MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN

8 July 2013 / Draft

DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY + Cameron Roberts Advisors

MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN

CAMPUS SPACE STUDYPhase 1

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportTable of Contents

Dober Lidsky Mathey Creating Campus Solutions i

Chapter 1 – Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 to 1-15

Chapter 2 – Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 2-1 to 2-12

Chapter 3 – Findings.................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 to 3-19

Chapter 4 – Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 4-1 to 4-9

Chapter 5 – Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 to 5-4

Chapter 6 – Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................................

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final Report

Table of Contents

ii Dober Lidsky Mathey Creating Campus Solutions

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 1 – Executive Summary

Dober Lidsky Mathey Creating Campus Solutions 1-1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Background

Campus HistoryFounded in 1873, Massachusetts College of Art and Design (MassArt) was the first and remains the only freestandingpublic college of art and design in the US. Established by civic and business leaders whose families had made fortunesin the China Trade, textile manufacture, railroads and retailing, they persuaded the state legislature to found severalinstitutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1860), the Museum of Fine Arts (1870) and finally, theMassachusetts Normal Art School.

Originally located on the corner of Brookline and Longwood Avenues, the college relocated to its current campus in1983. This campus, built and remodeled over a 100-year period, of varying styles and ages, including the Tower, Gym,Kennedy, East, North, South and Collins Buildings

was initially designed in the early 1900’s as a campus of four buildings around a central courtyard for the MassachusettsNormal School and Girls Latin School. The campus later expanded in the early 1960’s to become Boston State College.As the campus expanded, new academic buildings were constructed to accommodate a larger program. However, aseach new building was constructed, little attention was paid to the campus as a whole. Each new building was

Tower

Gym / DesignEast

North

South

Kennedy

Collins


Chapter 1 – Executive Summary

1-2 Dober Lidsky Mathey Creating Campus Solutions

designed to function independently, often with its own entrance, internal circulation and building systems. When MassArttook over these buildings in the mid 1980’s it began the process of renovating the facilities to accommodate a fine artand design curriculum in buildings that were never designed to house these disciplines.

A Master Plan for the campus was completed in 2008, and since then a series of capital projects has significantlyupgraded the campus including the renovation and addition to the Kennedy Campus Center, a planned new Center forDesign and Media, a planned, renovation and addition to the Paine + Bakalar Galleries, a recently completed newResidential Tower, as well as a number of significant interior improvements completed over the last several years.

An Evolving Curricular VisionAs the original mission of the College was focused on training for industry the College retains an industry-oriented missionfor several disciplines, including Fashion, Animation, Film/Video and Industrial Design. At the same time its mission hasbroadened to include students interested in pursuing a gallery career as working artists, as well as training in arteducation both for certification and higher education.

In 2006 the College engaged Leslie Cadman, an art education consultant, to help prepare a curricular Vision Study forthe College. In particular, it focused on trends in design and media and the implications for education, and helped tocraft a vision for design and media at MassArt by the year 2015, when the Center for Design and Media was anticipatedto open. The new building was envisioned to be the “signature” of the MassArt campus, its front door/public face, and anew home for the design and media programs at the college. The Center would call attention to and enhance thecollege’s links to business and to the Commonwealth’s “creative economy.”

Trends in Art and Design EducationIn the past several years there have been a renewed focus on art and design education. A number of prominentinstitutions have taken initiatives on the design and creativity front and now offer master degrees in creative thinking in anattempt to merge the particular knowledge developed in a studio process into other forms of knowledge includingmanufacturing, marketing and business. MassArt’s own Dynamic Media Institute (MFA in Graphic Design) and itsproposed Design Strategies Institute (MFA in Industrial Design) are modeled on such collaborative notions and reflect thegrowing number of interdisciplinary firms that have been founded under such principles. While MassArt has been an earlyadvocate of the interdisciplinary enterprise model, increasingly its programs face competition from other institutions.



At the same time there has been recognition of the value of art, design and media in the evolution of the Science,Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) as a priority in funding for higher education with the need to add Art + Designto the equation — to transform STEM into STEAM. Indeed it is this thinking that allowed MassArt to successfully lobby forfunding for the new Center for Design and Media.

Impact of TechnologyTechnology has had an impact both within the classroom and studio and as a context for knowledge and informationand education as a whole. With access to online education, MOOCS, and the advent of free content from premieracademic institutions, many colleges and universities are beginning to react to what may be a significant impact to theneed for residential campus experience as well as the potential erosion of the perceived value of a four year collegedegree in favor of lifetime learning opportunities. MassArt is distinctive in that its studio experience is not easily outsourcedto an online experience, however parts of the curriculum that constitute the baccalaureate degree could be re-evaluated in this context.

At the same time, the introduction of digital technology has put pressure on individual departments for space andresources while maintaining the importance of historical, analog methods of production in the overall pedagogy.

Transitions in Leadership at the CollegeSince 2006 there have been a number of changes in executive leadership at the College. In 2006 Richard Aronowitz,then Vice President for Administration and Finance retired and Kurt Steinberg joined the College as Vice President forAdministration and Finance and now Executive Vice President. In 2010, then Vice President for Academic Affairs,Johanna Branson retired and Maureen Kelly, Professor of Art Education, assumed this post on an acting basis. In 2011 theCollege selected a new President, Dawn Barrett after long-time President Katherine Sloan retired. Finally, in July of thisyear Ken Strickland assumed the post as the new Vice President for Academic Affairs. These changes in leadership bringnew vision to the planned renewal of the mission and goals of the College as part of a soon to be undertaken StrategicPlan.




B. Purpose of Phase IThroughout this dynamic period, the College’s programs have likewise evolved creating pressure on space and facilities.College leaders require a comprehensive view of space use, utilization, constraints and opportunities to craft a strategy-driven plan for renovations and modernization. In the spring of 2012, Dober Lidsky Mathey, a consulting firm specializing incampus and facility planning, was engaged to assist the College with this two-phase study. This report describes themethodology, analysis, findings, and conclusions of the study’s first phase with suggested next steps.

The purpose of this phase of the study was to update the space utilization analysis completed as part of the CampusMaster Plan by DCAMM in 2008. Before any significant review of the curriculum, capacity or space utilization of theCollege could be undertaken it was necessary to have a complete catalogue of what, where, when and how thecurrent curriculum was being delivered. Phase I of the Space Study provides a comprehensive inventory of all spaces aswell as a cross referencing and integration of all the multiple modes of scheduled instructional time at the College. Fromthis emerges a view of the overall utilization of the current space resources as well as an indication of the pinch-points,enrollment trends, facility redundancies and inefficiencies.

C. Study MethodologyThe methodology for this study involved the following three phases:

Step 1: Inventory of Planning Data Updated Floor Plans by use if a Building Information Modeling (BIM) model Space Classification according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) codes Creation of a consolidated schedule reflecting all three major College programs Student, Faculty and Staff Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) updates

Step 2: Inspection of Instructional Space Confirmation of BIM plans and NCES categories Qualitative review of the condition of Instructional Space Observation of the use of Instructional Spaces Comparison with normative standards



Step 3: Quantitative Analysis Square Foot Analysis of Gross, Net, Assignable and Instructional Space Instructional Space Utilization by Day, Week and Seating Capacity Comparison of Space per Student, Faculty and Seats by Department Mapping of Enrollment FTE Changes per College, Program and Department

Step 4: Interviews with the Departments Confirm planning data assumptions regarding space and scheduling Identify current concerns regarding Quantity and Quality of space Discussion future Pedagogical Issues affecting space




D. Major FindingsThe following major findings have been drawn from the quantitative analysis, the inspections and interviews with theDepartments and from comparison with relevant benchmarks and standards.

1. SPACE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

a) Very Low Net/Gross RatioA breakdown of campus space is as follows:

Gross Square Feet 844,673

Adjusted for Structure, Voids and Shafts 743,701

Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF) 402,974

Instructional Space 222,805

Undergraduate 199,502

Graduate and 22,899

PCE 404

Analysis of the types of Square Footage indicates the following: The average Net/Gross ratio or efficiency of the campus is 54% against a normal average range of 58 - 63%. If the Net/Gross efficiency were normalized at 60 percent there would be 43,246 more NASF available. 10% of the Instructional Space is dedicated to the Graduate Program. The PCE Program largely operates out of space dedicated to the Undergraduate Program.



b) Bias toward Specialized Instruction SpaceAnalysis of the types of Instructional Space indicates the following: MassArt has a higher percentage of Specialized Instruction Space than most institutions. Instruction in Studio spaces takes place in suites of rooms using lengthy blocks (up to 5 hours) of instruction time. A high percentage (46%) of Instructional Space is devoted to Studio Space (from Atelier to Industrial). There is a markedly low percentage (9%) of space is devoted to Generalized Instruction in classrooms, etc.

c) Available Space is Largely Concentrated in Two BuildingsAnalysis of the amount of the Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF) indicates the following: 42% is concentrated in the Tower Building 22% is in the Kennedy Building

d) Wide Range of Spatial Accommodation among DepartmentsAnalysis of the amount of the space per seat available to each department indicates the following: Historical programs have more space, including Ceramics, Film/Video, Fibers, Painting, Printmaking, Sculpture, Glass

and Architecture Legacy facilities that are Industrial in nature, include the Foundry, Ceramic and Glass Kilns, Hot Shop, TV Studio, Editing

and Screening Rooms, and the Metals Workshop. More recently-added programs tend to be more constrained, including Fashion, Graphic Design, Illustration,

Animation, Industrial Design and Art Ed, Studio Foundation and Art History. . Newer programs struggle to integrate digital technology, including computer labs, large format printing (paper and

fabric), scanning and digital measurement (2D and 3D), 3D and laser printing, and multi-media production andpresentation and this reduces space available for instruction.

Cross sectional and college-wide programs are also significantly constrained, including Studio Foundation, ArtEducation, Liberal Arts and Art History.

2. SPACE UTILIZATION ANALYSIS

a) Time Utilization Rates at or near Expected NormsAnalysis of Time Utilization Rates for Instructional Space indicates the following: MassArt’s General Purpose Classrooms are at a Time Utilization Rate of 68% versus a DCAMM standard of 67%




MassArt’s Studios are at a Time Utilization Rate of 33% versus a DCAMM standard of 50%

b) Seat Utilization Rates above Expected Norms

Analysis of Seat Utilization Rates for Instructional Space indicates the following: MassArt’s General Purpose Classrooms have a Seat Utilization Rate of 65% versus a DCAMM standard of 67%. Art and Design Classrooms and Computer Classrooms have Seat Utilization Rates of 78% and 80% respectively. MassArt’s Studios have a Seat Utilization Rate of 102% Atelier Studio spaces have a Seat Utilization Rate of 133%

c) Time Block Utilization Consistent with State CollegesAnalysis of both Time and Seat Capacity over the course of the academic day and week indicates the following: MassArt’s utilization rates are consistent with most institutions within the Massachusetts State Colleges Friday afternoons are somewhat underutilized as is typical in other institutions Mid-day and mid-week are restricted by college-wide meeting times Accrediting agency-driven 5 hour studio meeting durations limit flexibility for reconfiguring schedules

d) Utilization Rates have Increased Significantly since 2005A comparison of utilization rates with the 2005 data indicates the following: Generalized and Specialized Instruction Space have increased utilization Time Block percentages and Seating Capacity have increased These increases are consistent with the increase in FTE enrollment since 2005

3. INSPECTION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE

a) Building Layouts a Poor Fit for Current UseObservation of Instructional Spaces indicates the following: Rooms have often been adapted for uses not originally intended Irregular geometry in the Tower Building makes this more poor fit more acute With the exception of the Collins Building there have been no major adaptive re-use improvements



Incremental partition changes have resulted in a mazelike arrangement within some departments

b) Obsolete FF&E reduces Efficiency of Instructional SpaceObservation of the FF&E in many Instructional Spaces indicates the following: Rooms often have a collection of different types of furniture for the same purpose Varying sizes make efficient layouts difficult There is little integration of digital and analog technology in most departments Dedicated departmental computer labs subtract substantially from instructional space

c) Two Tiers of Technology in Most DepartmentsObservation of the Technology resources in most departments indicates the following: Juniors and Seniors generally have access to the best technology Sophomores and non-majors generally have access to lesser technology This duplication of technology puts a strain on spatial resources

d) Levels, Types and Maintenance of Lighting a Key IssueObservation of Lighting in most departments indicates the following: Lighting levels are inconsistent throughout the College A high number of fixtures are inoperable Fixture types, lamps, diffusers and photometrics are obsolete Switching conflicts exist between black out and emergency lighting

e) Power and Communication Capacity Severely LackingObservation of Power and Communication capacity in most departments indicates the following: Power is delivered through wall outlets, surface mounted boxes and power poles. Extension cords are heavily used Most circuits are overloaded Tel/data outlets are concentrated in just a few locations Wireless access lacks bandwidth




f) HVAC Compromised Throughout

Observation of the Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning (HVAC) distribution in most classrooms indicates the following: Older buildings have abandoned original gravity-fed ventilation Alterations to the newer buildings have altered the HVAC loads Conditions are aggravated by long studio class times

g) No consistent Strategy for AV TechnologyObservation of the Audio-Visual (AV) Technology in most classrooms indicates the following: Media-oriented departments have the latest AV technology Classrooms suffer from a blackboard/whiteboard/pin-up orientation conflicts Studio spaces suffer from line-of-sight and dust issues

4. INTERVIEWS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS

a) Stated Need for More Space VariesConcerns about the need for more space varied as follows: Historical programs had less of a priority for more space Cross sectional and college-wide programs had an acute need for more space Art Education and Studio Foundation are in direct conflict for space in the South Building Animation, Illustration, Graphic Design, and Architecture in the Tower Building have space as a high priority

b) Concern about the Quality of Space is UniversalUniversal Concerns about the quality of space were as follows: Better lighting, power, communication and AV Better HVAC especially in critical heating and cooling seasons Concern about persistent building envelope water leaks (especially in the Tower Building)



c) Desire for Small Repairs and Modifications ContinuesExamples of small repairs as follows: Removal or addition of a door Relocation of a partition Isolation and power for of a piece of equipment Flooring repairs

d) Need for a More Transparent Work Order System ApparentRegarding the current system comments were as follows: Understanding of the limited resources of the Facilities Department Appreciation for the work that has been accomplished A desire for clarity about status of outstanding Work Orders

e) Widespread Uncertainty about the Role of the Center for Design and MediaUncertainty about the Design Center was expressed as follows: Concern about the replacement of spaces lost with the old Gym Building Questions about ownership, management and access to the new space

E. ConclusionsThe following conclusions are drawn not only from the observations and analysis but from review and discussion of thefindings with the key faculty and staff at the College.

1. Lack of an Effective Space Management System

The decentralized or distributed model of course scheduling at MassArt has made it difficult to assess the actualavailability or space utilization of existing instructional space on the campus. There is a tradition of having departmentstake operational control and scheduling of space, informing Academic Affairs, who in turn informs the Registrar’s office.Currently, it is only with great difficulty that Academic Affairs can determine what instructional spaces might be availablefor a proposed class. In addition, independent scheduling by the Graduate and PCE programs makes a comprehensiveview of the use of space challenging. The new study compiled all available data for the study period to provide such acomprehensive view.




Ownership, control and management of space by the departments, as well as “horse trades” directly betweendepartments, including the Graduate program means that rooms that are available for use one semester may well bereassigned the next as dedicated studio space for a particular program.

While there is certainly a rationale for the priority given to departments for the use of spaces, the result is a shortage ofgenerally available instruction space that can be scheduled by Academic Affairs. This study recommends that acentralized scheduling system be adopted that is managed by the Registrar.

2. External Program by Program Benchmarking is Misleading

Due to its unique status, history and mission, MassArt is a small college with many programs and so very few institutionsoffer as wide and array of programs with such relatively low enrollments. A certain amount of space is required for eachprogram and so even a program with low enrollment has a minimum requirement of space in order to deliver the contentand experiences. Program enrollment varies from year to year resulting in varying numbers of sections and spatialrequirements from year to year. In the last five years there has been a cyclical trend toward industry-oriented programs,including Illustration, Graphic Design and Animation. Finally, the opportunity for non-majors and continuing educationstudents to access and utilize the space and resources within individual departments means that departmentalcomparisons with other institutions may not be meaningful.

While the conflicts presented by such multiple uses are considerable they also represent opportunities within a rich,multidisciplinary environment such as MassArt.

3. Enrollment Capacity of the Campus Depends on Many Factors

MassArt’s current space condition is the result of many factors discussed above; low Net/Gross ratio, poor fit withbuildings, obsolete FF&E and the evolving integration of technology into Instructional Space. In addition, schedulingissues related to the longer duration for studio classes, the relative shortage of generalized instruction space, and thereluctance to use the margins of the academic weekly schedule all contribute to constraints that might be solved bymeans other than additional square footage. Several short-term recommendations are addressed below.



4. Quality, Maintenance and Operation of Existing Spaces should be a Priority

From both the point of view of reality and perception, the condition of existing instructional spaces needs generalimprovement along the lines of the many factors discussed above. Fortunately, recent new spaces that have beenbrought on line have been greeted with enthusiasm and also provide a standard to guide campus-wide improvements.

5. Tower Building is the Biggest Challenge and Opportunity

While the Tower Building commands the largest portion of Instructional Space on the campus it remains one of the mostresistant to improvement due to infrastructure problems, inefficient circulation and layout. Departments which havegrown to within each other’s borders must now make compromises with each other, and in some cases, split theirdepartments in order to gain necessary space. Consolidating or relocating departments in a more rational way is amajor undertaking that would disrupt multiple programs. Add to this the fact that DCAMM is now conducting a TowerAnalysis which is considering many alternatives including replacing the Tower Building, making any significant investmentin renovation premature. However, due to its low Net/Gross ratio simple solutions to increasing the assignable squarefootage may be identified with further study.

6. South Building and Kennedy Building are the Next Biggest Challenge and Opportunity

Both the South Building and the Kennedy Building experience adjacency conflicts between two different departments. InSouth it is the Art Education and Studio Foundation programs. In Kennedy it is the Photography and Painting programs.There is evidence that all of these programs could continue to grow. Recent and planned capital improvements in boththese buildings may present the opportunity for an integrated solution to the needs of all four programs.




