(Architectural Alliance) Summary Notes of Meeting Sept. 3, 2009

physics.umn.edu
  • No tags were found...

(Architectural Alliance) Summary Notes of Meeting Sept. 3, 2009

MEMORANDUMDate: September 11, 2009To: ParticipantsFrom: Mamie HarveyComm. No: 2009.037Re: University of Minnesota Physics & NanotechnologyPredesign Planning Options Review MeetingProject Number: 01-155-08-1718A meeting regarding the project for the University of Minnesota Physics & Nanotechnology Building was heldat the U of M on Thursday September 3, 2009. The following individuals were in attendance:University of MinnesotaDesign TeamDean CarlsonCapital PlanningMamie HarveyArchitectural AllianceMatt StringfellowCapital PlanningCarey BrendalenArchitectural AllianceOrlyn MillerCapital PlanningTom DeAngeloArchitectural AllianceKaren WolterstorffAssistant to Dean of ITAllyn StellmacherZimmer Gunsul FrascaRon PolingPhysics DepartmentTaka SogaZimmer Gunsul FrascaShaul HananyPhysics DepartmentSteve CampbellDirector of CNA1. GeneralItem Description Action By1.1 Meeting Goal: Review revised Predesign building and site planning Informationconcepts. Revisions prepared in response to feedback of the conceptspublished in the “Predesign for Review”.1.2 Revisions focused on:Information- Expansion capacity.- Clean room location: Away from the Harvard extension forvibration, adjacency to the loading dock, and on grade location forH5 occupancy.


Predesign Planning Options Review MeetingSeptember 11, 2009Page 2 of 32. Expansion CapacityItem Description Action By2.1 The following table was used to discuss expansion priorities for Physicsand Nanotechnology. The spaces below listed as “not included” areadditional program spaces that were part of the Total Physics andNanotechnology Program:InformationThe list seeks to prioritize program for the expansion, the first item on thelist, Offices, being the highest priority for expansion, second being theMachine Shop and so on. Physics representatives confirmed that the listaccurately reflects the Physic Department’s priorities.2.2 The Physics representatives also expressed desire to plan expansioncapacity to ideally allow inclusion of the Offices, Machine Shop, andAstronomy totaling 72,000 GSF.2.3 Five of the six planning options discussed showed expansion capacity inthe 40,000 to 50,000 range. These plan options could expand to includeOffices and the Machine Shop. Concept E “Site Maximization”, illustratedthe potential for approximately 85,000 GSF of expansion.InformationInformation3. ProgramItem Description Action By3.1 Adjacency to Receiving: Options that show the Clean Room, High Bay,and the future expansion (Machine Shop) together near the receivingarea are desirable.InformationP:\2009\2009037\Correspondence\Meetings\2009-09-03 Predesign Planning Options Review Meeting.doc


Predesign Planning Options Review MeetingSeptember 11, 2009Page 3 of 33.2 Office / Lab Adjacency:- Shaul Hanany felt the offices do not necessarily need to be groupedall together. For example, the Graduate Assistant offices could becloser to the labs. However, Ron Poling believed that there may bemany divergent views on this issue.- The Center for Nanostructure Applications (CNA) desires its officesand labs together for identity and collaboration.3.3 High Bay: The High Bay should not be a long space, but rather moresquare with one big exterior door for access. A crane rail will provideaccess through the space.3.4 Deep Floor Plates: PDaylight into the labs is appreciated, but may not bethe highest priority for all types of labs in Physics.InformationInformationInformation4. Site and CampusItem Description Action By4.1 Service / Receiving:Information- The service area will include a very large Liquid Nitrogen tank thatwill need to be accessed.- Access from the west hides the loading dock from view, butappears inefficient in terms of overall site use.- Orlyn Miller stated that the preference would be screen thereceiving area from view and to locate the receiving area awayfrom major pedestrian corridors.- Access from the north is preferred based on the program diagramsdiscussed, if sufficiently screened or internal to the building.4.2 Building Height: all options discussed are modeled at 4 stories plus a Informationmechanical penthouse. Further development of these options couldinvestigate a taller building. Going taller in some areas is perceived asbetter than covering the whole site. Above 4 stories works for office spacebut will limit chemical use.4.3 Building Entry: Orlyn Miller stated that the preference would be to havethe primary entry near the southwest corner of the site to reinforce thevisual corridor down Union.InformationP:\2009\2009037\Correspondence\Meetings\2009-09-03 Predesign Planning Options Review Meeting.doc

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines