Dr. Karan Watson Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

Transcription

1

2

3

4 DESIGN REVIEW SUB-COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Karan Watson Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Rodney McClendon Vice President for Administration FROM: Prof. David Woodcock Chair, Design Review Sub-Council DATE: January 5, 2012 RE: Design Review Sub-Council Report Proposed Band Hall and Practice Field On December 14, 2011 the Design Review Sub-Council (DRsc) discussed the proposed Band Hall and Practice Field Project. This project was initially presented to the DRsc on November 16, 2011 by Tim Rhea, Director of Bands, and the matter was deferred to the following meeting in order to allow more time for discussion. The primary issue with this project is site location. The proposed location for the facility is on the corner of Coke Street and Lewis Streets, with a gated practice field extending south along Coke Street to George Bush Drive. The Campus Master Plan shows this area as a permanent open space, based in part on the lack of utilities in the area. Some activities that currently occur in this field are informal recreational use by students and tailgating during the football season. While the DRsc recognizes that the condition of the field is very poor, we have reservations as to whether an enclosed practice field is appropriate at a major gateway to the university, as it could reinforce the notion of a football entrance into the university. Notwithstanding concerns about the field, a new band hall facility on the corner of Coke and Lewis Streets could provide a more appropriate gateway experience with more aesthetic appeal than the back of Duncan Dining Hall and Corps parking. Consideration should be given to upgrading the existing band practice field while building a new band hall on the corner of Coke and Lewis. The second issue is the conceptual design of the facility. The November 16 th presentation was revisited and the DRsc determined the design to be inappropriately monumental. It is suggested that the design team examine the architectural language of the additions in the Corps dormitory area which reflect high quality design with a higher

5 DESIGN REVIEW SUB-COUNCIL degree of elegance. The concept design as presented is not aligned with the Campus Master Plan and should be reconsidered. The DRsc appreciates the opportunity to review this project and recommends that the CBE have further discussions on these issues. cc: Joe Ramirez Tim Rhea Design Review Sub-Council Members Jo Williams

6 DESIGN REVIEW SUB-COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Karan Watson Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Rodney McClendon Vice President for Administration FROM: Prof. David Woodcock Chair, Design Review Sub-Council DATE: April 3, 2012 RE: Design Review Sub-Council Report Siting of Proposed Band Hall and Practice Field On March 21, 2012 the Design Review sub-council (DRsc) discussed the site location for the proposed Band Hall and Practice Field and reviewed a document titled Band Department Response to CBE Concerns and Suggestions. This project was previously reviewed on December 14, 2011 and November 16, The proposed siting for the Band Hall facility, as shown in the current draft of the Corps Facilities District Plan, is on the corner of Coke Street and Lewis Street, with a practice field extending south along Coke Street to George Bush Drive. The Campus Master Plan shows this area as a permanent open space. This area is indicated on the attached image from the Campus Master Plan. If this proposed site is recommended for use by the CBE and approved by the President, the DRsc requests that the following concerns be addressed: - Grade and drainage of the practice field. - Relationship to the trees along George Bush Drive. - View of artificial turf from George Bush Drive, and the potential for a strange appearance in contrast with the surrounding grass. - Access to all students for free play after band practice hours. The DRsc recognizes that the Band Department is in great need of a new facility and upgraded practice field, which will not fit on its current site. The development of the Corps Facilities District Plan provides the opportunity to reconsider the entire area south of Lewis Street between Coke Street and Bizzell Street. Many circumstances have changed since this area was originally outlined in the Campus Master Plan, including the desire of Residence Life to locate new residence halls in more interior locations, the

7 DESIGN REVIEW SUB-COUNCIL absence of a decision to build an additional parking structure off George Bush Drive, and the need for open space for informal student recreation and tailgating. With these thoughts in mind, the DRsc recommends that formal study be given to the entire area before approving any significant changes to the Campus Master Plan and this major gateway into the campus. The DRsc appreciates the thoughtful and thorough responses to the previously mentioned concerns and welcomes any questions. cc: Tom Reber Design Review Sub-Council Members Jo Williams Attachment

