designLAB architects
PREFACE
Since it’s inception, designLAB architects has been focused on supporting our client’s mission through
research and inquiry.
In an effort to learn more about our clients and their constituent groups
we have engaged in a range of programming and research methodologies that extend beyond typical practice models. As the age of “big data” has expanded, we have looked for ways to leverage different types of information to tell us things about our clients that they might not be explicitly aware of. This information can come in the form of client-provided
data, or publicly available data that is sorted and analyzed to create a new kind of enhanced programming. For projects ranging from master plans to building designs, this new tool provides the design team with broad-reaching insights about client-groups that are independent from individual biases or perspectives.
GROUND UP
Table of Contents 8
Etymology Data Analysis
26
Survey Analysis Barnstable
44
Institutional Analysis Curry Student Center Tufts | SMFA UMD Masterplan
72
Social Analysis Claire T. Carney Library 985 Michigan Ave.
ETYMOLOGY
Throughout this volume, we will look at three different types of enhanced
programming.
As a
comparison to the existing method of simply asking communities what they want their buildings to be, enhanced programming uses data as a source to
reveal hidden truths to both communities
and designers. Three different types of data sources create three different methodologies. Institutional Analysis uses existing data collected by institutions or communities - often for other purposes - that can be analyzed to reveal new information. Social Analysis uses publicly available information, collected through a range of sources. Survey Analysis creates user surveys to gather new information specific to a project but questions need to be carefully crafted to avoid bias. All three methods can be used individually, or in combination with each other. This document breaks down analysis by type, with some projects utilizing multiple methods.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data Analysis Etymology Traditional programming methods rely on a flawed system based on assigning square footage values to individual people or spaces and multiplying them out for a sum total resultant building size. However, this method does not take into account transient populations, shared use spaces, fluctuating uses, or a host of other realities facing building projects today. This method envisions a building where all occupants enter simultaneously, occupy the building for a specific amount of time, and then leave en masse. Even in the most traditional building use this isn’t a realistic assessment of occupancy. New analysis must evaluate cultural factors that could affect visitation of a building or campus by non-permanent occupants, as well as internal usage factors that create fluctuations in use. In reality, no single number can adequately represent how a building will be used. Instead, we sought to develop a range of methodologies that could provide insights to usage trends, possibilities, and synergies.
11
12
13 As with any inquiry, our first efforts were reflective, using our own work and portfolio as our material. On the 10th anniversary of our founding, we undertook an investigation into our own history, with our projects and our clients, which reveals truths through a series of graphs. This self reflection provides insight into who we are, along with a revelation into the underlying trends of our research - allowing us to maximize the impact of data on the early stages of design within the broader design industry.
0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
VISITORS CTR.
RES.
MUSEUM
LIBRARY
INVES.
GENERAL EDUCATION
CIVIC
ARTS EDUCATION
This graph illustrates the the success and outcome of each project we’ve worked on since 2005. Color coded by typology, the circumference of each circle indicates number of awards for each project. The network of tendrils indicate projects which helped lead to other projects.
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
180,000,000
140,000,000
PROJECT TYPE
16 200,000,000
100,000,000
VISITORS CENTER
RESIDENTIAL
80,000,000
MUSEUM
LIBRARY
60,000,000
180,000,000
140,000,000
GEN ED
CIVIC
40,000,000
100,000,000
20,000,000
ARTS ED 80,000,000
0
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
2005
VISITORS CENTER
2006
RESIDENTIAL
2007
MUSEUM
2008
LIBRARY
2009
GEN ED
CIVIC
SIZE Project x Size uses the size of each of our projects as a vehicle to track trends in our project types since 2005. Color coded by project type, this allows us to draw conclusions on the projects we most consistently work on. This graph reveals a consistent trend of working on arts ed projects, gen ed projects, as well as a significant spike of library projects. This graph ends at 2015, however, the large spike in projects indicates our ongoing work on civic projects, gen ed, as well as arts ed.
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
180,000,000
140,000,000
CLIENT TYPE
18 200,000,000
100,000,000
PRIVATE UNIVERSITY
RESIDENTIAL
80,000,000
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY
PUBLIC
60,000,000
180,000,000
140,000,000
INDEPEN.SCHOOL
NON-PROFIT
40,000,000
100,000,000
20,000,000
INSTITUTIONAL 80,000,000
0
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
2005
PRIVATE UNIVERSITY
2006
RESIDENTIAL
2007
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY
2008
PUBLIC
2009
NON-PROFIT
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
INS
SIZE Client x Size uses the size of each of our projects as a vehicle to track trends in our client types since 2005. Color coded by client type, this allows us to draw conclusions on consistent trends that carry through each client type. From this graph, we have surmised that our strongest, most consistent client relationships come from private universities, the public realm, as well as a large spike with public universities in 2010.
2010
STITUTIONAL
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
MUSEUM
ABA / SS ARTS ED.
2005 2006 GEN. ED.
2007 2008 LIBRARY
2009
DUXBURY CREMATORY
MUSEUM LA
NORTH CAROLINA
MORAVIAN
WHITIN
KERAVUORI
HECHT
CLAIRE T. CARNEY
STARBUCKS
PARA SOL
7 HAVILAND
EMERY COMMUNITS ARTS
WORCESTER VISITORS CTR
CHESTER PARK
MILLER LIBRARY
GROSSE POINT
BOSTON CITY HALL
MUSKINGUM
20
ODRICH
IFAW
MARS
WORCESTER HISTORICAL
ARKELL
LIGHTBOX
DANIELS
STEELSTAX
NEEDHAM
PROVIDENCE LIBRARY
SKILLMAN
DANIEL ARTS CENTER
CRAYOLA FACTORY
BOSTON ATHENAEUM
HYDE PARK
MIDDLESEX
PROCTOR
NEWBURYPORT
FARNSWORTH
900
DISTANCE
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
2010
ROCHESTER MAIC
2011
VISITORS CTR.
2012 2013 RESIDENTIAL
2014 2015 CIVIC
2016 INVESTIGATION
TOWER HILL GATEHOUSE
CAPE ANN STUDY
ST. MICHAEL’S MASTERPLAN
NORTHEASTERN INFO DESK
NORTHEASTERN TUNNELS
HARVARD SACKLER
BRANDEIS STUDENT CENETER
BROWN BOATHOUSE
TUFTS/SMFA STUDY
TOWER HILL MASTEPLAN
BRANDEIS GOLDFARB
WALNUT HILL MASTERPLAN
985 MICHIGAN
MIT THEATRE ARTS
FARANDNEAR
CONCORD
MASSART
PPL EMPIRE
WEST BRANCH LIBRARY
HARBOR TOWER STUDY
UMD MASTERPLAN
NORTHEASTERN CURRY
HITCHCOCK
CAPE ANN
SMFA
CAPE COD SYMPHONY
ROCHESTER
DELBRIDGE
HIGH POINT
SCHNEIDER
OCGC
HYANNIS
SETON HILL
CCRI ARTS
AFH CANOPY
PEABODY ESSEX
PROVIDENCE PUB. LIB.
CLEVELAND PUB. LIB.
TIME 21
Distance x Time reveals a trend of working on long distance projects in our early years as a firm, to slowly honing in on New England projects as we create relationships and grow deeper roots into our base of Boston, MA.
22
DISTANCE
TIME
23 Distance x Time abstracted using the radius of each project distance, in relation to our office.
CONCLUSION
Data Analysis Etymology Analysis provides insight into our projects and our clients that observation alone cannot provide. By applying this thought process in our own self reflection as a firm, we allow ourselves greater clarity into how we have evolved, and continue to evolve with each design. Our analysis of ourselves was not only an exercise of self reflection, but also a method to reveal trends in our work that was not immediately known. By uncovering these trends, we allow ourselves the opportunity to shift our focus and assess where we succeed. Our research grounds us deeply in the community, cultural history, and evolution of a site or building. From this, we may interpret the legacy of place, representing the institution with renewed purpose and an enriched appreciation of the past. As a continously evolving firm, we retain the knowledge we gain from each project and carry them over to new designs. As we build our reportoire, our projects grow richer, each one benefitting from it’s predecessors.
25
SURVEY ANALYSIS
Where no pre-existing data exists,
via survey.
information can be collected from a population
In these cases, online surveys can be distributed quickly and efficiently through existing
distribution channels among communities such as artist or professional societies, student groups, or community newsletters/emailers. These questions should be carefully formulated to reduce bias or
foreshadowing.
Primary information that is purely factual (age, gender, location, etc) can be collected
and can reveal surprisingly informative pictures about groups not previously known. Secondary information about activity
or usage (frequency of visits to certain locations, reasons for certain behavior) can be
affected by perception or user-bias and should be used with limited frequency. Predictive questions (i.e. Will you do something, if something else happens) can be highly unreliable and should be avoided if possible. When
created thoughtfully and with regard to potential user biases, survey data can be highly revealing about large populations who have relatively small collective data sets.
BARNSTABLE
Barnstable Survey Analysis client: town of barnstable project: public type: space assessment study size: unrealized cost: unrealized completion: 2013
designLAB was hired by the town of Barnstable to do a space assessment regarding the viability of live/work arts spaces in their town. In seeking to promote increased development in a creative economy, the town was looking for information it could use to promote itself as a viable economic location for live/work artist development. The study began with a demographic analysis of the region’s artist community to assess needs and gaps in the current market. designLAB utilized online survey tools to reach out to several regional arts councils as well as several local arts non-profits. The results of these surveys provided valuable data to inform the study. The survey included several fact-based questions about the artists current location, age, and other demographic information. It also included some simple predictive information about access to existing resources and willingness to pay or level of desire for additional resources.
29
30
Barnstable Survey Analysis Respondents Plympton, MA 02367
Woodburn, MA 01801 Southborough, MA 01772
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
Franklin, MA 02038 Winthrop, MA 02152
Wilbraham, MA 01095
East Sandwich, MA 02537
Plymouth, MA 02360
Sandwich, MA 02563 Provincetown, MA 02657
Truro, MA 02666
Falmouth, MA 02540 Brewster, MA 02631 Eastham, MA 02642
Dennis Port, MA 02639
Chatham, MA 02633
Cotuit, MA 02635 Woods Hole, MA 02543 Harwich, MA 02645
Mashpee, MA 02649
Centerville, MA 02632
Barnstable, MA 02630
Forestdale, MA 02644
Hyannis, MA 02601
Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
Dennis, MA 02638
31 Painting / Drawing Breakdown
1 Folk Arts/Casting 4 Photography 7 Crafts+Fine Crafts: Glass, Woodworking, Ceramics 5 Culinary Arts+Photography 7 Mixed Media: Sculpture+Jewelry Design 3 Architectural Design 6 Theater Arts/Acting+Writing/Library Arts+Poetry 12 Mixed Media+Graphic Arts: Fiber Arts, Printmaking, Photography 1 Kids Illustration Book
87 total 42 painting/drawing only 45 combined with other disciplines
261 results 105 overlaps
80% 55.77%
60%
40% 23.08%
20%
13.46%
6.41% 6.41%
Others (specify)
0% Writing / Literary Arts
Woodworking
Video / Film
2.56% 1.28% 3.85%
Theater Arts / Acting
0.64%
Storytelling
Sculpture
Printmaking
Photography
Performance Art
Painting + Drawing
Mixed Media
Metalworking
4.49% 5.13%
2.56%
1.28%
Music (rec. / comp.)
5.13% 5.77%
Jewelry / Fabrication
3.85%
Graphic Arts
0.64%
Glass
1.92%
Folk Arts / Casting
Dance / Choreography
Crafts / Fine Crafts
Ceramics
Multi- / New Media
Architecture / Design
Culinary Arts
3.21%
Fiber Arts / Clothing
7.05% 3.21%
9.62%
32
Barnstable Survey Analysis Results Breakdown At a work space within my home / on my property
83.97%
At a work space that I own outside my home
2.56%
At a work space that I rent or lease outside my home
10.26%
At a shared work space outside my home
5.77%
My work does not require a dedicated space
5.77%
0%
20%
56% Painting/Drawing work space within home
40%
60%
80%
100%
81% Painting/Drawing work space outside of home rent/lease
33
YES
66% of those who need additional space to create art are interested in painting and drawing - only 47% of those who do not need additional space are interested in painting and drawing.
39.74%
66% Painting/Drawing
NO
60.26%
47% Painting/Drawing 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Type of supporting space (of those who need additional space) Space to ceate or rehearse my art
57.38% 66% Painting/Drawing
Space for the public to buy, see, and enjoy my work
People interested in painting and drawing (a large majority of those who need additional space) are more likely to need space to create and show/sell art, and less likely to need shared resources
68.85%
71% Painting/Drawing
Space with access to shared resources and/or equipment
39.34%
50% Painting/Drawing 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
34
Barnstable Survey Analysis Results Breakdown AGE 61 +
51-60
19-50
Q: DO YOU HAVE A NEED FOR SPACE TO SUPPORT YOUR ART (THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO YOU)
- 23% are 19-50 years old
OF THOSE WHO ANSWERED ‘YES’ . . . % INCOME FROM ART 20-49% 0-20%
NO
- 47% are 51-60 years old
YES
50+ %
- 57% make 0-20% of their income from art - 23% make 50+ % of their income from art
SIZE NEEDED (sq ft) 750 + 500-750
40 % (62 respondents)
0-300 300-500
- 66% require less than 500 sq ft of space for their art
60 % (94 respondents) EMPLOYMENT
UNEMPLOYED NON-ART (FT OR PT)
ART (FT)
RET.
ART (PT)
- 87% are retired or employed in the arts in some capacity - 40% are employed full-time in the arts
35 AGE 19-50 61 +
Q: DO YOU HAVE A NEED FOR SPACE TO SUPPORT YOUR ART (THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO YOU)
51-60
- 59% are 61 + years old - 25% are 51-60 years old
OF THOSE WHO ANSWERED ‘NO’ . . .
