Case Study-Final 0707 - College of Architecturefaculty.arch.utah.edu/miller/Case...

1

ProtocolsIdeasProgrammingSchematic DesignConstruction

Firm IdentityHistoryFirm Structure

DFCMFaculty & StudentsWeber State UniversityDonors

Client MeasuresSummary

ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS CENTER

SYNOPSIS CLIENTS DESIGN TEAM DELIVERY MEASURES

CASE STUDY

Prepared by:William CalderTodd KelseyBrenda RobertsRobert Waters

Architecture 6965-Case Studiesin Contemporary ArchitectureWilliam C. Miller, FAIACollege of Architecture + PlanningUniversity of Utah

PRESCOTT MUIR ARCHITECTS, ArchitectCOMTROL, General ContractorDAVE CHRISTENSEN, Landscape ArchitectVAN BOERUM & FRANK, Mechanical EngineersSPECTRUM ENGINEERING, Electrical EngineersGREAT BASIN ENGINEERING, Civil Engineers

Weber State UniversityOgden, Utah 84408(801) 626-6000

2





I. SynopsisII. Clients


III. Design TeamFirm IdentityHistoryFirm Structure

IV. DeliveryProtocolsIdeasProgrammingSchematic DesignConstruction

V. MeasuresClient MeasuresSummary


TABLE OF CONTENTS

main floor plan

Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center

Weber State University

Prescott Muir Architects

20’

Facility photographs provided by Todd Kelsey. Facilitydrawings and documentation courtesy of Prescott MuirArchitects.


SYNOPSIS

With each new building, the opportunityarises to explore different ways to engage thedesign process. The manner in which the designteam adapts the process to the unique set of cir-cumstances encountered in each project deter-mines its success.

The Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Cen-ter at Weber State University presents a case inwhich the architect had to establish a high-profiledesign solution while working with multiple clients,a multi-faceted building program, and the con-current develpoment of a new teaching philoso-phy within the institution’s art department.

For some time, Weber State University’sDepartment of Visual Arts sought to develop plansfor a new facility. A new building with improvedphysical resources would allow WSU’s art pro-gram to become more competitive in the Inter-mountain West and potentially attract a more di-verse body of students. The facility would giveinstructors the ability to implement a differentpedagogy, more compatible with the group prob-lem- solving and critiquing methods found withinthe local artistic community.

In addition, the need for a local art galleryin the City of Ogden grew from a wealthy, localfamily’s desire to donate their art collection to thecity. Regrettably, the city lacked an appropriatefacility in which to house such a gift, and eventu-ally, they placed the collection at the Utah Mu-seum of Fine Arts on the University of Utah cam-pus in Salt Lake City, approximately 35 milesaway. This was a poignant milestone in the long

View of 3d model by PMA.

Preliminary third floor plan by PMA.

struggle towards a new art facility on theWeber State campus.

Situated on the main quadrangle ofbuildings at Weber State University, the EthelWattis Kimball Visual Arts School and Centerstands as an expression of the activities foundwithin. It reflects the desire to serve both thecommunity and the students through the suc-cessful marriage of gallery space with the edu-cational goals and requirements of the visualarts school. The building integrates the vari-ous programmatic parts of learning environ-ment and public gallery with an architecturalexpression that allows for an understandingof the complex nature of the whole. This isaccomplished through the massing of thebuilding as well as the exterior materials andinterior finishes throughout the project.


SYNOPSIS

Prescott Muir Architects (PMA), a designfirm from Salt Lake City was selected for both theprogramming and design phases of the newschool. This dual role, given to one architect, isnot practiced anymore in State of Utah projects.The firm’s past experience in designing art cen-ters, museums, and cultural facilities, coupled withtheir interest and involvement in the local art com-munity was demonstrated in their excitement andinterest in this particular project. By finding waysto balance the wants and desires of the students,faculty, community and donors, the Ethel WattisKimball Visual Arts Center serves as a mechanismto facilitate the successful integration of differentagendas through architecture.

The design team was composed of princi-pal Prescott Muir, Jack Robertson as the projectarchitect with Lisa Arnett as the design associate.Other consultants participating in the venture wereDave Christensen, landscape architect; VanBoerum & Frank, mechanical engineers; SpectrumEngineering, electrical engineers, Great Basin En-gineering, civil engineers; and Comtrol as generalcontractor. In the span of one year, this team ofprofessionals created a structure that has becomean invaluable asset to the city of Ogden and We-ber State University.

The value of this case is to demonstratehow similar pedagogies were implemented amongthe client groups and the design team in order tobring about a successful project that met the ex-pectations of all involved. The overall theme of agroup problem-solving method is evident in thearchitecture through the ample hall spaces, which

allow for greater interaction among the disci-plines housed within this facility. The differ-ing entities involved in the project maintaineda dialogue, as well, that allowed Prescott Muirand his team to gain input from and accom-modate the needs of the constituencies whiledeveloping the overall vision for the EthelWattis Kimball Visual Arts Center.

View southwest corner of the facility.


CLIENTS

CLIENTS-The basis for each new architectural

project stems from the clients’ needs. In the EthelWattis Kimball Visual Arts Center, this projectdeveloped from the needs of multiple clients. TheVisual Arts Center would not have met its full po-tential if it were not for the complex interactionsand relationships that developed among the cli-ent groups. Those involved in the process in-cluded the Department of Visual Arts AdvisoryCommittee (DOVA), the Division of Facilities Con-struction and Management (DFCM), Weber StateUniversity (WSU), Art Department faculty and stu-dents, and various donors.

With its beginnings more than a decadeago, the principal focus of the DOVA, chaired byBob Herman, was to address art awareness inthe community. As part of this focus, they beganto create a case for a new facility and developedit with the University administration. Through theyears, the committee strengthened its case, de-veloping a building program, a preferred site lo-cation, a comparative institution analysis, fundingoptions, and so on. Many on this committee wereinstrumental, especially in the advocacy and fund-raising phases, including past chairs of the DOVA,and committee members. Early on, these indi-viduals set the tone for the development of theproject as a multi-faceted committee.

DOVA then took a less active role as theactual programming and design phases of the Vi-sual Arts Center began, though still maintaining apresence in the process. For example, during the


Looking into the main space.

Interior of a studio space.


CLIENTS


programming phase, the DOVA participated in aworkshop conducted by PMA’s team, providingexpectations for the facility--especially the gallery--on behalf of the community. The value DOVAplaced on acquiring a diverse collection of inputset the tone for later architect-client relationshipsand overall project development.

7


CLIENTS

DFCM-The State of Utah participated in this

project through the Division of Facilities and Con-struction Management. DFCM’s role differedfrom its typical status as the sole client and deci-sion-making entity, because donors contributedthe majority of funding for the project. The DFCMwas a client essentially because the proposedfacility was to be located at a state-owned insti-tution, Weber State University, and was intendedfor use by state employees and university stu-dents in addition to a museum-going public.DFCM’s main role in this project was to ensurethat the project was completed on time, with nodelays or trouble from state auditors, and withas little litigation as possible. DFCM represen-tative Blake Court’s role in this project was con-tract administrator and budget keeper; he solic-ited proposals, wrote contracts, and authorizedpayments for the various tasks performed. Ulti-mately the state’s voice was heard through theDFCM by contract language and Mr. Court’s par-ticipation in meetings. The state also had a rolein the project through Weber State’s planning andadministration. The diminished role of the DFCMover typical state projects allowed the client, com-mittees, and design team to develop their ideaswithout bureaucratic red tape.


