FEBRUARY 11, 2014
framingham state university FRA-0642-12 New Student Housing Capacity Framingham, MA
consultants stegman + associates, p.c. • nitsch engineering • odeh engineers, inc. • daedalus projects, inc. • schofield brothers of new england skanska • richard burck associates • rw sullivan code group • van zelm engineers • thorton thomasetti • mcphail associates, inc.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | i
acknowledgements project client and end user massachusetts state college building authority
Edward H. Adelman, AIA, Executive Director Janet Chrisos, Deputy Director Amanda Forde, Project Manager architect
framingham state university
arc/architectural resources cambridge Dr. Robert A. Martin, Interim President Dr. Dale Hamel, Executive Vice President Administration, Robert H. Quigley AIA, Principal-In-Charge Mark N. Dolny AIA, Project Manager Finance, and Information Technology Christopher Angelakis AIA, Design Principal Dr. Susanne H. Conley, Vice President Enrollment and Lucas Herringshaw, Project Architect Student Development Sara Briggs, Intern Architect Warren Fairbanks PE, Associate Vice President Facilities and Capital Planning Glenn Cochran, Associate Dean of Students/Director construction consultant (study phase) Residence Life and Judicial Affairs skanska usa building, inc.
owner's project manager
Dale Caldwell, Project Executive Joseph Palermo, Vice President of Preconstruction James Jones
commercial construction consulting, inc.
David Ickes, AIA, Project Executive
consultants architect:
code engineer:
land surveyor:
Stegman + Associates, P.C. Janet Stegman
RW Sullivan Code Group Kevin S. Hastings PE, Principal Don E. Contois PE, Associate
Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc.
civil engineering:
Nitsch Engineering Joshua Alston PE, Project Manager structural engineering:
Odeh Engineers, Inc. David J. Odeh PE, Principal Larry M. Marini PE, Project Manager geotechnical engineer:
sustainability:
Thorton Tomasetti Michael Pulaski Ph.D., Senior Associate mepfp:
Van Zelm Engineers David W. Madigan PE, Vice President R.Scott Madigan PE, Associate
cost estimating:
Daedalus Projects, Inc Richard Marks, President landscape architect:
Richard Burck Associates, Inc. Richard Burck FASLA FAAR, Principal Tim Mackey ASLA, Senior Associate
McPhail Associates, Inc. Scott Smith PE
Photographs courtsey of Framingham State University except where noted
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | ii • iii
iii
preface ARC/Architectural Resources Cambridge prepared this report for the Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSCBA) and Framingham State University (FSU). The purpose of the report was to study the feasibility of constructing a new residence hall to house two hundred fifty to three hundred students at the FSU Campus in Framingham, Massachusetts. The new dorm will be a replacement of the existing O’Connor Hall and the net add of beds to campus will be less than fifty. The report contains analysis and recommendations to establish the financial feasibility of the project and serves as a guide for the development of the design. ARC was assisted in the preparation of this report by Stegman+Associates, Commercial Construction Consulting, Inc., Skanska USA Building Inc, Van Zelm Engineers, Richard Burck Associates, Odeh Engineers, Nitsch Engineering, RW Sullivan Code Group, Thorton Thomasetti, and Daedalus Projects. McPhail Associates and Schofield Brothers of New England also provided information as consultants of FSU. Throughout the process the team worked closely with representatives of the MSCBA and FSU to achieve the project goals. This report focuses on the site recommended in the 2012/2013 DCAMM / FSU Campus Master Plan. Multiple strategies for developing this site were informed by the included assessment of existing infrastructure and site conditions as well as a Statement of Need for additional residential capacity and preliminary space program. The conclusion of the report proposes a siting strategy, building configuration and programmatic diagram as well as a conceptual estimate of probable construction cost. The report complies with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance Guidelines for the Preparation of Studies for Building Projects and with MSCBA requirements for a feasibility study.
table of contents
framingham state university fra-0642-12 new student housing capacity
acknowledgements preface
01
02 03
executive summary
responsibility
1.1
project overview
arc
1.2
participants
arc
1.3
design and construction schedule
arc
1.4
project budget
arc
introduction 2.1
project background and approach
arc
2.2
statement of needs summary
arc
existing conditions & campus infrastructure 3.1
background
arc
3.2 property boundaries
arc
3.3 topography
arc, burck associates
3.4
mcphail associates
geotechnical
3.5 wetlands
nitsch engineering
3.6 utilities
nitsch engineering
3.7
parking, circulation,
arc
and transit services
04
proposed program needs 4.1
fsu campus goals
/ growth and
arc, stegman
+ associates
arc, stegman
+ associates
arc, stegman
+ associates
development objectives
4.2 campus master plan recommendations
4.3 analysis of residence life facilities
05
codes & standards 5.1
town of framingham
5.2 massachusetts state building code
arc arc, rw sullivan
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | iv • v
table of contents
framingham state university fra-0642-12 new student housing capacity
05
codes & standards (cont.) 5.3 wetlands compliance
arc, rw sullivan
5.4
arc, nitsch engineering
hazardous materials
5.5 access requirements 5.6
water supply/wastewater
arc arc, nitsch engineering
treatment requirements
5.7
massachusetts historical
arc
commission
06
alternative solutions & recommendations 6.1
07
housing type evaluation
arc
6.2 siting criteria
arc
6.3 evaluation of site alternatives
arc, burck associates
6.4 preferred solution
arc, stegman
+ associates
+ associates
preferred solution / final program 7.1
program principles
arc, stegman
7.2
residence hall program
7.3
building efficiency
7.4
architectural building systems
+ associates arc, stegman + associates arc, stegman + associates stegman
and materials narrative
08
sustainable design 8.1
options for alternative
arc, van zelm
energy implementation
09
8.2
leed design planning
arc, thorton tomasetti
8.3
energy conservation
arc, van zelm
systems narrative 9.1 9.2
alternative construction sys-
arc, skanska, odeh
tems
engineers
structural system
odeh engineers
table of contents
framingham state university fra-0642-12 new student housing capacity
09
systems narrative (cont.) 9.3
proposed utility demand
nitsch engineering
9.4
utility site connections
van zelm
9.5
mechanical systems
van zelm
9.6
plumbing and drainage
van zelm
9.7
fire protection
van zelm
9.8
electrical and
van zelm
telecommunications systems
10
financial information 10.1 summary overview
daedalus, arc
