OTHER INFORMATION. DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARIZED RESULTS collected by Fourth year Interior Design students in DHA 4615W Thesis Research

Transcription

1 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARIZED RESULTS collected by Fourth year Interior Design students in DHA 465W Thesis Research Center Directors and Staff Graduate Students Clothing Design Faculty Clothing Design Undergraduate Students Graphic Design Faculty Graphic Design Undergraduate Students Housing Studies Faculty Housing Studies Undergraduate Students Interior Design Faculty Interior Design Undergraduate Students Retail Merchandising Faculty Retail Merchandising Undergraduate Students Code Official Interview OTHER INFORMATION

2 Center Directors Questionnaire Results The majority of the people surveyed were full-time employees who spend the majority of their day in their own office. These employees don t work from home. Their days are busy with meetings, advising, doing research and eating at their desks. All of the technologies researched were used by the employees, the most popular being desktops, printers, copiers and fax machines. People communicate with both people in DHA and outside of DHA mostly through , voic or face to face meetings. The average employee has at least one student visit their office per day and most have at least one faculty/staff member visit their office per day. Of the work environment, the lowest average for satisfaction was temperature with an average of 2.5. Other low averages were seating comfort and visual privacy. The highest average of satisfaction for work environment went to location. For the office environment, the highest average for context of workplace in DHA was location with 4.28, for work styles to support the highest average was concentrated individual work with 4.6, for office environment the highest average was technology access with The most common reason people are dissatisfied with their work environments is because of the temperature. It s either too warm or too cold. They often work from home in order to reduce distractions, to increase productivity, prepare for class work by working on materials, doing extra reading/writing, check their and draft reports. The only response from needs in the work environment was scanner access. 8 TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED

3 DHA Graduate Student/Graduate Assistant Questionnaire Results The majority of student/graduate assistants are in Apparel, and 67% of them are seeking a Doctor of Philosophy. Sixty-seven percent take DHA courses, and only 44% teach classes, but all of them research, teach, work, etc. full-time. Also, all of the student/graduate assistants share an office, and 89% share with three or more people. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed are dissatisfied with the number of people sharing an office, feel there are too many in one space. Overall, those surveyed were dissatisfied with the temperature of their offices (too cold), the lack of windows and décor in their offices, and the inconsistent wireless internet connection.

4 Clothing Design Faculty Questionnaire Results It should be noted that only two professors turned in questionnaires. For the work environment, location and technology access were the most satisfactory (i.e., with a score of 4 each), and desk/workspace, lighting quality, and temperature were the least satisfactory (i.e., with a score of 2 each) It was most preferred to have work environments that facilitated concentrated individual work, analyzing or creating, and processing and collaboration. All office environment preferences were rated highly (i.e., either a 4 or a 5). Lighting quality was the most satisfactory element in teaching environments, while temperature was ranked the lowest. Important preferences in lecture classrooms included low noise levels, good acoustics, general light, flexible lighting, and aesthetic appearance and facilitation of focused lectures, student-instructor interaction and interactive discussions. Major studio classroom preferences included adequate lighting (i.e., all types), flexible seating, technology access, and aesthetic appearance and support for all learning styles (i.e., interactive discussion, group collaboration, student-instructor interaction, and concentrated studio work). Little qualitative data was provided. However, lack of storage and temperature control was noted as significant problems in the current studio spaces. 2 TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED

5 Clothing Design Undergraduate Students Questionnaire Results It should be noted that, in some cases, participants viewed lecture environments and studio environments to be in the same location (i.e., mainly 205 and 22 in McNeal Hall). Average satisfaction levels ranged between 2 (below average) and 4 (below average) for all space (i.e., lecture, studio, and work/study spaces. Overall they were most dissatisfied with the temperature and the storage space in both lecture and studio environments. Additionally, they were the most dissatisfied with the temperature in work/study spaces. Location and amenities were slightly more important for studio environments than lecture environments. Student-instructor was the most important learning style to accommodate in both lecture and studio environments. Lighting (e.g., task, natural) appeared to be a more important preference in the studio environment and control of noise levels was more important in the lecture environment. Fixed seating was rated a significantly lower preference for both studio and lecture spaces than all other preferences. Ample table space and technology access were the highest rated preferences in the work/study areas. More storage space and better temperature were the most important reasons for dissatisfaction and most requested needs for both studio and lecture environments. Additionally, many participants requested access to McNeal Hall at all times (some specifically requested a carded entry). Most other comments were individual requests (i.e., not more than one participant mentioned them).

6 Graphic Design Faculty Questionnaire Results - All aspects of work environment satisfactions were rated 3 or below with the least satisfaction being with the aesthetic appearance of the work environment - In regards to the work environment, graphic design faculty rated low noise levels, natural light and access to technology as being important to very important, however most items in this section were rated higher - In regards to the work environment, project storage space was the least important - In regards to lecture environments, graphic design faculty rated interactive discussion, good acoustics, flexible lighting, access to technology, and aesthetic appearance as being important to very important - In regards to studio environments, graphic design faculty rated interactive discussion, group collaboration, flexible lighting, flexible seating, access to technology and aesthetic appearance as being important to very important - Fixed seating was rated unimportant in studio classrooms - Student-instructor interaction and concentrated studio work were rated very important for studio classrooms - Graphic design faculty work at home mostly because it is a more private and more productive work environment with better access to technology and less distraction - Lack of adequate space and access to technology contributed to less satisfaction in the work environment - Aesthetic appearance was also important in the work environment, faculty expressed the need for a less make-shift style office space and more natural light - Graphic design faculty expressed the need for more flexibility and adjustability in the classroom environment, more space to critique and display student work (both temporary and permanent) - Access to technology was also very important in all classroom environments

7 Graphic Design Undergraduate Students Questionnaire Results - In lecture classrooms, graphic design students reported the least satisfaction with storage space and aesthetic appearance - In regards to lecture classrooms, graphic design students rated low noise levels, technology access, and aesthetic appearance as being important - In regards to studio classrooms, graphic design students rated location as being important - In regards to studio classrooms, graphic design students rated all learning styles to support (i.e., interactive discussion, group collaboration, student-instructor interaction, and concentrated individual studio work) as being important to very important - In regards to studio classrooms, graphic design students rated natural light, general light, flexible seating, technology access and aesthetic appearance as being important to very important - In regards to studio classrooms, graphic design students rated fixed seating as being unimportant - In work/study spaces, graphic students reported the least satisfaction with aesthetic appearance - In regards to work/study spaces, graphic design students rated almost all (not visual or acoustical privacy) as being important to very important - There are a variety of student organizations that the graphic design students belong to that may not directly pertain to the graphic design program - Students strongly expressed the need for 24 hour access to work/study spaces used for design (e.g., 24 hour access to computers and printing), overall less restrictions for access - Availability of electrical outlets for laptop computers was often mentioned - Students also strongly expressed the need for better screen printing facilities and even referred a name for help with the design of these spaces - Access to natural light and natural elements was important for learning - Work spaces large enough for spreading out and working on larger projects is needed - Comfortable seating, storage space for personal belongings and more space to move through aisles of chairs needed in lecture classrooms - Amenities (i.e., coffee shop, food, vending machines, and supply stores) needed nearby or in building - Students report using the spaces in McNeal Hall during all times of the day and weekends - Designated work spaces, possibly at least for upper class students - Better technology resources and capabilities (e.g., better displays, computers, printers, etc.) 63 TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED

8 Additional needs and wants for lecture classroom environment (Pg. 3): - more comfortable room in aisles - more ease for interactive work beyond lecture - comfortable seating - want fun and interactive ability in a class where are and technology is being taught - outlets for laptops is important - coffee/snacks nearby - some nature would be good (e.g., plants and natural light) - an environment that stimulates is key for successful learning and problem solving (i.e., aesthetically pleasing and no total uniformity - incorporate student designs into the spaces - give us the displays that are on the Macs in Walter Library - courtyards, more windows (at least one in every classroom) - would like to be able to move chairs to adjust for comfort Reasons for dissatisfaction with studio classroom environment (Pg. 3): - in computer labs (McNeal 305) it is hard to see the instructor from any station, not many decent views, aesthetic is terrible and nor air flow - in computer labs you can hear everyone - classrooms and computer labs are shared with other majors, restricting accessibility, low maintenance of equipment between the majors (i.e., equipment is left dirty and damaged) - temperature is never comfortable (i.e., either too hot or freezing) A is very stuffy, lighting, space and air quality very poor - lack of ability to print large scale, printing is expensive and of poor quality - everything is makeshift and dirty - access to building is very limited - student work isn t displayed proudly, small gallery on 2 nd floor that no one knows they can use is not very inspiring - as far as location, should be grouped together with other art and design departments - pop machines, etc. are very far from where the students work, limited options for vending - not enough storage for screens, not a great place to store them once they have been coated (to shield from light) - larger individual workspaces - very cramped - displays are crappy Additional needs and wants for studio environment (Pg. 4): - better screen printing facilities - better computers (i.e., not Macs) - to look more like a design school, everything now is very plain, white and boring - 24 HOUR ACCESS - need technology: digital cameras, printing, video equipment - better dark room, power washer and printing space - a more cohesive print lab, more printing stations - computer labs need better lighting (e.g., desk lamps) - vending machines nearby - closer vicinity to art students? - better drawing and color tables, make adjustable - more power outlets near work areas - coffee and snacks nearby, in the building - laptop/interactive availability needed - better supply stores nearby/in building - more light tables 5

9 Housing Faculty Questionnaire Results Most characteristics are rated average with some variation between individuals. Temperature control, windows in offices and classrooms, more storage space, Noise control, equipment should be readily available in classrooms so it doesn t have to be moved around. 2 TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED

10 Housing Studies Undergraduate Students Questionnaire Results All characteristics are rated average or above average except for seating and amenities, which are rated below average. Ability to control temperature, more storage space, and adequate layout space for study are needed. 38 TOTAL QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED

11 Interior Design Faculty Questionnaire Results 80% of faculty surveyed spend less than 50% of their time in their office 80% of faculty surveyed never have 2 or more students in their office at one time 60% of faculty surveyed have at least one student visit their office everyday Faculty least satisfied with temperature and noise levels in their work environment Faculty rated Adjacency to Fellow Employees as the most preferred criteria in a work area Faculty rated Task Lighting and Seating Comfort as the most preferred criteria in studio classrooms Faculty rated Good Acoustics as the most preferred criteria in lecture classrooms Faculty least satisfied with noise levels and air quality in their teaching environment More technology support is needed for both studio and lecture classrooms Seating that can accommodate all types of learning is needed. i.e. lecture, group work, individual work Faculty prefers to work at home in the evening because they feel isolated and unsafe in their offices Would like more display space for student work Office, studio, and lecture spaces have dull appearance

12 Interior Design Undergraduate Students Questionnaire Results Students are satisfied with general light in lecture classrooms Students are unsatisfied with the temperature, storage space and athletic appearance of lecture classrooms. Students are unsatisfied with lighting, temperature, noise levels, storage and athletic appearance Ratings were generally very low for studio classrooms Students prefer to study in McNeal Hall in the afternoon Students prefer instructor student interaction and concentrated studio work time learning styles Students rated task lighting the most important element contributing to the classroom environment Students value natural light and seat comfort in their work/study areals The temperature is never right, always too cold or too hot this came up A LOT in the responses Currently, there is not enough storage Currently, the aesthetics are bad we are the DESIGN college, the students want their building to represent what they do The new seats in McNeal 33 create problems they are too large, narrowing the aisles which disrupts class when people come late or go to the bathroom Better technology is wanted at least bring it up to par with the architecture students Want more gathering/team spaces that our comfortable Also want more areas to study/work alone currently if you want to work you have to go to studio rooms but they are in use a lot of the time so there is nowhere to work