F. Next StepsWhile the Strategic Plan is being developed, we propose that the following next steps could be constructively advancedthrough a coordinated effort of the consultant and the College’s staff. We believe that such a partnership of effort isnecessary to complete these important steps:

1. Develop and Implement a Space Management System (SMS)One priority which is broadly recognized is the need for a centralized Space Management System (SMS). In order toaccomplish this, the room numbering system developed in the BIM model needs to be incorporated into the Registrar’sschedule. This is necessary in order to eliminate any conflicts, duplications and discrepancies that exist in the currentsystem. Next, in order to accurately reflect what spaces are being occupied or scheduled during instructional time, alinking must occur among suites of spaces that are used in concert regardless of the (typically singular) nominal classroomidentified in the schedule. Once this is done, the current Colleague software, supplemented with add-on softwaremodules, should provide a transparent scheduling system viewable by all to assist the College in making space availableto the Undergraduate, Graduate and PCE programs.

2. Implement a New WOS (School Dude)A top priority identified in the Departmental Interviews was the need for a more transparent Work Order System (WOS).School Dude, a system widely used across many campuses has been proposed for MassArt but has not yet beenimplemented. Once again, linking this to the BIM model which is currently being updated to reflect the facility conditionof each room on campus will greatly assist in this process.

3. Explore Potential for Conversion of Non-assignable space to NASFThe analysis of Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF) and program needs makes it apparent that there is potential for anincrease in NASF. Even modest increases in percentages will result in a meaningful addition of space. Historic resistanceby faculty and staff to such changes mean that this exercise and the recommendations that result from it are bestundertaken by a consultant.

4. Prepare a Program of Generalized UpgradesThe intent of this initiative is to identify those spaces that meet two criteria:

a) Are used by the majority of all students and/or faculty so improvements would benefit the many (e.g., classrooms,study space, crit/pinup space)



b) Are unlikely to be re-purposed or removed in a more sweeping facility upgrade (such as a possible Towerrenovation)

A program of Generalized Upgrades would focus on the general-purpose uses identified in the NCES categorizations ofspace on the campus and on bringing these spaces up to a normative standard for the purposes for which they areintended. This would be a campus-wide program which could then be incorporated into the capital planning as well aswork order process.

5. Develop a Program for Academic TechnologySeparate from but related to the above, we propose a comprehensive survey of existing academic technologythroughout the campus along with a study to determine future investment and operational parameters, includingcentralized and distributed components, staffing and support, obsolescence and replacement schedules. In the processseveral scenarios would be presented for review by the committee engaged in strategic planning to determine the bestcourse for the College moving forward.

6. Prepare Room Data Diagrams and Specs for New SpacesIn order to modernize existing instructional spaces, classrooms and studios, as well as to plan for new instructional spacesparticularly in the Center for Design and Media, we propose creating a comprehensive set of prototype Room Diagramsand Data Sheets outlining the standardized requirements for space, orientation, natural versus artificial light, furniture andequipment, storage, power, audio-visual and communication.

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 2 – Methodology


2 METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the process employed to develop fundamental and detailed information on the College’s facilities, thespaces that support programs, how these spaces are used to day and some key points on future changes anticipated. Thedetailed analysis and a synthesis of what this information means for the College’s planning is contained in chapters 3-5.

Step 1: INVENTORY

Planning Data Update Current Floor Plans

The College’s documentation of its facilities was, until quite recently, haphazard with several versions ofeach building recorded from original construction to multiple renovations and more recently AutoCaddrawings prepared for both planning purposes and recent capital projects. These drawings were found tobe inconsistent and often inaccurate in a number of ways – obsolete partitioning, room numbers missingor incorrect, even fundamental features such as the location of major corridors and structural columnswere misrepresented. While these deficiencies are not unusual at institutions of all types, it was imperativethat these issues were corrected before the study could proceed. While paper drawings can becorrected, they can never provide “live” data on the buildings they represent. To support informed facilityand space management, it is essential to develop electronic drawings.

Verifying Accuracy of Available PlansCopies of various digital and paper floor plans were used to record field notes and measurements of newpartitions, door and window locations, inserted elevators, HAVC chases, etc. These changes were notedand sketched on paper copies of the floor plans for transferal to the preferred electronic formats.o Recording Changes not shown on Plans

Partition changes are especially important to accurately fix in place, since partitions define thespaces the College uses to support its programs. Accuracy here is vital to the precision of thespace inventory based on the measured floor plans.

o Building Information Modeling (BIM) modelThe floor plans were then imported into Revit, Autodesk’s professional-grade building informationmodeling (BIM) program, as starting points to create truly “intelligent” drawings – documents fromwhich meaningful information can be queried and extracted in real time. This program has thecapability to record not only major structural and architectural features, but also as much data asdesired about building systems – electrical, HVAC, plumbing, IT, security, etc. These files werecritical tools in improving the College’s tracking of space and as they continue to be enhanced


Chapter 2 – Methodology


will provide strong support for ongoing, integrated facility management. Samples of these plansfollow.

Kennedy 4 Tower 6



o Room Numbering StandardizationOne of the most important aspects of creating truly useful facility documentation is ensuring thatroom numbers are accurate and complete. Each space that needs to be tracked must have aunique room number that is consistent in all data formats: drawings, room lists, tables, course files,etc. When different datasets employ idiosyncratic room numbering typologies, it makes sharinginformation across datasets (and the offices that use them) maddeningly inefficient. Moreover, inthis era of heightened concern over safety and security, a logical, predictable room numberingsystem is the bedrock of rapid emergency response. When first responders from outside campusneed to find the site of an incident, it is incumbent of the College to provide accurate drawings toassist in quickly orienting, locating and securing the site of an event.

Accordingly, the drawings were renumbered in such a way as to retain room designations mostclosely associated with the current numbering system, while applying the system adopted byMASCO for similar building complexes involving connecting buildings. At the same time,redundancies and multiple room number designations were eliminated.

o Room Area UpdatesThe revised BIM model with accurate structural elements, partitions, windows, doors, chases,vertical circulation, etc. was then queried to generate a table of room numbers and areas to useas the basis for a thoroughly-updated facility space inventory – the foundational documentrequired to inform a rigorous space study.

Current Space InventoryAn inventory of all spaces used by a college to support its programs is an essential tool for spaceallocation and utilization analysis as well as for space management on an ongoing basis. Characteristicstypically tracked by an inventory are: Building, Room Number, FICM Space Use Code, Space Use Label,Department Assignment, Room Area (expressed as Net Assignable Square Feet), Number of Users Space isDesigned to Accommodate, and Occupants. The FICM1 code is a taxonomy of space use originallyestablished in the 1970s that classifies higher education space into 10 main categories: Classroom,Instructional Lab/Studio, Office, Library/Study, Special, General, Support, Health Care, Residential (see the

1 FICM stands for Postsecondary Education Facilities Information Classification Manual, a document that details the rationale andmethodology for classifying space use in higher education. Originally published in 1973 by the National Center for Education Statisitcs(NCES), the manual is the most widely-used space classification system in American higher education.




taxonomy on page 2-6). This taxonomy provides further subdivisions of each category for more specificityand encourages the development of institution-specific space categories. The taxonomy allows thecomparison of space allocation across institutions and from department to department within aninstitution.

o Broad Categories for Room UseIn assessing the utilization of teaching space it is important to distinguish between general purposeclassrooms and specialized studios and laboratories. Each classification of space is assessed usingdifferent metrics.

o General-Purpose ClassroomsThese are relatively simple, flexible spaces that many course sections can use effectively.Generally furnished with either tablet-arm chairs, tables and chairs or fixed seating, these roomstypically have a black or white board, a digital projector, projection screen or monitor fordisplay. Ideally, room lighting is controllable through light switches, and window shades.



o Specialized Studio SpacesThis group of spaces accommodates discipline-specific instruction and independentstudent work. The distinguishing characteristic of these spaces is the presence of specializedequipment, and very often, plumbing and/or purpose-designed electrical and mechanicalsystems to ensure proper handling of fumes, dust, heat, etc. produced by the activity in theroom. These spaces are typically quite expensive to create and maintain, and are typicallyused less intensively than general-purpose classrooms due to their specialized character.

o Specific Categories for Room UseOne of the impediments to meaningful analysis of space use at MassArt over time has been theapplication of the standard FICM taxonomy to a range of spaces that are among the mostspecialized in higher education. Members of the MassArt community have had a difficult timereconciling the basic 10 categories and their common sub-categories with the institution they workin every day. The standard coding does not recognize many of the core space types currently inuse at MassArt. Accordingly, the planning team determined to customize the FICM code to bettermap spaces in use at MassArt to the major FICM categories.

o Customization of FICM ClassificationsA number of art institution-specific codes were developed for this study. Thesecustomizations focus on elaborating the range of classroom, studio and office spaces in useat MassArt, employing terms in general use at the College. Please see the list below withcategories customized for the list highlighted in blue. The remaining FICM categoriescovering Study, Special, General, Support, Health Care and Residential have not beencustomized at this time.




MASSART-CUSTOMIZED NCES SPACE TAXONOMY

o Department AssignmentWhen preparing space utilization analyses that involved assessing the space assigned to Collegedepartments, it is essential that the list of departments used in the inventory matches as closely aspossible to the list of departments used throughout the institution. Uniformity here facilitates analysisso that the number of people involved in each department’s activities (majors, graduate students,faculty, staff, instructional seats, etc.) can be accurately aligned with the amount of spaceassigned to departments.

o Aligning evolving department listsAs is common at all institutions with dynamic academic programming and continuously-evolving academic planning, MassArt’s roster of departments and the manner in whichthese departments are grouped and arranged in the College’s org chart tend to changeover time. Applying these changes to a facility inventory as they are instituted is importantto keep space reporting and analysis relevant. Every effort was made to use the mostcurrent and comprehensive list of department names in refining the facility inventory.

100 CLASSROOM FACILITIES 400 STUDY FACILITIES 600 GENERAL USE FACILITIES 700 SUPPORT FACILITIES 800 HEALTH CARE FACILITIES 000 UNCLASSIFIED FACILITIES110 General Purpose Classroom 410 Study Room 610 Assembly 710 Central Computer or 810 Patient Bedroom 050 Inactiv e Area111 Seminar Classroom 420 Stack 615 Assembly Serv ice Telecommunications 815 Patient Bedroom Serv ice 060 Alteration or Conv ersion Area112 Art and Design Classroom 430 Open-Stack Study Room 715 Central Computer or 070 Unfinished Area115 Classroom Serv ice 620 Exhibition Telecommunication Serv ice 820 Patient Bath118 Computer Classroom 440 Processing Room 625 Exhibition Serv ice NONASSIGNABLE AREA120 Lecture Hall 455 Study Serv ice 720 Shop 830 Nurse Station WWW Circulation Area

630 Food Facility 725 Shop Serv ice 835 Nurse Station Serv ice XXX Building Serv ice Area200 LABORATORY FACILITIES 500 SPECIAL USE FACILITIES 635 Food Facility Serv ice YYY Mechanical Area

210 Project Studio 510 Armory 730 Central Storage 840 Surgery215 Project Studio Serv ice 515 Armory Serv ice 640 Day Care 735 Central Storage Serv ice 845 Surgery Serv ice STRUCTURAL AREA

645 Day Care Serv ice ZZZ Structural Area220 Lounge Studio 520 Athletic or Physical Education 740 Vehicle Storage 850 Treatment/Examination222 Fabrication or Installation Studio 523 Athletic Facilities Spectator Seating 650 Lounge 745 Vehicle Storage Serv ice 855 Treatment/Examination Serv ice 900 RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES224 Atelier Studio 525 Athletic or Physical Education Serv ice 655 Lounge Serv ice 910 Sleep/Study without Toilet or Bath225 Studio Serv ice 530 Media Production 750 Central Serv ice 860 Diagnostic Serv ice Laboratory 919 Toilet or Bath226 Industrial Studio 535 Media Production Serav ice 660 Merchandising 755 Central Serv ice Support 865 Diagnostic Serv ice Laboratory Support Serv ice 920 Sleep/Study with Toilet or Bath228 Technical Studio 665 Merchandising Serv ice 935 Sleep/Study Serv ice229 Critique Space 540 Clinic 760 Hazardous Materials 870 Central Supplies

545 Clinic Serv ice 670 Recreation 765 Hazardous Materials Serv ice 950 Apartment250 Research/Nonclass Laboratory 675 Recreation Serv ice 880 Public Waiting 955 Apartment Serv ice255 Research/Nonclass Laboratory Serv ice 550 Demonstration

555 Demonstration Serv ice 680 Meeting Room 890 Staff On-Call Facility 970 House300 OFFICE FACILITIES 685 Meeting Room Serv ice 895 Staff On-Call Facility Serv ice

310 Administration 560 Field Building311 Faculty312 Graduate Student/Scholar or Academic 570 Animal Quarters313 Research/Research Administration 575 Animal Quarters Serv ice314 Student Worker315 Office Support 580 Greenhouse316 Student Activ ities 585 Greenhouse Serv ice320 Student Acdemic Support325 Student Academic Support Serv ice 590 Other (All Purpose)

350 Conference Room355 Conference Room Serv ice



















Course and Room Scheduling DataData to assess the use and utilization of teaching space is generally obtained from the College Registrarwhose responsibilities include oversight of student, course and therefore teaching space scheduling. Thisdata typically includes information for each course section offered in a given semester – course number,course title, section size, type of section (lecture, lab, other), location, days of the week and meetingduration. At Mass Art, responsibility for the management and inputs into this data have been somewhatdistributed making compiling a complete list of courses a multi-office task.

3.1.4 Accurate Data on Students, Faculty and StaffPlanning for complex organizations is fundamentally about meeting the needs of the people who work,learn, play, and live at these institutions. Accurate information on the number and position or role of thepeople active in MassArt’s programs is essential for robust planning. Since the focus of the study is onacademic departments and activities, the majority of this data was provided by Academic Affairs whichoversees both undergraduate, graduate and continuing education programs.o Current

Data on current enrollments and full and part time faculty and staff was provided by AcademicAffairs and unit directors that report to the Vice-President. The semester chosen for study was Fall2012.

o FutureA projection of future scope and scale of activities should include data on new, evolving orterminating programs, forecasted enrollments and staffing levels to meet the needs of theprograms envisioned. During the period of the study, MassArt was in a transitional stage, withPresident Barrett inaugurated in October of 2012, and Vice President of Academic Affairs MaureenKelley retiring at the end of Academic Year (AY) ‘12-‘13. In this state of transition, it is not surprisingthat Mass Art has not been in a position to update or create new strategic or academic planswhich would provide critical information on future program growth and change. Accordingly, thestudy has focused on the current range of programs and activities.




Step 2: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Square Footage AnalysisBased on the updated floor plans and facility inventory, a fundamental analysis was conducted on the overall amountof space available for College programs in the fall of 2012

Total Gross Square FeetBuilding Gross Square Feet (GSF) is defined as: “The sum of all areas on all floors of a building includedwithin the outside faces of its exterior walls, including all vertical penetration areas, for circulation andshaft areas that connect one floor to another.” GSF is all space built, operated and maintained forprogram activities. GSF is the measurement used for estimating costs and the overall scale of andinstitution’s physical plant.

o By BuildingIt is important to analyze the GSF by building, because each building’s GSF will reflect its age, design,purpose, and construction. Ultimately, recommendations for improved space provision will be made inreference to building, floor and room increments.

Total Net Assignable Square FeetThe Net Assignable Square Feet available in any building is defined as: “The sum of all areas on all floors ofa building assigned to, or available for assignment to, an occupant or specific use.” This is the space thatactually accommodates program functions and is basis for any serious, detailed space analysis. NASF atMass Art has been summarized in a number of ways to develop an understanding of the space resourcesavailable to the College’s programs

o By BuildingNASF by building allows us to answer questions about building capacity, and the relationship ofassignable space to gross area (the net-to-gross ratio also known as building efficiency). This metric iscritical to understanding the potential for future space deployment in a building.

o By DepartmentSummarizing the space by department allows us to assess space sufficiency for each department’sactivities



o By FICM CategoryThe space was further summarized by FICM code to understand the mix of functions space issupporting in a given building and across the inventory.

Net to Gross Ratio AnalysisThe ratio of NASF to GSF is expressed as a percentage that indicates the building’s efficiency. A buildingwith a high proportion of net area is said to be more efficient than one with a lower percentage. This isimportant data when considering renovation plans for a building, and the effect of renovations on theNASF available.

o OverallThe College’s aggregated efficiency is a useful metric when thinking about operations andmaintenance.

o By BuildingNet to gross ratio for each building was calculated to highlight the relative efficiency of eachbuilding in the inventory.

Teaching Space Utilization AnalysisThe analysis of teaching space formed a major part of the study. These spaces account for a significant portion of theCollege’s inventory. Ensuring that they are well-utilized is fundamental to judgments about space sufficiency.

General-purpose ClassroomsThere are a number of measures by which utilization of classrooms is assessed.o Room Hours per Week

The amount of time a room is scheduled in a typical week. The key benchmark used is thepercentage of the time available for scheduling classes in a week. A common guideline is if aroom is used for scheduled instruction 67 percent of the weekly scheduling window, the room isconsidered to be well-utilized.

o Seat Occupancy RatioThe average number of student seats in a classroom that are occupied when the classroom isscheduled is the second common measure of classroom utilization. If that average meets orexceeds 67 percent the match of section sizes to the capacity of the rooms they meet in isdeemed appropriate. Generally speaking, if the percentage is lower than the target, theclassrooms may be larger than needed, often indicating a classroom inventory designed for anoutmoded pedagogical approach.




o NASF per seatThe appropriate area per seat will vary for a number of reasons ranging from the mundane to thecritical:o Room capacity - smaller capacity classrooms and seminar rooms typically require more space

per student than larger spaces. Larger classrooms typically have a layout that more efficientlyshares circulation and front of the room space.

o Seating Style – Tablet-arm chairs require less space than an arrangement that uses tables andchairs; fixed seating requires less space than moveable furniture.

o Pedagogical Approach – pedagogy that emphasizes lecture (the “sage on the stage”)typically requires less space per seat than an approach that emphasizes collaboration andinteraction. Approaches that depend heavily on technology will often need more space perseat than those that are more analog.

Specialized StudiosThese spaces, designed to meet the needs of a wide range of art-making activities are highly variable inmany regards - purpose, furnishing, equipment, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC) requirements,lighting needs, sound control, etc. For these reasons as a group, these spaceso Room Hours per Week

Because of their specialized nature, target utilization for these spaces is lower than that for general-purpose classrooms. DCAMM and other agencies typically expect these spaces to be used at arate of 50% of the weekly scheduling window. The reasons for this rate include the reality that thereare generally fewer course sections that would need to meet in these rooms, and that because ofthe experiential, material-oriented nature of the work that happens in these spaces, their set-upand clean-up require substantial time before and after a course meeting. Labs that serveintroductory, lower-division courses can generally be scheduled more intensively than those thatserve advanced, more specialized upper division courses.

o Seat Occupancy RatioBecause of the relatively few sections using one of these spaces, and due to the relatively highexpense of building, equipping and operating these spaces, departments will typically attempt tofill the seats in these spaces to take best advantage of the resources applied to them. For thesereasons, seat occupancy targets for studios are typically set at 80%.

o NASF per seatArea per seat is highly variable for these spaces and is largely driven by the nature of the activitythe space supports, and the equipment installed in the space. DCAMM uses a unitary value for“Studio Art” of 70 NASF per student station.