8 SUMMARY 43 2 Lewis Street south to George Bush Drive, Coke Street east to Bizzell Street.

9 Council for the Built Environment Facilities Utilization Review Sub-Council MEMORANDUM April 6, 2012 To: Dr. Karan Watson Chair, Council for the Built Environment Dr. Rodney McClendon Chair, Council for the Built Environment Subject: Proposed Land Use: Siting of Proposed Band Hall and Practice Field RECOMMENDATION The Council for the Built Environment s (CBE) Facilities Utilization Review sub-committee (FURsc) initially reviewed this request in November In addition to the points made at that time, also recommends that the CBE support the Design Review Sub-Council s (DRsc) recommendation that a formal study be given to the entire area before approving any significant changes to the Campus Master Plan and the major gateway to campus at Coke Street. The sub-council provided additional comments which could be used in the course of such a study. SCOPE and ANALYSIS The FURsc met this morning to consider the request by the University Bands to construct a new band hall and practice field generally south of Duncan Dining hall on the land bounded by Lewis Street, Coke Street, Parking Area 40d and George Bush Drive. As stated in November 2011, It was the Committee s position that the request was valid and reasonable; thus members support the proposal. Our most recent consideration embellishes the original support by agreeing with the DRsc that the use(s) of the area should be methodically reviewed to ensure that the Campus Master Plan will support the needs of the University Bands. Additionally the FURsc members offered that in that process of reconciling the proposal for the new Facility and Practice Field, that the following items be considered: Construct the facility on the George Bush Drive side of Duncan Field and place the practice field between the facility and Lewis Street. Site the Band Facility on the site of the current Band Hall and expand as needed into the adjacent parking area. The current practice field could be renovated and would be adjacent to the Band Facility. The FURsc reiterated the need to work with City neighborhood along George Bush Drive to mitigate any excessive noise from the band practices. It was suggested that a study of loudness of the Band s music be studied, comparing the current and proposed sites to determine the magnitude of the problem. We are pleased to offer this recommendation and welcome further inquiries related to this analysis. Sincerely, Attachments CC: CBE-FURsc members James Massey Chairman, CBE-Facilities Utilization Review sub-council Interim Associate Vice President for Facilities

10 Council for the Built Environment Facilities Utilization Review Sub-Council November 4, 2011 MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Karan Watson Chair, Council for the Built Environment Dr. Rodney McClendon Chair, Council for the Built Environment Subject: Proposed New Rehearsal Building and Practice Field for the University Bands Sherry Wine, leading the meeting for James Massey, declared a quorum with 10 members of the Facilities Utilization Review Sub-Council (FURsc) present. PRESENTERS Wine reviewed the agenda and introduced the first item of business, a presentation by Dr. Tim Rhea and Dr. Paul Sikes on a proposed new rehearsal building and practice field for the university bands. GENERAL Rhea and Sikes propose building a new 54,783 sq. ft. (gross) bands rehearsal hall with a fenced practice field on Duncan Field, at the corner of Coke St. and Lewis St. Primary features of the facility include large rehearsal hall with instrument storage, 40 small practice rooms available to students 24/7 via card access, instrument repair room, ensemble classrooms, and administrative offices, as well as an exterior turf practice field and observation deck. The proposed cost of the project is estimated at $28M. The bands will undertake fundraising as a means of funding the project. Rhea based the need for such a facility on a number of factors, including unprecedented growth of the Aggie bands, small size of the current band hall which was designed for only one band, the poor condition of the existing practice field, and inability of students to practice during hours when they are out of the classroom. Although the project would eliminate the use of Duncan field for intramurals and Corps activities, Rhea stated the new practice field would accommodate some of these needs. Another issue is the loss of Duncan Field for tailgating as the site is used for visiting teams and A&M Greeks to gather for game day tailgating. DISCUSSION When Rhea and Sikes concluded the presentation the Committee discussed the request, concentrating on the following issues: Understanding the organizations need for the facility Validation of their need for space Evaluating various aspects of the proposal Determining the Committee s position on the request 218 Williams Administration Building 1247TAMU College Station, TX Tel

11 Proposed Land Use: Proposed New Rehearsal Building and Practice Field for the University Bands CBE-FURsc Report November 4, 2011 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It was the Committee s position that the request was valid and reasonable; thus members support the proposal. The FURsc offers the following caveats: Determine if there has been consideration and/or discussion to including other student music programs in the building project such as the Choral Music groups (Singing Cadets, Century Singers, etc.). While Choral Music will have new space in the lower level of the renovated MSC, it seems that consolidating all student music groups in a building constructed for their unique needs and requirements is reasonable and would be an efficient and effective way of diversifying the constituents and promoting collaborative endeavors. Consideration should be given to the loss of Duncan Field to tailgating, especially the university groups that have used the space for a number of years. The Committee recommends having discussions with the impacted groups to determine alternate accommodations. Consideration should be given to communicating about the project, if approved, to the university s neighbors across George Bush Drive. We are pleased to offer this recommendation and welcome further inquiries related to this analysis. Sincerely, James Massey Chairman, CBE-Facilities Utilization Review sub-council Interim Associate Vice President for Facilities Attachments CC: CBE-FURsc members

12 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SPACE PROGRAM & FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UNIVERSITY BAND FACILITY FACILITIES PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM PROJECT #

13 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, SITE A FULL PROGRAM

14 LOBBY 5.6 CONF 5.1 RECEPT 5.2 WAIT 5.3 BUS COORD SERVER ROOM FAMILY RR 5.8 WORKROOM SUPP 2.7 LOCKERS 5.9 GEN ST 4.1 LARGE CLASS 5.11 CON ST 5.10 SUPPLY STOR 5.4 ASSOC DIR 5.7 MUSIC STORAGE WORKROOM 5.4 ASSOC DIR SUPP 2.7 LOCKERS STAFF RR JAN 5.13 STAFF LOCKER/ SHOWER 5.12 STAFF WK/ KITCH STAFF RR 2.7 LOCKERS 2.12 CONCERT INST STORAGE 5.4 ASSOC DIR 3.2 MED PRACT 5.4 ASSOC DIR 3.2 MED PRACT 5.4 ASSOC DIR SUPPORT 6.1 STUDENT LOUNGE 5.5 DIR BANDS VENDING PROGRAM KEY 1 - REHEARSAL HALLS 2 - STORAGE FACILITIES 3 - STUDENT PRACTICE ROOMS 4 - CLASSROOMS 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SUITE 6 - STUDENT STUDY/COMMON AREAS CIRCULATION 3.1 PRACT LOCKERS SUPP 2.7 LOCKERS LOCKERS LOCKERS 2.7 LOCKERS 2.7 LOCKERS 2.7 LOCKERS MEN S 1.2 CONCERT REHEARSAL HALL WOMEN S ELECTRICAL 2.15 GEN EQUIP STORAGE 2.13 STRING INST STORAGE 2.9 AB DRUM STORAGE 2.2 CONCERT PERCUSSION STORAGE 2.8 AB SOUS 2.1 AGGIE BAND CHAIR RACK STORAGE 2.11 AB GENERAL STORAGE 1.1 AGGIE BAND 2.7 LOCKERS 2.7 LOCKERS LOADING DOCK RECYCLE SUPP 2.4 JAZZ BAND STOR 2.16 INST REPAIR STORAGE 2.10 AB INSTRUM STORAGE 2.6 JAZZ CHAIR STOR 1.3 JAZZ/ORCHESTRA 2.5 AG ORCH STOR LOADING The calculations represent the actual building efficiency numbers for each conceptual plan. The efficiencies shown on the spreadsheets are targets, but the ultimate goal is to exceed the efficiencies whenever possible. Site A Total SF: 5,4054 circulation (not including lobby): 10,357 SF, 81% Efficiency circulation including lobby (1569 SF) : 11,917 SF, 78% Efficiency LOCKERS TUXEDO 2.3 CON. CHAIR STOR SUPP SUPP MED PRACT 3.3 MED PRACT 7.1 AGGIE BAND PRACTICE FIELD FINAL MEETING AUG 24, SITE A FULL PROGRAM

15 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM AERIAL VIEW FROM WEST 25

16 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM ENTRY VIEW FROM LEWIS ST. AND COKE ST. 26

