PLANNING UPDATES

May 7, 2009

I am writing to update you on where we are with respect to our conversations concerning the new building, vacated space, and the Learning Studio. Since my email of two weeks ago I have had conversations with DCC, FEC and a meeting last Thursday with a number of faculty and staff in the Green Room. I briefed Cabinet since then aboutall of these conversations. As a result, the Cabinet changed/modified a number of items. I thought it would be good to send a new summary concerning:

1) The teaching and learning building
2) Programming of vacated space
3) The Learning Studio
4) Trustee Access

Thus, in order:

1) Teaching and Learning Building - much of the discussion centered on two questions, namely whether administrative offices should be in the new building and whether the new building would contain rooms dedicated to music practice and performance. With respect to an administrative presence in the new building it may attract more donor interest to pay for the new building as well as the improvement it would provide for the president’s and admission’s space. Thus, the current program going to the board has these spaces in it with no diminution in classroom space (hence the administrative space did not reduce the teaching and learning footprint), but with the strong sense that if things are to be cut these go before classrooms. With respect to music practice space we have added to the program a flexible multi-purpose space that will be used for rehearsals and staging, connected with the halls in which performances might occur. This will allow groups to use the room for practice in advance of performances and have easy access to the hall in which they will perform. At this point we have not added back individual practice rooms or dedicated space for individual ensembles, but can address these in the programming of vacated space. I should also note, the Board will NOT be voting on the program at the May meeting. They will receive a briefing on it but final decisions will await the September meeting, where they will also see schematics and suggestions for programming vacated space (see below).

2) Programming of vacated space – my original memo said we would not do this in concert with the new building, but will now enlist Boora’s help to do so over the summer, in connection with the next steps on the new building. This type of programming is in some sense less detailed than that for the new building since a good deal of the vacated space will support faculty lab/project expansion and we do not know the needs of those folks yet. Nevertheless, this will allow us a more integrated plan for space as we move forward.

3) Learning Studio – The Cabinet has decided that the Learning Studio will be housed in the first floor of Sprague. It is space that meets many of the needs for computing at HMC, is available, central and well-lighted. The funding for this innovation is in hand and must be spent this summer. The Spragues envision this as a natural and exciting extension of the building’s use for the future of the college. It will provide a high-profile "anchor" space in the heart of the academic end of campus, which will have a significant positive impact on teaching and learning right away. I know that other options can be imagined for this space, but given the above advantages we feel this is an appropriate and exciting use of the space that will make an immediate improvement on the campus.

4) Meeting with trustees – a number of folks asked if it would be possible to engage trustees prior to the full Board meeting to share their ideas. As I noted, we had plans to get trustees and faculty together at the May meeting and the good news is we were able to schedule a lunch with a significant number of trustees on Friday, May 15, when they are here for committee meetings. Details will follow, but for now put the Mitchell Room in Hoch-Shanahan on your calendar for lunch on the 15th.

Bob
- - -
Robert J. Cave
Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Dean of Faculty
Professor Chemistry

- - - - - - - - - -

April 23, 2009

Dear HMC Faculty and Staff,

I am thrilled at the response of the community to the architects (Boora and Associates) and the work they have done in the process of functional programming for the new teaching and learning building. The diversity of ideas they managed to garner is wonderful and bodes well for the new building.

As the conversations have progressed a number of issues related to the new building have arisen, namely:

1) How will the decision-making process go forward from here? (Who makes the call?)
2) Why are we not programming the entire campus at this point? (i.e. why is the focus largely on the new building?)
3) How does the removal of the library from Sprague impact decisions we might make?

These are all great questions and I’d like to address them in two ways. First, I will consider them below as a means of opening a conversation. In addition, I want to open up the conversation through DCC, FEC, and an informal get-together next week at 11 AM on Thursday, April 30th in the Green Room. In most cases that will just be the beginning of ongoing discussions, except potentially for a portion of the space that will become available in Sprague (point 3 below).

1) How will the decision-making process go forward?

