Spatial Needs

Columbia's Current Learning Environment: Columbia College Chicago has always faced pragmatic challenges to providing facilities for teaching its students. Columbia provides less teaching space and less space for its student community than most of the schools that it competes with for students. A major component of progress toward the Columbia 2010 goals must be made through improvements to the physical spaces of the learning environment. The learning environment includes traditional classrooms and studio spaces as well as gathering spaces, critique areas and performance venues. In addition, Columbia 2010 sets collaboration between students and between students and faculty as a priority. Physical space must be provided for the non-traditional spaces needed to realize this goal.

 

Campus Survey Summary

The design team documented both the physical condition of the campus and how the existing space is being used.

 

Existing of Non-Residential Space
(SF)
Academic Departments
447,343
General Classrooms
40,197
Student Support
106,085
Administration
68,435
Subtotal
662,060
Circulation/Core (37% of total)
393,610

Total

1,055,670

 

This survey revealed that the current state of Columbia’s learning environments varies from building to building. Most of Columbia’s historic buildings are structurally sound and in relatively good condition for their age. While some of Columbia’s current learning spaces are stateof- the-art, almost half of Columbia’s buildings need renovation. These range from cosmetic improvements to upgrades to the base building mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems.

 

Although the Master Plan focuses on planning for growth, the current facilities are an important part of Columbia’s future. There should be an ongoing investment to maintain and upgrade Columbia’s current facilities. Historic buildings are a unique resource that should be maintained and restored.

 

Many of Columbia’s buildings have small column grids that are typical of buildings built prior to 1940. Small column bays are difficult to use for classroom, rehearsal or lab space. Although departments have made these teaching spaces in older buildings work for them, some classrooms are cramped or have awkward proportions due to the small column grid; many have obstructive columns within the space. Buildings with small column grids yield less teaching space than buildings with large column grids.

 

Some of Columbia’s learning environments are uncomfortable or distracting. Their problems include noise interference from passing El trains and inadequate room temperature control.

 

While many of Columbia’s programs are cutting edge, providing infrastructure to support them is a constant challenge. Infrastructure issues include providing back bone for computer technology and wiring, providing adequate ventilation hoods for science labs and providing theaters with fly space.

ˆtop

Columbia's Need for more Common Space

Columbia 2010 lays out a sophisticated goal for teaching creative disciplines that emphasizes collaboration and encourages learning that takes place outside of structured class situations. These types of learning help prepare students for the real world; providing experiences similar to those that students will have in their professional careers. This experience supports the student’s production of a “body of work”.

 

In the past, Columbia has provided space as needed to make classrooms available to deliver credits. Space was added in response to specific departmental class loads and as a result, space for extracurricular education is constantly in short supply. At off-peak times, classrooms are used for extracurricular education, but as demand for classrooms space grows, neither extracurricular nor classroom function is well served. Improved scheduling and tracking of available space will make the most of limited resources. The current lack of dedicated common space hinders opportunities for collaboration and general interdisciplinary interaction.

 

The need for, and benefits of, space for extracurricular activity was cited in interviews with faculty and students and in the expert brainstorming session. Extracurricular spaces include structured venues like performance space and galleries, collaborative fabrication spaces and meeting rooms where students from different disciplines can work together, and casual spaces like student lounges. Spaces would be flexible and adaptable to meet constantly evolving needs.

 

ˆtop

SuPPORTING a "Body of Work"

Planning Principle:
Flexible Learning Spaces

A primary goal for improving the quality of students’ learning experience, universally agreed upon by administrators and school deans, is supporting the production of a “body of work.” A “body of work” should evidence a well-rounded curricular and cocurricular education, preparing students to enter the job market after graduation. Columbia 2010 seeks to expand collaborative projects that extend learning beyond classroom teaching but few current facilities support this; students do not have enough opportunities to practice their art, or “learn by doing.” The types of spaces needed to support the production of a “body of work” reflect a shift in Columbia’s profile of a learning environment. Until recently, the College’s focus was primarily on classroom teaching spaces.

 

This Master Plan proposes increased attention to multi-use, multi-disciplinary spaces such as group study rooms, presentation and critique areas, flexible “open plan” areas and generic raw “messy” spaces.

 

Multi-disciplinary spaces should be distributed throughout campus, avoiding School, department or individual ownership as much as possible. In addition, the quality of education provided by Columbia would be improved by adding facilities to support student and faculty research, showcase spaces of various sizes and degrees of formality, meeting rooms, community gathering spaces, and space for students to produce work.

ˆtop

Spatial Improvements and additions

In estimating the amount of space Columbia College Chicago needs to add, the Master Plan team has considered two factors:

The quality of students’ learning experience is supported by facilities that increase the faculty’s ability to fulfill program goals and spaces that provide for Columbia 2010’s goals for collaboration and co-curricular learning.

 

Keeping Pace with the Growth in Student Population

Columbia College Chicago’s student population has been steadily rising since the 1960s with over 10,000 students currently enrolled. Columbia’s liberal admissions policy is an important part of its mission for arts and media education, enabling all qualified applicants to attend. Consistent with Columbia 2010, the student population is conservatively expected to grow at a rate of 2% each year to reach nearly 13,000 students by 2015.