10.2 recommendations
arc
10.3 preliminary estimate
daedalus
of construction costs
11
appendix 11.1 meeting notes and presentations
arc, stegman
11.2 sewer flows report
nitsch engineering
+ associates
11.3 hydrant flow test
nitsch engineering
11.4 preliminary foundation engineering
mcphail associates
report
11.5 mepa threshold review
nitsch engineering
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 1
01
executive summary 1.1 project overview ARC/ Architectural Resources Cambridge (ARC) and Stegman + Associates were awarded the task of developing a program and conceptual diagram for the New Student Housing Capacity for 250 to 300 students on the campus of Framingham State University (FSU) in Framingham, Massachusetts. The New Student Housing Capacity is designed to replace an existing 252 bed residence building, O’Connor Hall, as well as increase the overall bed count on campus. The design team referred to the DCAMM Draft Campus Master Plan dated May 2012 and amended March 2013 produced by Chan Krieger/ NBBJ along with additional studies done by ADD Inc., which reviewed the new housing siting and its connection with the existing campus. As illustrated herein, optional housing types and conceptual plans were examined in the process of developing consensus for a housing solution that met FSU's goals and development objectives. For the selected option (Scheme F.1) a conceptual estimate of probable construction cost has also been included in this report. This study also identifies issues that will need to be further investigated as the project moves forward including various site and utility factors, permitting issues and potential impacts on campus infrastructure such as parking and walkways. Further, ARC worked with Skanska USA to review alternative construction methods as they relate to potential building structural systems and delivery methods.
1.2 participants Participants in this study included representatives of the Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSCBA) as client and Framingham State University (FSU) as end user. Commercial Construction Consulting, Inc. (C3) has acted as the Owner’s Project Manager, and Skanska USA participated in the study as a Preconstruction Advisor. The consulting team has been led by ARC/Architectural Resources Cambridge, Inc. and Stegman + Associates. Other members of the team include Van Zelm Engineering (MEP/FP), Richard Burck Associates (Landscape Architecture), Nitsch Engineering (Civil), Odeh Engineers (Structural), Thorton Tomasetti (Sustainability), RW Sullivan Code Group (Code), and Daedalus Project (Cost Estimating). McPhail Associates (Geotechnical Services) and Schofield Brothers of New England (Land Surveyor.) were retained separately by FSU to provide consulting services.
01
executive summary
1.3 design and construction schedule The team has prepared a proposed schedule that will allow for the delivery of the completed building by June 2016 as outlined in the original Request For Qualifications. ARC and our consultants are ready to proceed with subsequent design and construction phases of the project upon acceptance of this report. ARC does not anticipate the need for early packages. The schedule for completing this work is as follows: January 2014 | Complete Study Phase February 2014 | Commence Schematic Design January 2015 | Complete Construction Documents March 2015 | Procure Construction Services June 2016 | Deliver Project to Framingham State University August 2016 | Student Occupancy
1.4 project budget The Request for Qualifications document issued February 27, 2013 that was used for procurement of design services noted that the project would consist of 250 to 300 beds. As such, it stated, “the construction budget for the Project is approximately $26,000,000 to $32,000,000 including the base building, site development, construction management costs, and contingency.�
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 3
02
introduction 2.1 project background and approach This study, prepared between June 2013 and January 2014, is based on site analyses, review of past planning studies, and meetings with Framingham State University leadership and staff as well as representatives of the MSCBA and C3, serving as the Owner’s Representative. The team was provided with previous planning studies including the Feasibility Study for a New Residence Hall at Framingham State College (DRAFT) dated December 19, 2008 prepared for the MSCBA by Pfeufer/Richardson PC Architects and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture and Engineering as well as the FSU Campus Master Plan (Draft) dated May 2012 produced by Chan Krieger/ NBBJ and amended March 2013 with additional studies done by ADD Inc. prepared for DCAMM. These studies were used as a starting point for understanding the issues of the specific sites under consideration for the New Student Housing Capacity. The Campus Master Plan considered two sites; the first site was the Maynard Road Parking lot and the second site was the Adams Road Parking lot. The team was informed upon commencement of the study that the Maynard Road site would be the focus of this study. Existing condition information used as part of this study included the following: • Updated topographical information in the form of a site and utility survey prepared by the firm Schofield Brothers of New England. • Soil borings in certain locations of the preferred site as performed by McPhail Associates and documented in Preliminary Foundation Engineering Report dated August 12, 2013 (Appendix 11.4). Additionally, ARC and VanZelm Engineering met with the Associate Vice President of Facilities and Capital Planning, Mr. Warren Fairbanks, to review the possibility of connecting the New Student Housing Capacity to the campus central plant for steam supply for building heat. The site’s location at the furthest edge of campus presented challenges. The distance to the nearest existing tiein point would require the scope of the project to extend well beyond the current boundaries. Also, without the ability to create a steam loop to connect, an undesirable ‘dead-end’ would be created. Additionally, it was noted that the campus steam plant does not supply chilled water, thereby reducing the ability to optimize any connection.
02 introduction Based on these discussions, it was decided that the cost of this utility connection would far outweigh the benefits and, therefore, the New Student Housing Capacity would not connect to campus central systems. The MSCBA asked the design team to explore alternative construction methodologies to help deliver a cost effective project. In response, the team worked with Skanska USA to evaluate cost reduction options, and held a minisymposium to discuss a variety of structural systems. Modular construction, in particular, was discussed in terms of applicability and potential cost effective delivery of housing.
2.2 statement of needs summary The 2008 Feasibility Study for a New Residence Hall at Framingham State College (Draft) stated that the New Residence Hall (North Hall) would be a replacement for O’Connor Hall as well as provide an additional 150 beds to the campus housing stock. In 2011 FSU brought North Hall into the campus housing portfolio. However, subsequent to its opening, the resident population at FSU has grown to fill all 400 beds in North Hall, leaving the need for replacement beds for O’Connor Hall unmet. This New Student Housing Capacity will provide those 252 replacement beds so that FSU can fulfill the goals of the Master Plan and proceed with the change of use and ownership of O’Connor Hall as well as provide approximately 30 additional beds to the campus housing stock.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 5
03
existing conditions & campus infrastructure 3.1 background Framingham State University is comprised of a mix of historic and contemporary structures linked by lawns and landscaped paths forming a compact historic campus. FSU has expanded since its founding in 1839 but has maintained its traditional New England college atmosphere while growing to provide the latest modern amenities and meeting an ever increasing enrollment demand. The campus core is composed primarily of academic and administrative buildings with student residential halls and parking lots located at the perimeter.
lawns in front of
May hall (top) and Athletic & Recreation Center (bottom) framingham, ma
The campus is centered around the main quad behind May Hall located near the top of Normal Hill. The campus extends downhill in each direction and is bounded by High Street to the north, Barber Road to the east, South University Avenue and a residential neighborhood to the south and rail road line to the west. Framingham State University also utilizes an outdoor athletic facility and satellite parking lots at the south end of State Street. Additional satellite parking is provided at Union Avenue.
3.2 property boundaries The Maynard Road site that has been chosen for the New Student Housing Capacity project is on the western edge of the FSU campus at the intersection of Maynard Road and Salem End Road (diagram 3.1). The majority of the site is currently occupied by a 430 vehicle surface parking lot. Each boundary of the site presents a unique condition. The northern edge of the site fronts Maynard Road with an existing sidewalk that borders the existing roadway. A mix of private and university-owned buildings and parking lots exist on the north side of Maynard Road ranging in scale from single family homes to large multi-family apartment buildings. An existing converted house currently used by the facilities department is on the northeast corner of site. A small portion of the site, on its northwest corner, borders Salem End Road. The existing surface parking lot has one curb cut off of Maynard Road that cannot be relocated further west due to traffic flow. The northeast corner of the site represents a nearly 30 foot grade change as the site gets closer to the main campus. The Heineman Ecumenical & Cultural Center, an historic building listed on the National Register of Historic Places, sits uphill directly to the east of the existing parking lot. The building is not to be impacted as part of this new project, however, the surrounding ground plane and walkways may be affected by site changes.
03 existing conditions & campus infrastructure 2
12
ad
r Ro
este
orc 9 W
1 80 FUTURE PARKING LOT
46
Sa le m
En d
Ro ad
23
ADAMS ROAD SITE
s
29
d
oa
R
A
3 44
Ma
yn
ard
9
Ro
ad
3
State Street
MAYNARD ROAD SITE
m da
FACILITIES
MAY HALL
3 HEINEMAN CENTER
430
7 3
ZIPCAR
24 Church Street
ircle
er C
flow
May
57
22 S University Ave
42
N
eet
le Str
Map
295
79
110
15
Diagram 3.1, above, Campus plan showing potential sites, parking lots, and shared transit
3
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 6 • 7
The southeast corner of the site abuts the rear yards of five single family residential properties on Mayflower Circle. A heavily vegetated hillside forms a visual buffer between the existing parking lot and the residential neighborhood. The western border of the site is located along an existing railroad bed that is currently in use. This railroad bed displaced a set of wetlands within the boundaries of the currently proposed site. The opposite side of the railroad bed from the project site remains a wetland area.
Sa
le
m
En
d
Ro
ad
3.3 topography The Maynard Road site with its steep bank presents topographical challenges. There is a 30 foot grade change from the Heineman Center to the eastern edge of the parking lot and another 10 feet of drop to the west across the parking lot. This bank, which is oriented north-south, is steep (2:1 in places) and wraps continuously from Maynard Road to the south end of the parking lot (diagram 3.2). An existing stairway of granite treads and concrete cheek walls descends the bank with 51 risers. Maynard Road with its adjacent sidewalk is also relatively steep initially (10 percent) but lessens as it continues north. Placing a building and providing an accessible route within this context has required precise calibration of grades.
s
m
a Ad
Ma
yn
ard
d
oa
R
Ro
ad
Church Street
< 1:20 < 1:12 < 1:3 > 1:3
Diagram 3.2, above, Site plan showing slope of existing topography
ircle
er C
flow May
03 existing conditions & campus infrastructure 3.4 geotechnical McPhail Associates, LLC has provided information regarding subsurface conditions based upon test borings done on the site as documented in Preliminary Foundation Engineering Report Framingham State University â&#x20AC;&#x201C; New Residence Hall; Framingham, Massachusetts (Appendix 11.4). Preliminary investigation indicated that 6 inches of topsoil covers approximately 9.5 feet to 11.5 feet of fill deposit consisting of organic silt and a trace of sand and mulch. Underlying the fill deposit is dense glacial till. A deposit of boulders was encountered at depths of 14.6 feet to 20.4 feet below ground surface borings. Groundwater was noted to be perched seasonally on the glacial till deposit. The McPhail report recommends removal of subsurface materials down to the underlying glacial till. Structural fill will be required within the excavation of unsuitable materials.