Step 3: INTERVIEWS

Program Needs DiscussionDeveloping a full understanding of space use could not be done without engaging departments in afocused discussion about their current use of space, problem areas, projections of growth and changewithin the department and college-wide needs. The planning team met with each of the academicdepartments in the Fall of 2012 to solicit departmental input. For notes of these discussions, please see theAppendix.

Benchmarking Space Use and UtilizationA useful method to assess space sufficiency is to compare space, program and “people” data (numbersof students, faculty and staff) either within one institution (e.g., department to department) or acrosssimilar or “peer” institutions (either institution-wide or at a departmental level). These benchmarkingcomparisons help provide a context for the provision of space within a defined sample of highereducation. This benchmark data should not be viewed as providing an answer to the question, “Howmuch space should we have?” but rather, “Where are we positioned in relation to other colleges and isthat position appropriate?”

o ExternalExternal or peer comparisons can be very helpful to inform “big-picture” decisions about theappropriate amount of space overall, and, when available, college, school or departmental level.These comparisons can be particularly powerful in informing senior administrators, board members,or agency staff from a competitive perspective.

These comparisons can be problematic, however, for some of the following reasons:o Difficulty in collecting necessary datao Difficulty in discerning if data collected are accurateo Difficulty in verifying that surveyed institutions are truly peers, especially at the departmental

levelFor the Phase I study, uncertainties regarding success in collecting quality data led the planningteam to focus on developing internal benchmarks.

o InternalInternal benchmarks typically compare space allocation and utilization across departments withinan institution to answer questions that have to do with resource allocation, strategy and equity. Thisstudy developed internal benchmarking focused on




o NASF per Programo Program NASF per facultyo Program NASF per Student (Major + Grad)o Program NASF per Instructional "Seat"

Step 4: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPSAs mentioned earlier, this report documents Phase 1 of a 2-phase study, to focus the effort on: developing data and verifying its accuracy, and assessing current space allocation, use and utilization

to create a baseline data set on space at the College as a resource for MassArt leaders and planners.

Assessing alternatives, crafting facility solutions and offering recommendations for re-purposing and renovations is prematurewhen the College is transiting the current period of leadership change. MassArt is initiating a new, participatory StrategicPlanning effort which will establish the goals and objectives the College will pursue in the coming years. Campus and FacilityPlanning should directly support these goals. When the Strategic Planning has advanced to the point where major goals andkey initiatives are clear, the planning team intends to engage the College in Phase 2 of the process that will develop specificproject recommendations. However, at this time it is possible to develop conclusions, and to offer recommendations on certainaspects of physical plant configuration and operation that are unlikely to change in response to strategic initiatives. Please seeChapters 4 and 5 for details.

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 3 – Findings


3 FINDINGS

CAMPUS SPACE ANALYSIS

NASF and GSFIn the Fall of 2012, Mass Art had 402,974 Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF) within 8 buildings that comprise a total of743,701 Gross Square Feet (GSF).

The Gym building was in use by MassArt in the Fall of 2012. It is currently under renovation to create the Center for Designand Media, which includes a number of alterations that affect the NASF and GSF numbers, so both “versions” of thisbuilding are shown in the table.

Building NASF AGSF

Collins 27,315 50,559

East 23,894 59,894

Hot Shop 2,099 2,766

Kennedy 78,658 134,574

North 28,108 61,096

South 37,367 58,427

Tower 168,088 318,299

SUBTOTAL 365,529 685,615

Gym 37,445 58,086

TOTAL 2012 402,974 743,701

Design 35,051 72,874

TOTAL 2014 400,580 758,489


Chapter 3 – Findings


The buildings range from the specifically-designed single-purpose Hot Shop at 2,099 NASF to the multi-purpose, 13-storeyTower at 168,088 NASF. Approaches to optimizing and modernizing each building will need to be customized to respondto each buildings characteristics.

NASF by Space UseViewing the space at the College by space type provides a quick understanding of the nature of the College’sprograms. The pie chart on the left shows the mix of space uses at MassArt in the Fall of 2012. The largest single spaceuse is Studio, represented by the red slice of the pie. With nearly half of its square footage allocated to special use,clearly the College is dedicated to providing its students the hands-on, experiential environments they need to makeart at a level of technical complexity and sophistication that these settings facilitate.

NASF by FICM Categories

MassArt SCUP CFI4-year Institutions, Enrollment <2,500



The College’s distinctive mission and setting is further revealed when we compare the mix of space types to a “typical”4-year college represented in the pie chart to the right that reflects results from a survey of 20 public institutionsconducted by the Society for College and University Planning. Again, the most obvious difference is the significantlygreater proportion of Studio/Lab space at MassArt balanced by the relatively smaller proportions of Office, Library, andAthletics space.

Overall Study Building N:G is 54 PercentThe relationship between the NASF and the GSF for the entire complex is 54 percent (with the range from 40% for Eastto 64% for South), significantly lower than the normative range for academic buildings of 58 to 65 percent.

The table above shows the NASF and GSF of each college building. Since the study coincides with therenovation of the Gym Building to become the Center for Design and Media, the net and gross of eachconfiguration is shown.

To further illustrate the impact of this condition: If MassArt’s NASF of 402,974 was 60% of GSF,

GSF would be 671,623 or 72,077 less than existing requiring maintenance and operating expense

Building NASF AGSF NASF:AGSF

Collins 27,315 50,559 54%

East 23,894 59,894 40%

Hot Shop 2,766 2,099 76%

Kennedy 78,658 134,574 58%

North 28,108 61,096 46%

South 37,367 58,427 64%

Tower 168,088 318,299 53%

SUBTOTAL 365,529 685,615 53%

Gym 37,445 58,086 64%

TOTAL 2012 402,974 743,701 54%

Design 35,051 72,874 48%

TOTAL 2014 400,580 758,489 53%




(Calculated in the recent Sightlines study at $6.39 per GSF annually. The re-calibrated GSF cited herewould save the College nearly half a million dollars annually.)

If MassArt’s NASF was 60% of the GSF of 743,700, NASF would be 446,220 or 43,246 more than existing thatcould support College programs

Teaching Space AssessmentGiven that 55 percent of the College’s space inventory is allocated to instructional spaces, a detailed understandingof instructional space use and utilization is essential to conceptualizing any space improvement strategy.Accordingly, one of the primary goals of this investigation into the College’s use of space was to update the studyentitled Massachusetts College of Art and Design Space Utilization Analysis BHE05020 ST01 - Classrooms andSpecialized Instructional Spaces. While this study was completed in 2007, it is based on course data from the fall of2005.

The College has undergone significant change since that time, including two major issues affecting teaching spaceuse: Increased enrollment

STUDENT ENROLLMENT

YearUnduplicated

HeadcountFull Time

Equivalent

2012 2,316 1,899.02005 2,127 1,626.9

Difference 189 272.1Increase 8.9% 16.7%

Conforming with a recommendation of the AICAD (the Association of Independent Colleges of Art andDesign), the College’s accrediting body, to offer 5-hour studio sessions to provide the studio time necessaryfor accreditation. This directive has had a major impact on course and room scheduling.

The study analyzed utilization of scheduled teaching spaces at MassArt during the Fall 2012 semester. Coursescheduling data was provided by the Registrar’s Office. Part I discusses classroom utilization, and Part IIdiscusses studio utilization. This analysis examines Day Session usage, 8AM-6:30PM, Monday-Thursday, and8AM-4:00PM Friday, conforming to MassArt’s regular scheduling patterns. Teaching space utilization analysisusually seeks to find periods of peak utilization, those that drive the demand for space or that may limit aninstitution’s ability to offer classes as they would wish.



Course schedule data was provided by the Registrar’s Office for the Fall Semester of 2012. Each scheduledcourse section

This following analysis of teaching space utilization refers to the tables listed compiled at the end of this reportin the Appendix. Each table is separated into classroom and studio utilization:

I. Summary of utilization by buildingII. Detailed list of all teaching spaces and their utilization, organized by buildingIII. List of all teaching spaces organized by capacity (number of stations)IV. Summary of Table III , teaching spaces by capacityIV. List of all teaching spaces ranked by usage hours per weekV. List of all teaching spaces ranked by station utilization percentVI. Visual representation of utilization by day of week and time of day (Day and Evening shown

together).

MethodologyCourse schedule data was provided by the Registrar’s Office for the Fall Semester of 2012. Each scheduledcourse section required a time, place, and enrollment, in order to be included in the analysis. Anexamination of the data in conjunction with discussions with the Registrar led to the conclusion that theaccuracy and completeness of the scheduling data was adequate for this type of study. Teaching spaceinventory data came from Academic Affairs, Registrar, Technology, Facilities & Operations, and fieldverification by CRA and DLM.

Teaching Space Characteristics-Location: Building, Level, and Room-Space Use: either classroom or studio, with more specific sub-types described below-Control: Departmental or Registrar-Size: Net assignable square feet (NASF)-Stations: in classrooms, number of seats; in studios maximum safe or practical capacity-NASF per Station

Studios are distinguished from classrooms primarily by the presence of specialized equipment. In the FICMroom use classification system, classrooms are in the 100-series and studios are in the 200-series. Spacesscheduled for teaching that are not classrooms, studios, or labs are not part of this analysis. These uses mayinclude faculty offices, athletic facilities, and theaters, to name a few.

Beyond identifying the type of studio (“Animation Studio” for example), inventorying and assessment ofteaching technology and equipment were not part of this study.




Teaching Space Classification System for MassArtThe standard FICM classification system for teaching spaces was expanded for this study to account for thespecial nature of instruction at MassArt. The table below shows the customized classifications used.

Classrooms StudiosFICM Description FICM Description110 General Purpose Classroom 210 Project Studio111 Seminar Classroom 222 Class Studio112 Art & Design Classroom 222 Fabrication Studio118 Computer Classroom 224 Atelier Studio120 Lecture Hall 226 Industrial Studio

228 Technical Studio

Distribution of Teaching Space by Type

Classrooms Studios



Measures of Teaching Space Utilization Number of sections scheduled per week Hours scheduled per week Station occupancy Contact hours ( = number of students x hours of scheduled use per week)

All of the above measures are limited to the timeframe mentioned above. Contact-hour and seatutilization calculations assume 100 percent class attendance.

Classroom Utilization AnalysisMeasures of classroom utilization include how intensively these spaces are being used, if they are theappropriate size for the scheduled class, and if the size is adequate for the number of students given thedesired seating style. The “Classroom” category analyzed here also includes seminars, art & designclassrooms, computer classrooms, and lecture halls. In the Facilities Inventory, these rooms are identifiedby the 100-series FICM codes.

Overall Classroom UsageDuring the Fall 2012 semester, MassArt scheduled 36 classrooms in 3 buildings. A summary of classroomutilization by building is shown in Table I. A summary by room seating capacity is shown in Table IV. Theseclassrooms occupy 31,327 NASF (Net Assignable Square Feet). There are 927 stations (seats), averaging36.9 NASF per station.

The basis of teaching space usage is contact hours – the sum of the number of students enrolled in eachclass multiplied by the number of hours per week that class was scheduled. During the term, 287 coursesections met in classrooms. Total student contact hours were 18,695. For general reference, the weeklymean per section was:

17.0 students; 3.8 classroom hours; 65.1 student contact hours.

The building with the highest classroom contact-hour totals was the Tower. The Tower accounted forabout 59 percent of all classroom contact hours, and housed 22 of the total 36 classrooms or 61 percentof the classroom inventory.




Time UtilizationDCAMM’s guideline for classroom time utilization is 67 percent, or 33.5 hours per week assuming a 50-hourweek. If the mean hours of usage meet that guideline, the general implication is that the number ofclassrooms is appropriate. Based on Fall 2012 semester data, the average usage of MassArt classroomswas 30.6 hours per week.

The summary of classroom usage by building shows that 1 of 3 buildings, South, exceeded that standard.By size category, 1 of 6 categories exceeded the standard (Group C [20-29 seats]). Looking at classroomsindividually, 13 of 36, or 36 percent, met the standard, and an additional 7, or 19 percent, achieved 30hours per week (90 percent of the standard). Only 3 classrooms were scheduled fewer than 20 hours perweek.

Seat UtilizationAnother measure of classroom utilization is the seat or station occupancy. The DCAMM guidelineoccupancy rate is 67 percent. The mean classroom occupancy at MassArt was 65 percent, with 19classrooms meeting the guideline. Three rooms were missing station data. See Table VI.

When the occupancy is low, there is a mismatch between the sizes of spaces that are required and thesections that are scheduled in them — small course sections are meeting in large classrooms. Usually this isa product of an insufficient number of small classrooms, necessitating the use of larger rooms for smallersections; or the larger classroom may be more popular with instructors due to other factors such asavailable audio visual teaching aids. Another factor that can contribute to low occupancy is studentregistration behavior: Do many students register for a class and then either fail to show, drop the course, orswitch to a different section? If so, this necessitates the Registrar’s scheduling of rooms that are largerthan the final registration numbers would seem to justify.

Space per SeatThe required space per seat depends on the type of seating and size of space. Tablet-arm chairs requireabout 16 to 18 NASF and table-and-chair seating requires about 22 NASF per seat for a medium-sizedclassroom. Auditoriums should have at least 14 NASF per station. The mean at MassArt was 36.9 NASF perseat, but Table IV shows the variation by capacity category. All 6 categories were above the DLMrecommended minimum for tablet-arm. The two smallest categories were above the maximum,reflecting the non-traditional role of these spaces at MassArt. On a room-by-room basis, 32 of the 36rooms were above the recommended minimum size, one (Tower 551) was below the minimum, and 3were missing station data and therefore cannot be evaluated.



Note that DCAMM’s guidelines for classroom size call for a mean of 22 NASF per station for classrooms, 15to 20 NASF per station for seminars, and 12 NASF per station plus 50 SF for lecture halls. The classroomguideline seems too high for tablet-arm configuration, and the seminar allocation should be higher perstation than for classrooms, not lower.

A summary of these measures is shown below with the classrooms grouped by space type. Noteworthyare the especially high demand for the Art & Design and Computer classrooms, and the relatively highNASF/Seat for these two space types as well as the Seminar style spaces.

FICMCode CR Type Spaces NASF Seats

NASF/Seat Sections

WeeklyRm Hours

SeatUtilization

110 General Purpose 15 11,304 396 24.8 133 29.2 59%

111 Seminar 4 3,007 73 42.0 18 16.3 52%

112 Art & Design 12 11,115 237 48.0 93 34.5 78%

118 Computer 3 2,806 65 44.3 27 43.5 80%

120 Lecture Hall 2 3,041 156 20.8 16 27.5 22%

100s ALL 36 31,327 927 36.9 287 30.6 65%




Time Block AnalysisTable VII (reproduced below) graphically displays scheduled usage at different times of day through theweek, and includes both day and evening usage. The lighter colors indicate heavier utilization. The leftset of blocks shows the percentage of rooms in use at a particular day and time, and the right set ofblocks shows the percentage of total stations in use. For example, on Monday at 11:00 AM, 69 percent ofclassrooms (25 of 36 classrooms), and 43 percent of stations (399 of 927 stations), were in use. Since thechart shows only beginning times, these percentages are valid only for that particular instant. So if a classsection ended at 11:01 AM, its disuse would not show up until the next starting time, in this case 12:00 PM.This table reveals a lot about MassArt’s classroom usage by time and day. The heaviest usage wasMonday and Tuesday afternoons between 2 and 4 PM, and then on Tuesday and Thursday from 9:45 to11:30 AM. At no time were more than 94 percent of classrooms or 57 percent of stations in use. Lowerutilization on Friday is typical of most U.S. colleges, and MassArt follows the same pattern. In addition toFriday, greatest opportunities for increased usage include Wednesday between 1 and 3 PM, and everymorning from 8 to 9:45AM.

FICM Category 100 (Classrooms)



Classroom Quality IssuesWhile the quality of classrooms at MassArt is not substandard, several faculty we spoke with describenumerous shortcomings: worn furnishings and equipment. poor HVAC performance mis-matched furniture that is difficult to clean and move poor general room lighting – low-light levels with no ability to control poor task and board lighting

Comparison to 2007 StudyIt is instructive to compare the current update with the 2007 teaching space analysis done to supportthe campus master planning. The semester used for analysis is shown for both studies. All but onemeasure (Average Section Size) has increased since the Fall of 2005. The most significant changesinclude the number of sections scheduled with a 40 percent increase, the Average Weekly RoomHours with a 59 percent increase, and the seat utilization rate which increased by 8 percentagepoints. Some of this change is attributable to the refinement in space classification in the currentstudy (the set of spaces studied as classrooms), but the majority of the increases are due to increasedenrollment and intensified scheduling practices.

Fall2005

Fall2012

UtilizationMetric Guideline

30 36 Spaces

23,960 31,327 NASF

905 927 Student Seats

26.5 36.9 NASF per Seat 22

205 287 Sections Scheduled

18 17 Average Section Size

19.2 30.6 Avg. Weekly Room Hours 33.5 (0.67*50)

57% 65% Seat Utilization 67%




Studio Utilization Analysis

Rooms with specialized equipment are considered studios. These are the FICM 200-series rooms in theFacilities Inventory.

Overall Studio UsageDuring the Fall 2012 semester, MassArt scheduled 54 studios in 7 buildings. See Table I. A summary by roomseating capacity is shown in Table IV. These spaces occupy 72,656 NASF. There are 844 stations or seats,averaging 85.3 NASF per station.

During the Fall 2012 semester, 191 course sections met in studios. Total student contact hours were 12,747.For general reference, the weekly mean per section was:

14.1 students; 4.61 room hours; 66.7 student contact hours.

Buildings with the highest studio contact-hour totals were Tower and Kennedy. These two buildingsaccounted for about 52 percent of all studio contact hours, and housed 33 of the total 54 rooms or 61percent of the studio inventory.

