PIERCE COUNTY PARKS | Sprinker Recreation Center 3. PROCESS The process for the predesign study consisted of the following five major tasks: Task 1, Project Orientation; Task 2, Facility Needs Analysis;Task 3, Alternatives Development; Task 4, Refine the Alternative; and Task 5, Predesign Report. For Task 1, Project Orientation, the design team met with the project steering committee to confirm the project goals, listed in the introduction. This was followed by a tour of the existing facility’s team rooms, skate-sharpening room, and the areas of the building proposed for the new team rooms. The existing mechanical and electrical systems were also examined with maintenance personnel to understand their capacity for expansion. Upcoming system upgrade plans were also discussed.
Task 4, Refine the Alternative, consisted of a refinement of the preferred alternative and incorporating comments received from the project steering committee. The preferred alternative and updated cost estimate were then presented to the project steering committee for approval. A draft of the predesign report was submitted to the project steering committee for review and comment as part of Task 5, Predesign Report. Comments were incorporated into the report, and the final report was issued.
For Task 2, Facility Needs Analysis, the design team toured three ice rink facilities in the Puget Sound region. These facilities were identified by the project steering committee as local examples of team rooms that represent the range of sizes and amenities possible for the proposed rooms. The design team also distributed a questionnaire to the project steering committee and representatives of the hockey and figure-skating user groups. The purpose of the questionnaire was to gain deeper insights into the needs of the team rooms’ users. The questionnaire responses can be found in the appendix. Based on input from the project steering committee, questionnaire responses, and observations from the facility tours, the spatial and programmatic needs for the team rooms were developed. Task 3, Alternatives Development, began with an analysis of the general approach to the Team Rooms’ adjacencies and the organization of program elements such as entry, service (restrooms and showers), and the general team room area. These general approaches were then used as the basis for the development of the four alternatives. These alternatives were presented to the project steering committee, which selected a preferred alternative.
9
