Facilities Workshop

2006 Planning Facilities for Undergraduate Science & Mathematics - Meredith College, Raleigh, North Carolina

March 3 - 5, 2006

The Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL) Facilities Planning workshop at Meredith College incorporates the set of standard topics addressed in the more than thirty such workshops since 1992, including:

  • THE PEOPLE: who needs to be at the table; the roles and responsibilities of the president, the faculty “shepherd,” faculty at different career stages, physical plant officers, students, as well as design professionals with expertise in campus planning, lab and classroom design, construction, etc.
  • THE PROCESS: how to achieve a facility that enhances institutional distinction, by using “community-building” as both a means and an end to the process; by linking to institutional mission and priorities; how to keep the process and project on target; etc.
  • NUTS & BOLTS: questions about renovation vs. new construction; about adjacencies of offices and labs for faculty and student researchers; etc.

Some new 21st century challenges in planning 21st century science facilities will be emphasized to a greater degree than in the past:
  • SUSTAINABILITY: with an optional pre-workshop tour of new and renovated facilities, recognized as significantly sustainable, at nearby North Carolina State University, and a break-out session to continue these discussions more formally
  • PEDAGOGIES: accommodating 21st century pedagogies—problem-based learning and others in spaces that reflect attention to research on how people learn; there will be a brief reprise of the PKAL Colloquium in early October on institutional transformation based on finds in contemporary cognitive science
  • INTERDISCIPLINARY: From Bio2010 to recent reports from the National Academies of Science, the call is for bridging and/or dissolving boundaries between traditional disciplines, a call for action that adds a new and complicating dimension to the process of planning new facilities (including who needs to be at the table when).

In addition to hosts at Meredith College, an experienced set of facilitators has been invited. They will take individual and collective responsibility for the sessions listed in the agenda, serve as formal consultants for teams from individual campuses, and be available for informal advice and counsel. Academic facilitators have experience from the office of the dean, the role as faculty “shepherd,” and as the institutional planner coordinating search for external support. Design professionals come from the construction community, and include both architects and lab designers.

Each participating team will be assigned a set of consultants to work with during the weekend, with the goal to arrive at an agenda for action by Sunday morning that fits well into their vision for the future of sciences on its home campus.