Time UtilizationDCAMM’s time utilization guideline for studios is 50 percent, or 25 hours per week assuming a 50-hourweek. If the mean hours of usage meet that guideline, the general implication is that the number ofstudios is appropriate. Based on Fall 2012 semester data, the average usage of MassArt studios was 16.3hours per week.

However, due to the need for specialized equipment, studios are not interchangeable in the manner thatclassrooms are. Even when taking the most draconian approach to space planning, it is difficult toreduce the number of studios required to fulfill programmatic requirements. A sculpture studio requiresdifferent equipment from a video editing lab, for example, and there is not enough space to house theequipment for both in the same room. Some studio functions are mutually exclusive and therefore requireseparate spaces. A Studio Art space that generates dust would not be compatible with painting, forexample.



In the Classroom section above, almost all rooms were scheduled by the Registrar. The scheduling ofstudios, however, is determined mostly by the academic departments.

Seat UtilizationStudio utilization can also be measured by the seat or station occupancy. The DCAMM occupancy rateguideline for studios is 80 percent. The mean room occupancy at MassArt was 102 percent, with 25 roomsof 46 (54 percent) meeting the guideline. Eight rooms had no station data preventing calculations onseat information. See Table VI.

When the occupancy is low, there is a mismatch between the sizes of spaces that are required and thesections that are scheduled in them — small course sections are meeting in large rooms. In some casesthis can be the result of too many studio sections being scheduled for a particular course. But with upper-level studios or courses that are scheduled once per year or less, schedulers have less control over sectionsizes. These courses may be required for students, but the number of students who need to take them in aparticular semester may be significantly smaller than the number of stations in the studio. Thus it may bedifficult to achieve occupancy guideline targets when these studios are included in the data.

When occupancy is high, as at MassArt, there are likewise a number of reasons. Some sections are sized tosupport two students per station. Sometimes this is by pedagogical design, but often, at MassArt, it reflectsthe fact that there are insufficient desks in the atelier-style of studio for the number of students assigned tothem. This is a significant issue reported by several departments that utilize this space type and thischaracteristic mode of learning. Other sections are sized recognizing the fact that course meetings willmake use of more than the one studio space listed in the course file, spreading the enrollment across allstations in those spaces.




Space per StationThe required space per station for studios varies widely, not only by discipline, but also within a discipline,depending on the types of studios, the program requirements, installed equipment, and program focus.DCAMM’s guideline suggests 70 NASF per station in art studios. MassArt averages 85.3 NASF per station inits studios. This measure exceeding the DCAMM guideline seems appropriate given MassArt’sprofessional/industrial focus.

A summary of these measures is shown below with the studios grouped by space type. Noteworthy arethe especially high demand for the Art & Design and Computer classrooms, and the relatively highNASF/Seat for these two space types as well as the Seminar style spaces.

FICMCode Studio Type Spaces NASF Seats

NASF/Seat Sections

WeeklyRm Hrs

SeatUtilization

210 Project 1 2146 ? ? 2 10.0 ?

222 Fabrication 10 9,337 164 55.6 51 19.4 92%

224 Atelier 18 28,809 293 130.9 47 13.0 130%

225 Studio Service 1 1,177 ? ? 5 17.0 ?

226 Industrial 8 17,398 159 60.4 33 20.0 77%

228 Technical 16 13,798 228 54.6 59 16.6 82%

200s ALL 54 72,656 844 85.3 191 16.3 102%



Time Block AnalysisTime Block Analysis for studios often reveals a pattern of scheduling that is complementary to aninstitution’s scheduling of classrooms – classrooms more intensively scheduled in the morning with studiosand labs heavily-used in the afternoons. See Table VII in the appendix, reproduced below. Studioutilization was heavier Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday afternoons, and lighter Wednesday and Fridayafternoons. At no time were more than 54 percent of studios or 46 percent of stations in use (both onTuesday 2PM to 4:45PM). Morning scheduling was heaviest on Wednesday and lighter on Monday andFriday.

FICM Category 200 (Studios)




Studio “Suites”The use of studio “suites” is especially characteristic of those quasi industrial disciplines that employ adefined, multi-step process to produce a finished piece. Often these processes require spaces that arededicated to a single function that depends on either special environmental control, or containment ofequipment or chemicals that can be hazardous or dirty. For these reasons suites are typicallycharacterized by unusual ceiling heights (to contain out-sized equipment), substantial ventilation systems,and high power requirements.

The identified studio suites in MassArt’s teaching space inventory: Foundry / Sculpture – CL 001, CL 010/011/013 Ceramics – CL 119, CL 202, CL 203, CL 204 Photography – KN 601, KN 612-613, KN 615, KN 616, KN 617, KN 628

One impact of this suite room use pattern is to effectively “fix” the location of these departments,dependent as they are on these core suites that are infeasible or prohibitively expensive to relocate. Thiscan complicate space reallocation solutions.



Comparison to 2007 StudyIt is instructive to compare the current update with the 2007 teaching space analysis done to supportthe campus master planning. The semester used for analysis is shown for both studies. All but onemeasure (Average Section Size) has increased since the Fall of 2005. The most significant changesinclude the number of sections scheduled with a 40 percent increase, the Average Weekly RoomHours with a 59 percent increase, and the seat utilization rate which increased by 8 percentagepoints. Some of this change is attributable to the refinement in space classification in the currentstudy (the set of spaces studied as classrooms), but the majority of the increases are due to increasedenrollment and intensified scheduling practices.

Fall2005

Fall2012 Utilization Metric Guideline

61 54 Spaces

78,602 72,656 NASF

1,202 844 Student Seats

65.4 85.3 NASF per Seat 70 (“Studio Art”)

233 191 Sections Scheduled

14 14 Average Section Size

16.4 16.3 Avg. Weekly Room Hours 25.0 (0.5*50)

66% 102% Seat Utilization 80%




Benchmarking - InternalThe internal comparison of academic department space allocation focused initially on three measures: NASF ofall space assigned to a department divided by: a) the number FTE Faculty members working in eachdepartment, the number of majors, grad and certificate students declared in each department, and the numberof “instructional seats” offered in each department’s courses.

NASF per Faculty and per Instructional "Seat" appear to be most relevant measures The number of faculty working in a given department tends to be more stable over time than the

number of majors, so the metric of NASF per FTE Faculty will be less influenced by cyclical fluctuationsin enrollment. NASF per Seat measures the impact of a department’s “service load” (teaching thosenon-majors who enroll in a department’s courses as a requirement or an elective) in a way thatlooking at majors only cannot.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

2,750

3,000

3,250

3,500

NASF per Faculty and Instructional Seat by Department and ProgramIncluding FICM 100 - Classroom Space

NASF per Faculty

NASF per Seat



Some departments typically require (and have) significantly more space per person than otherdepartments.Certain disciplines require extensive space to accommodate the necessary equipment, and thephysical activity required to manipulate often durable, bulky materials in three dimensions. Otherdisciplines are often (though not always) characterized by the creation and manipulation of images in2-dimensions, or on the computer. The positions plotted for Ceramics, Sculpture, Printmaking, Fibers,etc. are then not surprising in this given the equipment required to produce professional-grade work inthese disciplines.

Departments with below average NASF per person.Graphic Design, Illustration, Animation, Art Education, Industrial Design, and Studio Foundation are allbelow the mean NASF per student for MassArt. Given that several of these are design departmentsthat have experienced enrollment growth over the past 5 years (see graph below), this position is notunexpected. However, this graph reinforces consistent statements made in interviews regarding theinsufficient space allocated to these departments. Moreover, as stated earlier, considering the uniquerole of Studio Foundation at MassArt, providing relief to this department is highly advisable.

Arch

Industrial

Fashion

Graphic

Illustration

AnimationPainting

Print

Ceramics

Glass

Fibers

Metals

Sculpture

Film/Video

Photo

SIM

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Majors 2005 - 2013(2013 as of 3/13/13)

NOTE: Dashed lines represent programswith increased enrollment since 2005and NASF per person below the mean.

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 4 – Conclusions


4 CONCLUSIONS

Availability and Management of Planning DataAny space study relies on accurate, up-to-date information on the range of programs, the number of people ofdiffering types involved in those programs, the amount of space available, and how the space is used. Tofacilitate on-going space assessment and management, it is imperative that this data be regularly updated andeasy to access. If this is not the case, space planning and discussions of opportunities and options will befrustratingly difficult and prone to crippling incompleteness and lack of precision.

In the fall of 2012, information on Programs, People and Space Use at MassArt was difficult to findMany different offices are responsible for this gathering and maintaining this information. Inevitably, differentoffices will develop specific ways to develop the data that respond to the needs of each office’s primaryaudience. This inconsistency erodes confidence in the quality of the data and stimulates the creation andmaintenance of duplicate datatsets. To improve space assessment and management, MassArt must workhard to streamline the stewardship of these data for several compelling reasons:

Opacity thwarts discussion and analysis

Differing data on the same subject is maddening, prompting discussions that focus more on normalizing thedata rather than on developing useful information based on the data.

o "You can't manage what you don't measure"If the data used in planning is difficult to assemble, inconsistent and resistant to interpretation, itbecomes too difficult retrieve and analyze. The result is that these important aspects measuringCollege operations are not in continuous use, and therefore quickly lose their relevance.

Transparency aids managementOn the other hand, up-to-date data from which information with real meaning attached promotestransparency and more effective management.

To improve data availability and currency, The College’s vice presidents should work together to articulatetheir planning data needs. One office (possibly Institutional Research?) should be given the responsibility tocollect these data on a regular schedule from the various offices responsible for generating it. Severalprinciples should be followed in collecting and disseminating these data:

o Consistency – for example, department names must be used consistently across all data sets. IRshould be responsible for maintaining and disseminating master department lists.


Chapter 4 – Conclusions


o Accuracy – every effort should be made to ensure accuracy. Despite best efforts to trackchanges as they happen, space use and assignment evolves over time. “Field”-verifying thesituation on a periodic basis is the only way to ensure accuracy.

o Timeliness - standard reporting schedules should be established and maintained to provideaccurate and up-to-date information

MassArt is in a period of transitionThe College is navigating a period of transition where advancing planning of all types is a challenge. Theformer president retired in 2011, the current president began her tenure in the summer of 2011 and wasinaugurated in Fall 2012. The College’s current Provost is retiring in the summer of 2013, when the new Provostwill assume his duties. This transition has ensured continuity, but it has slowed the development of a newstrategic plan to replace and refresh the plan originally developed for 2007-2009 and extended through 2013.A new plan that would focus the institution’s various stakeholders and set a renewed direction for institutionalinitiatives regarding enrollment, resource allocation, those responsible for advancing initiatives and theestablishment of metrics to aid assessment of the College’s progress towards its goals. These goals and theirimplementation will provide renewed direction to facilities planning and management.

Building Inventory not designed for art-makingThe MassArt main campus, the interconnected complex north of Huntington Avenue has a long history in thisdense urban location, and several occupants, beginning I n1907 when the Boston Normal School and Girls’



Latin School collaborated to build North and South Buildings with the Collins and East Buildings added soonafter. The Normal School continued operating at the site, becoming Boston Teacher’s College and thenrenamed to Boston State College in the 1960’s. When Boston State merged with UMass Boston in 1982 andrelocated to Columbia Point, the campus became the temporary home of Roxbury Community College.When RCC’s new campus was completedin 1985, MassArt occupied the complex and began thetransformation of the campus that continues today.

As this overview indicates, the buildings that comprise the campus were not originally designed toaccommodate art-making nor, in any significant way, the display and interpretation of art objects. Whilesome of the historic buildings (North, South, East and Collins) have proved remarkably appropriate toMassArt’s needs, others are less adaptable (Kennedy and especially, the Tower). No matter how good a fitthe College has achieved, there can be no doubt that a very different set of facilities would be created tosupport the College’s wide range of very demanding functions if the campus was designed for MassArttoday.

o Connected buildings drive up the proportion of non-assignable spaceBuilt over time on a tightly-constrained urban site, the campus’ occupants have over the years madethe quite logical decision to connect the buildings where possible to promote circulation through thecomplex. The result is a campus that can be navigated entirely indoors, but one that has a very highproportion of interior circulation space for the amount of assignable space that can be used forprogram functions. This fact strongly affects facilities budgets and decision-making.

o Tower Building ChallengeThe Tower Building alone poses a significant challenge for MassArt since it is by far the largest buildingon campus, representing nearly half (46 percent) of the complex’s square footage. The building wasdesigned as Mass State College’s signature academic and administrative building and wascompleted in 1977, just 5 years before MSC relocated to UMass Boston’s campus. The building hasseveral conditions that create facility management challenges:

The building has a generously-sized vertical circulation core, designed to accommodate BSC’sintended enrollment, apparently double the size of MassArt’s in 2012, according to recentcapacity calculations.

The building was not originally designed to support the kinds of mechanical systems needed fora professional art program. Heating and ventilating, plumbing, electrical and lightinginfrastructure is all inadequate to fully service art-making activities. Expensive retrofitting has




been required to thread supplemental branches of these systems through the building. Due thethe expense, these desired upgrades have not always been possible, limiting the capabilties ofthe studio space in the building.

The building’s curtain-wall construction made a signature statement in 1977, but is now in adeteriorated condition, resulting in leaking, poor thermal performance and a tiredappearance. Replacing this fundamental building system will be both expensive and disruptive.

At 36 years, the building has reached or will soon reach the end of its systems’ life cycle,requiring significant reinvestment to renew those systems for the next 30-50 years. Thisopportunity for modernization and updating will also allow the College to redesign thesesystems to better support the more demanding uses MassArt engages in compared to theneeds of Boston State College for whom they were designed.

o Increasing building efficiency is very expensiveEssentially re-designing an existing building, as is required to optimize the use of the Tower, is a majorundertaking, requiring re-sizing circulation systems, and re-partitioning to create new and differentspaces. This leads to re-design of HVAC distribution lines, and potentially generation capacity.Renovation on this scale drives costs that approach the equivalent of new construction – projects thatcannot be undertaken lightly, given their costs and the disruption such projects will create. MassArt hasbegun this renewal with a major phased renovation of the Kennedy Building and this processcontinues with the Center for Design and Media. The next target should be the Tower, but this projectwill require significant advanced planning that must be guided by a strong sense of institutionalstrategy, goals and initiatives to ensure that the results justify the investment.

o Building Inventory AgeBeyond the Tower and Kennedy, the rest of the College’s buildings exhibit several of the same issues,due primarily to building age. The average age of all the buildings at Mass Art is 71 years. Excluding theTower and Kennedy, the average building age is 81 years. In either case, these buildings will continueto require significant investment to maintain and modernize, as the College’s needs continue toevolve.



Program NeedsProgram Needs were discussed in conversations with each of the academic departments. Prior to these sessions,a list of questions was circulated to departments for their use in preparing for the interview (See Appendix). Whileeach department had specific needs, questions and suggestions, and ideas for improving spaceaccommodation, there were several issues that the majority mentioned that a clearly high-priority space needsconcerns:

Studio Foundation space is very constrainedThe studio space for this key “gateway” program that prepares first year students for the demands ofadvanced studio work in their major, is limited - there are too few studios (as is amply borne out in theutilization analysis) and the studios should have better plumbing and HVAC service. The department offerscourses in three studio settings: Drawing, Visual Language and Form Study. For current enrollment twoadditional studios are required, one for Drawing and one for Visual Language. Given the critical nature of thisprogram to recruitment, retention, student success and the College’s reputation, MassArt will need to expandthe footprint of Studio Foundation as to meet current and future demands.

Sophomores are granted only limited access to department resourcesSeveral departments mentioned that they have insufficient atelier studio space (where a student is assigneda desk or space long-term to work on projects) to accommodate all majors. Typically, they follow the time-honored seniority approach to assigning studio space, meaning that frequently, it is sophomores who do notget a permanently-assigned space. Likewise, the more advanced work engaged in by Juniors and especiallySeniors frequently takes place in studios equipped with the latest and best technology and equipment, withSophomores using the “introductory labs. As MassArt builds its recruitment and retention strategy it mustconsider the role and amount of atelier and other studio space available to ensure that the needs ofsophomores are fully met.




Graduate and PCE Programs compete for space with UGMassArt was founded as an undergraduate college training future professionals in industrial and independentstudio settings a mission very much alive today. However as the economy has evolved, the College’sstrategic goals have focused on establishing and nurturing viable Masters programs. As these programs havegrown, they have naturally shared the space and equipment originally dedicated to undergrads alone. Thissharing takes many forms, from using the same spaces and/or equipment at the same time, to usingdedicated space that would otherwise be available to undergrad programs.

A variant of this competition for space is evident in the use of the studios by those enrolled in certificateprograms through the Division of Professional and Continuing Education (PCE). These classes tend to meet inthe evenings, on weekends and vacations. A common issue raised in several departments is that PCE use ofstudios means that undergrads working in these studios must pack their projects away on a daily basis tomake the space available for the PCE students. This represents a disruption to the creative process that alsorequires storage, or limits students to projects that are readily “portable”. This situation can also send mixedsignals to undergrads regarding the relative importance of their work.

While this space sharing represents a sensible and commendable efficiency, MassArt should seek ways toreduce these disruptions while fully supporting undergrad, graduate and PCE students and programs. Somequestions that should be considered: Are there grad/PCE activities that could be strengthened through relocation? Are there grad/PCE activities that should be co-located with Undergrad – enhancing each? Should undergrad and grad/PCE students be allocated project storage space? Does the concept of a graduate studio center – a place for all grad students who need studio space

– make sense for students, the departments and MassArt?

Continual shortage of semester-end review spaceStudent assessment is a critical component of any serious learning. In the Arts, unlike many otherdisciplines, direct assessment of student work that involves several people viewing and discussing a pieceis a potent learning tool. At the end of each semester, the MassArt community engages en masse in thisactivity which requires significant space to display art and gather people for assessments. Currently, thesereviews take place in classrooms, studios, lounges, studio-related pinup areas, hallways and other spacepressed into this temporary use. Identifying, coordinating, scheduling, preparing, using and then returningthese spaces to their more typical configurations is a major effort twice a year. As enrollment grows, andstudent work continues to exhibit increasingly non-traditional forms and formats, this will be an ongoingissue for the College.



Shortage of common pinup/crit spaceJust as year-end reviews are essential to the learning and assessment process, so are periodic, sometimesspontaneous critiques in the course of almost any studio session. “Pinup” space independent of, butadjacent to, the active studio is enormously helpful to this process. Many departments noted that there isvery little of this space on campus. Seeking opportunities to provide these spaces in key locations will helpto address this shortage as well as contributing to resolving the year-end review space shortage.