8



CLIENTS

FACULTY AND STUDENTS-The manner in which the project devel-

oped was a direct result of the implementation ofa new teaching philosophy within the Art Depart-ment of WSU. This philosophy encourages theinteraction among the disciplines taught at theschool. These ideals were brought to the projectthrough involvement by the faculty and studentswho lent their input during the design develop-ment phase of the new Visual Arts Center. JamesJacobs, the faculty chair, represented the ArtDepartment’s desires and goals. Initially, Mr.Jacobs acted as a liaison between the faculty,students, and the school’s administration. Withinput from faculty and students, Mr. Jacobs andthe WSU’s administration decided how muchmoney to allocate to the project. They also helpedchoose an architect and construction companythat they felt would best relate to the design goalsand reflect their teaching pedagogy. Throughsteering committees, Mr. Jacobs held consider-able influence in all stages of development. DFCMand campus administration took a less active roleas the design progressed, while faculty, students,and donors all participated more assertively in thedecision-making process.

Through the initial programming process,the constituents developed the theme for the fa-cility, that of group problem solving. Interactionbetween students from a variety of art disciplineshelped stimulate discussions, and the potentialfor involvement across the several artforms taughtat the school was identified. This democratic andresourceful way of generating dialogue was the

underlying concept that drove most of the decision-making. This theme applied to the art faculty as well.They wanted to emphasize interdisciplinary discus-sion brought out into a more public forum, which inturn could engage students in discussion. Thesegoals informed the architect’s design, and led to thecreation of the large hallways and corridors foundthroughout the building that act as circulation pathsas well as extensions of the classroom spaces.

Faculty offices on the second floor.

9


CLIENTS

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY-Weber State’s presence as a client, from

the schematic phase through design development,was informed by a University committee includ-ing the Vice-President for Community Relations,theVice-President of Administrative Services, theAssociate Vice-President of Administrative Ser-vices, the Director of Facilities Management, theArchitectural Services representative, and theDean of the College of Arts and Humanities. Whilesome participants were not as vocal as others,this committee proved influential on the design ofthe building. Four representatives from Adminis-trative Services also strongly participated in thedesign phase, voicing their opinions on many fac-ets of the design. This diversified body of repre-sentatives channeled the desires of those whomthey represented to the design team, which turnedidea into reality.

The Art Department represented WSU asthe project entered the programming and designphases of the project. However, six weeks intothe construction of the project, WSU assigned JimHarris, the Campus Master Planner, to serve asthe Project Manager. His role was to manage theconstruction budget and to voice his opinions inthe interest of the University. This was accom-plished by working directly with and holding weeklycoordination meetings with the architect, the con-tractor, and DFCM. Again, the collaborative pro-cess of decision-making allowed problems to besolved fairly and easily because of the relation-ship that existed at that level.

Mr. Harris and his department ex-


pressed, from the start, their interest in theevolution and continuity of the entire campusas a whole and how this building fit into thatscheme. With his department also respon-sible for site planning and facility mainte-nance, his opinions and concerns played animportant role in this aspect of the project

10


CLIENTS


development. One concern he raised was thatthe location of the new structure required devel-opment of areas that were being used for park-ing. Weber State University is largely a com-muter campus, and parking is always a concernfor the school. Another concern was that campusutilitiy lines ran under these parking lots, andrerouting them would require additional time andmoney, as well as a large construction area tosafely maintain. Another important issue was themaintenance of safety for students and faculty,ADA accessibility and service vehicle routes intocampus during the construction phases of theproject.

Mr. Harris played a vital role in ensuringthat the project developed smoothly on-site andwith as few inconveniences to the campus aspossible. Mr. Harris’s insight to potential issueshelped the team develop strategies before theybecame problems. As such, his role in thiscollaborative process helped keep the channelsof communication open, and as such representedthe school’s concerns and implemented ways toovercome them.