% INCOME FROM ART 50+ %
NO
YES
0-20%
20-49%
- 59% make 0-20% of their income from art - 15% make 50+ % of their income from art
40 % (62 respondents) 60 % (94 respondents) EMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYED / STUDENT NON-ART (FT OR PT) ART (FT) ART (PT) RETIRED
- 31% are retired - 24% are employed in non-art fields in some capacity
36
Barnstable Survey Analysis Demographic Analysis designLAB created a comprehensive 17 question multiple-answer online survey which sought to establish not only simple desire for additional arts making space and related amenities, but also to create a demographic portrait of respondents: age, employment status, preferred art making media, and the size and price of desired studio space were all components of the survey. designLAB collated and analyzed the survey results to create a clearer picture of the potential market. THOSE WHO SAY
THOSE WHO SAY
YES
NO
Less likely to be 60+ years old
More likely to be 60+ years old
More likely to be 51-60 years old
More likely to make 20-49% of income through personal art Less likely to make 50+ % of income through personal art More likely to be employed in non-art fields or retired
More likely to make 50+ % of income through personal art More likely to be employed as an artist (FT or PT)
PROFILE 1
PROFILE 2
PROFILE 1
62 YEARS OLD
45 YEARS OLD
65 YEARS OLD
EMPLOYED PART TIME
EMPLOYED FULL TIME
RETIRED
30% ART INCOME
10% ART INCOME
10% ART INCOME
NEEDS 300 sq ft
NEEDS 500 sq ft
HAPPY WITH CURRENT SPACE
37 THOSE WHO SAY
YES
NO
YES 40 % (62 respondents) 60 % (94 respondents)
80%
80%
60%
60%
47%
40% 20%
30%
23% 19-50
40%
51-60
80% 60%
57%
20%
19% 0-19%
61 +
AGE OF RESPONDENT
40%
20-49%
23%
41%
20%
25%
4%
9% FT ART
50% +
% INCOME FROM ART
PT ART
NON-ART
21%
UNEMPL. RETIRED
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
THOSE WHO SAY
NO 80%
80%
60%
59%
40%
60% 40%
20%
16% 19-50
61 +
AGE OF RESPONDENT
60%
58%
20%
25% 51-60
80%
40%
25% 0-19%
20-49%
20%
16% 50% +
% INCOME FROM ART
25% FT ART
16%
24%
PT ART NON-ART
31% 4% UNEMPL.
RETIRED
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
CONCLUSION
Barnstable Survey Analysis The fundamental question of those who would be interested in new or additional space for arts making yielded some surprising results that drove the real estate analysis that followed. While the age of the population was rather high (39% were over 61), it was the younger and mid-range respondents that had the most desire for new space. Initial assumptions were that new development should cater to the retirement-age demographic, this study highlighted the real need for space was actually among the midcareer set who relied more heavily on art for their income and considered themselves either full or parttime employed by their art. This greatly shaped the following real estate analysis which was re-focused on smaller spaces (66% of respondents looking for space sought less than 600 sf) and on developments that could support galleries or cafes that included a sales outlet as part of their base program.
39
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
In many cases institutions are able to provide us with a great deal of data which can reveal
latent
realities of their culture, usage, or population. Sources for this kind of information can be enrollment data, registrar data, classroom booking schedules, or any other functional information collected as part of standard management and operations procedures. By looking at these elements the design team can better understand how spaces are being used, who is using them, and what
peak and valley usage times are.
Often the perception of usage varies wildly from it’s reality
with spaces or resources being in very high demand for very short periods of time. By examining this data in aggregate, we are able to establish real demand and flexibly-scheduled events.
needs and often find synergies between areas of peak
CURRY STUDENT CENTER
Curry Student Center Institutional Analysis client: Northeastern University project: higher education type: renovation & addition size: 20,000 sf cost: $1.75 million completion: 2015
designLAB was approached by Northeastern in the summer of 2014 to conduct a review of the 1960s-era, five-story Curry Student Center, the University’s primary student centered space. The review entailed documenting all existing uses and spaces within the building, extensive interviews with the building’s various user groups, and several comprehensive building tours of both public spaces and back-of-house spaces. The ultimate goal of the study was to analyze the building’s existing space, usage and conditions, and to propose a series of improvements to the Student Center, ranging from interior finish updates to reorganization of offices and other programmed spaces to potential building additions. This analysis was conducted between June 2014 and January 2015, and led to a “refresh” of then .atrium space Built in 1964, the Curry Student Center at Northeastern University is a cast-in-place concrete waffle slab Brutalist structure that houses a wide range of student-centered spaces and functions, and serves generally as the heart of student life on campus. The first floor of the building is dominated by the Indoor Quad, a large open-plan student lounge area in an open four-story interior atrium space in the center of the building.
43
44
Initial Program Analysis 2nd Floor Program Diagram
SPACE USAGE
designLAB conducted a study that analyzed the existing space and of CSC. This study revealed the lack of activity on the second floor of the building. Using the analysis as a foundation, our interventions intend to facilitate collaboration, interaction , and foster ‘people connection’.
GSF 26,416 sf
72.3%
FOOTPRINT 36,523 sf
RATIO OF FOOTPRINT TO GSF
USABLE 15,784 sf
59.7%
NON-USABLE 10,632 sf
RATIO OF USABLE AREA TO NON-USABLE
45 SETUP ATTENDANCE per month
LEVEL 2
5885 (29)
SEPTEMBER
TOTAL SETUP 41,741
6425 (31) OCTOBER
SETUP / DAY* 199.38
5545 (25) NOVEMBER
1663 (14)
SETUP ATTENDANCE per day, by month*
DECEMBER
3827 (26) JANUARY
5215 (28) FEBRUARY
5584 (22) MARCH
7327 (33) APRIL/MAY
S
202.93
O
207.26
N
221.80
D
118.79
J
147.19
F
186.25
M
253.81
A/M
222.03
46
Initial Program Analysis Overall Program Use 35,000 sf
20,000 sf 18,728
31,464
14,794
17,500 sf
10,000 sf
9395
13,904
5231 4313
7273 3400
5590 1940+
OR T RO OM
IN DO OR
BA LL
SU + R
QU AD
PP
BO E TH
EA TE
RV IC
E SE D
RV IC FO O
SE D
AR EA
FO O
NI NG
TI EE M
DI
NG
SP AC E
CO LU M
H
NS
0 sf
+
W AL LS
BA TH RO OM LA TI ON
.+
RC U CI
ST OR
M
EC HA N
IC AL
0 sf
E
V
T
EN
DI
CE S
.S ER VI
M
CO M EC OR
/R
RO OM
/T
FO R
PL OY M
EM
FR AT E
NG SU /L IT ES OU NG RN E IT Y /S OF OR FC OR AM IT PU Y S LI OP HO FE PO US RT IN G UN IT ST Y SC UD HO EN LA T M RS ED HI GR I P A AD SU UA IT TE ES ST OP UD ER EN AT T IO GO NS VT LG . BT QA RE SO ST UR UD CE EN AR T EA GO VE BU RN SI NE M EN SS T OF CT FI CE R. FO (S AB R ST O) UD EV EN . IN T VO M LV AN EM AG EN EM T EN T
GA M
IO
RA D
ER
NT
DE
NT
CE
ST U
47
4201
4500 sf
2902
2250 sf
1638 1369
838 855
538
275 556
353 402 679 533 664
330
0 sf
48
Curry Student Center Refresh Final Design
Laptop counter integrated into end of millwork Moveable high chairs at laptop counter Charging Stations (wired for outlets) Some taller/wider seating spaces
49
CONCLUSION
Curry Student Center Institutional Analysis We began with an analysis of the existing space of Curry, that included interviews with various user groups to assess the frequency in which the space is used, as well an analysis of the current uses of the center. Documentation of all existing uses and spaces, paired with our analysis revealed the inefficiencies rooted in the current space. The results of our space study revealed the lack of activity in what should be the heart of the Northeastern community; nearly 50% of the previous space was unusable, due to an inefficient layout. In addition to this, poor lighting, outdated furniture, and finishes emphasized its lack of any sort of central identity. This analysis highlighted opportunities for intervention, and provided a foundation for our final design. designLAB completed a number of improvements to the space including new finishes, grpahic treatments, lighting, and a complex millwork “amphitheater” that negotiates a level change of three feet within the Curry Student Center. By expanding this “indoor quad” of the center, and creating the amphitheater our design allowed for collaboration, interaction, and provided a central space not only within the student center but within the entire Northeastern Campus.