Shortage of good lecture/meeting spaces for 50-75 studentsMassArt has 2 spaces classified as lecture classrooms for 50-100 students: Kennedy 406 (96 seats) andTower 659 (60 seats). Both have the seating arranged in tiers - K406 with tablet arm-chairs fixed to the floorin 00 relatively short rows and T659 with movable chairs at long continuous tables in 3 tiers. While both ofthese are quality spaces of differing configuration, neither has the flexibility of a totally flat-floor space thatwould support multiple configurations serving various learning objectives. Because of the especially heavyscheduling of T659, several departments based in the Tower building are crowded out from using thisspace as much as they would like. There are also many non-course groups who would like to reserve sucha space for their meetings. Many departments expressed a need for additional, high quality meetingspace for 50-75 people.

Design department enrollments growing, Fine Art department enrollments shrinkingFollowing a national trend over the last 15 years, the College has seen the number of majors grow in thedesign disciplines, while the numbers majoring in the fine arts have declined proportionally. During thisperiod, the space allocated to the design-oriented departments has not increased to keep pace withenrollment growth. Several design departments pointed out the shortages they now face and the urgentneed to address this issue. Several fine art departments mentioned improvements to existing spaces andequipment that they deem necessary, but few indicated a shortage of space overall.




Balancing space provision in any college is a complex process, but in at MassArt the remedies can beeven more elusive due to: Heavy investments in specialized space and equipment supporting very specific art-making

processes. This localizes departments, tying their footprint to these essential facilities. The historic multi-building campus reinforces this departmental localization. As MassArt initially

occupied the Boston State College campus, the fine arts disciplines were quite logically located inthe older buildings (Collins, Gym, North, South, East, and Kennedy) with their robust structure, goodnatural lighting and high ceilings, while the design disciplines were assigned to the newer Towerbuilding.

This logical historical process created a separation that now complicates space reallocation. TheCollege must seek a solution to this problem that supports its strategic and enrollment goals whilecontinuing to nurture all departments.

BenchmarkingBenchmarks are a common tool used in space studies to indicate the relative position of peer institutionsor departments on one or more metrics of space use. These metrics can focus on teaching spaceutilization, space per department, faculty member or student. The focus is often to external peerinstitutions to answer the question “How do institutions like us (often defined as “the competition”) handlespace allocation and utilization?” Bench marking can also be done internally to compare spaceallocation across departments within the institution. Each perspective can provide useful information tosupport making decisions about space assignment and utilization.

ExternalComparing space allocation to that at peer institutions can be highly effective at showing whetherthere is a comparative space shortage or surplus. These kind of analyses can be very persuasivewith audiences and constituencies (Administrative Staff, Trustees, Donors, Agencies) who mayrequire confirmation that there is a problem that should be addressed.

Common Problems with Peer ComparisonsBecause collecting the data needed for valid comparisons is a time-consuming task, it Isimportant to be very clear about the goals of the analysis and specifically what data needsto be collected.



o Peer selection criteriaWhich peers should be used is frequently a thorny issue that requires discussion anddecision. What combination of dimensions should be emphasized: program array,enrollment, funding source, reputation, cross-application – all of these can influencethe identification of relevant peers.

o Comparison relevancyIt is a principle of peer comparisons that the peers selected be relevant – that is thatthe institutions selected are truly comparable and have meaning for those assessingthe findings of the analysis. For example, while everyone would probably agree thatit wouldn’t be relevant for MassArt to compare its facilities to those dedicated to art-making at Harvard, no matter how well-known that University is, would the view bedifferent if the peer institution in question was the Art program at U Mass Amherst, orthe College of Arts at the Ohio State University, or the Art School of the Art Institute ofChicago? The point is if even one peer in a group is not truly relevant, it calls intoquestion the entire analysis.

o Peer data availabilityThis is the main problem with peer comparisons. It has become increasingly difficultto collect any peer data on space, much less data at a level of detail sufficient forclose comparison at a departmental level. Institutions either don’t have theinformation in easily retrievable formats (if at all), or they are unwilling to allocatestaff time to prepare the data. Twenty five years ago, institutions were willing to helpin these efforts with the promise to share a summary of the analysis. In the last tenyears, this incentive has proved insufficient. While all of the other problems with theseanalyses are resolvable, this one can be difficult to overcome. The best results areobtained when there is a connection between key people (typically at theexecutive level) at the various institutions which helps ensure the task is prioritized.

This kind of analysis could be exceptionally helpful to MassArt, but it would need tobe pursued with strong institutional support to be successful.

For the various reasons given, it was decided to focus the Phase I effort on an internal, department-to-department comparison as described at the end of Chapter 3.

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 5 – Next Steps


5 NEXT STEPS

A great deal has been accomplished through Phase I of this study: Identification and compilation of baseline planning data Updating and modernizing the College’s facility inventory through the development of a robust and accurate BIM

model Customization of the facility inventory to reflect MassArt space use realities Detailed and updated Teaching Space Analysis Dialogue with academic departments on space needs and management issues Analysis and observations of all academic space

As mentioned previously, the overall intent of the Phase I study was to prepare this baseline information to: Provide a resource to inform the upcoming strategic planning Identify early-action initiatives that are unlikely to conflict with long-range solutions Identify next steps for Phase II of the study that will develop more detailed project recommendations driven by the

strategic planning

Early-action Initiatives

Develop and Implement a New Space Management SystemAs responsibility for many of the College’s current practices regarding space management and utilization reporting isdispersed, it remains difficult to communicate or share information in a transparent manner that could support proactivesolutions and ease the frequently-mentioned users’ confusion and resulting frustration regarding scheduling andinformation on space use and availability.

The College should implement an integrated Space Management System (SMS) that leverages investments made in theBIM model and facility inventory, while integrating centralized scheduling and reporting. This initiative would involveseveral steps including: Confirmation of goals and objectives involving all those responsible for space management and scheduling Transferring the standardized room numbering system used in the BIM model to campus buildings. This is an

important step to enhance the clarity of campus wayfinding, and an essential step to improve security, safetyand emergency response.

Upgrade the College’s Colleague administrative software package to include course scheduling and reportingmodule(s)

Integrate the schedules for all College activities (undergrad, grad, PCE, events) within this system.


Chapter 5 – Recommendations


Implement a New Work Order SystemAll departments expressed frustration with the delays in effecting all manner of maintenance and repair - from small tolarge projects. These delays create an increasingly worn and ineffective learning environment as well as a dynamicwhereby trust between departments and the College’s service providers is eroded which can lead to other problems.While this information is anecdotal, it is so widely expressed that it seems safe to say that the College should develop animproved, more responsive and accountable Work Order System (WOS) to help address these delays.

Previously, it was recommended that the College implement the widely-used School Dude maintenance managementsoftware package. This is a well-regarded solution that should prove beneficial for MassArt. Implementation in the nextyear should be a priority.

Explore the Potential for Conversion of Non-assignable Square Footage to Assignable SpaceAs noted in Chapters 3 and 4, MassArt’s buildings have a very high percentage of space that is used for other thanCollege functions – principally large amounts of building circulation driven by the corridor connections between all ofthe buildings and generous elevator core and corridors in the Tower Building.

Significant gains of assignable area from this kind of conversion can be difficult to achieve, and are typically “mined” inrelatively small increments, but even a 2 percent increase in building efficiency campus wide would yield 13,500 NASF,an area roughly equivalent to that contained in the first floor of South or the 10th floor of the Tower. The potential benefitsof this conversion merit an in-depth study.

Prepare a Program of Generalized UpgradesTargeted investment in renewing several types of space used by the entire College community will have a strongpositive impact. Focusing on General-purpose Classrooms, Lounge and Gathering Spaces and Corridors will signalprogress while detailed plans are in development for more significant modernization projects.

The College’s general-purpose classrooms require: New, easily-controlled lighting, Contemporary furniture that is light, sturdy, mobile, readily re-configurable and easily cleaned Renewed finishes – floor, walls, ceilings Upgraded equipment both electronic (projectors, podiums, projection screens/displays, audio), and analog

(chalk/marker boards, tack boards), etc.

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 5 – Next Steps


The college could use more and better lounge space, for impromptu discussions, study, and waiting. These spaces donot need to be large but can benefit from high-quality, comfortable and movable furniture, good adjustable lightingand tackboard.

Since there is so much of it at MassArt, corridor spaces have a strong impact on the user’s experience of the campus.This combined with the potential of corridor/lobby and circulation spaces to contribute to serving pinup/crit needs andend-of-semester review space needs suggest that this space type should be treated thoughtfully as renovation plansare considered. As with the other space types mentioned, lighting, finishes tackable wall surfaces, and furnishings will bethe primary kit of parts to effect transformation of these spaces. A study should be conducted to identify and prioritizeopportunity areas within the campus.

Making progress on these relatively modest upgrades could make a huge difference in both the performance of thespaces and the perception of the campus by the many members of the campus community that use them on a dailybasis.

Prepare a Program for Academic TechnologyHigher education, art education and art-making are progressively pushing the limits of the technological tools that arenow employed. The College has done well to meet these rapidly growing and changing needs. MassArt is well beyondthe point of considering “afterthought” decisions on location, servicing and usability as acceptable. With the expectedrapid growth in demand for ever-more robust wireless networking serving a wide array of College-, faculty- and student-provided devices, 2-D and 3-D printing, computer-controlled tools and building systems, it is essential that planning forthe tools and especially for the infrastructure that supports these tools and the people that use them must be integratedwith space and facility planning.

Close collaboration with the College’s Technology department can produce a visionary and feasible plan tightlyintegrated with the evolving strategic, space, facility and campus planning.

Prepare Room Data Diagrams and Specifications for New SpacesIn concert with the work suggested above, the College would benefit from developing room data diagrams that woulddescribe room requirements and characteristics in detail as a resource for both MassArt’s Facilities department as well asconsulting designers and outside contractors. These diagrams would convey the particular needs of a wide range ofMassArt-specific space types to reinforce essential requirements, and enhance communication as projects areimplemented.


Chapter 5 – Recommendations


The intent of the initiatives above is to make progress on several important, but relatively modest space planning issuesand concerns while the Strategic Plan is being developed which can then guide the larger-scale projects required tohelp the College meet the needs of the next twenty five years. While these short-term projects are modest in scope,they are still fairly complex in conceptualization and defining the details of project execution. A productive way toadvance these initiatives is to employ consultants to conduct the advanced implementation planning and prepare theprojects for rapid execution.

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Study 2013 Final ReportChapter 6 – Appendix


6 APPENDIX

BIM FLOOR PLANS



6 APPENDIX

SPACE INVENTORY

Table B: SPACE INVENTORY - DETAIL BY BUILDING AND FLOOR

Building Level Room HEGIS Use Department NASF Sta Additional Info

Massachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2013

Program

Collins 001 226 Foundry: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 1,188Sculpture

Collins 002 226 Sancasting Room: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 838Sculpture

Collins 002.1 225 Service Fine Arts 3D 53Sculpture

Collins 003 226 Drying Room: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 169Sculpture

Collins 004 226 Slurry Room Fine Arts 3D 211Sculpture

Collins 005 226 Wax Mold Room: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 476 10Sculpture

Collins 006 224 Studio: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 581 8Sculpture

Collins 007 311 Faculty Offices Fine Arts 3D 461 3 3 FT Fac, 6 Adj.Sculpture

Collins 010/011/0 226 Welding,Cutting: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 5,036 18Sculpture

Collins 012 310 Office: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 135Sculpture

Collins 012.1 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 135Sculpture

Collins 014 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 58Sculpture

Collins 101 222 DIAMOND ROOM: Glass Fine Arts 3D 739Glass

Collins 102 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 24Glass

Collins 103/108 226 Studio: Glass Fine Arts 3D 1,372Glass

Collins 104 222 Studio: Glass Cold Working Fine Arts 3D 945 10Glass

Collins 104.1 310 Office Fine Arts 3D 108Glass

Collins 104.1A 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 60Glass

Collins 104.2 225 Studio Svc: Sand Blasting /Compressors

Fine Arts 3D 293Glass

Collins 106 311 Office: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 168 2Sculpture

Collins 106.1 315 Room Fine Arts 3D 28Glass

Collins 109 311 Office: Glass Fine Arts 3D 166 2Glass

Collins 109.1 315 Room Fine Arts 3D 24Ceramics

Collins 110 225 Service Fine Arts 3D 15Ceramics

Collins 112 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 21Ceramics

Collins 113 222 GLAZING ROOM: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 747Ceramics

Collins 114 222 Glaze Mixing Room: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 296Ceramics

Collins 115 225 Storage/Mixing: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 740Ceramics

7/2/2013 1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY




Program

Collins 118 310 Office: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 173Ceramics


Collins 119 225 KILN ROOM: CERAMICS Fine Arts 3D 2,561Ceramics


Collins 120 725 Shop Office Facilities 28

Collins 201 224 Jr/Sr Studio: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 892 9Ceramics

Collins 202 226 Casting/ Industrial Processes Fine Arts 3D 1,045 13Ceramics

Collins 203 222 Elective Classroom: CeramicsWheel Room

Fine Arts 3D 1,397 15Ceramics

Collins 204 222 Fine Arts 3D Classroom Fine Arts 3D 509 12Ceramics

Collins 205 311 Office: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 151 1Ceramics


Collins 206 311 Office: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 152 1Ceramics


Collins 207 225 Room Fine Arts 3D 38Ceramics

Collins 208 225 Service Fine Arts 3D 22Ceramics

Collins 209 224 Jr/Sr Studio: Ceramics Fine Arts 3D 811 6Ceramics

Collins 212 725 Shop Office Facilities 28

Collins 301 222 Studio: Metals Fine Arts 3D 406Metals

Collins 303 222 Forming/Machine: Metals Fine Arts 3D 788Metals

Collins 303.1 225 Room Fine Arts 3D 54Metals


Collins 303.3 225 Fabrication Studio: Lapidary Fine Arts 3D 150Metals

Collins 308 226 Elective Studio/ Metals Fine Arts 3D 1,933 18Metals

Collins 309 224 Studio Fine Arts 3D 711 18Metals

Collins 309.1 225 Office; Metals Fine Arts 3D 91 1 xMetals


Collins 309.3 225 Dark Room Fine Arts 3D 70Metals

Collins 310 222 Papermaking Studio: Fibers Fine Arts 3D 812 15 SF also uses spaceFibers





Program

Collins 310.1 225 Room Fine Arts 3D 78Fibers

Collins 311 725 Storage Facilities 28

Collins 315 225 Service Fine Arts 3D 19Metals

28,2980 Floor Totals: 59 spaces

59 spaces 28,298Collins Totals:





Program

East 005 720 Office: Admin & Fin Facilities 946 sb 300Electrical

East 005.1 725 Room Facilities 159Electrical

East 005.1A 725 Room Facilities 54Electrical


East 006 228 Optical Printing / Handmade Film Film / Video 650


East 007 725 Room Facilities 342Electrical


East 101 625 Gallery Storage Galleries 417

East 103 310 Office: Department Film/Video Film / Video 241

East 103.1 311 Office: Faculty Film / Video 70 1

East 103.2 311 Office: Faculty Film / Video 110 1

East 104 725 Office: Admin&Fin Facilities 361

East 112 226 FM 1 Film / Video 1,125 24

East 118 226 FM 2 Film / Video 844 13

East 201 226 Silkscreen, Etching, Litho Studio:Printmaking

Fine Arts 2D 5,780Printmaking

East 202 310 Room Fine Arts 2D 90Printmaking



East 205 225 Storage Fine Arts 2D 184Printmaking


Fine Arts 2D 400Printmaking


Fine Arts 2D 545 20Printmaking

East 208 228 Computer Lab Fine Arts 2D 172Printmaking


East 210.1 228 Dark Room Fine Arts 2D 179Printmaking

East 210.2 225 Room Fine Arts 2D 70Printmaking

East 301 224 Printmaking Seniors Studio Fine Arts 2D 481Printmaking





Program

East 303 224 Studio Fine Arts 2D 501Printmaking

East M02 725 Facilities Closet Facilities 143

East M05 228 Digital Scanner Film / Video 106

East M06 228 Advanced Steenbeck Film / Video 163

East M07 225 Equipment Transfer Film / Video 104

East M08 315 Service Film / Video 12

East M09 310 Stuidio Manager Office Film / Video 297

East M09.1 225 Film Cage Film / Video 595

East M10 228 Steenbeck Room Film / Video 218

East M11 225 FM1 Control Room Film / Video 204

East M12 228 Sound Room Film / Video 268

East M14 225 Film Dept. Library Film / Video 144

East M16 225 FM2 Control Room Film / Video 97

East SB01 725 Facility Office Facilities 469

East SB02 070 Storage Facilities 325

East SB03 070 Storage Facilities 1,124




East SB10 070 Storage Facilities 281


47 spaces 23,941East Totals:





Program

Gym 001 215 Room Film / Video 90


Gym 005 210 Room Film / Video 2,146

Gym 007 226 Woodshop All Departments 5,070

Gym 007.1 225 Woodshop Tool Storage All Departments 133

Gym 007.2 222 Woodshop Classroom All Departments 2,733

Gym 007.3 225 Woodshop All Departments 830

Gym 008 310 Office All Departments 124

Gym 009 310 Office All Departments 125

Gym 010 224 Room Fine Arts 3D 706Sculpture

Gym 011 224 Office/Studio Fine Arts 3D 550Sculpture

Gym 012 224 Office/Studio Fine Arts 3D 94Sculpture

Gym 015 210 Squash Court All Departments 688

Gym 016 215 Room All Departments 105





Gym 101 610 Gym Events 10,173 ? 520?

Gym 101.1 070 Locker Room Former Public Safety 517

Gym 101.2 615 Storage Events 93

Gym 101.3 615 Storage Events 90


Gym 102 070 Room Former Public Safety 441

Gym 121 070 Room Former Public Safety 260

Gym 123 070 Public Safety Former Public Safety 270

Gym 124 070 Public Safety Former Public Safety 434

Gym 124.1 070 Public Safety Former Public Safety 93






Program




Gym 125 070 Locker Room Former Public Safety 156


Gym 126 070 Locker Room Former Public Safety 156

Gym 127 070 Storage Former Public Safety 109

Gym 202 725 Room Facilities 109


Gym 204 315 Room Information Technology 308

Gym 204.1 315 Room Information Technology 289


Gym 205.1 725 Room Facilities 89






Gym 207 315 Room Auction 86



Gym 210.1 311 Room Film / Video 47

Gym 211 222 Room PCE 735 Artward BoundArtward Bound

Gym 211.1 225 Room PCE 264 Artward BoundArtward Bound

Gym 212 224 Room Graduate 266Painting

Gym 213 224 Gym-B Graduate 2,257Painting

Gym 300 315 Institutional Archives Unspecified or Unassigned 1,020


Gym 303 225 Room Animation 1,033





Program


Gym 305 228 Room Film / Video 840 x


60 spaces 38,600Gym Totals:





Program

Kennedy 009 730 Storage Facilities 138

Kennedy 012 665 Bookstore Storage BookStore 1,450

Kennedy 013 635 Cafeteria Office Unspecified or Unassigned 76 sb 300; dept = FoodService?

