Howard Center for the Social Sciences

MEETING NOTES

Date: March 13, 2001
Project: Lewis and Clark College Social Sciences
Job No.: 0104
Re: Meeting 4

Present: Michael Mooney, President
Curtis Johnson, Dean of Arts and Humanities
Harold Schleef, Dean of Social Science
Janel McKenna, Development
Dell Smith, Registrar
Stuart Kaplan, Communications
Cliff Bekar, Economics
Stephen Lambo, International Affairs
Bob Goldman, Bob Goldman
Carol Wilson, Sociology, Anthropology, Communications
Sharon Barnes, Social Sciences
Allan Young, Student
Michael Sestric, Lewis and Clark College
Denise King, Campus Planning
Rich Bettega, Facilities Services
Thomas Hacker, Thomas Hacker and Associates
Will Dann, Thomas Hacker and Associates
Charles Dorn, Thomas Hacker and Associates
Doug Macy, Walker Macy Landscape Architects
Ross Swanson, Walker Macy Landscape Architects


cc:Lewis and Clark College, (as distributed by Michael Sestric)
Stephanie Coyle, Hoffman Construction Company
Doug Macy, Walker Macy
Eric Bode, Walker Macy
Gaafar Gaafar; kpff
Bob Gulick, CBG Consulting Engineers
Greg Richards, CBG Consulting Engineers
Ron Peterson, Harper Houf Righellis
Carol Williamson, Williamson McCarter
Glenn Sexton, Northwest Information Services
Todd Pierce, Design Pacifica
Russ Altermatt, Altermatt and Associates
David Malman, Architectural Lighting Design
TH&A file



4.1 There were no comments on the meeting notes of the previous meeting, expressed at this meeting or via e-mail.

4.2 There was a question about the schedule of
subsequent meetings. The next meeting was previously moved from the week of Spring Break to March 22nd. Sharon Barnes will confirm that time, as some committee members were not available. THA will reissue the work plan with updated meeting times and locations.

4.3 Will Dann reported on the previous meeting of the Classroom Committee. The meeting notes from that meeting will be posted on the web site. Social Science Building Committee members who have concerns about the work of the Classroom committee should discuss their issues with representatives who are members of both committees. Stuart Kaplin and Harry Schleef can represent the interests of the Social Sciences on the Classroom Committee.

4.4 Stephen Lambo expressed concern that the work done by the Social Sciences Committee last fall on Classroom design was not being integrated into the Classroom Committees thinking. Meeting notes from the Social Science meetings last fall should be reviewed.

4.5 Thom Hacker introduced Landscape Architect, Doug Macy and described a team work session that concluded that, as a building form, the C-shaped scheme (identified in the previous meeting as Scheme C) did the most to support the concepts of the master plan. Thom emphasized that this was in terms of the massing only, and the architects had developed alternative program layouts within the “C” shape.

4.6 Doug Macy described how the C-shaped scheme supported the master plan by respecting the axis from the Library and the centerline of the Albany Quad, and was an improvement on the master plan for many reasons. The scheme was not as long; created an opportunity for a south-facing plaza; presented a façade (rather than an end) to the primary entrance on the south and could be broken into three smaller scaled parts, which would be more compatible with the scale of the campus.

4.7 Doug presented a sketch of the C-shaped building in the current condition, with Bodine still in place. He suggested that it was an improvement on the current open space because it was wider in the center

4.8 Doug presented four schemes for the development of the exterior space around the building:
° Option 1 had a small raised plaza on the southwest and a plaza at grade at the south entrance. This plaza was above grade at the southeast opposite the library entrance, as the land sloped to the east. On the east face entrance, planting and trees were proposed on each side of a wide walk with benches.
° Option 2 had a large level plaza on the south that was sunken to the west and raised to the east, as the land sloped. At the east entrance a broad curved seat wall faced east.
° Option 3 had a smaller plaza at the south and a sloping lawn at the southeast facing the Library entrance. At the east entrance, a broad paved area with benches perpendicular to the walkway was proposed.
° Option 4 was similar to Option 3, except a series of stadium steps were proposed facing the library entrance, in lieu of the sloping lawn.Each of the schemes had more modest proposals to treat the entrances on the north and west sides. The space on the west side was narrower than on the master plan. Doug proposed a row of trees on the west side to screen the buildings, but omitted the row on the east to let more light in the building.

4.9 Thom suggested that each scheme could accommodate outdoor teaching on the east side.

4.10 Stuart Kaplin asked what are the issues regarding canopies or outdoor covered areas. Thom replied that if they are shallow they could be good places to gather out of the rain, and referred to the pavilions in the garden as the appropriate size. Doug said that if they get too large they could be very unpleasant without vast skylights to bring light into the center. This is very expensive and is not a part of the program. The design team suggested that for events a tent should be brought in. The plaza, either on the south or east, could even be designed to accommodate a custom tent, with set positions for the supports that could be stored conveniently in the adjacent building.

4.11 Thom suggested that canopies could be added to the entrances.

4.12 Michael Sestric reported that there was a general need for more outdoor seating on campus. He liked the cascading steps shown on Option 4. Thom pointed out that that space will be much better used than the benches at the Library entrance because it is above the walkway and faces south.

