Individual faculty responses to posted academic building information as of 06/28/05

Provided below are the responses that were sent in this past week in response to the posting of the academic building plans and narratives. I gave this compiled version directly to Dick Roberts with a copy for the architect. Some of the issues raised here were addressed in the course of the presentation ≠ others have been incorporated into the collective input document which I just sent to the various people involved with the building and which I have posted to the website for your review at http://phobos.ramapo.edu/facassem/acadbldginput062805.html

Where issues were specifically answered by the presenters I have included a brief summary of the answer below in red:

Response 1: My main concern is with VENTILATION. I'm sure you have also taught in several rooms (esp G building) where the students begin to weaken after 30 mins from lack of oxygen. No joke.

Response 2: The input that I have on this is limited to my own experience with recent renovations. The MBA classroom, B224, which I teach in frequently was constructed without proper temperature control, or without proper implementation and maintenance of what was installed. Temperature and ventilation are erratic from day to day (had to change classrooms in summer to find air conditioning, while in colder seasons students were literally wearing hats/gloves/jackets in the room), and facilities will not proactively address and fix the problem despite requests at high levels. They only react, when called. We never know when entering the classroom whether it will be teachable. Most of the time, to enter it is to enter a room with temperature/air noticeably different from the corridor. Lower A-room renovations seem to have better climate control, but one can still hear AV in use in a neighboring room.

Response 3: One of Dick Robertsπ narratives (dated this month) talks about a "rooftop observatory" that after years of fights to get one at Ramapo was killed unilaterally because "it was too expensive", but it is still in the narrative? Please, Kay, let's call things what they are: looks trump usage or needs every time at Ramapo and for the last 15 years or so weãthe faculty--let that happen! [Dickπs response: The references to the observatory are being removed from the narratives and the renderings. They were acknowledged to be a fossil of earlier versions.]

Respone 4: A minor issue to most, though one that has never been done right at Ramapo, even in the Berrie center, is reasonable acoustic planning and conditioning. It's expensive and easy to cut. I see that there are some larger spaces on the first floor. While these won't be for anything that we (CA) do, I'm sure, there may be some times when the volume inside is above the level of quiet lectures.

Actually, our music program has suffered greatly over the years (and now actually even more so) from the lack of planning for adequate acoustics and sound isolation. For example, if there is something going on in the Sharp Theater (or the Adler, for that matter), we have to refrain from playing music in the one music classroom we have, since it leaks through, despite promises to the contrary. In the final stages of that building there were costly design mistakes, and serious cuts had to be made, one of which was acoustics.

Another example: the newly designed and renovated large classroom/auditorium in H Wing (H 129), where the former "theater" space was, still has the old and very noisy ventilation system which makes it almost impossible to do a lot of things (particularly if musically related) without giving everyone a microphone. Our only solution has been to schedule complete shut-down of the ventilation system when we use it, and we are using it now for a number of larger music groups, rehearsals, etc.

Response 5: I asked my partner, an architect, to look over the plans and send me any thoughts he might have. His ideas are below! Thanks for giving us all the chance to look at the plans,

Quoting:

Not too bad, all the basics are there. They are being fairly sensitive with the shading of the building. I think that the lecture halls on 1 are kind of a shame because there is so little natural light (a strip of windows in 1 and no windows in the other- this is because of the orientation of the room- the lecturer is on the outside wall- a more typical classroom design puts the windows on the side of the room as shown in the class rooms on floor 2. There's something un-human about being in a huge room full of people with no connection to the outside. They'll tell you that the desire was to have control over natural light so the room can be used for projecting- movies and the like- but blackout curtains would take care of that concern. Turning the direction of the lecture halls to the North (light from the left is always preferable because people are 89% righthanded) would allow more windows to be introduced, but of course you'd lose some seating to the ramping necessary to make the terraces of the seating work out, However you'd get much better site lines than you currently have- the room is too wide for many to see the center of the front of the room.

The only other opportunity that I see- that they may or may not be addressing would be to get some more natural light into the corridor and adjunct offices (floors 1-4) by using more glass in the wall between the faculty offices and the corridor- say from 6 feet to the ceiling. Those adjunct offices are going to be fairly brutal.

Response 6: First, thanks for giving faculty the opportunity to respond to something so important to our teaching. Some of my comments on the floor plans were shared verbally with J. Sampson and E. Saiff, but it is proabably a good idea to record them in writing.

Beginning with the outside appearance:

- Though there is a good deal of glass, it is broken by many vertical & horizontal cross-pieces. [Architects explanation: The cross piece relate to the shades which automatically follow the sun and provide shading across the windows of the building. These shades can be overridden by the instructor if they wish to lower the shades completely ≠ or open them for a class session and then automatically return to the default position when the class is finished. Each classroom has a separate motor so if a breakdown occurs it will be limited to that classroom and the shades will remain in the open position until they are fixed.] This does not match the style of the award-winning original Ramapo buildings' use of broad expanses of glass. With the Berrie Center also contrasting so sharply with those original buildings, it is all the more important that this new structure on campus carry out the original theme. The new Bradley Center and Overlook do this to some degree, and it helps integrate the campus.

- Again, in terms of the glass, I hope it is mirror-like, as in the original buildings, for the same reasons just stated. The drawing does not make it clear that this is the case.

- I see a bit of brick wall at the left of the drawing, which makes me wonder if the ends of the building and the other side are windowless, like the bottom portion of the side we see. It is difficult from the plans to tell for sure that floors 2-4 have windows on both sides, but it doesn't seem that they do. I would prefer windows on both sides, if not there. - I like the curves in the structure. They mimic the Berrie Center, without the use of mainly brick, book-ending the school from Library through G.