Kennedy 014 635 Cafeteria Storage Cafeteria 469 dept = Food Service?

Kennedy 015 315 Student Development Storage Student Dev, Various 387

Kennedy 026.2 730 Maint. Storage Facilities 100

Kennedy 030 660 Bookstore BookStore 4,580

Kennedy 031 665 Bookstore Office BookStore 149

Kennedy 031.1 665 Bookstore Office BookStore 110

Kennedy 031.2 665 Bookstore Office BookStore 154

Kennedy 034 310 Student Development Office Events 352

Kennedy 104 660 MassArt Made MassArt Made 451

Kennedy 105 630 Peet's Coffee Food Service 698

Kennedy 106 635 Cafe Office Food Service 132

Kennedy 107 630 Main Dining Food Service 8,209Dining

Kennedy 117 635 Service Hall Food Service 341

Kennedy 130 630 Servery Food Service 3,282

Kennedy 132 630 Kitchen Food Service 2,382

Kennedy 220 800 Counseling Counselling 477

Kennedy 220.2 800 Consult/Quiet Room Counselling 97

Kennedy 220.3 800 Consult Room Counselling 96

Kennedy 220.4 800 Director of Consult Counselling 202



Kennedy 230 310 Student Development Student Dev, Various 1,753

Kennedy 230.1 310 Directors Office Student Dev, Various 110


Kennedy 230.11 315 Storage Student Dev, Various 74





Program

Kennedy 230.12 315 Kitchen Student Dev, Various 96



Kennedy 230.4 310 Vice Presidents Office Student Dev, Various 226

Kennedy 230.5 310 Associate VP Office Student Dev, Various 123

Kennedy 230.6 350 Large Conference Room Student Dev, Various 287

Kennedy 230.7 350 Conference/Work Area Student Dev, Various 159



Kennedy 250 310 CACP CACP 505

Kennedy 250.1 310 Office CACP 58



Kennedy 260 316 Student Org Offices SGA 568

Kennedy 261 350 Conference Room Student Dev, Various 222

Kennedy 262 316 Work Room SGA 285

Kennedy 263 316 Student Org Offices SGA 529

Kennedy 273 325 Art Gallery Storage Student Dev, Various 447 sb 625?

Kennedy 275 315 Commuter Cafe Student Dev, Various 220

Kennedy 275.1 316 Student Org. Storage SGA 248

Kennedy 275.2 685 MTG RM Storage Student Dev, Various 137

Kennedy 280.1 650 Meeting Room Student Dev, Various 798

Kennedy 280.2 680 Meeting Room Student Dev, Various 761

Kennedy 281 620 Student Art Gallery Student Dev, Various 2,180

Kennedy 301-303 224 Studio Painting Fine Arts 2D 3,070 18Painting


Kennedy 307.1 112 Classroom: Painting Studio Foundation 2,282 20 Drawing

Kennedy 307.3 115 Classroom: Painting Fine Arts 2D 125Painting

Kennedy 307.4 115 Storage Fine Arts 2D 148Painting





Program

Kennedy 307.5 115 Storage Studio Foundation 399 Drawing


Kennedy 401 224 Graduate Studio: Painting Graduate 724 2Painting

Kennedy 402 224 Studio: Painting Fine Arts 2D 2,337 18Painting

Kennedy 403 224 Graduate Studio Graduate 1,025 3Painting

Kennedy 404 224 Graduate Studio Graduate 1,266 4Painting

Kennedy 405 725 Facilities: Hazmat Storage Facilities 266 6

Kennedy 406 120 Auditorium All Departments 1,440 96College Classroom

Kennedy 406.1 311 Office: Painting Fine Arts 2D 288 Visiting ArtistPainting

Kennedy 406.2 115 Assembly Service: Projection All Departments 243College Classroom

Kennedy 406.3 115 Auditorium Stage All Departments 247College Classroom

Kennedy 407 224 Elective Studio Fine Arts 2D 980 18Painting

Kennedy 408 111 Critique Room: Painting Fine Arts 2D 703 18Painting

Kennedy 409 224 Studio: Sophomore Painting Fine Arts 2D 1,552 18Painting

Kennedy 4L2.1 225 Storage Fine Arts 2D 60Painting

Kennedy 501 224 Grad Studio / Tech Ofc Fine Arts 2D 726 3Painting

Kennedy 502-503 224 Studio: JR/SR PAINTING Fine Arts 2D 2,355 18Painting

Kennedy 504-505 224 Studio: JR/SR PAINTING Fine Arts 2D 2,582 18Painting

Kennedy 506 224 Studio: SO Painting Fine Arts 2D 1,158 15Painting

Kennedy 507 224 Studio: SO Painting Fine Arts 2D 1,124 15Painting

Kennedy 508-509 311 Faculty Offices Fine Arts 2D 1,701 20Painting

Kennedy 510 224 Studio: Elective Fine Arts 2D 1,192 19Painting

Kennedy 510.1 311 Office, Chair Fine Arts 2D 349 1Painting

Kennedy 601 226 Color Lab Photography 1,226 15

Kennedy 612-613 226 Black&White Lab Photography 1,895 15

Kennedy 615 224 Studio: Graduate Graduate 1,005 3Photography

Kennedy 616 111 Classroom: Photography Photography 755 15

Kennedy 617 111 Classroom: Photography Photography 755 22

Kennedy 618 310 Faculty Offices: Photography Photography 306





Program

Kennedy 618.1 311 Office Photography 129




Kennedy 618.5 112 Classroom / Crit Photography 257 120

Kennedy 618.6 225 Print Room Photography 182

Kennedy 625 222 Digital Photo Lab Photography 625 25

Kennedy 625.1 222 Classroom: Digital Photography Photography 604

Kennedy 626 222 Classroom: Digital Photography Graduate 477Photography

Kennedy 628 226 Black&White Lab Photography 451

Kennedy 628.1 226 Advanced Black&White Lab Photography 488

Kennedy 628.2 226 Black&White Lab Photography 712

Kennedy 634 310 Photography Cage Photography 835


99 spaces 79,541Kennedy Totals:





Program

North 001 225 SIM Equipment Cage SIM 1,061

North 002 225 Theater Storage SIM 838

North 005 725 Facilities Locker Room Facilities 633

North 110 725 Service Facilities 15

North 172 311 Office SIM 236




North 178 226 Pozen Center SIM 4,053 70

North 179 222 Molding/Casting: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 797 25Sculpture

North 180 620 Godine Gallery All Departments 1,036 10 Student Gallery

North 181 224 Classroom: SIM SIM 1,205 40

North 181.1 225 Room SIM 53

North 182 225 Storage: SIM SIM 230

North 183 228 Studio: SIM SIM 375

North 183.1 221 Installation Room SIM 64

North 183.2 310 Office, Studio Mgr. SIM 64

North 184 228 Room SIM 176

North 184.1 228 Room SIM 131

North 185 228 Sound Studio SIM 818 18

North 186 225 Room SIM 359

North 271 224 Studio: Graduate Graduate 773 4Film / Video

North 272 228 Studio: Film / Stop Motion Film / Video 724

North 273 228 Optical Printing Film / Video 519

North 274 224 Studio: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 533 7Sculpture




North 278 228 Studio: Felting Press Fine Arts 3D 424Fibers





Program

North 279 310 Office Fine Arts 3D 443 2

North 279.1 311 Office, Department Fine Arts 3D 130 1

North 279.2 311 Office, Chair Fine Arts 3D 171 1

North 280 311 Office: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 460 4 3 faculty, 1 studiomanager

Sculpture

North 281 224 Studio: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 829 3 Figure model studioSculpture

North 282 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 256Sculpture

North 283 225 Storage Fine Arts 3D 140Sculpture

North 371 228 Classroom: Fibers Fine Arts 3D 1,293 14Fibers

North 371.1 225 Yarn Storage Fine Arts 3D 226Fibers

North 372 228 Classroom: Fibers Fine Arts 3D 1,290 12Fibers

North 374 228 Lab: Fibers / Dye Lab Fine Arts 3D 520Fibers

North 375 222 Studio: Fibers / Surface Design Fine Arts 3D 1,164 12Fibers

North 376 222 Studio: Metals Fine Arts 3D 770 27Metals

North 379 222 Classroom: Sculpture Fine Arts 3D 787 20Sculpture

North 380 222 Studio: Sculpture Graduate 473 2Sculpture

North 381 222 Studio: Jr/Sr Fibers Fine Arts 3D 1,301 29Fibers


45 spaces 27,831North Totals:





Program

South 004 070 Assignable Facilities 428

South 004.1 070 Assignable Facilities 143

South 004.2 070 Assignable Facilities 304

South 004.3 070 Old Mechanical Facilities 834

South 102 310 Office: Undergraduate Admissions Admissions 976

South 102.1 310 Office Admissions 236








South 104 310 Room Admissions 260

South 105 350 Meeting Room Admissions 441

South 106 310 Department Office: Art Education Art Education 534

South 106.1 350 Conference: Art Education Art Education 213

South 106.2 315 File / Work Room: Art Education Art Education 170

South 106.3 315 Copy Room Art Education 75

South 107 311 Office of Art Education Art Education 963 3 Includes suitefoyer/storage

South 108 620 Arnheim Gallery Art Education 1,234

South 109 110 Classroom: Art Education Art Education 627 25

South 109.1 115 Storage Art Education 48

South 110 311 Office: Art Education Art Education 234 1

South 111 224 Graduate Studio: Glass Graduate 609 6Glass

South 112 620 Bakalar Gallery Galleries 3,980

South 112.2 625 Exhibitions / Visiting Artists Galleries 527

South 114 625 Storage Galleries 499





Program

South 114.2 625 Room Galleries 217

South 114.3 625 Room Galleries 57

South 200 311 Office: Studio Found Studio Foundation 117

South 200.1 311 Room Art Education 89 1

South 200.2 315 Storage Studio Foundation 36

South 201 112 Studio: Studio Found Studio Foundation 671 20

South 202 112 Studio: Studio Found Studio Foundation 913 25

South 203 112 Studio Studio Foundation 889 21

South 203.1 225 Studio: Plaster Lab Studio Foundation 168

South 205 311 Office: Acad Affairs Studio Foundation 670 3

South 206 112 Classroom: Acad Affairs Art Education 620 15

South 207 310 Office: Department Studio Foundation 374

South 208 315 Storage Graduate 315PCE

South 209 112 Studio: Acad Affairs Studio Foundation 908 20

South 209.1 115 Room Studio Foundation 87

South 210 112 Classroom: Acad Affairs Art Education 684 20



South 211 224 Graduate Studio Graduate 599Graduate Studio

South 212 620 Paine Gallery Galleries 3,919

South 212.1 625 Paine storage Galleries 871

South 212.2 625 Storage Galleries 251

South 212.3 625 Storage Galleries 246

South 213 225 Room Graduate 89PCE

South 301-303 311 Office: Studio Foundation Studio Foundation 1,303

South 304 118 Computer Room: StudioFoundation

Studio Foundation 937 20


Studio Foundation 921 20

South 306 228 Equipment Cage/Studio Mgr Ofc Studio Foundation 536 20





Program

South 306.1 225 Printing Studio Foundation 181

South 307 620 Gallery: Studio Foundation Studio Foundation 1,095


Studio Foundation 1,002 25

South 309 112 Classroom: Studio Foundation Studio Foundation 1,064 25

South 310 310 Office: Studio Foundation Studio Foundation 230 4

South 311 112 Classroom: Art Education Art Education 789 25

South 312.1 311 Office: Adjunct Studio Foundation 295 20

South 312.2 225 Storage Studio Foundation 235

South 313 725 Service Facilities 11

South 315 620 Mezzanine Galleries 1,230

South 316 725 Service Facilities 97

South HOTSHO 226 Hot Shop Fine Arts 3D 2,099Glass


68 spaces 39,570South Totals:





Program

Tower 004 070 Service Unspecified or Unassigned 597

Tower 004.1 070 Service Unspecified or Unassigned 194

Tower 005 070 Service Unspecified or Unassigned 2,951

Tower 009 070 Service Unspecified or Unassigned 749

Tower 1000.1 224 Architectural/Industrial DesignStudio

Unspecified or Unassigned 7,777 18

Tower 1000.2 224 Architectural/Industrial DesignStudio

Architecture / Industrial 1,832 20

Tower 1001 228 Computer Lab Architecture / Industrial 971

Tower 1002 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Architecture / Industrial 800

Tower 1003.1 222 Model Shop Architecture / Industrial 433

Tower 1003.2 222 Spray Booth Architecture / Industrial 637

Tower 1004 222 Model Shop Architecture / Industrial 177

Tower 1005 311 Faculty Office Industrial Design 346 3

Tower 1006 311 Office: Acad Affairs Architecture 306 2

Tower 1007 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Architecture 437 22

Tower 1008 311 Office: Acad Affairs Industrial Design 158 1

Tower 1009 222 3D Printing Architecture 70

Tower 1028 225 Storage Architecture / Industrial 223

Tower 107 615 Auditorium: Stage All Departments 1,263

Tower 108 615 Projection Room All Departments 227

Tower 109 615 Workshop All Departments 1,059

Tower 1101 310 President's Office Unspecified or Unassigned 639

Tower 1101.1 310 President's Office Unspecified or Unassigned 544

Tower 1101.2 310 President's Office Unspecified or Unassigned 153

Tower 1102 680 Trustees' Room Unspecified or Unassigned 2,213

Tower 1103 310 Institutional Research Unspecified or Unassigned 474

Tower 1103.1 310 Institutional Research Unspecified or Unassigned 153

Tower 1103.2 310 Community Relations Unspecified or Unassigned 153

Tower 1104 350 Alumni Room Unspecified or Unassigned 495





Program

Tower 1105 310 Institutional Advancement Unspecified or Unassigned 857

Tower 1105.1 310 Institutional Advancement Unspecified or Unassigned 294





Tower 1106 350 Foundations Conference Room Unspecified or Unassigned 176

Tower 1108 310 Alum. Relations Special Events Unspecified or Unassigned 429

Tower 1110 310 Marketing/Communication Unspecified or Unassigned 345

Tower 112 310 Auditorium: Office All Departments 255

Tower 1154 315 Storage Unspecified or Unassigned 243

Tower 1200 430 Library Academic Support 11,646Library

Tower 1200.1 455 Room Academic Support 103Library

Tower 1201 455 Special Collections Academic Support 158Library

Tower 121 615 Auditorium: Greenroom All Departments 287

Tower 123 615 Ticket Office All Departments 22

Tower 1300.1 430 Library Academic Support 4,954Library

Tower 1300.2 118 Computer Room Academic Support 558Library

Tower 1300.3 455 Circulation C Academic Support 545Library

Tower 1300.4 455 Circulation D Academic Support 91Library

Tower 1301 455 Public Services Academic Support 135Library

Tower 1302 455 Slide Library Academic Support 562Library




Tower 1304 455 Archive Reading Room Academic Support 575Library



Tower 1306 455 Tech. Services Academic Support 236Library





Program

Tower 1306.1 455 Darkroom Academic Support 95Library

Tower 1307 455 Archive/Record Management Academic Support 116Library

Tower 1308 350 Conference Room Academic Support 345Library

Tower 1309 455 Director Academic Support 116Library


Tower 1311 455 Tech. Services Academic Support 244Library



Tower 200 590 Public Safety Suite Public Safety 1,095 sb 300

Tower 200.1 590 Dispatch and Photo ID Public Safety 201 sb 300

Tower 200.10 590 Command Center Public Safety 413 sb 300

Tower 200.11 590 Kitchenette Public Safety 91 sb 300

Tower 200.12 590 Evidence Room Public Safety 111 sb 300

Tower 200.13 590 Server Room Public Safety 78 x sb 715

Tower 200.14 590 Vestibule Public Safety 91 sb WWW

Tower 200.2 590 Interview Room Public Safety 111 sb 300

Tower 200.3 590 Cheif Public Safety 203 sb 300

Tower 200.4 590 Deputy Cheif Public Safety 155 sb 300

Tower 200.5 590 Storage Public Safety 31 sb 300

Tower 200.6 590 Locked Storage Public Safety 74 sb 300

Tower 200.7 590 Lieutenent Station Public Safety 102 sb 300

Tower 200.8 590 Temporary Storage Public Safety 49 sb 300

Tower 200.9 590 First Aid Public Safety 86 sb 300

Tower 201 110 Classroom All Departments 916College Classroom

Tower 204 050 Auditorium: Balcony Unspecified or Unassigned 2,736

Tower 223 615 Room: Cat Walk Access All Departments 38

Tower 224 615 Room: Catwalk Access All Departments 135

Tower 2C3 224 Fashion Seniors Fashion 1,794 24

Tower 2C4 224 Fashion Seniors Fashion 483





Program

Tower 300 320 Printing Center Academic Support 2,369Computer Arts

Tower 301 310 Office: Acad Affairs Unspecified or Unassigned 929

Tower 301.1 310 Office: Acad Affairs Unspecified or Unassigned 150



Tower 302 325 Office: Acad Affairs Academic Support 132Computer Arts

Tower 303 325 A/V Office & Storage Academic Support 1,876Computer Arts

Tower 303.1 325 Elec. Closet Academic Support 42Computer Arts

Tower 304 325 Office Academic Support 177Computer Arts

Tower 304.1 325 Office/Mech. Academic Support 112 Conflict withEletrical Equipt.?