4.13 Stephen Lambo also liked the cascading steps in the southeast and suggested they could be extended to the west. He liked the curved seat wall on the east side in Option 2 and suggested that evoked the geometry of the formal garden.

4.14 Carol Wilson asked where the smokers would be
hanging out. Doug said that it was hard to control, but comfortable places could be created away from the door.

4.15 Carol asked whether the glass atrium was still in
the proposal. Thom indicated that the center entrance on the east side would be two stories high with an east facing glass wall.

4.16 Michael Mooney reminded the design teams to think of the building as having four fronts. The west side is not the back of the building, especially as the master plan is realized.

4.17 Bicycle storage should be located convenient to the south entrance. Thom suggested that the classroom that will occupy the southeast corner might want to be a more social function because of the traffic on the plaza outside.

4.18 It was pointed out that when Appalachia is gone at the end of construction of the Social Science Building, the space to the northwest,toward the power plant, will be larger, have better views and more light.

4.19 Thom presented three options for arranging
classrooms and offices within the C-shaped scheme.
* Concept 1 had all of the offices on the third floor except for 13 on the second floor at the north end.
* Concept 2 had offices in the north and south wings on the second and third floor, with classrooms on the first floor and the center section of the second and third floors.
* Concept 3 had classrooms on three floors on the south, and offices on three floors on the north.

4.20 Thom showed studies of the east elevation showing that the center section could be two stories with the offices in the attic for concept 1, but would be a full three stories for concepts 2 & 3 because of the need to accommodate classrooms at that level. This stepping form, lower in the wings and taller in the center, is similar to the massing of the Albany Quad, although at a larger scale.

4.21 It was noted that Concept 2 was generated in part to minimize the west views for the offices, which face the Zendtbauer and the mechanical plant. Stuart Kaplin noted that Concept 1 has only six offices with the west view. Thom suggested that at the third floor the views might be over the adjacent buildings.

4.22 Bob Goldman suggested that Concept 2 succeeded in creating the “village” like character and identity of individual departments. Thom described that the connecting stairs and open space in each wing would make movement between floors very visible. Michael Mooney suggested that Concept 2 divided the offices into four groups of fixed size and would not be flexible as departments grow and shrink over succeeding years.

4.23 Bob also liked the convenience of the classrooms to the offices as they encouraged continued discussions with students after class. Cliff Baker liked the mixing of classrooms and offices because it implied some degree of ownership of some of the classrooms.

4.24 Michael Mooney suggested that the mixing of
classrooms and offices in Concept 2 would bring traffic and noise to the third floor. Michael Sestric suggested that because of the need to get a large volume of students to the third floor, an additional elevator might be required. .

4.25 Michael Sestric suggested that Concept 1 would have the ability, like the Miller Building, to restrict access to the third floor offices. The elevator could be keyed, and the stairs could be locked in evenings and weekends, while allowing access for faculty to their offices. In Concepts 2 & 3 access to the exit stairs, through the offices, at the second floor is required at all times. It was also pointed out that the south stair was the most convenient to the campus circulation routes, and would be used by students going to classes on the second and third floors. This would bring them through the offices in great numbers.

4.26 Curtis Johnson suggested that the sense of discreet neighborhoods could be developed within Concept 1 through portals between departments. Thom pointed out that the offices are naturally split into five groups: 2nd floor, north wing, south wing, center-north and center-south. The identity of these spaces could be enhanced in many ways. For example the connecting hall does not need to allow a continuous view from one end to another. It could bend to define transitions between departments and to reduce the apparent length.

4.27 Michael Mooney asked if the building would be
flexible to allow offices to be made into classrooms and visa-versa. Thom replied that the interior partitions will not be structural, and changes could be made with minor renovation. The third floor center space could not be renovated into medium size classrooms if the third floor is designed as a dormer, rather than a full floor.

4.28 The width of the hall on the third floor was debated. The architects indicated that there were additional program details, for workrooms study alcoves etc. that must be accounted for. This will reduce the apparent width and help define smaller scaled spaces within.

4.29 Will Dann indicated that Concept 3 was put forth so that the committee had a broad enough choice. Concept 1 & 2 set up a choice between dividing the faculty in two opposing groups 200 feet apart or uniting them all on one long floor (with the undesignated department on the 2nd floor). Concept 3 offered a compromise, with shared functions on the middle floor and all offices no more than a floor away connected by an open stair.

4.30 Thom Hacker proposed that a choice between the concepts could be made which would allow the design team to develop on scheme in more detail. Harry Schleef and Curtis Johnson proposed that Concept 1 be further developed. The consensus was that the opportunities for reinforcing the identities of the departments, providing shared informal gathering spaces and minimizing the linearity should be explored.

4.31 Stephen Lambo suggested that the offices at the east end of the north and south wings should be dedicated to a shared function, lounge or conference room. These offices will have the best views. Michael suggested that two of the four department conference rooms could be informal (with club chair seating), and two could be formal (conference table).