3.5 wetlands The following section discusses the environmental resource areas potentially associated with the project and the permitting requirements associated with performing work in or adjacent to those resource areas. wetland protection act
(301 cmr 10.00)
The Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) ensures the protection of Massachusettsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inland and coastal wetlands, tidelands, great ponds, rivers, and floodplains. It regulates activities in coastal and wetland areas and contributes to the protection of ground and surface water quality, the prevention of flooding and storm damage, and the protection of wildlife and aquatic habitat. The WPA extends jurisdiction to the 100-foot Buffer Zone of wetland resource areas and the 200-foot Riverfront Area of perennial streams and rivers. The Town of Framingham also has Wetlands Protection Regulations, established through their Wetlands Protection Bylaw, that set additional requirements for work that will impact a wetland resource area. The regulations include a 125-foot Buffer Zone and a 30-foot No-Alteration Zone around all jurisdictional wetlands. The regulations also include Unique Habitat No-Alteration Zones and a 125-foot NoAlteration Zone around all vernal pools. Because this project is on land owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is being run by a state agency (MSCBA), it is exempt from local wetland requirements. However, the project should strive to meet all local wetland regulations to the maximum extent possible. The existing conditions plan has identified a wetland south of the railroad tracks and the Baiting Brook, a perennial stream, west of the railroad tracks (diagram 3.3). The locations of these wetland resource areas are from MassGIS wetland maps. The buffer zones to these wetland resource areas, including a 200foot Riverfront Area to Baiting Brook, encroach on the southern corner of the commuter parking lot. It appears that the project is not proposing any work within buffer zones, no-alternation zones, or the 200-foot Riverfront Area. If any work will occur in these areas, the project will be required to submit a Notice
s
am
Ad
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 8 • 9
Ma
yn
Church Street
ad Ro
on
rfr
En
d
ve
Ri
m
ad
0’
ircle
er C
t
le
Ro
20 12
flow May
5’ r
ffe
Bu
ot oN ’D b 30 istur D
Sa
ard
Diagram 3.3, above, Site plan showing existing wetlands and fly ash zone
s
am
d
oa
R
Ad
Ma
yn
ard
Ro
ad
Church Street
Diagram 3.4, above: Site plan showing proximity of new student housing capacity to neighborhood homes and ircle Heineman Center in 20' incriments. er C flow
May
03 existing conditions & campus infrastructure of Intent to the Framingham Conservation Commission and procure an Order of Conditions for the project. The Notice of Intent will need to be submitted at least two months prior to the completion of the Construction Documents to allow enough time to obtain approval. natural heritage and endangered species program
A review of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) resource areas from MassGIS indicates that the project site is not located within a Priority Habitat of Rare Species or an Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife. Therefore there are no permits required through the NHESP.
floodplain
Floodplain information was obtained from the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) community map number 25017C0512E and Draft 2014 FEMA flood zone maps. The project site is within a Zone X, which is identified as an area outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore there are no permits required with respect to the floodplain.
3.6 utilities water
An existing 6-inch water main runs down the north side of Maynard Road from State Street to Salem End Road (diagram 5.1). A 6-inch water main from Adams Road connects to the Maynard Road water main. The water main in State Street is constructed of 12-inch cement-lined ductile iron (DI) water pipe that was installed in the summer of 2008. Nitsch Engineering has requested record flow test data from the Town of Framingham Department of Public Works for the 6-inch water main in Maynard Road. A Hydrant Flow Test was conducted in December 2013 (Appendix 11.3) to verify existing conditions to be taken into account during the design of the domestic water and fire protection systems associated with the proposed residence hall building. sanitary sewer
An existing 8-inch vitrified clay (VC) sewer pipe is located to the north of the proposed project site in Maynard Road. This sewer pipe runs in a northwest direction from a manhole located in front of the Heinemen Center Building with an invert elevation of 205.9 to a sewer manhole located at the intersection of Maynard Road and Salem End Road. The invert of the main at the Salem End Road manhole is not indicated on the current topographic survey plan prepared by Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc. The capacities of the Maynard Road sewer main are summarized in the Sewer Hydraulic Capacity Analysis Table (Table 1) based on the information indicated on the current topographic survey plan. Existing loads are currently not know but may be obtained through on site flow meter measurements.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 10 • 11
length (ft)
invert elevation downstream
slope
diameter (in)
manning's mumber
flow capacity (cfs)
flow capacity (cfs)
flow capacity (mgd)
Maynard Road RIM 212.79 to RIM 197.20
155
205.9
190.6
9.9%
8
0.015
3.29
2.13
Maynard Road RIM 197.20 to RIM 188.30
188
190.6
183.44
3.8%
8
0.015
2.04
1.32
description
Note: Flow calculations basedon Manning's Equation
Table 1, above: Sewer Hydraulic Capacity Analysis Table
storm drainage
Stormwater runoff in Maynard Road, including runoff from the concrete and asphalt sidewalks, is picked up by multiple catch basins along the roadway edge and discharges to the town’s closed drainage system. The town’s system travels northwest down Maynard Road and turns southwest down Salem End Road. An existing drain manhole at the intersection of Maynard Road and Adams Road has a second outlet pipe (12-inch by 22-inch clay pipe) that heads west into the commuter parking lot. The termination/connection point of this pipe is unknown. The existing storm drainage system in Maynard Road consists primarily of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) varying in size from 8 inches to 12 inches. Stormwater runoff in the commuter parking lot generally flows southwest towards the western edge of the lot. There are two existing catch basins located in the commuter parking lot. One is located in the landscape island (uphill structure) and the other is located at the western edge of the lot (downhill structure). These structures are connected with a 12-inch RCP pipe. The outlet pipe from the downhill catch basin heads southeast, running parallel with the edge of the parking lot. The termination/connection point of this pipe is unknown. The storm drainage system in Church Street travels downhill between the Heinemen Center and the adjacent residential properties and ties into the catch basin located in the landscape island. The storm drainage system in the commuter parking lot does not meet the current Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Stormwater Management Standards. Video inspections of the existing storm drainage system has been conducted to collect more information on the system and to determine connection locations for pipes that are not previously known. Information and deficiencies found in the existing system have been shared with the team and FSU.