Computer Arts

Tower 304.2 325 Storage Academic Support 244Computer Arts


Tower 306 320 Classroom: Acad Affairs Academic Support 984 24 220?Computer Arts

Tower 307 310 Office Information Technology 177

Tower 308 320 Classroom: Acad Affairs Academic Support 1,107 26 220?Computer Arts

Tower 309 325 Office Design 205 dept?Design Faculty

Tower 310 320 Classroom: Acad Affairs Academic Support 1,379 19 220?Computer Arts


Tower 312 111 Classroom Graduate 794 18Graphic Design

Tower 313 220 Classroom Graduate 1,319Graphic Design

Tower 320 228 Electronic Projects SIM 1,045 15

Tower 320.1 228 Product Development Lab Industrial Design 410 15

Tower 323 715 Networking/Servers Information Technology 256

Tower 324 730 Storage Facilities 2,183

Tower 325 730 Paper storage Facilities 459

Tower 330 228 Animation Studio Animation 959 21

Tower 340 228 Animation Studio Animation 518

Tower 401 750 Facilities Department Facilities 1,191





Program

Tower 401.1 750 Facility Director Office Facilities 282 sb 300

Tower 402 224 Graduate Studio Graduate 9,439Multi Program

Tower 402.1 228 Black Room Graduate 216Multi Program

Tower 402.2 228 Office Graduate 368Multi Program

Tower 402.3 311 Storage Graduate 134Multi Program




Tower 403 750 Room Central Services 594

Tower 403.1 755 Mail Room Storage Central Services 210 sb 300

Tower 404 750 Office Central Services 295

Tower 405 110 Graduate Classroom All Departments 897 25 x graduate?College Classroom

Tower 406 225 Kitchen Graduate 71Multi Program

Tower 407 720 Room Facilities 1,713

Tower 407.1 720 Room Facilities 265

Tower 407.2 725 Elec. Room Unspecified or Unassigned 169

Tower 407.3 720 Mail Room Facilities 390 x sb 750


Tower 407.5 720 Maint. Office Facilities 190 sb 300

Tower 407.6 720 Storage Facilities 244

Tower 407.7 725 Elec. Storage Facilities 111


Tower 408 228 CAD Lab Graduate 418 12Architecture

Tower 409 720 Room Facilities 38




Tower 413 725 Locker Facilities 159






Program

Tower 415 725 Locker Facilities 92


Tower 501 115 Storage Liberal Arts 87

Tower 503 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs History of Art 705 42

Tower 503.1 115 AV. Closet Liberal Arts 59



Tower 506 311 Office: Acad Affairs Liberal Arts 86



Tower 509 315 Copier Room Liberal Arts 64













Tower 521 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Liberal Arts 689 40










Program



Tower 529.1 315 Office Liberal Arts 182




Tower 535 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Liberal Arts 736

Tower 536 311 Office Liberal Arts 254


Tower 537 315 Storage Liberal Arts 120

Tower 538 315 Tutoring Unspecified or Unassigned 537 38




Tower 541.1 311 Office History of Art 160

Tower 541.10 311 Office: Acad Affairs History of Art 165


















Program

Tower 552 320 Writing Center Academic Support 178Acadmic Resources

Tower 552.1 320 Classroom Academic Support 426 24 ?Classroom?Acadmic Resources

Tower 552.2 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Liberal Arts 418

Tower 552.3 325 Kitchen Academic Support 170Acadmic Resources

Tower 555 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Illustration 1,180 18

Tower 555.1 110 Classroom: Acad Affairs Liberal Arts 413 20

Tower 601 115 Storage Graphic / Illustration 110

Tower 603 112 Classroom: Acad Affairs Graphic / Illustration 705 18

Tower 603.1 115 AV. Closet Graphic / Illustration 59



Tower 606 311 Office: Acad Affairs Design 86 dept?Design Faculty

Tower 607 311 Office: Acad Affairs Graphic Design 70



Tower 610 311 Office: Acad Affairs Illustration 78












Tower 621 112 Classroom: Acad Affairs Industrial Design 689 18

Tower 621.1 115 AV. Closet Industrial Design 59





Program




Tower 625 225 Storage Illustration 70

Tower 626 311 Office Illustration 128

Tower 629 112 Classroom: Acad Affairs Industrial Design 735 26

Tower 629.1 311 Office: Acad Affairs Illustration 182


Tower 633.1 311 Office: Acad Affairs Design 234 dept?Design Faculty

Tower 633.2 311 Office: Acad Affairs Design 132 dept?Design Faculty

Tower 635 222 Junior Studio Fashion 1,607

Tower 638 222 Classroom: Fashion/SophomoreStudio

Fashion 959

Tower 640 222 Classroom: Fashion/CommunityWorkroom

Fashion 694 30

Tower 640.1 225 Storage: Materials and Equipment Fashion 156

Tower 641 225 Cage/Studio Mgr. Workroom Fashion 525

Tower 642 228 Fashion Computer Lab Fashion 629 14

Tower 642.1 225 Print Room Fashion 291

Tower 643 310 Studio Mgr. Office Fashion 123

Tower 644 310 Office: Acad Affairs Fashion 606

Tower 644.1 311 Office: Acad Affairs Fashion 154






Tower 650 225 Tele. Closet Unspecified or Unassigned 44

Tower 655 225 Classroom Fashion 1,177

Tower 655.1 222 Fashion Display Fashion 47 18





Program

Tower 659 120 Classroom Fashion 1,601 60

Tower 659.1 115 Storage: Material and Equiopment Fashion / Illustration 169

Tower 701 225 Storage Film / Video 110

Tower 703 228 Classroom: Acad Affairs Film / Video 705 12

Tower 703.1 225 AV. Closet Film / Video 59

Tower 705 228 Classroom: Acad Affairs Film / Video 689 21

Tower 705.1 225 AV. Closet Film / Video 57

Tower 706 228 Sound Studio: Acad Affairs Film / Video 86

Tower 707 228 Classroom: Acad Affairs Academic Support 70Computer Arts

Tower 708 228 Sound Studio: Acad Affairs Film / Video 78

Tower 709 228 Shooting Studio Animation 64

Tower 710 311 Office: Acad Affairs Film / Video 78



Tower 713 228 Classroom Academic Support 691 14Computer Arts

Tower 713.1 225 AV. Closet Academic Support 59Computer Arts

Tower 714 311 Office: Acad Affairs Film / Video 115


Tower 716 311 Office: Acad Affairs Unspecified or Unassigned 116 dept?



Tower 719 311 Office: Acad Affairs Animation 70


Tower 721 228 Classroom Animation 689 15

Tower 721.1 225 AV. Closet Academic Support 59Computer Arts









Program

Tower 727 228 Sound Editing Studio Animation 70

Tower 729 228 Classroom Academic Support 735 17Computer Arts

Tower 729.1 311 Office: Acad Affairs Academic Support 182Computer Arts

Tower 729.2 225 Storage Academic Support 50Computer Arts

Tower 732 311 Office: Acad Affairs Animation 421 3

Tower 735 228 Video Screening Room Film / Video 1,169

Tower 735.1 225 Studio Mgr. Workroom Film / Video 207

Tower 737 225 Room Film / Video 205

Tower 739 228 Film/Video Editing Studio Film / Video 997 24

Tower 739.1 311 Screen Control Room Film / Video 202

Tower 743 225 Cage Film / Video 306

Tower 745 226 TV Studio Film / Video 852 34

Tower 745.1 228 Video Editing/Control Studio Film / Video 502

Tower 747 228 Video Editing Studio Film / Video 456

Tower 801 715 Office Information Technology 185

Tower 801.1 710 Office Information Technology 97



Tower 802-804 310 Office: Admin & Fin Business 2,252

Tower 802-804.1 310 Office Business 178



Tower 803 715 Information Technology Information Technology 777




Tower 805 310 Financial Aid Financial Aid 237

Tower 805.1 310 Office Financial Aid 187






Program


Tower 806 310 Office: Admin & Fin Administration 581

Tower 806.1 310 Office Human Resources 223

Tower 806.2 310 Office Human Resources 158

Tower 807 315 Room Human Resources 142

Tower 809 715 Conference Room Information Technology 262

Tower 811-813 310 Registrar Registrar 1,126

Tower 811-813.1 310 Office Registrar 115



Tower 811-813.4 310 File Storage Registrar 174



Tower 815 310 Civil Rights/Diversity Civil Rights / Diversity 96

Tower 841 715 Service Information Technology 130

Tower 843 710 Service Information Technology 249

Tower 900 224 Communication Design Studio Graphic / Illustration 11,322 132

Tower 902 310 Office: Studio Manager Graphic / Illustration 255 1

Tower 910 112 Classroom: Illustration Illustration 930 13

Tower 912 228 Bookbinding Lab (Classroom) Graphic / Illustration 853 12

Tower 914 228 Painting Lab (Classroom) Illustration 962 18

Tower 916 228 Letterpress Lab Graphic Design 913 13

Tower 917 311 Office: Acad Affairs, Adjunct Illustration 158 4

Tower 918 311 Office: Acad Affairs Graphic Design 369 2

Tower 928 225 Storage Graphic / Illustration 221

Tower G01 615 Auditorium: Seating All Departments 4,259 400

Tower U01 755 Delivery: Loading Dock Central Services 202

Tower U01.1 755 LD Office Central Services 111

Tower U04 316 Re-Store Unspecified or Unassigned 192





Program

Tower U06 615 Lighting Balcony All Departments 196

Tower U07 615 Lighting Balcony All Departments 243


347 spaces 172,879Tower Totals:





Program

410,660Study Totals: 725 spaces




6 APPENDIX

TEACHING SPACE ANALYSIS

Spaces NASF Stations Mean Section Size

Usage Hrs / Week per Space

Building Scheduled Sections

NASF / Station

Table I: TEACHING SPACE ANALYSIS - SUMMARY BY BUILDING - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012

Based on Fall 2012 enrollment data

HEGIS CATEGORY: 100

Weekly Contact Hours

% Station Utilization

5 5,935 171 27.0153550.6Kennedy 1,992 57%

9 7,881 196 37.3167940.7South 5,585 76%

22 17,511 560 28.71817331.4Tower 11,119 62%

36 31,327 927 30.617.028736.9HEGIS Totals: 18,695 65%

4/22/2013 I-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY

Spaces NASF Stations Mean Section Size

Usage Hrs / Week per Space

Building Scheduled Sections

NASF / Station

Table I: TEACHING SPACE ANALYSIS - SUMMARY BY BUILDING - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012


HEGIS CATEGORY: 200

Weekly Contact Hours


7 6,888 96 20.0153172.0Collins 2,140 112%

3 7,749 37 33.7172155.9East 1,769 90%

2 2,986 10.0144Gym 275

15 25,026 225 12.11335134.9Kennedy 2,462 110%

8 10,946 202 13.4162483.8North 1,773 137%

1 2,099 15.0123South 185

18 16,962 284 17.6137350.0Tower 4,144 73%

54 72,656 844 16.314.319185.3HEGIS Totals: 12,747 102%

4/22/2013 I-2DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY

Room Description NASF Stations Mean Section Size

Usage Hrs / Week

Building Room Scheduled Sections

NASF / Station

HEGIS

Table II: TEACHING SPACES - DETAIL BY BUILDING - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012


HEGIS CATEGORY: 100 (Classrooms)

Notes% Station Utilization

Kennedy 307.1 Classroom: Painting 2,282 20 18 49.511114.1112 89%

Kennedy 406 Auditorium 1,440 96 21 21.0715.0120 22%

Kennedy 408 Critique Room: Painting 703 18 10 9.0339.1111 57%

Kennedy 616 Classroom: Photography 755 15 11 28.0750.3111 72%

Kennedy 617 Classroom: Photography 755 22 10 27.5734.3111 46%

5 spaces 5,935 171 27.0153550.6Kennedy Totals: 57%

South 109 Classroom: Art Education 627 25 12 18.3825.1110 46%

South 202 Studio: Studio Found 913 25 18 43.5936.5112 71%

South 203 Studio 889 21 18 25.5642.3112 83%

South 206 Classroom: Acad Affairs 620 15 14 30.31041.3112 92%

South 209 Studio: Acad Affairs 908 20 16 44.01045.4112 78%

South 304 Computer Room: Studio Fou 937 20 17 43.5946.9118 86%

South 305 Computer Room: Studio Fou 921 20 18 43.5946.1118 88%

South 308 Computer Room: Studio Fou1,002 25 17 43.5940.1118 68%

South 309 Classroom: Studio Foundati 1,064 25 17 43.5942.6112 69%

9 spaces 7,881 196 37.3167940.7South Totals: 76%

4/22/2013 II-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY


Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS





Tower 1002 Classroom: Acad Affairs 800 17 36.59110

Tower 201 Classroom 916 15 28.58110

Tower 312 Classroom 794 18 6 0.5144.1111 33%

Tower 405 Graduate Classroom 897 25 11 23.3735.9110 45%

Tower 503 Classroom: Acad Affairs 705 42 25 37.0916.8110 58%





Tower 535 Classroom: Acad Affairs 736 17 28.510110




Tower 555 Classroom: Acad Affairs 1,180 18 14 33.5865.6110 78%

Tower 555.1 Classroom: Acad Affairs 413 20 15 24.0620.7110 73%






Tower 659 Classroom 1,601 60 13 34.0926.7120 21%

Tower 910 Classroom: Illustration 930 13 13 26.0671.5112 99%

22 spaces 17,511 560 28.71817331.4Tower Totals: 62%

36 spaces 31,327 927 30.61728736.9HEGIS 100 Category Totals: 65%



Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS



HEGIS CATEGORY: 200 (Laboratories and Studios)


Collins 006 Studio: Sculpture 581 8 13 27.5672.6224 158%

Collins 104 Studio: Glass Cold Working 945 10 14 10.0294.5222 140%

Collins 203 Elective Classroom: Cerami 1,397 15 18 37.5893.1222 121%

Collins 204 Fine Arts 3D Classroom 509 12 15 23.5642.4222 121%

Collins 308 Elective Studio/ Metals 1,933 18 18 20.04107.4226 100%

Collins 309 Studio 711 18 14 8.0239.5224 75%

Collins 310 Papermaking Studio: Fibers 812 15 11 13.5354.1222 71%

7 spaces 6,888 96 20.0153172.0Collins Totals: 112%

East 112 FM 1 1,125 24 16 37.5846.9226 67%

East 118 FM 2 844 13 15 23.5564.9226 114%

East 201 Silkscreen, Etching, Litho St 5,780 20 40.08226

3 spaces 7,749 37 33.7172155.9East Totals: 90%

Gym 005 Room 2,146 12 10.02210

Gym 305 Room 840 16 10.02228

2 spaces 2,986 10.0144Gym Totals:



Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS





Kennedy 301-303 Studio Painting 3,070 18 15 10.02170.6224 83%



Kennedy 402 Studio: Painting 2,337 18 12 10.01129.8224 67%

Kennedy 404 Graduate Studio 1,266 4 6 8.33316.5224 142%

Kennedy 407 Elective Studio 980 18 20 15.0354.4224 109%

Kennedy 409 Studio: Sophomore Painting 1,552 18 14 10.0186.2224 78%

Kennedy 502-503 Studio: JR/SR PAINTING 2,355 18 13 10.02130.8224 72%

Kennedy 504-505 Studio: JR/SR PAINTING 2,582 18 15 10.01143.4224 83%

Kennedy 506 Studio: SO Painting 1,158 15 14 10.0177.2224 93%

Kennedy 507 Studio: SO Painting 1,124 15 13 10.0174.9224 87%

Kennedy 510 Studio: Elective 1,192 19 15 15.0362.7224 81%

Kennedy 615 Studio: Graduate 1,005 3 13 37.010335.0224 430%

Kennedy 625 Digital Photo Lab 625 25 13 11.5325.0222 51%

Kennedy 628.2 Black&White Lab 712 6 4.01226

15 spaces 25,026 225 12.11335134.9Kennedy Totals: 110%

North 178 Pozen Center 4,053 70 38 10.0257.9226 54%

North 179 Molding/Casting: Sculpture 797 25 21 5.0131.9222 84%

North 181 Classroom: SIM 1,205 40 12 15.5430.1224 29%

North 185 Sound Studio 818 18 12 5.0145.4228 67%

North 281 Studio: Sculpture 829 3 17 10.02276.3224 550%

North 371 Classroom: Fibers 1,293 14 17 13.0392.4228 119%

North 375 Studio: Fibers / Surface Desi 1,164 12 15 20.0497.0222 127%

North 379 Classroom: Sculpture 787 20 14 28.5739.4222 68%

8 spaces 10,946 202 13.4162483.8North Totals: 137%

South HOTSH Hot Shop 2,099 12 15.03226

1 space 2,099 15.0123South Totals:



Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS





Tower 1001 Computer Lab 971 11 14.03228

Tower 2C3 Fashion Seniors 1,794 24 12 8.0274.8224 48%

Tower 320 Electronic Projects 1,045 15 13 10.0269.7228 87%

Tower 330 Animation Studio 959 21 14 29.0645.7228 65%

Tower 635 Junior Studio 1,607 15 18.04222

Tower 640 Classroom: Fashion/Commu 694 30 13 26.0723.1222 42%

Tower 642 Fashion Computer Lab 629 14 13 16.0444.9228 95%

Tower 655 Classroom 1,177 11 17.05225



Tower 713 Classroom 691 14 10 8.5249.4228 68%

Tower 721 Classroom 689 15 14 27.0645.9228 91%

Tower 729 Classroom 735 17 15 7.5243.2228 85%

Tower 739 Film/Video Editing Studio 997 24 13 20.0441.5228 52%

Tower 745 TV Studio 852 34 17 10.0225.1226 50%

Tower 912 Bookbinding Lab (Classroo 853 12 13 27.5771.1228 110%

Tower 914 Painting Lab (Classroom) 962 18 13 43.51053.4228 74%

Tower 916 Letterpress Lab 913 13 12 4.0170.2228 92%

18 spaces 16,962 284 17.6137350.0Tower Totals: 73%



Table III: TEACHING SPACES - DETAIL RANKED BY CAPACITY - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012



