Impressions from SCS
The School of Computer Science (SCS) program committee is delighted with overall design of the building spaces so far. We feel that most of our initial expectations have been achieved and exceeded.
Before selecting the architect we analyzed our needs both in terms of the numbers of different types of rooms we would need, but also in regards to the the qualities of the spaces we wanted. We took two surveys (over 300 participants), conducted various focus groups and visited over 30 buildings around the country. The objectives that came to the top were access for everyone to natural light, an environment that encourages collaboration, a layout that supports the SCS culture, and a space that is inspiring. We documented dozens of other objectives.
We feel that most of our objectives have been met and exceeded. All offices have natural light, most with an exterior windows and a few with windows over an atrium. Windows will be large and most of the views from the offices will be nice. The conference rooms are well located with natural light, and the hallways will be bright mostly with various sources of natural light. There are plenty of open shared collaborative spaces scattered throughout the building, as well as quiet spaces to hang out. There are plenty of project rooms (labs) located throughout the building for our research. The classrooms have plenty of space outside for people to meet before or after class. All rooms have individual temperature control.
The committee is also excited about the form of the building, both on the inside and the outside. The building was very much designed from the inside out. The architects analyzed the user objectives and structured the building around those objectives. Many of the angles in the building are designed to specifically meet certain of the objectives. For example, the twist of the building toward the cut makes it so that more offices will look toward the cut instead of against the severe brick wall on the back side of Purnell, and the cutouts in the building are made so that the perimeter is larger, giving the opportunity for more offices with windows. We believe the idiosyncratic nature of the floorplans give the building character. The main north-south axis, however, will make it so that the building can still be easily navigated.
There are many features of the project that will benefit campus as a whole. This has always been a key goal. The project will clean up all of West Campus and replace a sea of ugly surface parking lots with greenspace and a 150 car underground lot. The building will supply a convenient pathway from the Cut down to West Campus. The building(s) will have 13 classrooms, most of which will be available to all of campus. There will be a cafe and a large open “cafe cluster” where students can hang out and collaborate over light food or coffee.
The design has not been fully resolved yet so we cannot give full judgment on everything at this point. For example, the interior finishes and the exterior skin are still open.
Overall we believe the design will be inspiring, but not extravagant.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
The pedestrian travel through and around this building
appears to have been considered with bridges to the cut
and possible Newell Simon. But I cant quite see
whether vehicular traffic will still be able to wind from
Forbes Avenue all the way to the Wean loading docks.
Will large delivery trucks be able to reach Wean loading docks
from Forbes? Or will they be required to come down Roberts
Drive from Frew Street, a very narrow passageway?
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Vehicular access to the main Wean Hall loading dock will be from Frew Street, as it is today. (This is the loading dock on the 4th-floor level, between Wean, Hammerschlag, and Porter Halls.) To get to this Wean Hall loading dock from Forbes Avenue, delivery vehicles would go around to Frew Street. I believe this is exactly what they do now.
To get to the lower part of Wean Hall, there would be two vehicular paths. One is Roberts Drive, as you point out. The other comes down from Neville Ave and through the new roadway under the CIC building. This is probably the better path for larger trucks.
Note that the elimination of surface parking as well as a vehicular access through the campus from Forbes Ave is consistent with the University Master Plan that was established several years ago (and is now a goal of the Gates Center project).
August 10th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Ok. Thanks for the info about the traffic.
The fourth floor loading dock is, of course, restricted to
vehicles that have access to a parking permit, so it is used
mostly by only CMU folks. It is also
impractical for larger delivery trucks because of the arch
and the tight spaces needed for turning.
I’ve currently seen several delivery trucks going through
the construction zone trying to get to the wean loading docks
and raising the ire of the construction workers. Coming to
the lower Wean loading docks from forbes has been a
common path for our suppliers for many years.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:05 am
I’m really concerned about the Master Plans idea to eliminate parking when in reality they are just making it more expensive.
Privledged people who make good money or have prestigious jobs here at the University can afford to pay the increased cost of parking or have their parking space garaunteed to them in their contract with the University.
The people who work as staff members who can not afford to pay the increasing cost of parking and live 10 or more miles away get screwed. We are paying more to park here than ever before and with inflation we make less than we did a year ago. The University planners say ride a bus every day for 3 hours but none of them do and they make 6 figures so paying for parking is not a problem for them.
All I am saying is that there is some real class seperation with the Master Plan. They make me feel like they are the Masters and I am the slave.
(Sorry if I have offended anyone, that is not my intent.)
August 30th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Yes, it seems that as the University expands, parking will become more expensive. Basically existing surface lots are much cheaper than new structured lots. When the University eventually develops the Morewood lot, which is in the Master Plan, this will have an even greater impact on costs — 700 cheap surface spots will be replaced with underground spots, which cost about $25K a piece. For comparison, the Gates Center is replacing 150 surface spots with underground spots.
I’m not sure what the solution is. The choices I see are, the University could stop expanding, the University could expand elsewhere (a second campus), the University could subsidize parking, or the University could supply off campus parking with a shuttle to campus.