A PKAL Roundtable: Facilities of the Future
Terry Sargent, Jeffrey Lee Schantz, Howard S. Wertheimer
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
A system of solutions: Every school, every student
This AAAS report details precise strategies for transforming a "system," based on an analysis of the experiences of a select group of Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) funded by NSF in the 1990's.
Bringing the Sciences into the Spotlight
The Keck/PKAL Consultation Program
This report from a Keck/PKAL consultant team contains advice on how to "restart" a stalled facilities planning process, including recommendations for faculty, the advancement office, the president, division heads, and alumni.
Budgeting: STEM facilities in an integrated planning context
Arthur J. Lidsky
Many institutions segregate their planning into three spheres: budgetary, academic, and campus and facility planning. Arthur Lidsky explains that it is necessary to integrate these three plans and communicate ideas and vision with all those involved with the project. Including two exhibits outlining revenues and expenses of the institution and the costs of a project, this essay guides STEM facility planners towards a collaborative and comprehensive new facility plan. # The architect's perspective: Budgeting and financing for STEM facilities
Collecting Questions From the Field
Burning Questions from the 2006 Facilities Workshop at Meredith College
Cranbrook Jigsaw Group C: The Science Building of the Future
Facilities for the research-rich learning environment
Richard M. Heinz
Where do you start in thinking about 21st century spaces for 21st century learning communities? First is the diversity of demands on the spaces: expected to play a role in attracting and sustaining the interest of students in STEM fields; expected to be easy to use, manage and maintain over the long-term; able to accommodate with ease students with different learning styles and career aspirations, as well as emerging technologies and contemporary pedagogies; and finally—expected to enhance institutional distinction over the long-term. To make this happen, planners need to think about concepts such as collaboration, celebration and community. From his perspective as a lab designer, Rick Heinz offers ideas about options and opportunities in the process of planning new spaces for science.
Faculty and the Politics of Change
George Ellenberg, Jane S. Halonen, Leonard W. ter Haar
A team from the University of West Florida describes some of its strategies designed to accomplish serious curricular changes. These changes would strengthen STEM learning on UWF's campus, which facilitates the collaborative "top-down" and "bottom-up" action that is the most effective means to realize meaningful change. The insights of Jane S. Halonen, Leonard W. ter Haar, and George Ellenberg suggest lessons learned in trying to promote an alliance for the sciences that shed some light on the politics of change.
Imagining Science Communities
Thomas C. Greene
Community is an essential part of any learning environment. In this essay, Thomas Greene describes the benefits of intentional community-building.
On Permeability - The Biology of Architecture
Kenneth Lee Ellis, Cahal Stephens
An essay addressing: "What will the spaces and structures for undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) look like in ten years, and what are your reasons for making such predictions?"
Orchestrating the Facilities Planning Process: The Role of the Project Shepherd
Mary Sue Lowery
The "Real Options" approach to capital decisions: Planning for change
Bruce Metz, Carole Wedge, Alida Zweidler
Securing funding for major capital projects, particularly spaces intended to be technologically-rich, requires careful and conscientious planning by many leaders within a campus community. In this essay, Alida Zweidler, Carol Wedge and Bruce Metz, examine a series of options for making decision about capital planning.
The 2012 sustainable science building
On a practical level, a sustainable science building is a high performance building that through siting, orientation, design, construction, and operation is highly energy efficient, has measurably lower operating costs, minimizes environment impact, and promotes whole health for the users.
The facility of the future: Technology
On the one hand technology has incredible promise and indeed one can argue that technology is absolutely essential to modern science. On the other hand we have limited resources and we have real world constraints.
The Ideal Facility for 21st Century Learning Communities
In 2003, PKAL engaged a roundtable of STEM faculty, architects and planning experts to envision how an ideal STEM facility could foster rich and integrated learning communities. This report describes key findings and provides a launching point for continued discussion on the role of architecture and design in creating spaces that work.
The Planners
Jeanne L. Narum
The politics and process of change: institutional building-planning teams
Kenneth Lee Ellis, Leila Kamal AIA, Charles J. Kirby, Cahal Stephens
Design professionals, engaging with campus communities to dream about, design, and construct new spaces for science, are experienced with bringing people together around a common vision, gaining the strong sense of shared understanding, accomplishment, and institutional loyalty that leads to a productive outcome for their work: ". . .it is essential that good decisions are made, as the consequences of poor decisions can be far-reaching in both time and money, as well as on the institutional mission over the long-term." Colleagues from the Science Facilities Planning and Design Group at Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, Cahal Stephens, Charles Kirby, Leila Kamal and Kip Ellis, share their insights.