13 Interior Design Faculty Responses What is the ideal interior design studio?. Workstations a. Dedicated workstations for 3 rd and 4 th year students at the minimum; same for 2 nd year students if possible (20 maximum) b. Sense of privacy and ownership c. Integrated storage d. Work surface depends on year of student, i.e. first year need to manually draft, 2 nd year need to render and sketch e. First year studios start with 22 students 2. Storage a. Student materials, supplies, work b. Faculty for student projects when handed in so faculty can grade and for teaching materials c. Shelving for models 3. Critique area a. Pin up area that all can see and get to both seated around it or standing b. Pin up area at each workstation c. Entire wall areas should be tack board 4. Flexible a. Able to reconfigure space so workstations can be teamed b. No floor level changes c. Adapt to different teaching models 5. Areas a. Lecture area so students (up to 20) can gather to take notes, critique, or discuss b. Team work area with low table so 4-5 team members can work around the table (at least one or two per studio or in close proximity) 6. Teaching a. Elmo-type projector for larger scale images b. LCD projector and teaching computer station c. Marker board 7. Features a. Daylight and view and daylight control so can view slide images b. Flexible lighting c. Acoustic control d. Temperature control e. Music/audio system

14 Retail Merchandising Faculty Questionnaire Results The majority of the time spent working in an office environment involves meetings with students, but the space is not adequate Storage space is a primary concern Classroom environments do not always fit the teaching style of the instructor Primary dissatisfactions with office environment are storage space (.7) and adjacency to fellow employees (2.3) Primary dissatisfactions with lecture halls are storage space (.7) and lighting and aesthetics (all 3.0)

15 Retail Merchandising Undergraduate Students Questionnaire Results WORK/STUDY AREAS: Students were least satisfied with the current seat quantity and table space Students had high preferences for location, teaming/gathering space nearby and support of concentrated individualized work Students also had high preferences for technology access, ample table space, and seating comfort Most study in the afternoon LECTURE SPACES: Students were least satisfied with storage space, temperature and support for tasks within the space Students had high preferences for location and support of interactive discussion STUDIO SPACES: Students were least satisfied with temperature, noise levels, and aesthetics Students had high preferences for location, group collaboration, student-instructor interaction, concentrated individual work, and technology access WORK/STUDY AREAS: The most frequent characteristic that students were dissatisfied with was the lack of seating LECTURE SPACES: The two most recorded dissatisfactions were an unpleasant temperature and a lack of space in answers for proximity to surrounding seats and lack of leg room)

16 Interview with U of MN Code Official Ann Jacklitch, November 0, What is the code review process for a project of this type? The designer submits a design with preliminary code data including occupancies, construction type, required occupancy separations (if separated), fire rating requirements, occupant loads with calculations based on each occupancy on each floor, exiting reqs and plumbing calcs. 2. How does your office typically work with the A&D firm working on a project like this? We meet with the design team at their request. We review documents submitted. We respond with written review comments or issue permit if all is acceptable. 3. In addition to architectural drawings, what other information do you need to review, to make sure the appropriate codes are met in the design? We need fire protection, heat/ventilation, plumbing and electrical plans if there is work done in these areas. A permit won t be issued without code compliant plans. 4. Are you aware of any special requirements in the Armory, given that it is on the Historical Register, or are there any other special needs? The armory is currently a B/A-3/A-2 occupancy. Construction is IV-HT. The building is fully sprinkled. If a major renovation is planned the following apply: An elevator is needed. Stairways and entrances are non-compliant. The mezzanine around the guy requires a guardrail. Emergency lighting, lighted exit signs, and a fire alarm system need to be installed. All openings within 0 ft of the exterior fire escape must be rated for ¾ hour. A fire rated wall is required between the main building and parking garage. Additional Notes:. The remodeling of historic buildings (on the national register) allows the use of the MN Conservation Code; for all other remodeling projects we use the IBC here at the U. In the MN Conservation Code, there are allowances for stairwells and guardrails, with the exceptions found in Chapter 6 (which will refer to Chapter 4). For the fire-resistance rating for exterior walls, use table 602. The distance from the exterior wall to the nearest public way (the centerline of the street) is how this is determined. A fire-rated wall is required between the Armory and the attached garage (occupancy separation). Chapter 3 (garages S2) and table calculates the proper separation between the two occupancy types. Plan on a two-hour rating here; there is more than one option to calculate this rating, but other steps are required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Brief description answering where and what. OCCUPANCY: Proposed Occupancy Classification: IBC Section 302 and 508, and Table Identify incidental use and accessory use Code Data for New Construction

