenge. After meetingwith the several clients, they created a program-ming study that included the needs assessmentof six distinct programs within the Visual Art Schoolthat were at the time in various locations on theWeber State campus.

The program also suggested a differentsite location for the building that ultimately provedto be very successful in enhancing the overall im-age of the University and the adjacent BrowningPerforming Arts Center. This was accomplishedby suggesting that in moving the proposed facilitydown the hill about seventy yards to an alterna-tive site location, it would complete an impliedcampus square, creating a better flow of trafficand an enhanced representation of a plannedcampus. This would allow for an improved col-laboration of the new art center with the studentservices and performing arts buildings in a man-ner that frames an outdoor space and creating aplaza, thus reinforcing the commitment to the stu-dents.

In a now defunct practice here in Utah,PMA had the opportunity to participate in the pro-gramming as well as the design of the project, ofwhich they were chosen by the State-managedselection committee for their design proposal forthe 64,000sf building.

17



DELIVERY

SCHEMATIC DESIGN -Taking what they learned from their pro-

gramming studies, PMA incorporated their idea toprovide for as many facets of the arts as the Uni-versity provided into one facility. The studio artschool provides painting and drawing studios, vi-sual communication digital labs, print-making, pho-tography, ceramics, textiles, casting, sculpture andsmall metals studios, and a foundry. A prominentfeature of the design is the gallery, which includescollections handling and storage spaces. A stu-dent commons, food service area, and a gift shoplinks the two functions in the main hall space.

The main entrance ushers you into themain hall that reaches up to include the two-storyclassroom wing branching off tothe east. On the immediate rightare the administrative offices.On the left is the gallery space,followed by a gift shop and anopen student lounge area. Alecture hall is placed at the endof this hall.. The classroom wing,with access by stair or elevatorin the main hall, stretches to theeast, with rows of classroomsflanking the north side of thewide hallway. Woodshopspaces, painting studios, andpottery classrooms are locatedon the south side of the hall, giv-ing access to the outdoors andcreating caged storage spacesas well as loading/unloading ar-eas. Upstairs, the north side ofthe spacious hallway houses

rows of lofty studio spaces, and faculty officesand a common area occupy the south side.The program, then, creates a T-shaped build-ing, and with careful placement of the differ-ing functions housed within, successfully mar-ries the two functions of the building.

18



DELIVERY

IDEAS -Ideas can evoke inspiration, optimism, in-

novation, creativity and criticism. It is then appro-priate that a Visual Arts School should embodymany of these ideas. Ideas can evolve to createbetter learning and teaching facilities, they candevelop to provide a new healthier environmentphysically and mentally for students and faculty.Ideas about the future and how this building andacademic program can evolve should be ad-dressed. The design team and various commit-tees adopted the notion of developing a high levelof innovation and creativity.

To elevate the status of the school’s artprogram a cohesive teaching philosophy combinedwith a successful level of student interaction wasdesired within the campus environment. From thisdesire a group problem solving method was con-ceptualized. This idea was initiated by the fac-ulty, and was researched and addressed by thevarious committees involved in the process. Theidea of group problem solving was eventuallymanifested in the architectural design of the build-ing and in the teaching practices of the faculty.The building provides group interaction and criti-cism by allowing students from different empha-ses and backgrounds to be constantly surroundedand enveloped in one another’s work. The cre-ative talents between different disciplines and in-dividuals act as stimulation, support, innovation,and criticism. For example, students involved inphotography can get inspiration from digital me-dia, or from more traditional trades like basketweaving or ceramics. The underlying concept isthat all skills and media are transversely influencedand affected by each other. The overall intent isthat of energy, creativity and criticism.

19



DELIVERY

IDEAS -The major way that the art center utilized

this group problem-solving method is through thelong halls and corridors that act as pin-up stations.By widening the hallways the architects createduseable classroom space in the halls. The art canbe left up after class for review and display by allpassersby and other classes. Another great ideawas the ability that this building has to expand andadapt. By using few solid load-bearing walls andcreating an easily be adaptable grid system thebuilding can adjust with little effort. The ability tochange with the needs of the future was extremelyimportant to maintaining a long-term high qualityinstitution.