51
TUFTS | SMFA
Tufts | SMFA Instituional Analysis client: Tufts / SMFA project: education & arts type: renovation & addition size: 50,000 sf cost: $3 million completion: 2016
In 2013, designLAB was approached by the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to undertake comprehensive space use study within their existing building complex. The SMFA - a long-time partner institution to the adjacent Museum of Fine Arts on the Fenway in Boston - is a premier fine arts institution, operating continuously for almost 130 years. The SMFA’s ultimate goal was to achieve accreditation, which required more academic classroom space within their building complex. designLAB undertook a survey of all existing spaces, categorizing them by discipline and by their respective levels of flexibility. Ultimately, after analyzing enrollment and usage trends, designLAB proposed a series of program modifications that would allow for the co-location of similar disciplines, more flexible art studio space, and the elimination of duplicate functions - together allowing for the creation of several new flexible classroom spaces and a rational program organization within the building complex. The first step of this plan involved moving the library from its current location on the 3rd floor to a prominent ground level location, along with a new student art gallery, to create a lively “education commons” near the primary entry.
53
Ceramics
Metals
11.5
Sculpture
6.2
Painting
5.5
Drawing
8.0
Graphic Arts
Print + Paper
9.6
Photography
Film + Animation
Vis + Crit Studies
Video
Sound
Performance
Thesis
10
20
30
40
54
Future Space Planning Enrollment Analysis
ENROLLMENT vs AREA
43.5
29.9
23.4
19.5 16.8 12.1
5.4 7.6
3.0
55 ENROLLMENT TRENDS -31%
600
800
-40%
-16%
400
-39% -10%
+53%
-29%
-12%
-28%
-42% -8%
200
-4%
-34%
+7%
-15%
1050
90
700
60
-20%
30
350
+60%
2009
2010
2011
ALL MFA
2012
2013
Ceramics
Metals
Sculpture
Painting
Drawing
Graphic Arts
Print + Paper
1397
1117
62
Photography
Film + Animation
Vis + Crit Studies
Video
Sound
Performance 109
1400
MFA
“Fabrication”
120
“Design”
-57%
2009
2010
2011
2012
OVERALL HEADCOUNT
2013
designLAB analyzed school enrollment data from 2009-2013 to determine overall enrollment trends, and the direction of individual school programs. This data is not necessarily predictive, and did not necessarily directly inform specific design decisions-- accreditation will inevitably change the complexion and trajectory of the school-- but it is useful as a broad portrait of the school at a given point in time. In all, there has been a 20% decrease in overall headcount over the last 5 years; even as BFA enrollments have fallen by a quarter, the MFA program has become much larger.
56
Future Space Planning Net Area and Flex Spaces
Sculpture Studio
613 sf
Glaze Studio
468 sf
Kiln Room
998 sf
Ceramics Studio
1787 sf
Welding Shop
1564 sf
Metals Studio (2)
1789 sf
Wood Shop
1760 sf
3D Workshop
831 sf
Papermaking Studio
831 sf
Print + Paper Studio
1852 sf
Printmaking Studio
1180 sf
Sound Studio
551 sf
Dark Rooms (2)
TOTAL
1187 sf
15411 sf
DEDICATED EQUIP.
TOTAL | 42701 sf Film Editing Lab
437 sf
300 sf
Film Editing Rooms
269 sf
Drawing Studios (3)
3202 sf
Video Studio
1242 sf
General Digital Lab
432 sf
VCS Classroom
1194 sf
Painting Studios (4)
5079 sf
Performance Studio
1346 sf
Digital Lab Classrooms
844 sf
Film Classroom
573 sf
Graphic Arts Studio
680 sf
Animation Labs (2)
Animation Studio
612 sf
Advanced Digital Lab
387 sf
Graphic Arts Clsrm.
725 sf
Thesis Studios (6)
5441 sf
Digital Project Suites
859 sf
Photo Digital Lab
395 sf
Photo Classrooms (2)
739 sf
General Studios (3)
2439 sf
TOTAL
4359 sf
SPECIALIZED STUDIOS
TOTAL
2764 sf
GENERAL DIGITAL
TOTAL
3326 sf
GENERAL CLASSROOMS
INFLEXIBLE LOWER LEVEL 1
OTHER : 15,012 sf
TOTAL
16841 sf
GENERAL STUDIOS
FLEXIBLE LEVEL 1
OTHER : 6884 sf
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
OVERALL
OTHER : 6228 sf
OTHER : 7781 sf
OTHER : 35,625 sf
24.9%
28.3%
31.7%
34.6%
NET : 14,820 sf
NET : 20,157 sf
NET : 15,752 sf
NET : 16,755 sf
NET : 67,564 sf
49.7%
75.1%
71.7%
68.3%
65.4%
TOTAL | 29,832 sf
TOTAL | 26,841 sf
TOTAL | 24,536 sf
50.3%
TOTAL | 103,189 sf
TOTAL | 21,980 sf
57 Sculpture Studio
1000 sf
Glaze Studio
500 sf 750 sf
Kiln Room
1500 sf
Ceramics Studio
750 sf
Welding Shop Metals Studio (2)
1250 sf
Wood Shop
1500 sf
3D Workshop
1000 sf
Animation Labs
Papermaking Studio
1000 sf
Video Studio
750 sf
Print + Paper Studio
1750 sf
Filming Area
500 sf
Printmaking Studio
1500 sf
Performance Studio
1500 sf
Editing Labs (1-3)
500 sf
Sound Studio
500 sf
Animation Studio
1000 sf
Advanced Digital Lab
1000 sf
Dark Rooms (2)
750 sf
Digital Project Suites
1000 sf
Gen. Digital Labs (3+)
3000 sf
TOTAL
14000 sf
DEDICATED EQUIP.
INFLEXIBLE
TOTAL
5000 sf
SPECIALIZED STUDIOS
TOTAL
TOTAL | 53,000 sf
2000 sf
6000 sf
GENERAL DIGITAL
Flex. Hi-Tech Rms (8)
TOTAL
8000 sf
8000 sf
GENERAL CLASSROOMS
20000 sf
Flex. Studios (20+)
TOTAL
20000 sf
GENERAL STUDIOS
FLEXIBLE
designLAB combined input from the school tour, faculty interviews, and workshop meetings to create an ideal version of expanded program. The improved layout reorganized space to create more assignable square footage within the same gross square footage, and increase flexibility to allow more programs to take advantage of the new spaces. In addition, designLAB created a program list which reorganizes and re-sizes the school’s individual spaces to better represent flexibility within the school’s curriculum going forward. Highly specialized spaces such as shops, kiln rooms, printmaking presses, etc. were identified early and located in consistent spaces that optimized their layout. More flexible spaces more located more centrally, ultimately identifying eight high tech classrooms - one centrally located on each floor of each wing - that could be used by any department or discipline throughout the school.
