Page 1


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

Ground Up  

Since designLAB's inception, we have focused on supporting our clients' missions through research and inquiry. In order to best understand...

Ground Up  

Since designLAB's inception, we have focused on supporting our clients' missions through research and inquiry. In order to best understand...

Advertisement