The physical health of students and fac-ulty was also of major concern to PMA. Great re-search and detail was undertaken in the mechani-cal systems and layout to properly and efficientlyexhaust harmful fumes and recirculate healthy air.The scattering of wet labs for photography keepsthe chemical levels low by not concentrating largeamounts of chemicals in one area. The extensiveuse of large hoods placed at critical locations inrooms helps to ventilate the facility properly. Thedeliberate exposure of such equipment helped toreassure the attention paid to the health of the oc-cupants.

All of the ideas and innovations were de-veloped and integrated to elevate the school’s vis-ibility nationally and to elevate art awareness andunderstanding in the community. The group prob-lem-solving method employed in the center is areflection of the group problem-solving method thatcreated the building. The input from students, fac-

ulty, donors, committees, architects, and uni-versity and state agencies worked togetherfeeding off each other’s knowledge, experi-ence and opinions.

20



DELIVERY

BUDGET -The original project budget was

$11,787,000, to which a new parking lot and util-ity piping were added, and a few owner-provideditems were deducted, bringing the final projectbudget for bid to $11,803,000. The final cost ofthe building was $11,832,000 or roughly $164.00per square foot. Change orders totaled $184,117,attributed to errors and ommissions.

21



DELIVERY

CONSTRUCTION -In designing the arts center, PMA provided

a wide range of architectural services from program-ming to post-occupancy involvement with theproject. At the time that this firm was commissionedto design the new art school, current governmentpolicy that prohibits the programming firm as thedesign architect, was not in effect. Therefore, PMAmaintained a greater level of involvement with theproject than is typical now among design firms. Thisdegree of involvement proved to be of great valueto Weber State University’s new facility.

As the desire for a new art center becamea reality, DFCM put together a qualified team of de-signers and consultants to develop the project. Thisteam worked together under the direction of PMAto develop a dialogue and a relationship that resultedin an overriding concern for the project rather thanany individual’s agenda.

The master plan for the campus of WeberState initially required the new facility to be placedin a different location than was finally realized. How-ever, the programming and site analysis that thearchitect performed had a direct impact on the finalsite for the Visual Arts Center. In addition, utilitystudies confirmed the need to design a utility tunnelconnecting the new building with the existing me-chanical resources on campus.

In the design and construction phases of theproject, the architectural firm provided another setof services. PMA, in designing the building, adheredto the requirements of the building code and to ADArequirements as well, allowing the necessary ac-cess to all building occupants. The design firm cre-ated a beautiful building both outside as well as in-side, handling all of the interiors, signage, and fur-

22



DELIVERY

CONSTRUCTION -niture purchasing in addition to providing excellentlighting that is adjustable and accommodates thechanging needs of the art school. Because of thelocation of the University, on the bench of theWasatch Mountains, the building was designed tomeet or exceed the seismic requirements of its lo-cation so that the life-span of the building will bemaximized. In order to comply with the overall aes-thetic of the University, the architect was requiredto undertake materials research. The result was tocreate a building that fits the campus, yet is a promi-nent feature of the central portion of it.

The architectural firm oversaw the adminis-tration of the construction contract as well. Issuesarose during the construction phase that had to bedealt with. For example, the original steel contrac-tor had to be replaced with a different contractordue to budget indescrepencies. Another exampleis with the company that was contracted to producethe window shading devices for the studios. Theoriginal company went bankrupt, and had to be re-placed during the construction phase. Although theproject was not completed on time (the decision toprovide an excellent facility rather than an on-time,but poorly constructed building was a consciousone), the building was completed under budget re-gardless of the construction delay. Comtrol, thegeneral contractor, delivered beautifully what somemight consider a difficult product due to the atten-tion necessary to fulfill what is not considered a stan-dard building type.

