Howard Center for the Social Sciences

MEETING NOTES

Date: April 19, 2001
Project: Lewis and Clark College Social Sciences Building
Classroom Committee Meeting
Job No.: 0104
Re: Meeting 4

Present: Dell Smith, Registrar
Stuart Kaplan, Communications
Liz Safran, Environmental Studies
John Krussel, Math Sciences
Patrick Ryall, Instructional Media
Chris Stevens, Information Technology
Andrew Cortell, International Affairs
Michael Sestric, Facilities Services
Kelly Wainwright, Information Technology
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



4.1 Patrick Ryall presented a proposed classroom
equipment list (see attached). He noted that he anticipated that an overhead projector would need to be located in each room and that the slide projector, which will sit on a shelf in the back of the room, will be checked out by the faculty.

4.2 Stuart Kaplin recommended that a document camera be include in each room.

4.3 There was considerable discussion about the need for a video projector in each room. It was concluded that it was highly desirable, especially as more students (as well as faculty) are making power point presentations.

4.4 Stuart suggested that each classroom have a
minimum of four floor boxes so that classes could break into groups and have access to power and data. Will described that with the proposed raised floor system, additional floor boxes could be installed, or existing floor boxes could be relocated with relative ease.

4.5 It was clarified that the conclusion of earlier
discussions with the committee was that computer instruction labs will be conventional classrooms with power and data distribution in the floor and laptops which would be checked out for the class (see Meeting #2). Will pointed out that with the underfloor distribution system; any classroom could be adapted to a computer-based classroom as the use of computers by students increases. Will indicated that sufficient storage for equipment had yet to be identified in the design.

4.6 Will noted that the platforms for the tiered
classrooms could be made with the raised floor system. This would allow the flexibility of the underfloor distribution system. It would also allow any classroom to be converted to a tiered classroom, of from tiered to flat floor with relative ease. This proposal would be possible with the rectangular arrangement of tiers and not with the curved arrangement. Therefore, it was recommended that the design be based on the rectangular seating arrangement.

4.7 Stuart suggested that controls for lights, screens
and equipment be accessed from the table or a podium in the front of the room, rather than from the cabinet.

4.8 Michael Sestric suggested that a podium design be developed that would be small, contain all of the controls and a place for a laptop. Michael and Patrick will work with the architects to develop a concept. The podium developed for the Mary Gates Center at the University of Washington may serve as a starting point.

4.9 Patrick expressed his concern that the addition of remote wireless controls, additional computer hook-ups and a podium could add $30,000 to the equipment budget of each room. The costs include initial programming but do not include the continuing costs for maintenance.

4.10 Andrew asked if all of the classrooms needed to be the same, and proposed that several levels of technical capability be created. Dell indicated that it would make assigning classrooms easier if they were all the same. Eliza emphasized that although the faculty have some influence on classroom assignments, students have none. Students who use technology would appreciate access in every classroom they use. Will suggested that the building should accommodate a standard potential for technology and that levels of technology would be established based on the funds available to install and support equipment in the classrooms incrementally.

4.11 Andrew emphasized the need for cable TV access in each room.

4.12 Patrick presented the equipment for the Large
Classrooms and initiated a discussion about Video Conferencing. Michael Sectic reported on the video conferencing facilities being built as a part of the Law School, and indicated that they would be available for general College use. It was concluded that video projection was required and two-way audio. Several microphones could be suspended from the ceiling, rather than microphones at the desktop.

4.13 Will presented the interior elevations of the
classrooms, identifying the location of projection screens, A/V cabinets, tack surfaces and extend of marker boards. Will noted that all of the flat floor classrooms have markerboards on three sides. The tiered classrooms have sliding markerboards on the presentation wall. The decision between markerboards and chalkboards has not been made. The faculty should be polled and the College can let the Architects know before the final specifications are completed.

4.14 There was extensive discussion about ventilation and ventilation noise. The classrooms will each be a zone, and therefore be able to react to the orientation, occupancy and other heating and cooling issues. They will not be able to be individually controlled by the faculty. Ventilation noise will be discussed at the next meeting. Charles referred to the discussion the displacement ventilation system in the Social Science Building Committee Meeting No 5 on March 22nd (see notes)

4.15 Stuart suggested that the next meeting (on April 26th) dedicated to lighting and acoustical requirements should discuss providing a directional spot light on the presenter.