17 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM VIEW FROM NORTHEAST 27

18 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST 28

19 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM NORTHWEST ELEVATION 29

20 FINAL MEETING - AUG 24, 2011 MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 30

21 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 31

22 FINAL MEETING AUG 24, MASSING OPTION 1 SITE A FULL PROGRAM NORTHEAST ELEVATION 32

23 TexasA&MUniversityBandFacilityFullProgram TexasA&MUniversityBandFacilityFullProgram 9/12/2011 SiteASingleStoryOption ProgramItem Notes NSF totalnsf CostBasis BudgetCost 1 RehearsalHalls25'32'Ceilings 1.1 AggieBand(400person) 9, ,000 $350 $3,150, Concert 4, ,500 $350 $1,575, JazzandAggielandOrchestra 1, ,400 $350 $490,000 SubtotalRehearsalHallSpaces ,900 $5,215,000 2 StorageFacilities 2.1 AggieBandChair/StandRack $260 $143, ConcertPercussion $260 $234, ConcertBandChair/Stand/Rack $260 $65, JazzBandStorage $260 $78, AggielandOrchestra $260 $78, JazzChair/Stand/Rack $260 $31, BandLockerStorage $260 $104, AggieBandSousaphoneStorage 1, ,200 $260 $312, AggieBandDrumStorage $260 $208, AggieBandInstrumentStorage $260 $182, AggieBandGeneralStorage $260 $195, ConcertBandInstrumentstorage $260 $195, StringInstrumentstorage $260 $65, TuxedoStorage $260 $65, GeneralEquipmentStorage $260 $62, InstrumentRepairRoom $260 $169, LoadingDock/Receivingarea $175 $31,500 SubtotalStorageFacilities ,590 2,218,100 3 StudentPracticeRooms 3.1 PracticeRooms 7x ,240 $400 $896, SecureMed.PracticeRooms $300 $120, SecureMed.PracticeRooms $300 $120,000 SubtotalStudentPracticeRooms priority ,040 1,000 $1,136,000 9/12/2011 SiteASingleStoryOption ProgramItem Notes NSF totalnsf CostBasis BudgetCost 7 PracticeField 7.1 AggieBandPracticeFieldClassroom(exterior) 40, ,000 $1,000, FieldObservationDeck(exterior) $275 $19,250 SubtotalPracticeField ,070 $1,019,250 SITEWORK Utilities,StormwaterManagement,Excavation, etc $1,000,000 RoadReconfiguration $750,000 Hardscape&Landscape plaza,patio $500,000 SubtotalSiteWork $2,250,000 CONTINGENCY 10%ofConstr.Cost; $1,906,268 5%design/bid,5% construction TotalConstructionCostIncludingContingency $20,968,952 SoftCost A/EFees,Survey, GeotechnicalTesting, Permits,Water&Sewer, ProjectManagement, FF&E;25%ofhardcost $7,031,048 OTHERCONSIDERATIONS Parking priority verify#required (new/replacement) 20 $2,500 $50,000 ESCALATIONOFBUILDCONSTCOST 3%@year add 2014 $629,069 add 2015 $647,941 PROBABLECOST(CONSTRUCTIONCOSTONLY)ESCALATEDTO2015 OPINIONOFTOTALPROJECT COST 2015 $22,245,961 assumes2013 constructionstart $28,000,000 4 Classrooms 4.1 EnsembleClassroom $300 $120,000 SubtotalClassrooms $120,000 1 AdministrativeOfficeSuite 5.1 Receptionist $275 $22, Waiting $275 $55, BusinessCoordinator $275 $66, AssociateDirector ,200 $275 $330, DirectorOfBands $275 $115, ConferenceRoom $275 $110, Library 1, ,200 $275 $330, Workroom/StudentWorkers $275 $110, OfficeGeneralStorage $275 $33, AggiebandSupplyStorage $275 $66, ConcertSupplyStorage $275 $33, StaffWorkroom/Kitchenette $275 $88, StaffShowerandDressArea $275 $137,500 SubtotalAdminOfficeSuite ,440 $1,496,000 6 StudentStudy/CommonAreas 6.1 StudentLounge $260 $130,000 SubtotalStudentStudy/CommonAreas $130,000 ASSIGNABLEPROGRAMAREA NSF/avgcost@SF 32,870 $10,315,100 BUILDINGSUPPORTNEWCONST. 60%efficient 21,913 $250 $5,478,333 walls,circulationtoilets, mechanicalspace BASICBUILDINGSIZENEWCONST. grosssquarefeet 54,783 $15,793,433 AverageCost/SFNewConst. $ SPACE PROGRAM AND BUDGET - SITE A 41