17 Identify mixed occupancies: Non-separated Separated provide sum of ratios TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Proposed Type of Construction: IBC Chapter 6, Tables 60, 602, 704.8, and Sections 602, and HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES: Allowable Height: Allowable Stories: IBC Table 503 and Section 504 Actual Height: Actual Stories: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: Allowable Floor Area: Actual Floor Area: IBC Table 503 and Sections 505, 506 and 507 Provide calculations used for determining allowable area. FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS: Structural Frame: Bearing Walls Exterior: Interior: Non-Bearing Walls and Partitions Exterior: Interior: Floor Construction: Roof Construction: IBC Chapters 6 and 7, Tables 60 and 602 Shaft and Stairway Enclosures IBC Section 707, and Corridor Construction: IBC Section Interior Finishes: IBC Chapter 8 and Table EXITING REQUIREMENTS: Occupant Load IBC 0A Example Laboratory 2,500 square feet/ 50 sf per occ.= 250 occupants Storage 200 square feet/300 sf per occ.= occupant Office,600 squre feet/00 sf per occ.= 6 occupants Total Occupants 267 occupants EGRESS WIDTH:

18 Egress Components: IBC Sections , and 008, and Table EXIT ACCESS: Minimum Number of Exits: List required and provided. IBC Sections , and Exist Access Travel Distance: IBC Section Common Path of Egress Travel: IBC Section Corridor Fire-Resistance Rating: IBC Table Dead Ends: IBC PLUMBING CALCULATION: Minimum Number of Fixtures: List required and provided. IBC Chapter 29 and Table 2902.

19 FIRE-RESISTIVE RATED WALL & DOOR OPENING REQUIREMENTS Exterior Walls IBC Section 704.5, Tables 60, 602, and hour wall ½ hour door opening 2 hour wall ½ hour door opening hour wall ¾ hour door opening Fire Walls IBC Section 705.4, Tables and hour wall 3 hour door opening 3 hour wall 3 hour door opening 2 hour wall ½ hour door opening Fire Barriers IBC Sections and , Tables and hour wall ½ hour door opening hour wall hour door opening Shafts & Vertical Exit IBC Sections and 707.7, Table hour wall ½ hour door opening hour wall ¾ hour door opening Fire Partitions IBC Section and Table 74.2 hour wall /3 hr door opening at exit access corridor enclosure ¾ hour door opening at all other fire partitions Smoke Barrier IBC Section and Table 74.2 hour wall /3 hour door opening

20 Code References currently enforced at the University of Minnesota 2003 Minnesota State Building Code 2000 International Building Code 2003 Minnesota Conservation Code for Existing Buildings Chapter Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter Minnesota Energy Code Chapters 7676 and Minnesota State Fire Code 2000 International Fire Code 2000Life Safety Code NFPA National Electrical Code 2003 Minnesota State Plumbing Code 2004 Minnesota State Mechanical Code 2000 International Mechanical Code