11


CLIENTS

DONORS-The donor committee for the Ethel Wattis

Kimball Visual Arts School and Center proved tobe the most public of the client groups. This wasa direct result of their funding the majority of theproject, and the inclusion of the Mary ElizabethDee Shaw Gallery, which connects the public tothe facility and the university. The donor commit-tee’s desire was to elevate the notoriety of theschool and bring art awareness to the surround-ing community. Bob Herman, the donor commit-tee chair, represented these desires, while nego-tiating with the other parties involved. His being alicensed architect was advantageous to all, for hecontributed knowledgeable insight to the tasks athand. Mr. Herman’s role was critical and his po-litical influence was essential for creating a suc-cessful product. If too much or too little influencewere to be imposed by the donors the buildingwould have suffered. The donors wanted a publicart gallery as the main feature of the facility, andneeded to be spacious and in a prominent loca-tion. Mr. Herman helped negotiate these desireswhile working with the architect and others to de-velop an art school and center that would be func-tional as both an educational and a museum facil-ity, and be visually and intuitively cohesive in itsconcept and design. Although the donors fundedthe majority of the project, they were open to thecollaborative spirit of the project.


Donor wall in the main hall.

12



DESIGN TEAM

FIRM IDENTITY-Prescott Muir Architects is a small office

located in the heart of Salt Lake City that employsprofessionals dedicated to a work grounded in alocation, people, culture, and time. This architec-tural approach was of upmost importance for thesuccessful implementation of the project. Thearchitectural selection of PMA by the committeewas in part due to their unique architectural ap-proach. PMA’s open-minded philosophy allowedfor the successful integration of the group-prob-lem solving method into their programming anddesign.

PMA is “dedicated to providing solutionsto architectural challenges by corroborating a nar-rative founded on client, community and architectcommunication1.” This dedication proved success-ful during the development of the new arts facility.As Muir and his team processed the constituent’sdesires and opinions, they allowed them to informthe project’s response. As a result, the physicalexpression grew from the “assemblage of incre-mental, or detailed ‘proofs’ or solutions mediatedby the inherent tension between use and repre-sentation1

.”

1 Taken from the firm’s website,www.prescottmuir.com

Skylights in the gallery under construction.

13



DESIGN TEAM

HISTORY-

After receiving a Bachelor of Architecturedegree from the University of Southern Californiain 1972, Mr. Muir continued his education at the Uni-versity of Utah, graduating in 1982 with a Bachelorof Fine Arts degree with an emphasis in paintingand drawing. He went on to study at Columbia Uni-versity and received his Master of Science in Archi-tectural Design in 1986. In addition to heading upthe firm, Mr. Muir also participates as a studio criticand has taught a design theory/history course atthe College of Architecture + Planning at the Uni-versity of Utah. He has lectured and exhibited hiswork at the University of Southern CaliforniaCarnegie Mellon University, the University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte, the Las Vegas Center for Con-temporary Art, and the Salt Lake Art Center.

PMA was founded in 1976 by Prescott Muir,and in its 28 years of practice has developed a na-tional reputation for their design of uniquely craftedbuildings and urban interventions. The firm hasestablished itself as an award-winning firm with adiverse body of work, ranging from performing artscenters and art museums to private residences andaffordable housing projects. In addition, they par-ticipate in the programming process of project pro-posals.

Mr. Muir devotes an extensive amount oftime to community and professional services. Hehas served as the President of the Utah chapter ofthe AIA; has participated as a member of the SaltLake City Planning Commission; has served asChair of the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake

Downtown Alliance; Salt Lake Olympic Cultural Af-fairs Committee; Salt Lake Art Center Board ofTrustees; Governor’s Envision Utah ScenariosCommittee; Utah Transportation Management As-sociation Executive Committee; and the Town ofAlta Planning Commission.

Faculty office windows look out on a secondfloor balcony.

14


DESIGN TEAM

FIRM STRUCTURE-The architectural firm Prescott Muir Archi-

tects (PMA) is a small operation, headed by ar-chitect Prescott Muir. Two partners complete thefirm structure. Jack Robertson, AIA, is the part-ner who has led the project management for mostof the firm’s major projects. Lisa Arnett, the sec-ond partner, has led and collaborated in the de-sign efforts of many of the firm’s projects. Thesmall architectural staff includes a number of indi-viduals with varied responsibilities. Due to theclose-knit nature of the firm, the three partners areable to work closely on all the projects the firmtakes on, which they feel leads to a higher qualitysolution. As projects come in, the partners col-laborate on a work timeline, and assign appropri-ate responsibilities, which vary from project toproject. As assignments are dispersed, the teamcoordinates in a timely manner to ensure that theclient’s needs have been heard and will be suffi-ciently met.

This team collaboration proved very effec-tive in the development and completion of the Vi-sual Arts Center. With open lines of communica-tion within the firm structure, a clear and directapproach to the design of the project developed.The ease of communication within the firm set thetone for the communication with all involved, lead-ing to a more efficient use of time and talents allaround.


15


DELIVERY

PROTOCOLS-As the initiative for a new art school and

gallery evolved, the network of decision-makingcommenced. The task at hand was not a diminu-tive one—the scheme was to create a visual artsschool that would better serve the faculty, stu-dents, and community. The involvement of vari-ous constituents throughout the process provedfruitful as their input synthesized and structuredthe overall success of the project.

Whenever more than three entities areinvolved in the design and construction of abuilding, there inevitably exists the potential fordisagreements in design, programming, andeven construction. When numerous constitu-ents bring their ideas, agendas, and priorities tothe table, these disagreements can escalate.Differences of opinion regarding issues of styleand placement of the structure, among others,proved to be a challenge for all involved. Know-ing this potential for conflict, Mr. Muir and histeam proactively used this to the advantage ofthe design. The constant assessment andcriticism were perceived as opportunities toadvance ideas even further until a rewardingoutcome ensued. Mr. Muir’s team acted as afilter for ideas in order to develop a unifiedproject, rather than dicating what they thoughtshould happen. This approach, consisting ofopen lines of communication, is an essentialcomponent of not only good design, but alsogood relations and a viable building that canstand the test of time. The collaborative natureof this venture established by DOVA and contin-

ued by PMA and the various steering com-mittees carried through the delivery of theproject including the programming, sche-matic design and construction phases.


Skylight structure allows indirect light into the gallery.

16



DELIVERY

IDEAS -The ideas behind the Visual Arts Center

evoke inspiration, optimism, innovation, creativ-ity and criticism. In this project, ideas evolved toultimately deliver better learning and teaching fa-cilities. The implementation of these ideas by thearchitect and the constituents helped provide anew, healthier environment physically and men-tally for students and faculty. The design teamand various committees adopted the notion ofdeveloping a high level of innovation and creativ-ity. Ideas about future art and community involve-ment and how this building and academic pro-gram could evolve were successfully addressedin the overall scheme of the facility.

To elevate the status of the school’s artprogram, the clients desired a cohesive teachingphilosophy combined with a successful level ofstudent interaction within the campus environ-ment. From this desire they conceptualized agroup problem-solving pedagogy. Initiated by thefaculty, this idea was researched and addressedby the various committees involved in the process.The idea of group problem-solving eventuallymanifested itself through the architectural designof the building and in the teaching practices ofthe faculty. An early idea was that the buildingshould provide group interaction and criticism byallowing students from different emphases andbackgrounds to be constantly surrounded and en-veloped in one another’s work. The creative tal-ents between different disciplines and individualsact as stimulation, support, innovation, and criti-cism. For example, students involved in photog-

raphy can get inspiration from digital media, or frommore traditional trades like basket weaving or ceram-ics. The underlying concept is that all skills and me-dia are transversely influenced and affected by eachother. The overall intent is that of energy, creativityand criticism.

Wide, curving hallway on the first floor serves as display area.