 

From a total of 500 beds in Fall 2003 to over 2,000 just two years later in Fall 2005, Columbia’s residential population is transforming the College. Columbia anticipates that a steadily increasing number of students will want to live on campus. Currently, Columbia’s residences are at maximum capacity, serving roughly 20% of the student population. It is estimated that housing demand will begin to exceed the secured supply of beds in 2007 as the student resident population continues to rise.

 

This rise in the student resident population increases the College’s need for student services facilities as well as the hours those facilities are open. Evening theater performances, guest lecture programs and film screenings have increased on-campus resident student participation along with demand for services provided by the health center and counseling.

Keeping Pace with Competing Institutions

The Master Plan team commissioned a benchmarking study comparing Columbia with similar institutions. The study confirmed that the College needs to expand facilities well beyond its base growth needs to remain competitive with other institutions. Columbia currently provides 105 gross square feet (gsf ) per student, which is substantially lower than the 337 gsf per student average for competing institutions. Most schools with comparable student populations have more space overall as well as more space devoted to student amenities. Schools provide an average of 10.1 square feet per student of student amenities. Columbia currently provides 3.3 square feet per student. A more detailed explanation of this study as well as the associated statistics can be found in the Appendix.

 

Allocating total credit hours provided by Columbia College Chicago to classrooms available, Columbia uses its classrooms 28 hours each week, less than the widely accepted standard of 35 set by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. By optimizing class schedules across schools and departments, the College can find greater resource in its existing classrooms, and limit the resources dedicated to building additional classroom space. Class schedule optimization would primarily affect general classroom usage, making the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) its greatest beneficiary. Although fewer students are enrolled in LAS degree programs than in the School of Fine and Performing Arts and the School of Media Arts , LAS provides classes required by students from all schools, using classrooms that are often shared between schools. The credit hours provided and growth in credit hours provided is similar for all three schools. If class schedules are not optimized, Columbia will need an additional 23,000 square feet of classroom space to meet the demand for class credits.

How much space is needed?

The Master Plan team has concluded that, to accommodate growth and increased quality, Columbia should add 427,000 net square feet. “Net square feet” accounts for the functional learning spaces and does not include area required for circulation and building services.

RENOVATE OR BUILD NEW

the “go forward” costs of buying and renovating are more than building new on sites Columbia already owns

 

new buildings are a more efficient use of space and resources

 

using available building stock would compromise the College’s program needs

 

the College already owns property for two new buildings

Columbia College Chicago has typically added space to its campus by purchasing existing buildings, usually 60 or more years old, and renovating them over time to meet the college’s functional needs. Although Columbia 2010 recommends that space should continue to be added through adaptive reuse, the Master Plan team compared this strategy with new construction and found building new to be less expensive and more effective.

 

As evidenced through surveys of existing buildings and interviews with faculty, the spatial requirements of some current learning environments do not fit well into available building stock. Spaces currently most desired by the schools – theater and studio space, large classrooms, and lab space – have not been provided in part because they cannot be accommodated in the existing stock of buildings.

 

Planning Principle:
Minimize Capital

A plan to use existing buildings would lead to inefficiencies, making it necessary to compensate by purchasing and renovating more buildings than would be required of new construction. An evaluation of recent projects in which buildings were purchased and renovated revealed that purchase-plus-renovation costs are nearly the same as the cost of new construction. The College currently owns property that is ideal for two needed campus buildings, thus removing the need to raise capital for land purchase for these projects. In the future, Columbia’s need for space and opportunities available may make adaptive reuse a viable option. At present, however, the Master Plan team believes that the Columbia 2010 goals can be best met through new construction projects.

ˆtop

RENOVATE OR BUILD NEW

the “go forward” costs of buying and renovating are more than building new on sites Columbia already owns

 

new buildings are a more efficient use of space and resources

 

using available building stock would compromise the College’s program needs

 

the College already owns property for two new buildings

Columbia College Chicago has typically added space to its campus by purchasing existing buildings, usually 60 or more years old, and renovating them over time to meet the college’s functional needs. Although Columbia 2010 recommends that space should continue to be added through adaptive reuse, the Master Plan team compared this strategy with new construction and found building new to be less expensive and more effective.

 

As evidenced through surveys of existing buildings and interviews with faculty, the spatial requirements of some current learning environments do not fit well into available building stock. Spaces currently most desired by the schools – theater and studio space, large classrooms, and lab space – have not been provided in part because they cannot be accommodated in the existing stock of buildings.

 

Planning Principle:
Minimize Capital

A plan to use existing buildings would lead to inefficiencies, making it necessary to compensate by purchasing and renovating more buildings than would be required of new construction. An evaluation of recent projects in which buildings were purchased and renovated revealed that purchase-plus-renovation costs are nearly the same as the cost of new construction. The College currently owns property that is ideal for two needed campus buildings, thus removing the need to raise capital for land purchase for these projects. In the future, Columbia’s need for space and opportunities available may make adaptive reuse a viable option. At present, however, the Master Plan team believes that the Columbia 2010 goals can be best met through new construction projects.

ˆtop