Based on an early Fall 2012 report issued from our fast-growing department to the dean, all parties agreed that a new classroom was a necessity. Originally, the university administration suggested a small classroom on the third floor of Merion Hall (Room 352). While this classroom offered the advantage of keeping class sizes small (around twelve students), the tiny space was not very flexible. After some deliberation, my department suggested the renovation of a much larger classroom in Merion Hall (Room 174; see figure 2.8). This classroom offered more open space and natural sunlight.
Based on conversations with my department, I drafted a sketch of our new classroom using free, online 3D design software. Once I created a schematic (see figure 2.9), I showed the design to my colleagues for their input. I then sent the sketch on to administration and IT. All stakeholders found these renderings useful and a concrete vision of our ideal classroom began to take shape.
Figure 2.8. Former Merion 174Figure 2.9. Original sketch with AutoDesk Homestyler. This sketch was also promptly critiqued by Joe Petragani (Associate Vice President, Office of IT, CIO.
Below are some email transcripts highlighting conversations with a variety of stakeholders, dealing with some of the finer points of the renovation of the classroom. Of interest is the rhetorical role of our design philosophy and how it helped us in our design process and negotiations.
View from Administration: Paul Aspan, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
“One key factor to consider is that the original cost of converting this room to an updated version of MH 150 would cost $250K. As you see from Joe's comments below, the inclusion of the breakout space probably doubles that cost. I am not trying to discourage you all, but during my previous discussions with Bill [the dean] Brice [the provost], Joe and Alex Oleykowski [facilities managers] nobody blinked at $250K. $500K changes the game. That does not mean it cannot or will not happen, but it does make the slope significantly steeper than what we currently face. Thus, the pertinent question for AY 13-14 is: does the department need the breakout rooms now, or can these be deferred until the next phase, now projected for Academic Year 2014-15 (though projected in the most vague terms, seeking a building or other expansive space for offices and teaching)?” (Aspan 2012).
View from Information Technology: Joseph F. Petragnani, Associate Vice President, Office of IT - CIO
“Aimee's ideas go beyond the scope of what was originally discussed, which was to create another version of Merion 150. In particular, adding two video gaming/usability rooms raises the stakes significantly. This will impact heating, air conditioning, ventilation, lighting and electrical in a way that is not reflected in the original request. So, if this design represents the objective, I think it is vital to submit a revised project request form that not only changes the location (174 instead of 352) but also details this change of scope.
Assuming for the moment that the gaming rooms are part of the scope, we do not believe these should be placed on the west side of the existing room. We have a couple of reasons for taking this position: first, the existing teaching station would be difficult to move far enough out of the way to accommodate these rooms. Underneath that station is a floor box (less than eight feet off the west wall) with conduits embedded into the concrete floor to enable audio/visual and tele/data cabling to be run inconspicuously from the teaching station, out to the corridor wall, and up to the ceiling area. It would be an expensive proposition to move all of this. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, if these new rooms are located along the west wall, access will be limited when class is in session (which will be most of the time as I understand things). No one would be able to enter these rooms without passing through the main classroom space.
Our drawing suggests (see figure 2.10; dashed blue lines) locating the new gaming rooms along the east wall, with part of the classroom space set aside for a new corridor providing access to the two gaming rooms as well as to the classroom. We'd remove the current entrance door (converting the doorway to a passage); create a new north to south classroom wall with a doorway; and, create two new rooms to the east of this corridor for gaming - formed by a second north to south wall as well as an east-west wall dividing that space. We believe this would not only provide for greater accessibility to the gaming rooms, but also allow for better noise control and less class disruption. Please note that we have not validated this concept with architects or engineers - this is something that would have to occur if a decision is made to move in this direction.
Figure 2.10. Rendering by Media Services.
When we've discussed budgetary figures for this project, the idea of gaming rooms (and whatever technology would be needed to complement these spaces) was not in the mix. I think it is reasonable to anticipate the cost of the project at least doubling if gaming is added. We spoke yesterday about this being a "design/build" project in which we had limited outside help. With the changes we anticipate to construct the gaming spaces, it is quite likely that the support of an architect and an engineer will be a requirement.
As I type this, our Media Services team is trying to assess options for how to do the classroom display sharing in a cost effective way that reduces the amount of cabling that must be run to each LCD (since several of the displays would be located on block walls.) There are some new technologies that have matured since we did Merion 150 that may help with this” (Petragnani, 2012).
A day later, in response to Joe Petragnani’s comments, I drafted a second version of the classroom, which didn’t involve separate breakout rooms. Due to the long silence that followed, I doubt anyone ever looked at these sketches.
Figure 2.11. Second sketch without breakout rooms.
View from Media Services: James Wilson, Director and Chief Engineer, and Justin Fowler, Engineer
“The decision to go with the Brown Innovations Sound Domes in Merion 174 started with interest in using them in previous applications. Media Services showed interest in them in the past but the implementation always fell by the wayside due to cost and budget limitations. For Merion 174 we were able to get a budget that would allow us to purchase the Sound Domes. They play an integral role in the design of the collaboration spaces to allow the teams to work independently on a project without disturbing one another with various sounds and levels. The sound domes are designed to keep all audio confined to the listeners in the general area under each dome.
We were also able to save on some costs because Merion 174 already has technology installed that we were able to work into the design of the new system. Based on ideas proposed to us by faculty, we wanted to implement a system that was completely wireless. This has a number of benefits. It makes for a highly flexible collaborative work environment, it is neat and aesthetically pleasing, and it requires less support and management of cables and connectors. With this in mind, we could not implement standard speakers at each station because the sound would be distracting to students at other stations.
This led to bringing back the Sound Dome idea. With the Sound Dome, students can listen to audio at a station without plugging in headphones and without distracting other students in the room. The sound is completely isolated to their station. Although the final decision for technology implementation is made by the Media Services engineering team (Jim Wilson, Justin Fowler and Kyle Tucker), we rely on faculty input to guide us in the right direction to ensure we are meeting the needs of professors and students. We take their ideas and requests and mold them into a design that best suits their needs” (Wilson and Fowler 2013).
