Facilities Renewal Process
The Campus Facilities Master Plan provides the framework for thinking about campus building and renovation for at least the next 20 years. The Plan identifies a phased approach to undertaking several major projects that will address the large-scale needs of the campus. Most urgent among these is the renovation or replacement of a significant proportion of our student housing units (no later than 2019, according to an agreement with the fire marshal) and reducing the density of the most crowded residence halls. Other major form-givers that the plan incorporates include integrated natural science facilities, improved and expanded campus life spaces, replacing Alumni Gymnasium, new fitness facilities and library expansion. Our planning consultants, Sasaki Associates, also provided a facilities assessment framework to incorporate information on the condition of individual buildings into future projects. Sasaki used this framework to outline the major projects and anticipated that Bates staff would complete the assessment with detailed analysis of the physical condition of all the buildings on campus and develop a multi-year plan for meeting the needs of deferred maintenance as well as ongoing and emerging needs that require less extensive changes to the campus.
The Facilities Renewal Process is undertaken by Bates staff and faculty members to complete the work of the Campus Facilities Master Plan and extend the planning process to all campus buildings. The charge from the President to the Facilities Renewal Working Group outlined the principal goals, with the expectation that the outcome of this process would be incorporated into the Campus Facilities Master Plan:
Senior Staff has been discussing the criteria to be used in developing priorities for the Facilities Renewal Plan, once we have all the information in hand. While this is still a work in progress, we agree that the following are among our overall goals for the Plan. We have not ranked these goals in order of importance; the list at present begins with the most concrete needs and then develops some more abstract, intangible, and mission-centered benefits.
Our Facilities Renewal Plan will:
- Deal with urgent health/safety issues — chiefly code issues as identified in our facilities audit
- Reduce deferred maintenance
- Improve adjacencies in order to enhance efficiency, communication, etc.
- Develop a transparent process for facility renewal requests and decisions, and in doing so educate people across all constituencies to understand the needs of the institution as a whole
- Enhance what works well in service of the educational mission of the college, and improve what doesn’t work well
- Make visible the excellence of Bates, celebrate our values
- Create projects that lend themselves to fundraising and alumni engagement
- Balance and spread the benefit of increased attention to facilities to as many areas as possible
In the 2005 – 2006 academic year this group was formed, and subsequently members divided the work between two subgroups.
Functional and Programmatic Needs Subgroup
The Functional and Programmatic Needs Subgroup oversaw a process that asked all campus departments to assess their current spaces against their programmatic needs. Working with an architect from Harriman Associates of Auburn, this subgroup surveyed all academic and administrative departments on campus, visited most of the spaces on campus, and gathered information on what works and what doesn’t work, as outlined in the questionnaire that started their processes. Here are the questions that shaped the discussion:
Bates College — Facility Renewal Needs Questionnaire 2006
Department/Program:_________________________________
The purpose of the Facility Renewal Needs Study is to identify and inventory department and program related facility needs. Technical/physical plant (structure, building envelope, mechanical & electrical systems) needs and life safety & building code requirements are being addressed as part of another concurrent study and will not be addressed as part of this study.
We are interested in determining how well the facilities currently occupied and/or shared by your department/program support your department/program’s academic program (including teaching, scholarship, performance, exhibition, meetings etc...) and which may need renewal. We ask that you consider facilities/spaces that you occupy or share (offices, classrooms, studios, labs, stockrooms) and also the spaces that you pass through (the outdoor entrances, hallways, stairwells, bathrooms, lounges, mailrooms…).
We ask that each department and program answer the following three questions.
1) Which of your current spaces/facilities work best in supporting your academic program (broadly defined) and/or day-to-day activities and why?
2) Which of your current spaces/facilities do not serve your academic program and/or day-to-day activities well and why?
3) Please prioritize the five most important space/facilities needs (as opposed to wishes) of your department/program.
In addressing the above three questions, please consider how the characteristics of a given space influence the functionality of the space.
Physical Layout: Location, size, shape, relationships, adjacencies, quantity
Quality of Space: lighting, acoustics, aesthetics (materials, finishes, colors), temperature, air quality, humidity
Functional Modifications: furniture, equipment, specialized heating or cooling
Members of the Functional and Programmatic Subgroup, working with their consultant from Harriman Associates, have received this information from all departments and programs on campus and are planning to complete their work in winter semester 2007.
Technical Subgroup
The second subgroup took on the task of assessing the physical condition of all campus buildings that was begun when Sasaki Associates did their work for the Campus Facilities Master Plan. This Technical Subgroup has met weekly throughout the 2006 – 2007 year to assess and “grade” 87 structures on our campus. The task is to look at all buildings according to the relevant criteria, including:
- Adherence to building code
- Adequacy of major building systems (plumbing, heating, electrical, ventilation, air conditioning, etc.)
- Adequacy of the building’s enclosure (roof, external walls, etc.)
- Accessibility for persons with disabilities
- Aesthetic conditions
- Architectural and historic significance
The Technical Subgroup created a standard set of definitions and grading scales that could be applied to every building, completed the assessment for every building, and assembled a summary that allows comparison of physical condition of every building.
This subgroup is also completing its work in winter semester 2007
Next Steps
As the two subgroups of the Facilities Renewal Working Group complete their work, the next steps include three major efforts:
- Integrate the findings from both the Technical and the Functional and Programmatic Needs Subgroups to reach an overall assessment of the condition and needs of campus buildings
- Work with the Master Planning Steering Committee to integrate the findings from this process into the programming for renovation of Hedge Hall and Roger Williams Hall
- Work with the Master Planning Steering Committee to incorporate major findings from this process into ongoing budgeting and planning for renovation and other capital projects in the coming years
Who is Involved
All efforts undertaken within the planning and implementation projects have involved students, faculty and staff members. While it is not possible to summarize the names and roles of all the people that have been involved, here are some of the major contributors. At all stages of the process, input from all campus constituencies has been incorporated.
Facilities Renewal Functional and Programmatic Needs Subgroup
- Dave Baker, Dean of Faculty’s Office (Winter 2007– )
- Jim Bauer, Information and Library Services
- Suzanne Coffey, Athletics (2005 – Spring 2006)
- Doug Ginevan, Finance (Chair)
- Judy Head, Dean of the Faculty’s Office (Fall 2006)
- Kathryn Lattanzi, Art and Visual Culture
- Gwen Lexow, Athletics (Fall 2006 – )
- Maggie Maurer-Fazio, Economics and Dean of Faculty’s Office
- Jim Parakilas, Music
- Mary Rice-DeFosse, Romance Languages and Literatures
- George Romano, Dean of Faculty’s Office
- Paula Schlax, Chemistry
Facilities Renewal Technical Subgroup
- Jim Bauer, Information and Library Services
- Bob Bremm, Physical Plant (Chair)
- Paul Farnsworth, Physical Plant
- Erin Foster Zsiga, Dean of Students Office
- Doug Ginevan, Finance
- Bob Leavitt, Physical Plant
- Dan Nein, Physical Plant
- Sarah Potter, College Store and Contract Officer
- Michael Reidy, Theater and Rhetoric
- Pam Wichroski, Physical Plant