Because of the specialized equipment andprogrammatic spaces required in the arts center,

continual monitoring of the energy con-sumption of the building is being under-taken. The building itself is not particularlyenergy efficient. However, the systems areintegrated into the building in such a man-ner that, if at any time the needs of theschool change, differing zones can be by-passed, allowing the building to potentiallyreduce its energy intake and become moreefficient.

23

Summary


MEASURES

SUMMARY -The design and construction of the Ethel

Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center was a success-ful project not only from the standpoint of itscompletion within budget as a significant additionto the campus of Weber State University, but alsoaccording to the experiences of those involved inthe fruition of the venture. A crucial factor to thatsuccess evolved from the relationships that existedamong all of the entities involved, which focusedconcern on delivering a high quality facility ratherthan catering to any specific agenda.

The Visual Arts Center, which included72,283 square feet of classroom space, produc-tion facilities, as well as exhibition and lecturespace, was originally scheduled for completion inAugust 2001. However, due to some setbackscaused by weather and other factors, the actualcompletion date was May 2002. This delay didnot result in penalization of the contractor. Theproject team opted to focus on the realization of awell-built building that achieved all of the intendedgoals instead of pushing the contractor to meet adeadline, possibly sacrificing those goals. This wasaccomplished with no cost implications.

PMA is extremely pleased with the outcomeof the Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center. Theyhave had the opportunity to participate in the de-velopment of a unique project that has raised thestandard for education in the arts at Weber StateUniversity and the state of Utah. The new build-ing facilitates dramatically increased interactionamong the design disciplines while meeting theirindividual needs. The architect was able to pro-vide a building that meets the goals of all of theorganizations involved: the university, donors,

DFCM, and user groups, while orchestratingthe overriding vision of the Visual Arts Cen-ter. Accomplishing this, in addition to fallingwithin budget and the absence of litigationover the project, proves to be a success.

24

Summary


MEASURES

SUMMARY -The several client groups involved look at

the successes of the building in different ways. Mr.Court (DFCM representative) has a unique view-point. Because the project was entirely funded bydonors, he placed emphasis on meeting the needsof the students and faculty rather than strictly ad-hering to any other agenda. DFCM views the build-ing as successful in that it is a much better facilityfor educating students and that it met its budgetrequirements. Mr. Jacobs (faculty representative)says, “I think the overall design is more innovativethan many others on the campus.” The change insiting of the project has helped it become a moreprominent feature on campus.

In addition, the wide corridors provide muchmore interaction between students and faculty alike.The gallery spaces as well as the high tech equip-ment in the classrooms and lecture halls increasethe capabilities of those environments. The gift shopand café that were included are not as successfulas had been hoped. Because of the commuternature of Weber State University, these elementsdo not see the amount of revenue that was intended,and in fact, the café has since been removed. Mr.Harris (University representative) praises the goodinterior traffic flow and the accomplishment of meet-ing curriculum requirements. The exterior of thebuilding, he says, “deviates significantly from thecampus ‘standard,’” although he does not commenton whether or not that is a good thing. In addition,the students seem to be pleased with their new fa-cilities and are now in the second full year occupy-ing them.

As design is undertaken, ethical questionsunavoidably surface. In this particular project, be-

cause DFCM is contractually the client butthe building is situated on the campus ofWeber State, there is concern about how toprovide the best building for the campuswhile maintaining the interests of the client.Fortunately, as was previously mentioned,communication and good relationshipsamong all of the entities involved smoothedover what could potentially be a point ofmajor contention. Although this is somewhatof a balancing act, the support of the steer-ing committee and the entire project teamsupported an attitude of doing what was bestfor the project, with the realization that thebuilding would outlast any of the people orpersonal interests involved. Mr. Muir kepthimself open to the dialogue, but maintaineda unified and clear vision for the project.

Documents

ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS SCHOOL AND …faculty.arch.utah.edu/miller/Case_Study_Final_2.pdf · tee (DOVA), chaired by Bob Herman, was to cre-ate a case for a new building and