17


DESIGN TEAM

PROGRAMMING -In the delivery of a project, programming

is a crucial element in defining and achieving theend result. When Prescott Muir Architects wasinvited to participate in the programming of theEthel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center, they con-tinued the method of problem solving that DOVAhad established. They worked with members of aprogramming team that included the DFCM, acampus steering committee from the Weber Statecampus facilities department, and an advisorycommittee from the Art Department to establishthe building’s program requirements. They touredsimilar visual arts centers in Bowling Green, Uni-versity of Northern Iowa, University of California-San Diego, and the University of California-Irvine,among others. These facilities are focused onincorporating technology into their visual arts pro-grams, as well as exploring the coexistence of tra-ditional and innovative art techniques. After learn-ing what had been done at other schools, theythen set to work to establish their own needs anddesires for the Weber State facility. The local needfor an art gallery coupled with faculty decisionsas to where the visual arts program was headedweighed into the program development process.Shifts in future visual arts education, such as themore frequent presence of digital methods whilephasing out of more traditional analog methods,was discussed, and flexible working spaces be-came a significant factor to facilitate the groupproblem-solving methods used to educate stu-dents. Other factors affecting the development ofthe building’s design requirements included thecommunity partnerships to be involved and envi-


Second floor plan by PMA.

18


DESIGN TEAM

PROGRAMMING -


ronmental concerns affecting the building and itsusers.

Together they created a programming studythat included the needs assessment of six distinctprograms that were at the time in various locationson the Weber State campus. The program also sug-gested a different site location for the building thatultimately proved to be very successful in enhanc-ing the overall image of the University and the ad-jacent Browning Performing Arts Center. This wasaccomplished by suggesting that in moving the pro-posed facility down the hill about seventy yards toan alternative site location, it would complete animplied campus square, creating a better flow oftraffic and an enhanced representation of a plannedcampus. This would allow for an improved collabo-ration of the new art center with the student ser-vices and performing arts buildings in a manner thatwould frame an outdoor space to create a plaza,thus reinforcing a commitment to the students andtheir experience at Weber State.

With the programmatic requirementsestablished, a State-managed selection processdetermined the architect of record was to bePrescott Muir Architects, chosen by the selectioncommittee for their 64,000sf design proposal.Weber State administration appointees acted asthe liaison for the project. The key constituents:Mr. Court, Mr. Muir and his design team of Mr.Robertson and Ms. Arnett, Mr. Herman, Mr.Harris, and Mr. Jacobs met periodically in acommittee setting so all would remain informedand and be given the opportunity to provide inputon the course of the design.

Site plan by PMA.

Preliminary exterior elevations by PMA.

19



DELIVERY

SCHEMATIC DESIGN -From their programming studies, PMA in-

corporated the idea to provide space for as manyfacets of the arts as the University offered in asingle facility. The early concept was to unify theexisting campus by creating visual and physicalaxes to the campus grid and providing an avenuefor the interaction of ideas. This was accomplishedthrough large sidewalks leading through the pri-mary entrance into spacious atrium that serves asthe central point from which the programmaticpieces radiate.

Once inside, on the immediate left are theadministrative offices. To the right is the Mary Eliza-beth Dee Shaw Gallery, followed by a gift shopand an open student lounge area. A lecture hall isplaced at the end of this main hallspace. The class-room wing, with access by stair or elevator fromthe main hall, stretches to the east, with rows ofclassrooms flanking the north side of the wide hall-way. Woodshop spaces, painting studios, andpottery classrooms are located on the south sideof the hall, giving access to the outdoors and cre-ating caged storage spaces as well as loading/unloading areas and ease of ventilation. Upstairs,the north side of the spacious hallway houses rowsof lofty studio spaces, and faculty offices and acommon area occupy the south side. These di-verse programmatic elements act as further con-duits for ideas and interaction.

The program creates a T-shaped building,and with careful placement of the differing func-tions housed within, successfully marries the twomain functions of the building. The studio artschool provides painting and drawing studios, vi-

sual communication digital labs, print-making,photography, ceramics, textiles, casting,sculpture and small metals studios, and afoundry. The generous hallway spacesthroughout promote the underlying theme ofgroup problem-solving, as they allow amplespace for interaction and discussion betweenthe disciplines housed in the same building.Another prominent feature of the design is themain art gallery promoted by the donors, whichincludes collections handling and storagespaces. A student commons, food servicearea, and a gift shop links the two functions inthe main hall space. The entire building workstogether as a physical manifestation of the ArtDepartment’s philosophy.

Sidewalk heading north towards the east entrance.