58
Phased Programming Iterations Over Time EXISTING Kiln
Metal
PROPOSED
Ceramics
Metal
Kiln
EXISTING
A
Metal Shop
Ceramics
LOWER
Ceramics
School
Mech
Plaster
PROPOSED
Ceramics
Mech
Kiln Room
School
Plaster
Metal Shop
Ceramics
Metal Stor.
Fabrication Offices
Mech
Shared 3D Studio
Fab. Stor.
Ceramics School Store Storage
Wood Shop + 3D Printing
Ceramics Studio
Plaster Shed
Shared 3D Teaching
Plaster Shed
Mech
Counseling Offices
Equip. Photography Film
Graphic Film
Film
Photography
Film
Graphic Equip. Rental Photography
Film
Photography
A
Paper making
Offices Offices
LEVEL 1
A
Exhib. Exhib. Auditorium Offices
Drawing Studios
GA
Animation
Shared Studios
3D
Wood
Sound
Offices
Perform- Digital ance
Shared Studios
A
Drawing Studios GA
LEVEL 2 B
Exhib. Exhib. Auditorium Offices
A
GA
Offices
Exhib.
Animation
Graphic Arts Film
Kitchen + Cafe Atrium
Exhib. Offices
Video
Auditorium
Exhib.
Exhib. Offices
School Store
Auditorium
3D
Drawing Studios
GA
Shared Studios
GA
Sound Screenprinting
Shared Studios
Papermaking GA Screenprinting
3D Fab Shop
Wood Shop
Performance
Offices
Shared Studios
Shared Studios
Printmaking
GA
Digital Lab
Shared Studios
GA
Performance
Offices
Shared Studios
Shared Studios
Digital Lab
Shared Studios Shared Studios
LEVEL 3 B
Library
Painting
Vis Crit
Library
Shared Studios
Developmt. Offices
Paper making
Animation
Perform- Digital ance
Shared Studios
Thesis Studios
Film + Sound
School Store
Wood
Sound
Film
Photography
Kitchen + Cafe
Video
Shared Studios
Equip. Rental Photography Film
Atrium
School Store
Video
Developmt. Offices
Small Metals
Atrium School Store
Film
Printmaking
Small Kitchen Metals +
Atrium
B
Film
Paper making
Offices Small Kitchen Metals +
Graphic Arts
Film
Film
Photo.
Film
Photo.
Photography
Photo.
Equip. Photography Film Film
Photo.
B
Counseling Offices
Shared Vis Crit
Library
Shared Studios
Shared Clsrm Vis Crit
Library
Shared Studios
Shared Clsrm Vis Crit
59
Fab.
PROPOSED Metal Shared 3D
Wood
Fab.
Shared 3D
Photography
Film + Sound
Fab.
Equip. Photography Film Film
Film
Photography
Film + Sound
Atrium School Store
Graphic
Photography
Film + Sound
Graphic Film
Kitchen
Atrium School Store
GA
Plaster
Mech
Kitchen
PaperExhib. Exhib. Auditorium Print- making Offices making Screenprinting
Wood Shared 3D
Plaster
Equip. Photography Film Film
Film
Atrium
PaperExhib. Exhib. Auditorium Print- making Offices making Screenprinting
Metal Shared 3D Fab.
Mech
Kitchen
Kitchen +
PROPOSED Wood
Shared 3D
Plaster
Mech
Graphic Photo.
Equip. Photography Film Film
Metal Shared 3D
Shared 3D
Plaster
Mech
EXISTING
Wood
Photo.
Metal Shared 3D
Photo.
EXISTING
Atrium School Store
PaperExhib. Exhib. Auditorium Print- making Offices making Screenprinting
GA
Exhib. Exhib. Offices
Library
PaperPrint- making making Screenprinting
GA
Shared Student Offices
Perform- Digital ance
Shared Studios
Shared Studios
Offices
Shared Studios
Shared Studios
Library
Shared Studios
Perform- Digital ance
Offices
Shared
Library
Shared Studios
Offices
Vis Crit Shared
Shared Studios
Shared Studios Shared Studios
Shared Studios
Vis Crit
Perform- Digital ance
Shared Vis Crit
Library
Shared Studios
Shared Vis Crit
Shared Studios
Digital
CONCLUSION
Tufts | SMFA Institutional Analysis designLAB began with an analysis of SMFA’s projected enrollment and usage trends. This analysis determined how much space is devoted to each individual discipline (and several non-arts functions, like administration); how the school’s enrollment in various programs and disciplines has changed over time; and how the current usage of specific spaces correlates with enrollment data. This analysis revealed the inefficiency in SMFA’s current space allocations; with inflexible programs recieving more sf of the limited space despite not being the driver of the art program. To address this and maximize on space efficiency, designLAB created a broad system of spatial classifications based on flexibility, ranging from completely dedicated space to completely flexible space, with the intention of using these metrics to inform design recommendations going forward. Our data emphasizes flexible spaces (general studios and classrooms) as they allow for more scheduling and curriculum possibilities for the SMFA within the current footprint of the school. The introduction of more flexible space allows the school to accomodate for new requirements as well as the existing art spaces within the existing building.
61
UMD MASTERPLAN
UMD Masterplan Institutional Analysis client: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth project: higher education type: new construction size: 700 acres cost: unrealized completion: 2014
The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD) campus remains one of the most important campus planning experiments of the post-war era. Architect Paul Rudolph envisioned a new 1.5 million square foot educational Utopia built on a 650-acre farm in south coastal Massachusetts between 1963 and 1974, it’s buildings expressed in iconic brutalist concrete forms. Rudolph’s campus plan was conceptualized as a commuter campus, with its organizing elements being arranged to accommodate those accessing the campus via automobile. The principal organizing element was a ring road that encompassed the academic core of the campus which contained Rudolph’s academic core buildings lining the edge of the campus lawn. With evolving strategic goals by the university and the accumulation of deferred maintenance on Rudolph’s iconic buildings, designLAB was commissioned to prepare a comprehensive Master Plan that would reposition the university as a globally recognized premier research university, enhance student life, and transform existing buildings to meet the evolving spatial and experiential needs of UMD.
63
8200
490
8000
480
7800
64
+1200 +17%
7600
UMD Survey Analysis Enrollment Projections
7400 7200
470 460 450
7000 able to analyze the current usage of academic spaces on Utilizing data collected by the UMass Dartmouth, the design team was 6800 campus. This investigation allowed dLAB not only to understand what academic departments had insufficient space allocated 6600 to them, but aso what opportunities were present to adapt and reconfigure existing spaces to better meet the needs of evolving 6400 university pedagogy.The following graphics illustrate the information6200 gathering, analysis, anconclusions that the design team was Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16 Fall 17 Fall 18 Fall 19 Fall 20 able to gather in collaboration with UMD within the context of adapting to meet the long term goals of the master plan.
UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
82008200 80008000 78007800 76007600
+1200 +1200 +17% +17%
74007400 72007200 70007000 68006800
2000 490 490 1800 4801600 480
62006200 Fall 14Fall 14 Fall 15Fall 15 Fall 16Fall 16 Fall 17Fall 17 Fall 18Fall 18 Fall 19Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 20
420 410 Fall 14
350 300
+320 +20%
470 1400 470 460 1200 460 1000 450 450 800 430 400 430 200 420 420 0 410 410
430
UNDERGRAD UE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
250 200
1-20 1-20
150 100 100 100
-33-33 -7%-7%
440600 440
66006600 64006400
440
7050 70 0 60 60
Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16 Fall 17 Fall 18 Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 14Fall 14 Fall 15Fall 15 Fall 16Fall 16 Fall 17Fall 17 Fall 18Fall 18 Fall 19Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 20
Fall 14
40 40
20002000 490 18001800 480 16001600 470 1400 1400
+1200 +17%
Fall 19
1200 4601200 10001000 450 800 800 440 600 600 430400 400
Fall 20
200 420200 0 0 410
GRADUATE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
+320 +320 +20% +20% -33 -7%
350 350
300
+90+90 +42% +42%
250 250 200 200
1-20 150 150 100 100 100 50 70 50 0 60
14
12 100 100 10 8
150
6
Fall 14Fall 14 Fall 15Fall 15 Fall 16Fall 16 Fall 17Fall 17 Fall 18Fall 18 Fall 19Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 20 1000 50
20
0
4 2 0
1-1
0
11-
20
21
-3
0
31
-4
0
41
-5
0
51
-6
0
61
-7 0
71
-8
0
81
-9
0
91
-10
0
10
1-1
0 9 AM 30%
21-4 61-80 61-80 100
16
200
40
8 AM
18
250
350
+320
0 0 8 AM8 AM 9 AM 9 AM 1
300 300
0 Fall 14Fall 14 Fall 15Fall 15 Fall 16Fall 16 Fall 17Fall 17 Fall 18Fall 18 Fall 19Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 20 Fall 19 Fall 20 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16 Fall 17 Fall 18
20 20
LAW SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
50
15
1-2
60 60 60
40 31 21 1 1 -3 40 -1040 1-2 0 0 20
20
00
70
70 70
0+
4 PM
20 20 0 5 PM
0
0
8 AM
9
Graduate 105
Senior
Freshman
709
Semi Suites 4 BR
1157
65 If enrollment grows as projected to nearly 11,000 FTE and the Law School moves to Dartmouth, then the campus will need an additional 400,000 NASF or nearly 600,000 additional GSF plus housing. 40% 50% 350000
60%
70%
90%
80%
2004
802 725
Junior
Sophomore
100%
OVERALL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 13000
300000
+3500
12000
250000 11000
+2500
+1500
+1500 10000
200000
9000
1500008000 7000
100000
6000
0
Cla
ss
ro
La
bo
ra
Lib
rar y
Ot
he
rA
Ot
he
rA
As
se
m
Fall 25
Fall 24
Fall 23
Fall 22
Fall 21
Fall 20
Fall 19
Fall 18
Fall 17
Fall 16
Fall 15
Fall 14
Fall 13
Fall 12
Fall 11
Fall 10
Fall 09
Fall 08
Fall 07
Fall 06
Fall 05
Fall 04
Fall 03
Fall 02
Fall 01
Fall 00
500005000
At hl
eti
10050
6400 6200
500
Fall 20
Fall 14
Fall 15
Fall 16
Fall 17
Fall 18
Fall 19
Fall 20
0 Fall 14
ll 20
Fall 15
Fall 16
Fall 17
Fall 18
Fall 19
Fall 20
1800 UMD Survey Analysis Daytime Classroom Use 1600 1400
CLASSROOM SIZE
1200
18
1000
16
18 14
800
14 10
400
10 6
0+
00
51
20
-2
0
0+
+
Fall 20
8
2
10 1 2 1-1 51-2 00 +320 50 00 + +20%2 PM 9 AM 10 AM vs 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 8 AM SECTION CLASSROOM SIZE ROOM PERCENTAGES
0
11-
20
21
-3
0
31
-4
0
41
-5
0
51
-6
0
61
-7 0
71
-8
0
81
-9
0
91
0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
15%
10% 100 Fall 14 70 Fall 15 Fall 16 Fall 17 Fall 18 Fall 19 Fall 20 5% 70 60 0% 4 2 5 6 7 3 8 10 9 1 2 1 1-1 1-1 51-2 00+ 0 1-20 1-30 1-40 1-50 1-60 1-70 1-80 1-90 1-10 50 00 0 60 40
1-1
0
21
41
51
7 81 9 1 1 2 -7 1-8 -9 1-10 01-1 51-2 00+ 0 0 0 50 00 0 5 4 2 71 3 6 8 9 1 10 2 111-1 51-2 00+ 20 1-30 1-40 1-50 1-60 1-70 -80 1-90 1-10 50 00 0 11-
20
-3
0
31
-4
0
-5
0
-6
0
61
250 CLASSROOM SEATING CAPACITY UTILIZATION 180 160 250 180140 160120 140100 12080 10060 8040 6020 400 51 34 10 67 21 91 111-1 81 -3 -6 -10 -9 0% -8 20 -5 0% 20 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% % + 0 51 34 10 67 21 91 111-1 81 -3 0 0% 20 1 6 9 8 50 00 15%%+ 6% 0%51% 0% % 34% 3% % % 34%
51%
15%
11-
250 4 PM 200 4 PM 250 150 180 100 160 140 50 120 100 0 80 60 40 20 0
121-140 100 121-140
0
0
3 PM
25%
200
1-1
1-1 350 0
300
-10
0
8 AM
20%
410
4
12010
30%
420
6
40
5
1-1
0%
40 20 20
00 20 0
Fall 19
40 20
0
0+
20
Fall 18
0
50
20
00
Fall 17
12 8
0
20
Fall 16
600
4 0 2 -2
10
16 12
8 4 6 2
51
12
100 70 200 Fall 14 Fall 15 70 150 60 1000 60
2000
66
250
0
9 AMSECTION 10 AM SIZE 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 8 AM SIZE CLASSROOM DISTRIBUTION
2 PM
0
9 AM
8 AM 25010%
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
3 PM
2 PM
3 PM
18 16
4 PM
14 4 PM
5
12
20090%
10
150 80%
6 Semi Suites
8 4 Semi 2 Suites
100070% 50 0
0
60%
0
50%1-1
0
40% 30% 30% 25% 20% 20% 10% 15%
1-1
11-
20
21
-3
0
31
-4
0
41
-5
0
51
-6
0
61
-7 0
71
-8
0
81
-9
0
91
-10
0
10
1-1
50
15
1-2
20
00
0+
250 180 Suites 160 140Suites 120
11
67 ROOMS IN USE BY TIME Fall 2014 / 8 Am to 5PM / Mon.-Fri. / Week of Sep. 22 2014 Percent of room used plotted for each capacity breakpoint group
100
-33 -33 -7% -7% -33 Fall 18 -7%Fall 19
Fall 20
Fall 18
Fall 19
Fall 20
Fall 18
Fall 19
Fall 20
100 70 100 70
+90 +90 +42% +42% +90 +42% Fall 19
Fall 20
Fall 18
Fall 19
Fall 20
Fall 18
Fall 19
Fall 20
15
2 1-2 00+ 15 00 20 00 1-15 1-20 0+ 0 0 15 10 20 00 1-15 1-20 0+ 0 0 1-1
10
50
100 70
100 70
60 70 60
40 60 40
40 60 40
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
100 70 100 70
61-80 61-80 61-80
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
81-100 81-100 100 81-100 70
0%
-9
-9
0% 0%
-10
0%
91 0% 10 + -10 0% 0% + 15%1 91 00 -10 0%15% %+
15%
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
5 PM
101-120 101-120 100 101-120 70
100
100 70
100 70
60 70 60
60 70 60
40 60 40
40 60 40
40 60 40
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
121-140 121-140 121-140
141-160 100 141-160 100 141-160 70
100 70
201+ 100 201+ 100 201+ 70 100 70
60 70 60
60 70 60
60 70 60
40 60 40
40 60 40
40 60 40
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
20 40 20 0 20 80 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM 0
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
Semi Suites
10
10 AM
9 AM
60 70 60
Semi Suites 91
9 AM
8 AM 0
100
Semi Suites
-9
Lore
41-60 41-60 100 41-60 70 100
40 60 40
100 70 100 70 10
21-40 21-40 100 21-40 70
100
60 70 60
100
00
Lore Lore
60 70 60
100
Fall 18
1-20 1-20 1-20
Average Room Usage Critical Time Period
Traditional Traditional
1161
1230
1161
1230
1161
1230
586
535
Traditional
CONCLUSION
UMD Masterplan Institutional Analysis By utilizing data collected by the UMass Dartmouth, the design team was able to analyze the current usage of academic spaces on campus. designLAB’s scope of work included the analysis of the built infrastructure of the existing buildings paired with the current student enrollment and projected enrollment. The design team placed equal emphasis on understanding the condition of the existing facilities as well as how these facilities could be readapted. Our analysis revealed that, since 2005, student enrollment has increased 128%, as well as a projected enrollment of 135% by 2025. This analysis, in conjunction with our classroom usage analysis, shows us that daytime classes are at capacity with general classrooms often overfilled. This greatly influenced our following housing analysis, which became a driver in our overall masterplan proposal. With our team of consultants, designLAB was able to adapt and reconfigure existing spaces to better meets the needs of the evolving university’s pedagogy.
