Howard Center for the Social Sciences

MEETING NOTES

Date: April 5, 2001
Project: Lewis and Clark College Social Sciences Building
Classroom Committee Meeting
Job No.: 0104
Re: Meeting 3

Present: Harold Schleef, Dean of Social Science
Sara Matteisen, Dean of Graduate School
Stuart Kaplan, Communications
David Savage, History
Liz Safran, Environmental Studies
Patrick Ryall, Instructional Media
Chris Stevens, Information Technology
Andrew Cortell, International Affairs
David Lageson, Facilities Services
Denise King, Facilities Services
Eliza Ginn, Student Representative
Eva Kaso-Miller, Student Representative
Will Dann, Thomas Hacker and Associates
Charles Dorn, Thomas Hacker and Associates

cc: Lewis and Clark College, (as distributed by Michael Sestric)
Stephanie Coyle, Hoffman Construction Company
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


3.1 Will Dann acknowledged that their had been a request to confirm the time and place of the next meeting at the end of the meeting notes. This will be done. Otherwise there were no comments on the previous meeting notes.

3.2 Will presented revised options for the layout of the
Large Classroom, one with rectilinear seating and one with seating in an arch. Each option achieves the required 60 seats within the 50d. sightline from an 8’ minimum screen, with 18" deep fixed tables with seats at 27" on center.

3.3 The seating could be either fixed, or attached as in
the Thaxter Classroom. The committee favored the fixed seating because it rotated out of the way when unoccupied and swiveled to allow students to confer with each other more easily.

3.4 Some on the committee favored eliminating the center aisle because the center includes the best seating. In the arch scheme this may allow the lower tier of seating to be eliminated, which would be preferable because the seats are very close to the screen. The downside of eliminating the center aisle was that it was a long way to any aisle. Having two aisles would eliminate too many seats. The committee will consider this issue and make a recommendation at the next meeting.

3.5 It was suggested that the doors be relocated into the corner of the room to maximize the teaching wall.

3.6 The committee was undecided between the rectilinear and arched seating arrangements. The rectilinear scheme allows for better communication between students, which was seen as both good and bad. The rectilinear scheme has a larger teaching area, unless the center aisle is removed. The arched scheme may carry a cost premium. The committee will consider this issue and make a recommendation at the next meeting.

3.7 Will presented the small classroom. It is understood that this classroom will have tablet armchairs exclusively. Two layouts were presented. One with 24 seats arranged in rows. The other with 14 seats arranged in a circle, and the remaining ten chairs pushed to the corners.

3.8 Will presented five options for the medium classroom. (a) 35 tablet arm chairs, arranged in rows; (b) Trapezoid tables arranged in rows with 24 seats; (c)Trapezoid tables arranged in six-person tables with seating for 36; (d)Trapezoid tables arranged in two 12 person groups; and (e) tiered case room seating for 34 students.

3.9 There was much discussion about marker boards. The committee felt that the amount of marker boards should be maximized. In the tiered classrooms the marker boards can only be located on the teaching wall. Will suggested that sliding (vertical or horizontal) could be specified in these rooms to make up for the loss of space on the sidewalls. There was a brief discussion of "Smart Boards". These could be fixed to the wall or movable. There is also smart board technology that can adapt a conventional marker board. Will indicated that the conduit and blocking to accommodate smart boards could be included in each classroom so that they can be added as demand and budget allow. Marker boards locations and smart board locations will be discussed in the next meeting focused on Audio Visual design.

3.10 Will passed out manufacturer’s literature on the tables. The committee liked the trapezoid tables and thought that they should be included as a furniture option for the flat floor classrooms. The committee requested that samples be made available for the committee to see at a future meeting.

3.11 Will suggested that the number of each style of medium classroom would need to be determined at some point. The mix of tablet armchairs and trapezoid tables is flexible until the furniture order is submitted, however the number of tiered case room style classroom should be determined as a part of this process. Will suggested that Dell Smith may be in the best position to determine the numbers of each room type, based on existing use patterns and polling of the faculty.

3.12 It was suggested that the College could work with the furniture supplier for the South Campus residence hall project to outfit a couple of classrooms with the trapezoid tables to test for a semester.

3.13 The next meeting of the Classroom committee will be on April 19th at 4:00 in Miller 103. The subject will be Audio Visual and Telecommunications integration into the classroom design. The Architects will set up a work session with Patrick Ryall and Chris Stevens prior to this meeting.