21st Century Science
David W. Becker, Douglas A. Weldon, Howard S. Wertheimer
For present day and future science education, teaching students in flexible and inviting spaces that enable instructors to use a variety of pedagogical approaches is a desirable goal. In this session, we will discuss some classroom and laboratory designs that accomplish this general objective, with an emphasis on spaces that enhance opportunities for hands-on exercises and research experiences for students at all levels of the curriculum. We will also discuss design features that enhance the effectiveness of interdisciplinary teaching and research that is becoming commonplace in the 21st century.
Considering Alternatives for 21st Century Laboratories for Undergraduate Science
Richard M. Heinz
Facilities for undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have been changing dramatically in response to evolution of programs in these disciplines. The changes are being seen in new facility types and features, as well as in laboratory design. In this session, you will see a presentation on the latest trends in undergraduate sciences facilities, hear how changing pedagogies are impacting laboratory sizes and layouts for biology, chemistry and physics, and see alternative building fl oor plans that support various strategies for encouraging interdisciplinary interaction and collaborative learning. Th e challenges of renovating or expanding existing Sputnik-era science buildings will also be explored.
Creating Spaces to Support Communities of Learners
Wendy Newstetter
Flexibility, Versatility, and Adaptability
W. Bradley Kincaid, Michael J. Reagan, Terry Sargent
Constructing science buildings is expensive, typically representing the highest cost per square foot on campus. Determining the optimal design for a new undergraduate science building is paramount because the opportunity occurs only once every 50 to 100 years on today’s smaller college campuses. The resulting building must support today’s needs and adapt to tomorrow’s advances in technology, the latest in pedagogical theory, and potential changes in use.
Funding Undergraduate Science Facilities: Telling a Powerful Story
Marianne Jordan
In describing the case for your science building, what we call fundraising, is in essence telling a story. Whether you are the grants officer or a major gifts officer, you are trying to persuade others to donate to your building and to get them excited about the possibilities represented by the facility.
Incorporating 21st Century Pedagogies and Technologies
David Christopher Arney
Educational games, interactive collaborative environments, virtual (embedded) environments, and robot-guides.
Linking Planning of New Spaces for Science to Institutional/Long-range Planning
Michael J. Reagan, Douglas A. Weldon, Lee W. Willard
A successful science construction project requires a clear conceptual framework that fits in with the objectives of the planning for the institution as a whole. This session will focus on the questions that need to be asked at the earliest stages of planning and the processes that need to be put in place to develop the answers to those questions. The perspectives of the institution, the faculty, and the architect will be discussed.
Planning from the Administrative/Fundraising Point of View
Marianne Jordan
Planning for a science building takes a long time; do not rush it! Make sure your internal and external constituents are ready for this building. Create buy-in ahead of time with various campus constituents.
Project Shepherd and the People of the Planning Process
Virginia Knight, Mary Sue Lowery, Jeffrey Lee Schantz
We will describe how to identify and assemble the people to be involved in the planning process, and outline the steps through which designs move from the programming stage to the point of construction documents. Planning a new facility, even a single classroom or laboratory, is a defi ning moment in the life of an institution. Not because you will solve the problem of too little space for too many faculty and students, or the problem of inadequate hoods or leaking roofs, but because the process becomes a communal eff ort. In coming together to wrestle with the why and the how of new structures and spaces for undergraduate programs in science, mathematics, and engineering, your community will both shape and be shaped by debates and discussions about matters of broad and mutual concern.
Sample Project Budget
Richard M. Heinz, Terry Sargent, Bill Wade
From a breakout session on budgets, a sample project budget with some real-world numbers.
Sustainability: A furnishings perspective
David D. Withee
Notes on furnishings from the breakout session on sustainability.
Sustainability: St. Lawrence University
Richard Green, Mark N. Rhoades
A discussion of sustainable design practices as implemented at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY.
The Marye Anne Fox Undergraduate Science Teaching Laboratory and the David Clark Laboratory Expansion
Richard Green, Mark N. Rhoades
New spaces for science: the Marye Anne Fox Undergraduate Science Teaching Laboratory and the David Clark Laboratory Expansion, North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
The Meredith College Story
Jennifer Amster, Harry Cadman, Keith Giamportone, Lou Jurkowski, Virginia Knight, Rosalind Reichard, Terry Sargent, Jeffrey Lee Schantz, Bill Wade
The story of Meredith College's new Science and Mathematics Building.
Virtual Tour
Jeanne L. Narum
Here we present examples of spaces that work from both the technical and the educational perspective. Facilities that support research and teaching in the sciences are among the most complicated building types. This complexity reflects, in part, the many different kinds of spaces therein: labs for teaching and research, offices for faculty and staff, and perhaps students, stockrooms, equipment rooms and animal rooms, greenhouses and tissue culture rooms. Each of these spaces has unique requirements in regard to size, shape, and adjacencies. The complexity of science facilities is also the product of the density and sophistication of equipment systems and services needed for the infrastructure of the building, as well as a result of the increasing codes and regulations that must be addressed. The complexity is greatly increased by the need to provide graceful flexibility so that the spaces can change to accommodate new ways of learning, new technologies, and new directions in science and technology.