20



DELIVERY

SCHEMATIC DESIGN -The art center utilized this group problem-

solving method through the long halls and corri-dors that act as pin-up stations. By widening thehallways, the architects created useable classroomspace in the halls. The art can be left up afterclass for review and display. Also, the buildinghas the ability to expand and adapt. This is ac-complished by using few solid load-bearing wallsand an adaptable grid system in the interiorspaces, allowing for future reconfigurations withlittle disturbance to the structure. The ability tochange with future needs was extremely impor-tant to maintaining a long-term high quality art pro-gram.

Another major concern to PMA was thephysical health of students and faculty. Great re-search and detail was undertaken in the mechani-cal systems and layout to properly and efficientlyexhaust harmful fumes and recirculate healthy air.The scattering of wet labs for photography keepsthe chemical levels low by not concentrating largeamounts of chemicals in one area. In addition,the extensive use of large hoods placed at criticallocations in rooms helps to properly ventilate thefacility. The deliberate exposure of such equip-ment reassured the attention paid to the health ofthe occupants.

All of the ideas and innovations were de-veloped and integrated to elevate the school’s vis-ibility nationally and to elevate art awareness andunderstanding in the community. The group prob-lem-solving method employed in the facility is areflection of the same method that created thebuilding. Students, faculty, donors, committees,

architects, and university and state agenciesworked in conjunction, feeding off each other’sknowledge, experience and opinions to pro-duce the functional end result.

Inside the shops.

21



DELIVERY

CONSTRUCTION -The Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center

followed the traditional design, bid, build deliverymethod. In designing the Visual Arts Center, PMAprovided a wide range of architectural services. Atthe time, current government policy did not prohibitthe firm providing the programming from being thedesign architect. Therefore, PMA maintained agreater level of involvement with the project than istypical now among state projects. This degree ofinvolvement proved to be of great value to WeberState University’s new facility.

As mentioned earlier, the master plan for thecampus of Weber State initially required the newfacility to be placed in a different location than whatwas finally realized. However, the programming andsite analysis had a direct impact on the final place-ment of the Visual Arts Center. In addition, utilitystudies confirmed the need to design a utility tunnelconnecting the new building with the existing me-chanical resources on campus.

Maintaining the value of a diverse body ofusers, PMA placed careful consideration on adher-ing to ADA standards, allowing the necessary ac-cess to all building occupants. The design firm cre-ated a beautiful building both outside as well as in-side, handling all of the interiors, signage, and fur-niture purchasing in addition to providing excellentlighting that is adjustable and accommodates thechanging needs of the art school. The University’slocation near a major fault line required the buildingto be designed to meet or exceed the seismic re-quirements of its location so that the life-span of the

The center under construction.

22



DELIVERY

CONSTRUCTION -building would be maximized. In order to complywith the overall aesthetic of the University, the ar-chitect was required to undertake materials researchresulting in a building that fit the campus, yet is aprominent feature of the central portion of it.

The architectural firm oversaw the construc-tion administration as well. Several issues aroseduring the construction phase that had to be re-solved. For example, the original steel contractorhad to be replaced with a different contractor dueto their inability to fulfil their contractual responsi-bilities. Another example is with the company thatwas contracted to produce the window shadingdevices for the studios. The original company wentbankrupt, and had to be replaced during the con-struction phase. Although the project was not com-pleted on time (the decision to provide an excellentfacility rather than an on-time, but poorly constructedbuilding was a conscious one), the building wascompleted under budget regardless of the construc-tion delay. Comtrol, the general contractor, suc-cessfully delivered what some might consider a dif-ficult product.

The original project budget was$11,787,000, to which a new parking lot and utilitypiping were added, and a few owner-provided itemswere deducted, bringing the final project budget forbid to $11,803,000. The final cost of the buildingwas $11,832,000 or roughly $164.00 per squarefoot. Change orders totaled $184,117, attributed toerrors and ommissions.

