Summary of minutes of a meeting
Burrowes Building Renovation
Project Meeting
24 July 2012
7 Burrowes Building, Penn State University
1. Purpose
The purpose of this meeting is to review many of the assumptions that were presented during the interview and to confirm initial findings. The programming effort to date will be summarized and presented at the next meeting.
2. Initial Code Review
Restrooms – By code, the overall building requires a total of (8) toilets per floor; (4) for each gender. The existing configurations are inefficient in quantity on some floors and none of the existing restrooms are fully ADA compliant. If the knuckle is rebuilt, the code required quantity per floor can be built there, thus allowing the existing restrooms in the core to be converted to program space. The required quantity is based on office, classroom and seminar usage. No need to provide extra fixtures as Burrowes is never fully occupied.
Elevators – The three (3) current elevators are reaching the end of their normal life span. When replaced, they should be sized to accommodate stretchers and thus would need to have larger cabs and larger vestibule spaces. Furthermore, elevators are now required to have smoke-containing vestibules, which would have to be accommodated.
Stairs – the stairs in the 1938 Klauder center portion or core are not necessary by code by either total travel distance or egress capacity requirements; these stairs may be able to be removed to capture additional program space. The stairs in the knuckle are also not technically required by code (although imperative for convenience).
Guardrails and handrails – the guardrails and handrails on all of the stairs are not currently code compliant. The knuckle and wing handrails and guardrails would have to be replaced with guardrails of currently acceptable height and configuration; the original core handrails should be considered separately.
Chimney Effect – The knuckle stairs are open to all levels of the building, thus creating a “chimney” effect. In other words, these open stairs would allow smoke to travel throughout the building. This is not acceptable by code. Fire doors would have to be added to enclose these stairs. These doors would be held open normally by magnetic devices, and thus, would not be noticed in daily use.
3. Further development of Option C
BLTa presented new renderings of the exterior elevations (east and west) with cleaner and more extensive glass interventions at the knuckle and end of the wings. Also presented were the five floor plans of one knuckle of the complete re-build option. The elevator machinery identified by PSU OPP standards would require a tall pop-up above the existing knuckle height; this pop-up would be stepped back from the Mall façade, thus allowing a skylight in the roof above the new knuckle stairs. This proposed scheme is still in concept design and would go through several other revisions to minimize the impact of the elevator height from the Mall perspective. The possibility of expanding the connecting corridors in width like the 1938 corridor; this was perceived as allowing that connection space as being more gracious and open. To achieve this may be possible to decrease the number of toilet stalls, but maintain the overall massing.
4. MEP discovery to date
Jim Miller of Vanderweil Engineers has visited the building and looked at the attic and sub-basement spaces. At this point, it does not appear that any program space will have to be sacrificed for MEP systems.
· HVAC systems – biggest concern is how to fit into the building. After review, there appear to be more opportunities than initially thought.
· IT – some existing IT conduit will have to relocated to allow for HVAC
distribution shafts. Vanderweil to further coordinate with PSU as plans develop.
· Attic space is large and accessible, but louver space is limited. Further
investigation is necessary to determine if the attic can be used more extensively than initially thought.
· Wings – the low floor-to-floor height is a limitation, but the open-web trusses
provide greater flexibility for distribution systems.
· Electric vault – More investigation is necessary to determine if the existing electric vault can contain the new, larger load equipment. New equipment is smaller in size, but more equipment is needed to accommodate the greater electrical load.
5. Cost Implications
The a/e team will discuss potential construction cost matters with Chad Spackman, upon his return.
6. Renovation Considerations
· How were the existing windows closed in up in the classroom on the core’s north and south façades? Can these windows be re-opened? BLT will review specific details, but they may continue to be closed by the expansion of the knuckle.
· There are some wonderful wood accents in the 1938 building; can it be salvaged? We have no intention of erasing all of the unique features of the 1938 building in order to install a common, modern interior throughout. Rather, the new will meld with the old, wherever it is appropriate.
· This is the renovation for the next 45 years for this building. The College should not expect that recent, select renovations of particular spaces will be saved. Unless specifically necessary, all spaces will be renovated simultaneously; otherwise, those few spaces may feel shabby or neglected when compared to newer renovations. And all spaces have the potential to be relocated or reconfigured to accommodate the intended program.
7. Programming
The purpose of concept phase programming exercise is to determine if the existing building is adequate to contain the desired program.
· Chris Hort has provided the existing usage of the building. In addition, he has forwarded the specific usage by the English department. BLT needs to discuss further with Chris to clarify terminology and perceived discrepancies.
· The College must provide to BLT the future programmatic needs of the College for Burrowes. Will the College be bringing any other departments or partial departments into this building?
· If specific growth cannot be determined, then a % increase/decrease for specific needs (such as tenure offices) can be stated.
· BLTa will call Carey and Mark directly to obtain future needs and clarify the terminology of existing usage.
· Per Deb Howard: would prefer all offices be 150 sf and all seminars be 300sf.
· Review of English Dept list requires clarification of office requirements for the lecturers.
· It was confirmed that all tenure track faculty are to receive (1) 150sf office.
· Other faculty offices are ideal at maximum (2) per office, for part-time faculty. Graduates – a typical PSU layout is (3) per office space. College did express that the “bull-pen” layout is less than ideal, although very efficient.
· Are any collaborative work spaces necessary?
· Is flexibility a key concern? It was noted that the bullpen configuration allowed for easy flexibility to accommodate different department needs from semester to semester. In other words, cubicles may be assigned to different departments each semester depending upon need.
· Linguistics needs a space for a lab (computer setup) with acoustical needs; this is a special project that is funded by a grant. It can be a windowless room.
· Faculty Lounge – the College is still uncertain if a faculty lounge is necessary. A seminar room with couch like furniture is not necessary. If a cool space that would draw faculty to it (such as outside air or patio) and/or provides additional functions (kitchenette), then ok to provide, otherwise, it may not be necessary. The faculty lounge in Sparks is not used.
· Per English summary:
o “FO” = financial office, these (3) staff spaces serve the entire building although technically part of the College (not Department).
o Kitchen is listed because it was part of the building; a full kitchen is not necessary, but a kitchenette with microwave would be necessary for staff lunch room.
o Media Room – similar in size to a seminar room; windowless; high technology usage.
o Advisor’s Office – a professional advisor; probably 150sf office, with waiting area for 2-3 students.
o Hemingway Program Offices – this is a special program funded by a grant that will be completed in several years. Currently have two people in one office and one in a single office. Mark to confirm their ideal setup such as all (3) researchers in one 300sf seminar room or one 150sf office for each of (3) researchers.
8. Stakeholder Meeting
The possibility of holding a meeting at the beginning of the next phase was discussed. The College would prefer to hold such a meeting early in Schematic Design, rather than at the end of the phase so that stakeholders would have an opportunity to provide input. Target: early September.
9. Next Meeting – 8/7/12
The next meeting will be a walk-about the campus to visit other projects on campus to see the PSU standard offices, graduate offices, seminar rooms, etc.
1