24

25

26

27 Response to CBE Band Department Response to CBE, Design Review Sub-Council Concerns April 6, 2012 CBE Concerns and Responses Concern 1 Grade and drainage of the practice field The band department is committed to providing our students and the university the best possible facilities. Work to ensure proper grading and drainage of the practice field will be completed during the building process. The proposed budget for the facility includes over $2 million for site work including storm water management and landscaping. Concern 2 Relationship to the trees along George Bush Drive The band department understands and agrees with the university s priority to maintain existing landscaping features, especially large trees. The siting of the facility, including the practice field, will be adjusted to the optimal placement to ensure the health and wellbeing of the existing flora on Duncan Field. Concern 3 View of artificial turf from George Bush Drive, and the potential for a strange appearance in contrast with the surrounding grass The band department suggests the use of landscaping and architectural designs to soften the appearance of the practice field. For example using berms, trees and shrubs to enforce the pastoral nature of the university along George Bush Ave. Additionally, the fence surrounding the field could be designed so that brick and mortar rise 3 ft. off the ground and then open fence above. This would hide the practice field from view but still allow band members to be seen while practicing. 1

28 Response to CBE Concern 4 Access to all students for free play after band practice hours The band department anticipates using the practice field at the times listed below. Outside of these times, the band department is willing to providing access to the field in anyway the University deems appropriate. Additionally, the space on which the band currently practices can be used for both formal and informal use by university and student groups. Considering the current condition of Duncan field, both the current practice field and the new artificial field will likely provide a safer environment for those activities than is currently possible. Fall Semester Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Spring Semester Summer 7:30-8:30 am 7:30-8:30 am 7:30-8:30 am 7:00-8:30 am 7:00-8:30 am 8:00-9:30 am (home game days only) no anticipated use Various rehearsals to meet the needs of Aggie Band performance schedule but no regular use throughout the semester No regular use until two weeks prior to the fall semester during Freshman Orientation Week. Use is dependent on FOW schedule. 2

29 Response to CBE Band Department Response to CBE Concerns and Suggestions January 12, 2012 Comparison of Site Plans 1. Complete building on Duncan site with band field on Duncan Pros Cons Can accommodate the entire program and field in one location promotes safety and better logistics of moving students and equipment to and from band hall and practice field Facilitates the movement of a large number of people and equipment quickly inside in the event of inclement weather Artificial turf field provides safer facility for Aggie Band students Artificial turf field provides safer facility for student activities that currently take place on Duncan field Field and tower create the ability to see the band on the practice field from a high position in a much better fashion than the current field Offers best potential for bus parking and loading Location well suited for visiting bands on game day No campus parking space disruption cost effective design Bands can continue to use current facility until new building is complete cost effective design Single floor plan alleviates the costs for stairs and elevators cost effective design Frees current practice field as green space for other Corps/University use Frees current band hall for other Corps/University use New building allows for attractive show piece for entrance to campus Higher visibility of facility may lead to a greater chance for successful fundraising Removes practice field adjacency from several dorms Creates need for alternative spot for some tailgaters on 6 to 7 game-days per year Students have to cross Lewis Street to get to the band hall from most of campus Some utilities will need to be extended to the area Practice field will be closer to Southgate neighborhood Possible distraction to drivers on George Bush Drive 2. Build building on Duncan site and use current band field Pros Minimal parking space disruption cost effective design Single floor plan alleviates the costs for stairs and elevators cost effective design 3

30 Response to CBE Cons Bands can continue to use current facility until new building is complete cost effective design Frees current band hall for other Corps/University use New building allows for attractive show piece for entrance to campus Higher visibility of facility may lead to a greater chance for successful fundraising Aggie Band students will have to cross Lewis Street multiple times for each rehearsal for equipment and return to the practice field creating safety and logistic issues Time for moving from band hall to practice field would eliminate the ability to have inside and outside rehearsals during the same rehearsal period; a major benefit of this project Unable to move a large number of people and equipment quickly inside in the event of inclement weather Students have to cross Lewis Street to get to the band hall from most of campus Creates need for alternative spot for some tailgaters on 6 to 7 game-days per year Some utilities will need to be extended to the area Practice field will remain directly adjacent to dorms Continues the current problem of lack of visibility of the marching band on the practice field from a high position Continues the need to use the football team s indoor facility in order to avoid damaging the band s current field 3. Build new building on current site and use current band field Pros Cons Can accommodate the entire program and field in one location promotes safety and better logistics of moving students and equipment to and from band hall and practice field Facilitates the movement of a large number of people and equipment quickly inside in the event of inclement weather Students would not have to cross Lewis Street for access Leaves Duncan for tailgating and open space Reduction in utility extension and related cost Permanent, extensive parking disruption for the spaces on the lot where the building would be built Added cost of demolition of current building Added cost and disruption of relocating the band program while construction takes place Added cost of two-story building; stairs, elevators, additional acoustic treatments, etc. Reduces visibility and show-piece entrance aspects of the building Practice field will remain directly adjacent to dorms Continues the current problem of lack of visibility of the marching band on the practice field from a high position Continues the need to use the football team s indoor facility in order to avoid damaging the band s current field Eliminates the potential use of the current building by the Corps/University 4