Inside appearance:

- The openness of stairwells and ends of the building is attractive, especially given the natural light through the extensive glass.

Floor plans:

- Though not shown on the plans, the placement of technology is critical to many faculty. As a compromise between the technology controls being placed in both the desks and the lecterns, I have suggested that they be located in the desks for the 3 end classrooms (2 on one end & 1 on the other) and in the lecterns for the 4 central classrooms. [Media Services Response: Classrooms will be outfitted with both a desk and a lectern.] My thinking on this is that the central classrooms have more traditional seating and general arrangement, which should appeal to more traditional teachers, who will be most likely to prefer lecturing. The less traditional rooms may be more attractive to teaching in small groups, and using student presentations. Students are much more comfortable presenting from a sitting position.

- In the 90-student 1st floor classrooms, I see no notation of desk, lectern, screens, whiteboards, etc. These are probably on more detailed/different plans, but I hope some faculty have reviewed them. There appear to be projectors in the ceilings (middle of room), but these other teaching tools are important too.

- I'm curious about the 5th floor. There is no indication of the passive solar roof, an important detail that I hope has been agreed upon. This would save money in the long run and be consonant with the College commitment to sustainability.

Response 8: Just in case someone raises an issue on this report. It was accurate as of 5/12/04. Since then it was determined that there was not adequate funding for refurbishing G. As of now there is money in the budget for the greenhouse but if bids come in higher than expected I expect that the greenhouse will be at the top of the list of things to go. [Dickπs response: The greenhouse is going forward as planned although the shape may be a little different from the circular version on the drawing.]

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/facassem/academicbldg5_12_04update.html

Response 9: On the academic building's interior, Sharon Rubin's comments are apropos but I'd like to add that I feel that it's time to build some larger lecture rooms as well into the new structure. [Architectπs answer: There are two lecture halls with fixed seating on tiers that seat 90 students on the first floor of the building. In the current plan there are three breakout rooms (each for 20 students) on the basement floor that will allow smaller groups to break off from the larger lecture. We recommended converting 3 adjunct offices behind the lecture hall nearest the ≥prow≤ to two more breakout rooms for 20 students so that an entire class can be accomodated for smaller discussions. The architects indicated that this was a fairly simple matter ≠ primarily furniture.] If you walk our corridors during class sessions, you'll see professor after professor standing in front of a class. There are ways we can add variety in our own teaching and in the students' class routines with a few lecture courses. We can supplement them with discussion sections. Without TA's adjuncts can handle some sections and we can "precept" for each other, as they do at Princeton. They find it stimulating to hear each other lecture and to plan the discussions associated with the lectures. It would be a shame to preclude this possibility by building only 40-student classrooms.

I find the actual design extremely unattractive. The flaplike white or metallic vertical strips on the exterior along the windows don't seem to have much purpose and are just busy and distracting. [Architects explanation: The cross piece relate to the shades which automatically follow the sun and provide shading across the windows of the building. These shades can be overridden by the instructor if they wish to lower the shades completely ≠ or open them for a class session and then automatically return to the default position when the class is finished. Each classroom has a separate motor so if a breakdown occurs it will be limited to that classroom and the shades will remain in the open position until they are fixed.] The interior shown on the website appears to have a "brute" style with very chunky concrete stairs and walkways. Having spent time at thoroughly brute institutions like the U of Illinois at Chicago and U of Essex in England I can say that they don't age well and generate a desolate and boring atmosphere from day one. I hope this can be modified.

Response 10: I looked over the plans and will share my reaction with you here and try to make the meeting next week. I think this is no masterpiece. It will win no awards for innovation or style. But it is better designed than most buildings and is generally of good quality. My wife (the architect) is more positive about the building than me and says that, in terms of quality, it is in the top 20% of buildings in New Jersey. (I'm not sure that's a compliment.)

It's very packed. Yet, the atrium saves it from being merely a boxy office building and grants it some of the common space appropriate to an academic building. But just reacting to the drawing, I am concerned about a metallic "cold" impression. Certainly not inspiring. Is this what we want the gateway to Ramapo to look like?

Regarding materials, I said at a public meeting two years ago that I wish so much that architects designing these new buildings would show a minimal respect for the glass mirror and grey slate design of the original complex - which was and continues to be a great success. [Architectπs answer: The building echoes both the main academic building ≠ using the grey slate for part of the design and some of the brick etc. of the other buildings.](Why the Berry center had to go off into another planet is beyond my ken.) Few spaces are more horrific than college campuses that are crazy quilt hodge podges of disconnected buildings. Rutgers, for example, is famous for being one of the most ugly campuses on earth. I think any architect owes it to his client AND the community to blend the building in with the surrounding gestalt milieu. I pray to *od they will at least stick to grey slate and glass mirrors and stay away from metal and cheesy bright colors in the exterior and interior. With such a beautiful mountain valley and a westward sunset view, mirrors say the nature colors best.

The 5th floor will have a spectacular view. If only we could have a commons there with an open patio cafe garden. [Architectπs answer: This wasnπt entirely ruled out as a possibility although it was indicated it would need to be on the 3^rd floor since the 5^th floor is currently being kept completely undeveloped so that it can serve as swing space as repairs/renovations occur elsewhere on campus.] Something like the Berry cafe, which is popular for informal meetings despite the fact that it is buried into darkness away from any windows. I safely guess that if there was a 'cafe' up there, facing the mountains, that it would be a huge hit in terms of "living" space versus "dead" space.

I could go on, but let me stop....