03 existing conditions & campus infrastructure
photo : www. employmentoptions . org /blog /? p =284
top - left pedestrian on campus
framingham, ma top - right mwrta bus
framingham, ma
3.7 parking, circulation, and transit services parking
FSU currently manages over 1100 parking spaces in lots primarily located on the periphery of the campus. Plans are also underway to develop the newly acquired land between Route 9 and Salem End Road into a 260 car lot. The New Student Housing Capacity is proposed to be located on the northeast edge of the Maynard Road Lot. vehicular circulation
Given the intimate scale of the campus, intra-campus vehicular circulation is kept to a minimum. The two main roads into and through the campus are Maynard Road and State Street which bisects the campus north-south. Both roads have multiple pedestrian crossings and an posted speed limit of 25 mph to reinforce the pedestrian nature of campus. FSU has consciously kept long term parking to the perimeter of campus. The main entrance to the FSU campus is via Route 9 and Maynard Road. Multiple driveways and access roads provide service access to the facilities. FSU has a limited presence on Adams Street. pedestrian circulation
FSU places a high value on the pedestrian scale of the campus as it contributes to the overall historic New England campus atmosphere. The main quad and lawns surrounding the core campus, including the “front yard” at May Hall and the “Larned Beach” at the top of Normal Hill, are vehicle-free and provide tree lined walks connecting the various academic and residential buildings. Being located at the top of Normal Hill, the campus has significant grade changes
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 12 • 13
that are sometimes steep. FSU is actively working to provide accessible routes throughout the campus. transit services
FSU is served by multiple shared transit systems. The MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) operates two routes that run though campus on State Street and Maynard Road en route to commuter rail stations and shopping districts. The MWRTA system operates on both the “flag down system” and have designated bus stops. The two bus stops on the FSU campus are at the McCarthy Center and at May Hall. Route 7 and 9 run down Maynard Road, directly past the proposed main entrance to the proposed New Student Housing Capacity (diagram 3.1). FSU operates a shuttle service, Ram Tram, to nearby businesses and the commuter rail station throughout the day. Also operated by FSU are shuttle buses to remote parking lots and athletic fields. Zip Car, a private membership-based car sharing service, has one vehicle location on campus at the McCarthy Center parking lot.
ad
r Ro
este
Sa
le
m
En
d
Ro
ad
orc 9 W
s
am
d
oa
R
Ad
Ma
yn
ard
Ro
State Street
ad
MAY HALL
Church Street
ircle
er C
flow
May
Diagram 3.5, above, Existing pedestrian axis
S University Ave
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 15
04
proposed program needs 4.1
framingham state and development objectives
university
campus
goals/growth
The New Student Housing Capacity seeks to fulfill the larger campus vision set forth in the 2012 DCAMM Master Plan, and the 2013 DCAMM Master Plan Update as well as goals and objectives developed through meetings with the FSU—the primary goal being to improve the housing stock on campus by developing a new housing alternative.
below o'connor hall north hall
fsu, framingham, ma
The major impetus for the project was FSU’s desire to complete the conversion of O’Connor Hall into faculty offices. O’Connor Hall currently houses 250 student beds and a replacement dormitory must be constructed before the renovation can occur. This replacement was originally planned to be fulfilled by North Hall, however, subsequent to the opening of North Hall the student population has grown to fill all 400 beds in the newly completed hall without reducing the bed count in O'Connor Hall.
4.2 campus master plan recommendations The DCAMM Master Plan addressed the siting of a new residence hall. As proposed, the New Student Housing Capacity responds to the recommendations. By studying multiple siting options and settling on the northeast portion of the Maynard Road Site, the New Student Housing Capacity achieves many of the goals the preferred option in the 2013 DCAMM Master Plan Update established including the preservation of parking, extension of the transverse pedestrian spine, and allowance for future development on the site. As noted in the 2013 Update, FSU has purchased property that was not under consideration during the 2012 study and, as anticipated, has caused elements of the plan to be reconsidered. The most notable change precipitated by this land acquisition which will be used for parking is the reduction in the immediate need for a parking structure on the Maynard Road site. The master plan calls for an extension of the transverse pedestrian spine. The New Housing Capacity study addresses this important feature and reevaluates the placement in relation to existing and future University-owned properties and uses. The New Student Housing Capacity option selected accommodates 286 beds. This number fully accommodates the displaced beds for O’Connor Hall and provides a small increase to the total on-campus bed count. This capacity is aligned with the recommendations of the MSCBA's 2012 strategic plan update.
04 proposed program needs ad
r Ro
este
Sa le m
En d
Ro ad
orc 9 W
s
m
a Ad
Ma
yn
ard
Ro
ad
State Street
PROPOSED RESIDENCE HALL
d
oa
R
MAY HALL
PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE Church Street
ircle
er C
flow
May
S University Ave
Diagram 4.1, above: Transverse pedestrian spine diagram proposed by DCAMM Master Plan
4.3 analysis of residence life facilities Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connor Hall houses students from each undergraduate class level, making it a great example of FSU's goal for its residential life program (Diagram 4.2). FSU has a well-developed residence life vision and has found that halls with mixed student populations encourage mentoring of younger students which results in better student behavior, improved retention and performance. Building on this mentorship model, FSU has introduced Affinity Housing, where students in similar academic disciplines reside in the same building. The goals for the program for this new residence hall are very much directed at supporting both the mixed-year model and progressive learning models that enhance the relevancy of campus housing.