Due to the specialized equipment and pro-

grammatic space requirements in the artscenter, continual monitoring of the energyconsumption of the building is required. Theart program and the related facility needsare not particularly energy efficient. How-ever, the systems are integrated into thebuilding in such a manner that, if at any timethe needs of the school change, differingzones can be bypassed, allowing the build-ing to potentially reduce its energy intakeand become more efficient.

23



MEASURES

CLIENT MEASURES -The several client groups involved look at

the successes of the building in different ways. Mr.Court (DFCM representative) has a unique view-point. Because the project was entirely funded bydonors, he placed emphasis on meeting the needsof the students and faculty rather than strictly ad-hering to any other agenda. The DFCM views thebuilding as successful in that it is a much betterfacility for educating students and that it met its bud-get requirements. Mr. Jacobs (faculty representa-tive) says, “I think the overall design is more inno-vative than many others on the campus.” Thechange in siting of the project has helped it becomea more prominent feature on campus.

In addition, the wide corridors provide muchmore interaction between students and faculty alike.The gallery spaces as well as the high tech equip-ment in the classrooms and lecture halls increasethe capabilities of those environments. The gift shopand café that were included are not as successfulas had been hoped. Because of the commuternature of Weber State University, these elementsdo not see the amount of revenue that was intended,and in fact, the café has since been removed. Mr.Harris (University representative) praises the goodinterior traffic flow and the accomplishment of meet-ing curriculum requirements. The exterior of thebuilding, he says, “deviates significantly from thecampus ‘standard,’” although he does not commenton whether or not that is a good thing. In addition,the students seem to be pleased with their new fa-cility and are now in the third full year of occupancy.

As design is undertaken, ethical questions

unavoidably surface. In this particularproject, because DFCM is contractually theclient but the building is situated on the cam-pus of Weber State, there is concern abouthow to provide the best building for the cam-pus while maintaining the interests of theclients. Fortunately, as was previously men-tioned, communication and good relation-ships among all of the entities involvedsmoothed over what could potentially havebecome a point of major contention. Al-though this is somewhat of a balancing act,the support of the steering committees andthe entire project team supported an attitudeof doing what was best for the project, withthe realization that the building would outlastany of the people or personal interests in-volved. Mr. Muir kept himself open to thedialogue, but maintained a unified and clearvision for the project.

Night view of the north facade.

24



MEASURES

SUMMARY -The Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Cen-

ter was a successful project not only from thestandpoint of its completion within budget as a sig-nificant addition to the campus of Weber State Uni-versity, but also according to the experiences ofthose involved. A crucial factor to that successevolved from the relationships that existed amongall of the entities involved, which focused concernon delivering a high quality facility rather than ca-tering to any specific agenda.

The Visual Arts Center evolved into 72,283square feet of classroom space, production facili-ties, gallery, exhibition and lecture space, and wasoriginally scheduled for completion in August 2001.However, due to some setbacks caused byweather and other factors, the actual completiondate was May 2002. This delay did not result inpenalization of the contractor. The project teamopted to focus on the realization of a well-built build-ing that achieved all of the intended goals insteadof pushing the contractor to meet a deadline, pos-sibly sacrificing those goals. This was accom-plished with no cost implications.

PMA is extremely pleased with the outcomeof the Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center. Theyhad the opportunity to participate in the develop-ment of a unique project that has raised the stan-dard for education in the arts at Weber State Uni-versity and the State of Utah. The new buildingfacilitates increased interaction among the designdisciplines while meeting their individual needs.The architect was able to provide a building thatmeets the goals of all of the organizations involved:the university, donors, DFCM, and user groups,while orchestrating the overriding vision of the Vi-

sual Arts Center. Accomplishing this, in addi-tion to falling within budget and the absenceof litigation over the project, proves to be asuccess.

View of the northwest corner of the facility.

Elementary students enjoy avisit to the gallery.

Case Study-Final 0707 - College of Architecturefaculty.arch.utah.edu/miller/Case...

Documents

Transcript of Case Study-Final 0707 - College of Architecturefaculty.arch.utah.edu/miller/Case...