69
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
Publicly available data can also be an extremely useful source to help shape or define project needs. This data is often on an urban
or community scale and can range from population data, to real estate prices, to local business listings. This kind of urban data can be helpful for determining ideal locations for development, but it can also help determine small-scale items such as what kind of amenities are most likely to be supported in a new building, and how visitors are likely to travel to a facility for access. It can also take the form of historic data about an institution,
architect, or community. This historical information can provide insight into a group’s identity or history that might inform the design. Even institutions with relatively long tenured members operate at a very different timescale from communities and buildings. The historical rational for seemingly arbitrary conditions can drive significant shifts in project dialogues.
72
CLAIRE T. CARNEY
Claire T. Carney Social Analysis client: university of massachusetts dartmouth project: higher education library type: renovation & addition size: 190,000 sf cost: $35 million completion: 2016
Enlisted to design an Addition/Renovation at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, the team was faced with a fundamental question: can a 40-year-old visionary experiment be re-interpreted and transformed to serve contemporary social and programmatic requirements? How must one explore the possibilities of converting the language and imagery of a mid-century artifact into a relevant environment for a new cultural context? These questions form the theoretical and architectural foundation for designLAB architects’ transformation of UMD’s signature building, the Claire T. Carney Library. The university posed two goals. First was the renovation of the library, including the upgrade to building systems and architectural finishes. The renovation required the programmatic transformation of the Library from a book repository to a space for social gathering and collaborative learning. The second goal was the Library Addition, an enclosure of the space beneath the Link Building to serve as the new “Campus Living Room.” A reintroduction of Rudolph’s principles and palettes, were accepted after advocacy of the design team.
73
74
Rudolph Precedents Original Sectional Perspective
75
76
Historic Precedents 60s-70s Era Study
Though currently perceived as “dreary,” the original library was designed during a time of optimism, experimentation and vibrancy in American popular culture. The original library contained bright carpets and tapestries to enliven the space, while the bold forms were born from American optimism and world-view during that era. 1972 ‘kar-a-sutra’ concept car, Mario Bellini (above) ‘Italy: The New Domestic Landscape’, Superstudio (left)
77 “One of the aspects of color that fascinates me is the reflected light from the color. I have worked with concrete, at least earlier, a great deal and I would often make a very warm-toned carpeting. The reflected light changed the concrete and bathed it in a warm light.�
Paul Rudolph
SOOTHING
INDIVIDUAL
PRIVATE
CALM
LIC
QUIET
STRONG PATTERN
B PU
COLLECTION SOLID HUE OFFICE
4 3 2 1
VARIABLE HUE
SOLID HUE
COLLECTION SCHOLARLY COMMONS
T IE QU
M
CA L
COLLECTIONS (STAFF ACCESS)
AC TI
D
BROWSING
STRONG PATTERN
STRONG PATTERN
LIC
B PU
STRONG PATTERN
VE
MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL
LO U
VIBRANT
GROUP
PUBLIC
LOUD
ACTIVE
ARCHIVE
SOFT PATTERN
GROUP STUDY L UA IVID IND BROWSING
SOFT PATTERN
LEARNING COMMONS
LE
P
OU GR SOLID HUE
VARIABLE HUE
SOLID HUE
VARIABLE HUE
SCHOLA COMMO
SOLID HUE
COLLECTIONS
L
UA
T IE
LM CA
TE IVA
PR
Vibrant color and super-graphics were re-introduced throughout the Addition and Renovation, restoring Rudolph’s vision of warm light reflecting off the exposed concrete. The new Op-Art “CTCL” theme was inspired by UMD’s textile legacy, along with the work of Josef Albers and Julian Stanczak (left).
OFFICES
SOFT PATTERN
IN
SOFT PATTERN
SOFT PATTERN
ID DIV
QU
Color Study Super Graphics5
STRONG PATTERN
78
RENOVATION ADDITION
79
SOOTHING
INDIVIDUAL
PRIVATE
CALM
Color Studies Color & Material Distribution
QUIET
80
5 4 3 2 1
COLLECTION OFFICE COLLECTION SCHOLARLY COMMONS
VIBRANT
GROUP
PUBLIC
ACTIVE
LOUD
LEARNING COMMONS ARCHIVE MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL
81 The furnishing and carpet in the library were color coded by activity. The upper floors were a deeper purple to support quiet work study and individual browsing. The lower floors featured more group study spaces and the campus "living room" on the lower level and were clad in brighter reds and oranges. RENOVATION ADDITION
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
GROUP STUDY BROWSING
COLLECTIONS (STAFF ACCESS)
82
Screen Studies Transparent Curtain The Addition enclosed the original Link Building behind a glass and stainless steel fin enclosure. This transparent “curtain” showcases Rudolph’s elevated auditoriums, continuing the measure of Rudolph’s concrete fins. Portions of the corrugated block were removed, revealing the “concealed frame” Rudolph expressed in his early work.
83
CONCLUSION
Claire T. Carney Social Analysis This project was not seeking pure preservation of the artifact, but rather a thoughtful interpretation and transformation for this era. Student counts have more than doubled since the completion of the project, seeing increases at all hours of the day and night. The spaces are filled with light, conversation, and student activity, to the delight of librarians and faculty. UMD has already begun to use this project as a precedent for celebrating the original architecture For designLAB, its worth lies in the historic legacy and heroic vision. Advocacy must acknowledge the full spectrum of technical, economic, and even perceptual conflicts surrounding the work in order to determine the best resolution. For designLAB, preserving the monumental vision while meeting the economic and program needs is the most effective way to maintain relevance and prevent demolition. Reintroducing - and perhaps improving upon - the original successes of the building is critical to ensure the building is embraced, both for its historic legacy and its evolving future.
85
985 MICHIGAN AVE
985 Michigan Ave Social Analysis client: city of detroitAvenue has two distinct contexts: 985 Michigan project: first, aspublic a federal building in relation to the national type: renovation & newoffice addition portfolio of federal space and design excellence size: 900,000 sf projects. Second, as a building in a particular physical cost: $75 million location, with a capacity for change, within the city completion: ongoing tenants’ perception of the building of Detroit. Future
offers a challenge, with many resisting the move citing issues of the lack of amenities, lack of a proper lobby area, and poor quality of the area. Originally designed as a high-security data center for the IRS, the renovations must transform the building into a space for people. Our design team pursued self-guided research aimed to better understand the local context of Detroit in terms of urban and architectural history, flora and greenspace, development and demographic patterns, and amenity mapping. The goal of this analysis was to expand the notion of “workplace” today as something that extends beyond the demising walls of a rented tenant space. The format for research was primarily historical analysis, market analysis, and mapping exercises.
Originally designed as a high-security data center for the IRS, designLAB was commissioned to transform a building designed for servers into a space for people. 985 Michigan Avenue has two distinct contexts: first, as a federal building in relation to the national portfolio of federal office space and design excellence projects, and second, as a building in a particular physical location, with a particular capacity for change, within the city of Detroit. designLAB pursued self-guided research aimed to better understand the local context of Detroit in terms of urban and architectural history, flora and greenspace, development and demographic patterns, and amenity mapping. The goal of this analysis was to expand the notion of “workplace” today as something that extends beyond the demising walls of a rented tenant space.
87
88 POP (MILL) 2
Detroit Timeline Events and Population 1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
285,704 (13th)
465,766 (9th)
993,678 (4th)
1,568,662 (4th)
1,623,452 (4th)
1,849,568 (5th)
1.8
1.6 Rise of the Suburbs, War Materiel Boom
1.4
Consolidation of ‘Big 3’, Decentralization of Automobile Mfg.Plants Leads to Job Loss of 150,000
1960
1970
1,670,144 (5th)
1,514,063 (5th)
Fisher Freeway Built, Urban Renewal
Race Riots Milliken v. Bradley
1.2
1
.8 Rise of the Automobile Industry
.6
.4
.2
Henry Ford Co. Established
0
1901
1915
1930
1950
1959
1974 1967
89 1980 1,203,368 (6th)
1990 1,027,974 (7th)
985 Michigan Avenue Built
2000
2010
951,270 (10th)
711,299 (18th)
2020
MGM Grand Casino Built, Tigers Stadium Closes, Moves Downtown
Detroit Files for Bankruptcy
1980
1999 1995
2015 2013
The population rise and fall of Detroit tells an important story. As the city grew, it created8 massive and complex infrastructure to support the growing population. As the city shrank, so did the tax base and the city no longer had the capacity to maintain its infrastructure. Since filing for bankruptcy the city has begun to see a gradual increase in development investment in the city. However it remains dependent on other civic-interest groups to include both the construction and maintenance of pieces of civic infrastructure within each new development.
90
Amenities Summary Downtown Buildings Analysis 211 W FORT ST | CBP, DOL RENTABLE BUILDING AREA |
ONE DETROIT CENTER | IRS 450,000 SF
RENTABLE BUILDING AREA |
86.7% LEASED
DIME BUILDING | SSA 957,000 SF
RENTABLE BUILDING AREA |
64.0% LEASED
DIRECT RENT FS
$20.00
DIRECT RENT FS
$23.75
DIRECT RENT FS
YEAR BUILT/RENOVATED
1963/1995
YEAR BUILT/RENOVATED
1992
YEAR BUILT/RENOVATED
75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 150 WEST JEFFERSON
ONE WOODWARD AVE
GUARDIAN BUILDING
CHASE TOWER
FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
ONE KENNEDY SQUARE
1001 WOODWARD
COMPUTERWARE HEADQUARTERS
RENAISS CENT TOWER
91 985 MICHIGAN AVE | SSA RENTABLE BUILDING AREA |
416,000 SF
524,594 SF 67.0% LEASED
96.3% LEASED $23.75
DIRECT RENT FS
-
1919 / 2003
YEAR BUILT/RENOVATED
1995
UNOCCUPIED SUB-LEASE VACANT SPACE RETAIL COMMERCIAL
SANCE RENAISSANCE RENAISSANCE RENAISSANCE RENAISSANCE TER CENTER CENTER CENTER CENTER R 100 TOWER 200 MARRIOT TOWER 300 TOWER 400
The analysis of comparable buildings in the downtown core illustrated competing office buildings currently on the market, with a comparison of rents, vacancy rates, and amenities. These illustrated both the distance Detroit has come in terms of attracting companies, but also a continued availability of lease office space that has proven more attractive to federal tenants.
FORD FIELD
MADISON OFFICE BUILDING
92
Amenities Summary Context Analysis
PRE PRELODGE LODGEFREEWAY FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION
POST LODGE FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION POST LODGE FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION Located between two emerging cultural districts: Downtown and Corktown, the site for this building is in a place of transition with views and access to both neighborhoods and the ability to provide an important link between these two communities that were once integrated, but have been separated by a freeway for the last 50 years.
93
93
Amenities Summary Context Analysis
corktown and former tiger stadium
downtown
river view
94
Amenities Summary Context Analysis
985 Michigan Ave 5-10 min radius
unoccupied buildings
potential public parking
parking spots
95 Because the building is located along a boundary, it has limited access to local amenities ranging from retail, to parking, to open space. This research demonstrated the need for the project to include it's own amenities for both itself and to support increased growth in it's immediate adjacencies.
96
designLAB developed an abstract dot matrix pattern based off of city maps to acknowledge the history and change in the civic fabric. 1949 1997
1956 1997
1961
1997
2015
97
CONCLUSION
985 Michigan Ave Social Analysis Mapping locations of spaces like restaurants, coffee shops, banks, and stores clearly illustrated the local area as an “amenity desert,” affirming the future tenants’ concerns. But it also showed that is lies between two areas – the developing downtown core and burgeoning Corktown – and can act as an economic catalyst, linking islands of developments for unified improvement along Michigan Avenue. In combination with a survey of future tenants, this research informed what specific amenities were included in the project program. In many ways, research provided specific spatial, historical, and quantitative analysis that challenged, reinforced, or refined intuitive observations and informed specific design interventions. As a result, these overlays revealed design opportunities to create a more integrated, successful project that offers amenity to building occupants and visitors as well as neighbors and Detroit as a whole.
99
CONCLUSION
Expanding our research methodologies and refining the way in which we
gather, assess, and
utilize information allows personal growth that ultimately only exists to cater more personally to your clients and constituent groups. By dispelling traditional programming in our practice, we can approach our designs empirically, and without the influence of human bias. Without allowing bias into our approach, our method of research inquiry can more fully consider complexities of every project and uncover opportunities for intervention. This publication not only systemizes our methodologies to serve as a network for clients, but also serves as an illustration of how our projects inform one another, allowing further growth with each design.
designLAB architects 35 Channel Center Street, Suite 103 | Boston, MA 02210 | t: 617.350.3005 f : 617.350.6006 | www.designLABarch.com