31 Response to CBE CBE Concerns and Responses Concern 1 Location: A. The Campus Master Plan shows this area as a permanent open space, based in part on the lack of utilities in the area. The issue of utilities was addressed by Utilities and Energy Management as seen in Concern 6 below. The appropriate adjustments in costs estimates have been made. The Corps District Plan, currently under development, will include the proposed band facility and practice field. While the Master Plan does identify this area as green space, it is not a space which is identified as a major part of the Civic Structure plan of the university thus the building would not distract from the main goals of the Master Plan. Additionally, the proposed practice field space will still be green space in the same way the current practice field is designated green space on the Master Plan. B. Some activities that currently occur in this field are informal recreational use by students and tailgating during the football season. The space on which the band currently practices can be used for both formal and informal use by university and student groups. Additionally, some of the activities currently taking place on Duncan field can continue on the new practice field. With consideration of the current condition of Duncan field, both the current practice field and the new artificial field will likely provide a safer environment for those activities than is currently possible. As recommended by the Facilities Utilization Review sub-council, discussions with impacted tailgating groups to determine alternate accommodations will be conducted provided the site is approved for consideration. C. While the DRBsc recognizes that the condition of the field is very poor, we have reservations as to whether an enclosed practice field is appropriate at a major gateway to the university, as it could reinforce the notion of a football entrance into the university. For those with concerns of a football entrance, an option could be to soften the appearance of the practice field using both landscaping and architectural designs. For example using berms, trees and shrubs to enforce the pastoral nature of the university along George Bush Ave. Additionally, the fence surrounding the field could be designed so that brick and mortar rise 3 ft. off the ground and then open fence above. This would hide the practice field from view but still allow band members to be seen while practicing. Another possible solution to the DRB s concern may be to reverse the building plans, placing the building near George Bush and the practice field near Lewis. Consideration should be given, however, to the added difficulties and expense of extending utilities, parking changes, student walking access, and bus loading. D. Notwithstanding concerns about the field, a new band hall facility on the corner of Coke and Lewis Streets could provide a more appropriate gateway experience with more aesthetic appeal than the back of Duncan Dining Hall and Corps parking. Consideration should be given to upgrading the existing band practice field while building a new band hall on the corner of Coke and Lewis. 5

32 Response to CBE The band staff considered this option but determined this design would raise additional issues of safety and logistics as outlined in the pro/con section. We consider the practice field a classroom which must be attached to the building thus providing the ability to move personnel and equipment quickly and safely. Concern 2 Conceptual design of the facility. The November 16 th presentation was revisited and the DRBsc determined the design to be inappropriately monumental. It is suggested that the design team examine the architectural language of the additions in the Corps dormitory area which reflect high quality design with a higher Design Review Board sub-council degree of elegance. While there was an effort to match design and materials to current campus architecture and the Master Plan (see pages 9-10 in the Space Program & Feasibility Study), providing adequate and safe facilities for all students is the primary concern of the band staff. Any suggested change in the outer design of the building is welcomed provided the functionality of the building meets the needs of the students. Concern 3 Capital Financial Planning Discussions regarding the requests for university funds and possible student fee support should begin as quickly as possible once this project is approved through CBE. Although the current band hall practice field and the band hall building would revert to the university, the costs associated with bringing the space up to code or demolishing the current facility need to be determined. Talks are ongoing with regards to fundraising and future use of the current facility. Concern 4 Environmental Health & Safety The proposed facility must include a building-wide fire alarm and sprinkler system. The artificial practice field must have an emergency services vehicle (police, fire, ambulance) entrance location accessible from Coke Street. The overall design should include a lighted/signaled pedestrian crossing across Lewis Street (Transportation Services can provide details for typical university standard crossing). The band staff feels these are excellent suggestions and will provide added safety and security to our students. Each suggestion will be incorporated in the final plans of the new facility. 6