above
McCarthy Center Framingham, MA students at
The development of the specific unit typology for the new residence hall was the source of much conversation and exploration during the Conceptual Design and Program Development phase of work. While Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connor Hall is a traditional residence with community bathrooms, FSU felt that its overall housing stock is under-developed in non-traditional unit types (Diagram 4.3). This is borne out when comparing the percentage of suite or apartment style units available at FSU when compared with other schools in the Massachusetts State University
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 16 • 17 100%
Other
90%
3%
9%
Sophomores
70%
13%
11% 39%
80%
Juniors
1%
19%
17%
13%
30%
Seniors
2%
7%
9%
34%
27%
Freshmen
31%
60%
34%
19%
24%
24% 34%
50%
28%
40%
38% 30%
54%
33%
56%
48%
44%
21%
20%
34%
10% 0%
16%
13%
11%
2% Corinne Hall Towers
Horace Mann Hall
Larned Hall
Linsley Hall
North Hall
O’Connor Hall
Peirce Hall
Total Residents
500
400
300
15 40 158
200
100
251
0 Corinne Hall Towers
34 28 38 15 Horace Mann Hall
27 48
72
111
128
175
Larned Hall
3 25 39
165
56 24
7
Linsley Hall
North Hall
22 25 55 132 O’Connor Hall
1 45 33 24 13 Peirce Hall
Diagram 4.2, above: Class occupancy of existing halls
system. The popularity of North Hall units, which offer either suites of two double occupancy bedrooms with shared living room and bathroom or two cojoined doubles sharing only a bathroom, and the reduced maintenance costs when students clean their own bathrooms, favored the development of more suite units. SUITE 15%
CLUSTER 11% TRADITIONAL DOUBLE 60%
TRADITIONAL SINGLE 14%
Diagram 4.3, above: Existing FSU housing stock by type
To ensure that new housing can be available at a lower price point than North Hall units, the new building will provide only co-joined suites (often known as semi-suites). These suites and the common spaces have been programmed to control the overall building square footage. The program does include a large multi-purpose room and a conference room to replace the Residence Life-controlled commons and staff training space that will be lost in the reassignment of O’Connor Hall. The tabular Program reflects compromises in unit bedroom square footage and common space allocation. The nearby McCarthy Center provides a concentration of student spaces and dining options. While the Maynard Road site is located on the edge of the campus, the proximity to this student hub will emphasize the link to the core campus for residents of the New Student Housing Capacity.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 19
05
codes & standards The New Student Housing Capacity is anticipated to apply for a building permit in early 2015 and will be designed to meet all applicable codes and relevant standards.
5.1 town of framingham The New Student Housing Capacity will be located on property owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and as such is exempt from local zoning regulations. While the property upon which the New Student Housing Capacity is to be constructed is effectively in the R-1 Residential district, it is not subject to the regulations of the Town of Framingham. The project team shall endeavor to work with the Town of Framingham where jurisdiction requires review and approval by local authority. The project will seek guidance and permits as follows: Conservation Commission (as delegated by the state DEP) - Wetlands, etc. if required Fire Department (as requested by the state DPS) - Design reviews - Fire alarm permits - Construction burning permits (welding) - Fire Protection narrative - Fire alarm testing prior to occupancy DPW storm water, sewer, and water tie-ins - Associated fees, I&I, sewer, street opening permits, water connections for fire and domestic services - Curb cut review and approval
5.2 massachusetts state building code The New Student Housing Capacity will fall under the 8th Edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Note that the project is likely to be permitted in early 2015, therefore, the requirements of the 2012 IECC and the 2014 National Electric Code will need to be incorporated. The overall list of applicable codes is listed in the following table.
05 codes & standards right
code type
applicable code (model code basis)
Building
780 CMR: Massachusetts State Building Code, 8th Edition (2009 International Building Code)
Fire Prevention
527 CMR: Massachusetts Fire Prevention Regulations
Accessibility
521 CMR: Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Regulations, American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Electrical
527 CMR 12.00: Massachusetts Electrical Code (2014 National Electrical Code)1
Elevators
524 CMR: Massachusetts Elevator Code (2004 ASME A17.1)
Mechanical
2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
Plumbing
248 CMR: Massachusetts Plumbing Code
Energy Conservation
2012 International Energy Conservation Code2 Massachusetts Executive Order No. 484
applicable codes
1. It is anticipated that the 2014 National Electrical Code will be adopted in January 2014. 2. The 2012 IECC has been adopted and will become mandatory on July 1st, 2014
5.3 wetlands compliance It is the intent of the project to not have any work occur within any wetland, buffer zone, no-alteration zone, or 200-foot Riverfront Area part of which encroach on the southern portion of the site as noted previously in Section 3.5: Wetlands.
5.4 hazardous materials assessment/abatement The project does not involve renovation or addition to facilities that require hazardous material abatement. However, the existing Facilities Office currently on the site will be demolished and should be tested to determine if any hazardous materials are present and if subsequent abatement will be required. The New Student Housing Capacity will be located on a portion of the site where no known contaminants exist. There is a portion of the site near the new project construction, where fly ash is known to have been buried. The design team will work to leave this area of the project undisturbed. Existing utility routes and new utilities will need to be planned to avoid disturbance of this material.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 20 â&#x20AC;˘ 21
Diagram 5.1, above: Site survey plan
05 codes & standards 5.5 access requirements The project will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 521 CMR Architectural Access Board as established by the State of Massachusetts. The team has reviewed the Fair Housing Act regulations. Room and bathroom layouts have been reviewed in the context of the FHA Design Manual and the project team intends to accommodate the requirements.
5.6 water supply/wastewater treatment requirements The stormwater management system for the proposed New Student Housing Capacity will be designed to meet the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable, as indicated in the following section: The project site is previously developed and the proposed work will result in an increase in impervious area. Therefore, the project is considered a mix of new development and redevelopment under the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. department of environmental management standards standard
protection’s
stormwater
1: No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge
untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. There will be no untreated stormwater discharges from the site. The DEP Stormwater Management Policy allows only discharges of treated water into the waters of the Commonwealth. The term “treat” refers to the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are specifically designed to achieve total suspended solids (TSS) removal rates that adequately protect groundwater, surface waters, and wetlands. Water quality treatment BMPs will be incorporated into the stormwater management system to provide adequate treatment of stormwater prior to discharge. These water quality BMPs will potentially include pretreatment BMPs such as Deep Sump Catch Basins and Vegetated Filter Strips, and Treatment BMPs such as Proprietary Water Quality Structures, Bioretention Basins, Water Quality Swales, Infiltration Trenches, and Subsurface Infiltration Structures.
2: Stormwater management systems shall be designed so that the post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. standard
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 22 â&#x20AC;˘ 23
compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. The stormwater management system will be designed to mitigate post-development peak discharge rates to less than pre-development levels for the 2-year, 10-year, 100-year 24-hour storm events. The project includes an increase in impervious area resulting in higher rate and volume of runoff. An underground recharge/ detention system will be included in the stormwater design to mitigate the increase in runoff rate.