As you know, Boora and Associates have spent a good deal of time on campus over the past several weeks. They are now attempting to process the information they gleaned and produce a potential program for the building. The desires they have heard lead to a suggested square footage for the building considerably larger than we initially anticipated, but that does not necessarily mean our wishes must be down-sized. Boora will return to campus on April 29 and meet both with the Cabinet and the TLPC. Based on what they hear they will modify the program for a presentation to the Board in mid-May.

After the meetings on April 29 we will present a summary of the results to date to the entire community, and on the 30th I will host a meeting at 11 AM in the Green Room to discuss the results.

It is clear from our discussions that the highest priority is excellent teaching space in sufficient amount and diversity to allow us to provide an extraordinary learning environment for our students. Further, it is critical to diminish the sense of overcrowding we currently experience in scheduling and this will be a constant theme as we discuss what the final building will be. It is anticipated that the Trustees will set the direction for the building at the May Board meeting, but it should be made clear that they will not do this in a vacuum. All of my interactions with the trustees indicate they seek to make this the building the campus needs to excel in teaching.

2) Why are we not programming the whole campus at once?

This too is an excellent question. In an ideal world one would do this. However, while our current world is, relatively speaking, a good one (being able to contemplate a new building in the current environment, for example), it is not ideal. Thus, the factors that lead to this “one piece at a time” approach include:

- Finite resources suggest the need to deal with our biggest need first – teaching and learning.
- Funding for further work is uncertain at best at this time, and the time-table for securing additional resources is not one easily constructed in a linear fashion (i.e., how do our needs match with donor interest?)
- To a large extent, what we do with freed space in the academic end will depend on the laboratory and project space needs of the faculty we add to carry out the new curriculum (minimum 9, count ‘em, 9). Without knowing who they are and what they do it is difficult to plan that space.
- Office space being programmed in the new building is required for faculty expansion – ask a chair, ask any chair.

Thus, the aim of the Cabinet aim is to move slowly with respect to gathering input and assigning vacated/open space and renovating it only when we know the next pieces of the puzzle.

Other thoughts:

- Galileos: it is clear they need (a lot of) work. The hope is to make choices there once we all understand how the new building serves our needs when it is on line. It may stay as three large lecture halls; it be divided up into smaller spaces for teaching and/or projects. Real possibilities exist for it but the decision will be based on what the new building accomplishes.
- Office of Admissions and Financial Aid: significant discussion has occurred with respect to where it is housed. We would all agree that attracting students is important and one thought is that Admissions being placed in the new building would be a net positive. Other possibilities exist (see below) and are being considered.

3) What about the library?

The possibility that Sprague would cease being a branch library was raised two years ago, as some of you know. As planning went forward on  reimagining the library system plans were discussed that suggested the branches would close over the next few years. However, the financial downturn accelerated this process and, as you know, Sprague will be decommissioned as a library this summer.

The Cabinet, DCC and I have known this since about February but were asked to keep this in confidence to protect library staff from the rumor mill until detailed information about ongoing positions and options could be provided – this process culminated in the announcement last Thursday. I know the broader campus community would like to have been kept appraised of this at earlier stages in the process but I felt it important to respect the wishes of the library administration and staff.

With the information in hand, DCC and I engaged in some discussions about the uses to which the library space might be put. After these discussions the following general guidelines were arrived at:

1) Go slow. We will be reluctant to commit the vacated space (1st floor, 2/3 of the 3rd floor, and the 5th floor) to any permanent purposes in the near term.
2) Part of this slowness is the considerable expense associated with renovating the building for general use; another part is a need to assess needs as the faculty grows and the new building comes on line.
3) One short-term need to which the library can be put is relief of faculty office overcrowding. Two or three offices on the first floor could be used in the near term as faculty office space, with nice areas for student interaction outside of them. I will be surprised if we do not use them in that way next year, and the DCC and I have spoken about this.
4) Other uses: the first floor is an inviting and open space. Two possibilities have presented themselves as options:

a.Computer Learning Studio. Our current computer teaching labs are in the basement of Parsons. We have received a significant amount of money
from the Fletcher Jones Foundation to create new computer labs. The original thought was to remodel the existing labs but, remodel as you will, they will still be underground, windowless, and unable to meet the requirements that emerged in discussion with faculty and students in February. Thus, the Cabinet, DCC, CIS, and I discussed using a portion of the library’s ground floor to house a new learning studio. It would be sound-proofed but visually open, would have lots of natural light, and would be an exciting space in which to teach. Furthermore, unlike the LAC it would contain space schedulable FIRST by faculty for computer intensive classes. Lastly, CIS would relinquish the current computing lab space, allowing it to be repurposed to meet space needs of other departments. In our discussions this appeared to be an excellent use of the space, but in light of more recent suggestions we are opening this question up to the campus community for further discussion. The bad news: the Fletcher Jones money needs to be spent this summer, so we will make a call on this in the near future.

b. Office of Admissions and Financial Aid– in the course of recent discussions the suggestion was made that Admissions might occupy the first floor of the library. It is attractive, light, space, central to the academic end of campus, and would allow them to move out of Kingston. Questions that would still need to be addressed include: Would the remodel trigger significant overhaul of Sprague, for which no funds exist?, When could the remodel occur?, Does it serve the needs of Admissions?, Is this a better choice than the new building and/or Kingston?, Given that the Parsons basement space is inadequate, where would we then put the learning studio?

c. Other? Thus, we want to open these questions up for discussion in the next couple of weeks. I would be delighted to hear from individuals. In addition, I will be holding an open discussion next Thursday, and will also discuss this with the DCC and FEC. I am sorry for the modest urgency of this discussion with respect to the first floor of the library (caused by the time table on the use of the Fletcher Jones money) and will hope this is not the case as we move forward with other space that is freed up.

I know this is a fantastically busy time and know that it is hard to juggle classes and tough decisions. In the end, the urgency is in large part driven by the desire to get the new building on line as quickly as possible. However, in general I expect the discussions of what to do with remaining space will go at a more measured pace.

In the mean time, take care,

Bob
- - -
Robert J. Cave
Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Dean of Faculty
Professor of Chemistry

- - - - - - - - - -

March 19, 2009

Dear HMC Students, Faculty and Staff:

Harvey Mudd College has embarked on a journey to build a new teaching and learning building at the site of our existing Thomas Garrett Building. This new teaching and learning building will be architecturally inspiring, considerably larger than our current building, creatively designed to meet modern pedagogical demands, and flexible enough to encourage students, faculty, and staff to interact with each other in its public spaces, classrooms, and offices.

However, before we can begin the actual construction of the new building we have several tasks before us. We must update our campus master plan to include the purchase of the north property and complete a functional program which identifies what it is we want in our new teaching and learning building. Therefore, the Physical Plant and Campus Planning Committee of the Board of Trustees formed an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to select an architecture firm for these processes.

On March 12, 2009, members of the ARC interviewed six architecture firms making the final decision to choose Boora Architects for our programming and master planning needs. Boora Architects is a 75-person firm founded in 1958 based in Portland, Ore. Having worked with clients on more than 50 campuses throughout the United States, Boora is considered a specialist in the programming, planning and design of the state-of-the-art campus buildings. They have completed projects at Scripps College, Pomona College, Stanford University and Lewis and Clark College, to name a few.

A sub-committee of the ARC, named the Teaching and Learning Program Committee (TLPC), has convened and is working with Boora to help develop our functional program process.

The next step in the programming process is for Boora to visit our campus to get to know us better by sitting in on classes where appropriate, conducting meetings and campus forums with the campus constituents to develop a program for presentation, and final approval by the Trustees. These campus visits have begun and will continue through April 17, 2009. Input from all members of our campus community is vital in this process and your participation in the meetings and forums will prove to be invaluable in developing a program for a building that will serve our campus for many years to come.

On behalf of the Teaching and Learning Programming Committee, thank you in advance for your consideration and participation in this programming effort.

If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Cave
Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of Faculty