33 Response to CBE Concern 5 Computing & Information Services Single mode fiber connectivity to the Duncan Fiber Hub should be included in the project. While the number of projected offices is small, the building is a large physical space that possibly will have considerable network complexity as related to the audio-visual system. Adequate space should be allocated for separate standard wiring closets and AV closets. The audio-video design should be carefully integrated with the data network design with regard to physical installation, capacity, and security considerations. The band staff feels these are excellent suggestions and will incorporate each of them in the final plans of the new facility. Concern 6 Utilities & Energy Management The proposed Band Hall site is bordered in close proximity by domestic cold water, sanitary sewer and electrical distribution systems, so connection of these three systems to the utility infrastructure should be readily available. However, thermal utilities that provide cooling and heating (chilled water and heating hot water) will require routing new thermal lines a significant distance (1,400 linear feet) from a location to the north of the proposed facility site. The distance of the required installation of supply and return lines for both CHW and HHW will mean the overall utility infrastructure cost is significantly higher than the $1million estimated amount used by the A/E firm to establish the project budget. A better program budget amount to use for planning the cost of utility infrastructure to serve the proposed facility would be $2 million, rather than the $1million amount that was used. The appropriate adjustments in cost estimates have been made. Additional costs could be incurred should the CBE suggest reversing the building plans, placing the building near George Bush and the practice field near Lewis. Concern 7 Facilities Services Consider evaluating the lighting along Lewis Street for safety of band members crossing street (either en masse, or individually to go to practice rooms). Consider establishing crosswalk or other designated crossing area for safety of band members crossing street. The band staff feels this is appropriate for the added safety of our students. Concern 8 Procurement Services As with any proposed new building, when budgets become tight, one of the first areas cut is the loading dock/building freight access. The Department of Logistics would caution against such a move. The band staff concurs with this concern. The bands require frequent loading of large, heavy, very valuable equipment. A loading dock is an absolute necessity of the building. Concern 9 Transportation Services We are supportive of the new band hall project and prefer the Duncan field location. We do not think the bus pull-out area is necessary. 7

34 Response to CBE After discussions with the committee, the band staff concurs that the bus pull-out area would create parking problems throughout the year while facilitating loading only a limited number of times. Thus a bus pull-out will not be included in the final design. Concern 10 Determine if there has been consideration and/or discussion to including other student music programs in the building project such as the Choral Music groups (Singing Cadets, Century Singers, etc.). While Choral Music will have new space in the lower level of the renovated MSC, it seems that consolidating all student music groups in a building constructed for their unique needs and requirements is reasonable and would be an efficient and effective way of diversifying the constituents and promoting collaborative endeavors. This possibility was considered by the band staff. The university choirs have spent a significant amount of money and time in building an adequate space for their programs in the renovated MSC. The choir staff determined they would prefer to use the MSC facility. Additionally, the inclusion of the choirs would require a redesign of the current proposal by necessitating additional rehearsal halls, storage areas, offices and acoustical treatment. These additions would add significant costs and delays to the proposed facility and possibly force the reconsideration of the proposed site. Concern 11 Consideration should be given to the loss of Duncan Field to tailgating, especially the university groups that have used the space for a number of years. The Committee recommends having discussions with the impacted groups to determine alternate accommodations. If approved, the staff will begin discussions of alternate sites for these groups. Concern 12 Consideration should be given to communicating about the project, if approved, to the university s neighbors across George Bush Drive. Such consideration has been given and contacts will be made provided the site is approved for consideration. 8

35 SOUTHSIDE PARKING GARAGE Current Practice Field! AM D A AN C N DU S ~395 y ds BU E LOT 40d RG Proposed Band Building SH DR IS KE R TH Proposed Practice Field O KM O O RT N q Feet Map prepared by the Office of Facilities Coordination Texas A&M University February 2012! CO G EO W LE