3: Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stormwater BMPs, and good operation and maintenance. At a minimum, the annual recharge from the post-development site shall approximate the annual recharge from pre-development conditions based on soil type. This Standard is met when the stormwater management system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. standard
compliance:
The project will comply with this standard to the maximum extent practicable. Infiltration BMPs will be incorporated into the proposed stormwater management system where feasible and will be sized to capture and infiltrate at least the required recharge volume for the proposed site. The required recharge volume is based on the total impervious cover and the NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group for the project site. For this site, the soil has been categorized as Merrimac-Urban Land complex and Urban land. The former falls under Hydrologic Soil Group A while the latter is not characterized with a Hydrologic Soil Group. Soil testing will be performed to further characterize the onsite soils, determine appropriate infiltration rates, and identify seasonal high groundwater elevations. Infiltration systems will be incorporated into the stormwater management system where feasible to provide the required recharge volume.
4: Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This standard is met when: standard
1. Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are identified in a long-term pollution prevention plan, and thereafter are implemented and maintained; 2. Structural stormwater BMPs are sized to capture the required water quality volume as determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook; and 3. Pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. Structured and nonstructured water quality systems and BMPs will be incorporated into the design and sized to provide 80% TSS removal. A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (post construction) for the storm drainage system will be developed that will
05 codes & standards define suitable practices for post-construction source control and pollution prevention for the site. The plan will identify good housekeeping practices, provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover, vehicle washing controls, requirements for routine inspection and maintenance of stormwater BMPs, spill prevention and response plans, provisions for landscaping maintenance, requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, pet waste management provision, provisions for solid waste management, snow disposal and plowing plans relative to the proposed infiltration BMPs, winter road salt and/or sand use and storage restrictions, street sweeping schedules, provisions for preventing illicit discharges to the stormwater management system, training for personnel involved with implementing the plan, and a list of emergency contacts.
5: For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, source control and pollution prevention shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum extent practicable. If, through source control and/or pollution prevention, all land uses with higher potential pollutant loads cannot be completely protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specific structural stormwater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads shall also comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L.c. 21, §§ 26-53 and the regulations promulgated there under at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00. standard
compliance:
The project will comply with this Standard. The project is not associated with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (as defined under Standard 5 in Volume 1, Chapter 1 of the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook).
6: Stormwater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply and stormwater discharges near or to any other critical area require the use of the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific structural stormwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such areas, as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters and Special Resource Waters shall be removed and set back from the receiving water or wetland and receive the highest and best practical method of treatment. A “storm water discharge” as defined in 314 CMR 3.04(2)(a)1. or (b) to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00 and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of the public water supply. standard
compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. The site does not contain critical areas and will not discharge untreated stormwater to a sensitive resource area.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 24 â&#x20AC;˘ 25
7: A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3, and the pretreatment and structural stormwater best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6. Existing stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard 1 only to the maximum extent practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions. standard
compliance:
The project is a combination of new development and redevelopment. The project will improve existing conditions to comply with the Stormwater Management Standards.
8: A plan to control construction-related impacts, including erosion, sedimentation, and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented. standard
compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. Sedimentation and erosion controls will be incorporated as part of the design of this project and employed during site construction. Land disturbance will be kept to a minimum and the phasing of the work will be planned so that only the areas actively being developed are exposed. All other areas should have natural vegetation preserved, have good temporary cover, or permanent vegetation established. Permanent structures, temporary or permanent vegetation, and mulch/erosion netting should be employed as quickly as possible after land is disturbed. Disturbed areas will be protected from stormwater runoff by installing erosion control or stormwater management measures to prevent water from entering and running over disturbed areas, and to prevent erosion damage to downstream facilities. Perimeter control practices will be installed to isolate the construction site from surrounding areas. Siltation fence, temporary covers for drainage structures, and temporary settlement basins will be utilized where applicable. The project is expected to disturb more than one (1) acre of land and therefore a Notice of Intent (NOI) under the Environmental Protection Agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program will be required. As part of this application the Applicant is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement the measures in the SWPPP. The SWPPP, which is to be kept onsite during the entire construction phase, includes erosion and sediment controls (stabilization practices and structural practices), temporary and permanent stormwater management measures, Contractor inspection schedules and reporting of all SWPPP features, materials management, waste disposal, offsite vehicle tracking, spill prevention and response, sanitation, and non-stormwater discharges.
standard
9: A Long-Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan shall be
developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed.
05 codes & standards
heineman ecumenical
&
cultural center
dwight hall
facilities office
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 26 â&#x20AC;˘ 27
compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. An operations and maintenance plan including long-term BMP operation requirements will be prepared to assure proper maintenance and functioning of the proposed stormwater management system.
standard
10: All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are
prohibited. compliance:
The project will comply with this standard. There will be no illicit connections associated with this project.
5.7 massachusetts historical commission The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) must be notified any new construction project or renovation to existing buildings that require funding, licenses, or permits from any state or federal governmental agency for impacts to historical and archaeological properties. As defined under this regulation, the MSCBA is a state entity. All necessary documents will be submitted for review at the appropriate time. A survey of MHC resources shows that the adjacent Heineman Ecumenical and Cultural Center Building, originally Saint Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Episcopal Church (FRM. 138), designed by Framingham architect Alexander Rice Esty is listed in the registry along with the overall Framingham State College Campus (FRM. C) . Also listed is the stone Whiting Fountain (FRM. 906) at the intersection of Maynard Road and Salem End Road. The Heineman Ecumenical and Cultural Center is additionally listed on the National Register of Historic Places (89002300). The proposed New Student Housing Capacity will not alter the Heineman Ecumenical and Cultural Center or the Whiting Fountain. The proposed siting for the project will require the demolition of the Facilities Office at 35 Maynard Road. While this property is within the historically significant FSU campus, the individual structure is not identified as a contributing structure.
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 29
06
alternative solutions & recommendations 6.1 housing type evaluation
DOUBLE 216 SF
DOUBLE
DOUBLE
DOUBLE
216 SF
216 SF
216 SF
DOUBLE
DOUBLE
216 SF
216 SF
Diagram 6.1, above: Communit bath plan
dard Double
Diagram 6.2, above: North Hall semi-suite
bed
The design team approached the study of housing typologies and building siting by starting at the micro level, student rooms, and moving toward the macro level, siting strategies. The process was not strictly linear as each step informed not only the following but also provided better context to reevaluate the previous decisions. This approach resulted in a coherent diagram that met stated goals at each level of investigation. room configuration
The team began the design process by first studying the room and bathroom configurations. Initial discussion between the design team, FSU and the MSCBA focused on whether the residence hall would utilize the traditional community style bathrooms shared with multiple rooms (diagram 6.1) or a version of an in-suite configuration. The majority of on-campus housing at FSU utilizes the traditional community bathroom model although the recently opened North Hall shifted away from this layout and introduced a suite and semi-suite layout to the campus (diagram 6.2). After study and discussion, it was decided by the Steering Committee that the New Student Housing Capacity should be planned with a semi-suite layout rather than community bathrooms. The shared private bathroom arrangement produced by the semi-suite layout is attractive to a wider range of students and will allow the University to more easily attract the mix of students desired. The overall suite size would be limited by the MSCBA goal for the project to not exceed 300 gross square feet per student bed. Per FSU recommendation, the furniture installed at North Hall was used as a basis of design for dimensions; each resident will be provided the following furniture: single bed, desk, wardrobe, low three drawer dresser (diagram 6.3). In each option the bed is assumed to be raised 30" with the dresser below.
85"x 38"
wardrobe
25"x 36"
dresser
32"x 24"
A series of studies was developed by the team to find an optimal room arrangement that allowed for an in-suite compartmentalized bathroom zone that did not jeopardize the usability of any one part of the semi-suite. The relationship of the various bathroom components was critical in this study. The team analyzed the recently completed North Hall semi-suite as a precedent and sought to improve on the layout in a number of ways.
Diagram 6.3, above: North Hall furniture
The team found that the North Hall layout did not produce a spacious feel in the bathroom zone when multiple fixtures were in simultaneous use. Although the functions are compartmentalized, the circulation zones overlap with the use area of the single sink. Multiple doors in close proximity to each other also
desk
24"x 42"
06 alternative solutions & recommendations contributed to the tight feel. FSU has requested that a hand washing sink be in the same compartment as the toilet where possible, a feature not present in the North Hall model. The team sought to replicate the efficiency inherent in the rectilinear bedroom plan often associated with traditional community bathroom strategies. Such a plan would allow residents more options to arrange furniture and as well as contribute to the cost efficient project the client desired. Many of the models that were developed traded an ultra-efficient bathroom layout for inefficiencies in the bedroom layout. The team sought to strike a balance between the two. As shown in diagrams 6.4-6.6, a variety of arrangements were studied and all variables were explored. The final major design focus of the semi-suite study was the relationship of the corridor, bedroom and bathroom and the resulting entry sequence. Many of the layouts strove to maintain the direct connection between the bedroom and corridor, but given the required efficiency goals this often resulted in an awkward entry zone that was either not able to be furnished or unwelcoming.
DOUBLE
DOUBLE
206 SF
206 SF
SINGLE
SINGLE
SINGLE DOUBLE 120 206SF SF
DOUBLE DOUBLE 206SF SF 206
120 SF
120 SF
BATHROOM 57 SF
SINK
SINK
55 SF
55 SF SINK 55 SF
TOILET
SHOWER
21 SF
25 SF
TOILET
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 538 SF
SHOWER
21 SF TOILET
25 SF SHOWER
21 SF
25 SF
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 450 SF SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 538 SF
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 308 SF
Diagram 6.4, above: Double-Double semi-suite, Double-Single semi-suite, and Single-Single semi-suite
TOILET
TOILET
29 SF
29 SF
DOUBLE 214 SF
DOUBLE SINK
214 SF
SINK
29 SF
29 SF
DOUBLE
SINGLE
214 SF
120 SF
SHOWER
SHOWER
33 SF
33 SF
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 538 SF
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 442 SF
Diagram 6.5, above: Double-Double semi-suite and Double-Single semi-suite
ARC /Architectural Resources Cambridge | 30 • 31
The team acknowledged the benefits of the direct connection between the room and corridor—primarily the social connection between the two elements and the increased sense of privacy in the bathroom. Drawbacks of such an arrangement were also recognized; most notably the security concern inherent in not being able to lock the rooms from the connecting bathrooms. Not only would suite-mates have access to the other bedroom through the bathroom, but maintenance personnel would be forced to enter student bedrooms to access the bathroom. The most balanced solution includes a clear entry zone housing the bathroom components and acting as a communal transition space from the public corridor to each private bedroom. This layout concept was supported by FSU’s desire for a hand washing sink within the toilet compartment allowing the second sink fixture and accompanying counter to be designed for a variety of daily uses in addition to hand washing and be integrated with the micro-fridge supplied by FSU. The plan shown in diagram 6.6 and the resulting entry zone satisfied each of the established design goals: an efficient and easily furnishable bedroom resulted and a communal zone was created that provided a usable shared entry and the required privacy for bathroom compartments.
DOUBLE
DOUBLE
194 SF
194 SF
TOILET
SINK
SHOWER
33 SF
59 SF
37 SF
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 538 SF
DOUBLE
SINGLE
194 SF
120 SF
TOILET
SINK
SHOWER
33 SF
59 SF
37 SF
SEMI-SUITE ADJUSTED NET 462 SF
Diagram 6.5, above: Double-Double semi-suite and Double-Single semi-suite
DOUBLE
DOUBLE
175 SF
175 SF
SINGLE
115 SF
115 SF
TOILET 51 SF
TOILET
SINK
SHOWER
36 SF
63 SF
40 SF
DOUBLE ROOM SUITE ADJ NET 516 SQFT
SINGLE
ENTRY 32 SF
SINGLE ROOM 115 SQFT SUITE ADJ NET 332 SQFT
Diagram 6.6, above: (preferred) Double-Double semi-suite and Single-Single semi-suite
Architectural Resources Cambridge
five cambridge center | cambridge, ma 02142 | tel 617.547.2200 | fax 617.547.7222 www.arcusa.com