HEGIS NASF Stations Mean Section Size

Usage Hrs/Week


NASF per Station

Capacity Group


Tower 910 112 930 13 13 26.0672B (10-19) 99%

Kennedy 616 111 755 15 11 28.0750B (10-19) 72%

South 206 112 620 15 14 30.31041B (10-19) 92%

Tower 312 111 794 18 6 0.5144B (10-19) 33%

Kennedy 408 111 703 18 10 9.0339B (10-19) 57%

Tower 605 112 689 18 13 26.0638B (10-19) 70%

Tower 621 112 689 18 13 30.5638B (10-19) 73%

Tower 603 112 705 18 13 32.0739B (10-19) 75%

Tower 613 112 691 18 15 38.5838B (10-19) 83%

Tower 555 110 1,180 18 14 33.5866B (10-19) 78%

10 spaces 7,756 169 25.41362Group B (10-19) Totals: 46.6 73%

Tower 555.1 110 413 20 15 24.0621C (20-29) 73%

South 305 118 921 20 18 43.5946C (20-29) 88%

South 304 118 937 20 17 43.5947C (20-29) 86%

South 209 112 908 20 16 44.01045C (20-29) 78%

Kennedy 307.1 112 2,282 20 18 49.511114C (20-29) 89%

South 203 112 889 21 18 25.5642C (20-29) 83%

Kennedy 617 111 755 22 10 27.5734C (20-29) 46%

Tower 405 110 897 25 11 23.3736C (20-29) 45%

South 109 110 627 25 12 18.3825C (20-29) 46%

South 202 112 913 25 18 43.5937C (20-29) 71%

South 308 118 1,002 25 17 43.5940C (20-29) 68%

South 309 112 1,064 25 17 43.5943C (20-29) 69%

Tower 629 112 735 26 14 25.0528C (20-29) 55%

13 spaces 12,343 294 35.016105Group C (20-29) Totals: 42.9 69%

Tower 539 110 735 30 21 24.0825D (30-39) 70%

Tower 551 110 603 36 13 26.01017D (30-39) 35%

2 spaces 1,338 66 25.01618Group D (30-39) Totals: 20.6 53%

4/22/2013 III-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY





Usage Hrs/Week


NASF per Station

Capacity Group


Tower 505 110 689 40 23 35.0917E (40-49) 56%

Tower 513 110 691 40 23 31.51017E (40-49) 58%

Tower 529 110 735 40 22 30.01018E (40-49) 54%

Tower 540 110 888 40 25 30.01022E (40-49) 62%

Tower 521 110 689 40 28 31.51117E (40-49) 69%

Tower 503 110 705 42 25 37.0917E (40-49) 58%

6 spaces 4,397 242 32.52459Group E (40-49) Totals: 18.2 60%

Tower 659 120 1,601 60 13 34.0927G (60-99) 21%

Kennedy 406 120 1,440 96 21 21.0715G (60-99) 22%

2 spaces 3,041 156 27.51616Group G (60-99) Totals: 20.8 22%

Tower 201 110 916 15 28.58Unclassified



3 spaces 2,452 31.21627Group Unclassified Totals:







Usage Hrs/Week


NASF per Station

Capacity Group


North 281 224 829 3 17 10.02276A (1-9) 550%

Kennedy 615 224 1,005 3 13 37.010335A (1-9) 430%

Kennedy 404 224 1,266 4 6 8.33317A (1-9) 142%

Collins 006 224 581 8 13 27.5673A (1-9) 158%

4 spaces 3,681 18 20.71221Group A (1-9) Totals: 250.1 320%






Usage Hrs/Week


NASF per Station

Capacity Group


Collins 104 222 945 10 14 10.0295B (10-19) 140%

Tower 703 228 705 12 8 10.0259B (10-19) 63%

North 375 222 1,164 12 15 20.0497B (10-19) 127%

Collins 204 222 509 12 15 23.5642B (10-19) 121%

Tower 912 228 853 12 13 27.5771B (10-19) 110%

Tower 916 228 913 13 12 4.0170B (10-19) 92%

East 118 226 844 13 15 23.5565B (10-19) 114%

Tower 713 228 691 14 10 8.5249B (10-19) 68%

North 371 228 1,293 14 17 13.0392B (10-19) 119%

Tower 642 228 629 14 13 16.0445B (10-19) 95%

Kennedy 507 224 1,124 15 13 10.0175B (10-19) 87%

Kennedy 506 224 1,158 15 14 10.0177B (10-19) 93%

Tower 320 228 1,045 15 13 10.0270B (10-19) 87%

Collins 310 222 812 15 11 13.5354B (10-19) 71%

Tower 721 228 689 15 14 27.0646B (10-19) 91%

Collins 203 222 1,397 15 18 37.5893B (10-19) 121%

Tower 729 228 735 17 15 7.5243B (10-19) 85%

North 185 228 818 18 12 5.0145B (10-19) 67%

Kennedy 409 224 1,552 18 14 10.0186B (10-19) 78%

Kennedy 402 224 2,337 18 12 10.01130B (10-19) 67%

Kennedy 304-306 224 2,558 18 14 10.01142B (10-19) 78%

Kennedy 504-505 224 2,582 18 15 10.01143B (10-19) 83%

Collins 309 224 711 18 14 8.0240B (10-19) 75%

Kennedy 502-503 224 2,355 18 13 10.02131B (10-19) 72%

Kennedy 308-310 224 2,510 18 15 10.02139B (10-19) 83%

Kennedy 301-303 224 3,070 18 15 10.02171B (10-19) 83%

Kennedy 407 224 980 18 20 15.0354B (10-19) 109%

Collins 308 226 1,933 18 18 20.04107B (10-19) 100%

Tower 914 228 962 18 13 43.51053B (10-19) 74%






Usage Hrs/Week


NASF per Station

Capacity Group


Kennedy 510 224 1,192 19 15 15.0363B (10-19) 81%

30 spaces 39,066 468 14.91492Group B (10-19) Totals: 81.6 91%

North 379 222 787 20 14 28.5739C (20-29) 68%

Tower 705 228 689 21 17 20.0433C (20-29) 79%

Tower 330 228 959 21 14 29.0646C (20-29) 65%

Tower 2C3 224 1,794 24 12 8.0275C (20-29) 48%

Tower 739 228 997 24 13 20.0442C (20-29) 52%

East 112 226 1,125 24 16 37.5847C (20-29) 67%

North 179 222 797 25 21 5.0132C (20-29) 84%

Kennedy 625 222 625 25 13 11.5325C (20-29) 51%

8 spaces 7,773 184 19.91435Group C (20-29) Totals: 42.2 64%

Tower 640 222 694 30 13 26.0723D (30-39) 42%

Tower 745 226 852 34 17 10.0225D (30-39) 50%

2 spaces 1,546 64 18.0149Group D (30-39) Totals: 24.1 46%

North 181 224 1,205 40 12 15.5430E (40-49) 29%

1 space 1,205 40 15.5124Group E (40-49) Totals: 30.1 29%

North 178 226 4,053 70 38 10.0258G (60-99) 54%

1 space 4,053 70 10.0382Group G (60-99) Totals: 57.9 54%

Kennedy 628.2 226 712 6 4.01Unclassified

Gym 305 228 840 16 10.02Unclassified

Gym 005 210 2,146 12 10.02Unclassified


South HOTSHO 226 2,099 12 15.03Unclassified

Tower 635 222 1,607 15 18.04Unclassified

Tower 655 225 1,177 11 17.05Unclassified

East 201 226 5,780 20 40.08Unclassified

8 spaces 15,332 16.01528Group Unclassified Totals:






Usage Hrs/Week


NASF per Station

Capacity Group




Table IV: TEACHING SPACES - SUMMARY BY CAPACITY - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012


Spaces Total Stations

Mean Section Size

Mean Capacity

Mean Station Occupancy

Seating Capacity Group

NASF per Station

DLM NASF per StationTab-Arm Tab+Chr


Mean Hours per Week

B (10-19) 10 17 73%169 1346.6 22 30 25.4

C (20-29) 13 23 69%294 1642.9 20 30 35.0

D (30-39) 2 33 53%66 1620.6 18 25 25.0

E (40-49) 6 40 60%242 2418.2 16 22 32.5

G (60-99) 2 78 22%156 1620.8 15 22 27.5

Unclassified 3 1631.2

36 28 927 1730.636.9 65%HEGIS 100 Totals:

4/22/2013 IV-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY

Table IV: TEACHING SPACES - SUMMARY BY CAPACITY - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012


Spaces Total Stations

Mean Section Size

Mean Capacity

Mean Station Occupancy

Seating Capacity Group

NASF per Station

DLM NASF per StationTab-Arm Tab+Chr


Mean Hours per Week

A (1-9) 4 5 320%18 12250.1 20.7

B (10-19) 30 16 91%468 1481.6 14.9

C (20-29) 8 23 64%184 1442.2 19.9

D (30-39) 2 32 46%64 1424.1 18.0

E (40-49) 1 40 29%40 1230.1 15.5

G (60-99) 1 70 54%70 3857.9 10.0

Unclassified 8 1516.0

54 18 844 1416.385.3 102%HEGIS 200 Totals:

4/22/2013 IV-2DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY

Table V: TEACHING SPACES - DETAIL RANKED BY USAGE HOURS PER WEEK - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012


Department


NASF Stations Mean Section Size

Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS

Kennedy 307.1 Studio Foundation 2,282 20 18 49.511114.1112

South 209 Studio Foundation 908 20 16 44.01045.4112




South 308 Studio Foundation 1,002 25 17 43.5940.1118

South 309 Studio Foundation 1,064 25 17 43.5942.6112

Tower 613 Graphic / Illustration 691 18 15 38.5838.4112

Tower 503 History of Art 705 42 25 37.0916.8110

Tower 1002 Architecture / Industrial 800 17 36.59110


Tower 659 Fashion 1,601 60 13 34.0926.7120

Tower 555 Illustration 1,180 18 14 33.5865.6110



Tower 521 Liberal Arts 689 40 28 31.51117.2110

Tower 621 Industrial Design 689 18 13 30.5638.3112

South 206 Art Education 620 15 14 30.31041.3112



Tower 201 All Departments 916 15 28.58110

Tower 535 Liberal Arts 736 17 28.510110

Kennedy 616 Photography 755 15 11 28.0750.3111




Tower 910 Illustration 930 13 13 26.0671.5112


Tower 629 Industrial Design 735 26 14 25.0528.3112

4/22/2013 V-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY



Department



Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS


Tower 555.1 Liberal Arts 413 20 15 24.0620.7110

Tower 405 All Departments 897 25 11 23.3735.9110

Kennedy 406 All Departments 1,440 96 21 21.0715.0120

South 109 Art Education 627 25 12 18.3825.1110

Kennedy 408 Fine Arts 2D 703 18 10 9.0339.1111

Tower 312 Graduate 794 18 6 0.5144.1111

36 spaces 31,327 927 30.61728736.9HEGIS 100 Category Totals:




Department



Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS

Tower 914 Illustration 962 18 13 43.51053.4228

East 201 Fine Arts 2D 5,780 20 40.08226

Collins 203 Fine Arts 3D 1,397 15 18 37.5893.1222

East 112 Film / Video 1,125 24 16 37.5846.9226

Kennedy 615 Graduate 1,005 3 13 37.010335.0224

Tower 330 Animation 959 21 14 29.0645.7228

North 379 Fine Arts 3D 787 20 14 28.5739.4222

Collins 006 Fine Arts 3D 581 8 13 27.5672.6224


Tower 721 Animation 689 15 14 27.0645.9228

Tower 640 Fashion 694 30 13 26.0723.1222


East 118 Film / Video 844 13 15 23.5564.9226

Collins 308 Fine Arts 3D 1,933 18 18 20.04107.4226

North 375 Fine Arts 3D 1,164 12 15 20.0497.0222

Tower 705 Film / Video 689 21 17 20.0432.8228

Tower 739 Film / Video 997 24 13 20.0441.5228

Tower 635 Fashion 1,607 15 18.04222

Tower 655 Fashion 1,177 11 17.05225

Tower 642 Fashion 629 14 13 16.0444.9228

North 181 SIM 1,205 40 12 15.5430.1224

Kennedy 407 Fine Arts 2D 980 18 20 15.0354.4224

Kennedy 510 Fine Arts 2D 1,192 19 15 15.0362.7224

South HOTSH Fine Arts 3D 2,099 12 15.03226

Tower 1001 Architecture / Industrial 971 11 14.03228


North 371 Fine Arts 3D 1,293 14 17 13.0392.4228






Department



Usage Hrs / Week


NASF / Station

HEGIS

Gym 005 Film / Video 2,146 12 10.02210

Gym 305 Film / Video 840 16 10.02228

Kennedy 301-303 Fine Arts 2D 3,070 18 15 10.02170.6224









North 178 SIM 4,053 70 38 10.0257.9226

North 281 Fine Arts 3D 829 3 17 10.02276.3224

Tower 320 SIM 1,045 15 13 10.0269.7228

Tower 703 Film / Video 705 12 8 10.0258.8228

Tower 745 Film / Video 852 34 17 10.0225.1226

Tower 713 Academic Support 691 14 10 8.5249.4228

Kennedy 404 Graduate 1,266 4 6 8.33316.5224


Tower 2C3 Fashion 1,794 24 12 8.0274.8224

Tower 729 Academic Support 735 17 15 7.5243.2228

North 179 Fine Arts 3D 797 25 21 5.0131.9222

North 185 SIM 818 18 12 5.0145.4228

Kennedy 628.2 Photography 712 6 4.01226

Tower 916 Graphic Design 913 13 12 4.0170.2228

54 spaces 72,656 844 16.31419185.3HEGIS 200 Category Totals:



Table VI: TEACHING SPACES - DETAIL RANKED BY STATION UTILIZATION - DAYMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012




NASF / Station

HEGIS DepartmentHEGIS CATEGORY: 100 (Classrooms)

99%Tower 910 Illustration 930 13 13671.5112

92%South 206 Art Education 620 15 141041.3112

89%Kennedy 307.1 Studio Foundation 2,282 20 1811114.1112

88%South 305 Studio Foundation 921 20 18946.1118



83%Tower 613 Graphic / Illustration 691 18 15838.4112

78%Tower 555 Illustration 1,180 18 14865.6110



73%Tower 621 Industrial Design 689 18 13638.3112

73%Tower 555.1 Liberal Arts 413 20 15620.7110

72%Kennedy 616 Photography 755 15 11750.3111


70%Tower 539 Liberal Arts 735 30 21824.5110


69%South 309 Studio Foundation 1,064 25 17942.6112


68%South 308 Studio Foundation 1,002 25 17940.1118


58%Tower 503 History of Art 705 42 25916.8110


57%Kennedy 408 Fine Arts 2D 703 18 10339.1111


55%Tower 629 Industrial Design 735 26 14528.3112



46%South 109 Art Education 627 25 12825.1110

45%Tower 405 All Departments 897 25 11735.9110

4/22/2013 VI-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY






NASF / Station

HEGIS DepartmentHEGIS CATEGORY: 100 (Classrooms)


33%Tower 312 Graduate 794 18 6144.1111

22%Kennedy 406 All Departments 1,440 96 21715.0120

21%Tower 659 Fashion 1,601 60 13926.7120

Tower 535 Liberal Arts 736 1710110

Tower 201 All Departments 916 158110

Tower 1002 Architecture / Industrial 800 179110

65%36 spaces 31,327 927 1728736.9HEGIS 100 Category Totals:







NASF / Station

HEGIS DepartmentHEGIS CATEGORY: 200 (Laboratories and Studios)

550%North 281 Fine Arts 3D 829 3 172276.3224

430%Kennedy 615 Graduate 1,005 3 1310335.0224

158%Collins 006 Fine Arts 3D 581 8 13672.6224

142%Kennedy 404 Graduate 1,266 4 63316.5224


127%North 375 Fine Arts 3D 1,164 12 15497.0222

121%Collins 203 Fine Arts 3D 1,397 15 18893.1222


119%North 371 Fine Arts 3D 1,293 14 17392.4228

114%East 118 Film / Video 844 13 15564.9226


109%Kennedy 407 Fine Arts 2D 980 18 20354.4224

100%Collins 308 Fine Arts 3D 1,933 18 184107.4226

95%Tower 642 Fashion 629 14 13444.9228

93%Kennedy 506 Fine Arts 2D 1,158 15 14177.2224

92%Tower 916 Graphic Design 913 13 12170.2228

91%Tower 721 Animation 689 15 14645.9228


87%Tower 320 SIM 1,045 15 13269.7228

85%Tower 729 Academic Support 735 17 15243.2228

84%North 179 Fine Arts 3D 797 25 21131.9222

83%Kennedy 504-505 Fine Arts 2D 2,582 18 151143.4224




79%Tower 705 Film / Video 689 21 17432.8228










NASF / Station

HEGIS DepartmentHEGIS CATEGORY: 200 (Laboratories and Studios)

74%Tower 914 Illustration 962 18 131053.4228



68%North 379 Fine Arts 3D 787 20 14739.4222

68%Tower 713 Academic Support 691 14 10249.4228

67%East 112 Film / Video 1,125 24 16846.9226


67%North 185 SIM 818 18 12145.4228

65%Tower 330 Animation 959 21 14645.7228

63%Tower 703 Film / Video 705 12 8258.8228

54%North 178 SIM 4,053 70 38257.9226

52%Tower 739 Film / Video 997 24 13441.5228


50%Tower 745 Film / Video 852 34 17225.1226

48%Tower 2C3 Fashion 1,794 24 12274.8224

42%Tower 640 Fashion 694 30 13723.1222

29%North 181 SIM 1,205 40 12430.1224

Gym 305 Film / Video 840 162228

Gym 005 Film / Video 2,146 122210

East 201 Fine Arts 2D 5,780 208226

Kennedy 628.2 Photography 712 61226

South HOTSH Fine Arts 3D 2,099 123226

Tower 655 Fashion 1,177 115225

Tower 1001 Architecture / Industrial 971 113228

Tower 635 Fashion 1,607 154222

102%54 spaces 72,656 844 1419185.3HEGIS 200 Category Totals:


Table VII: TEACHING SPACES - TIME UTILIZATION ANALYSISMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012



Classes in Session at:

Percent of Spaces UtilizedM% T% W% R% F% M% T% W% R% F%

36 SpacesPercent of Stations Utilized927 Stations

8:00:00 AM 33 36 39 25 19 21 24 25 1533 9:00:00 AM 44 50 53 31 22 26 31 30 1839 9:30:00 AM 44 50 56 31 22 26 31 30 1839 9:45:00 AM 83 81 86 50 41 53 49 54 3567 10:00:00 AM 89 81 86 50 43 56 49 54 3569 11:00:00 AM 89 81 86 50 43 56 49 54 3569 11:30:00 AM 89 86 86 56 43 56 50 54 3672 1:00:00 PM 14 11 8 3 7 10 8 7 311 1:30:00 PM 61 11 50 3 25 35 8 30 347 1:45:00 PM 78 14 72 22 38 44 9 49 1967 2:00:00 PM 94 19 86 25 48 53 12 55 2189 2:10:00 PM 94 19 89 25 48 53 12 57 2192 3:00:00 PM 78 53 78 22 43 42 24 49 1883 3:15:00 PM 92 81 86 25 53 53 45 53 1994 3:30:00 PM 92 81 86 25 53 53 46 53 1994 4:00:00 PM 92 81 86 28 53 53 46 53 2294 4:45:00 PM 72 78 50 6 42 44 44 28 475 5:00:00 PM 75 78 47 6 42 44 45 25 472 5:15:00 PM 75 81 50 6 42 44 46 26 472 6:00:00 PM 58 72 42 0 32 35 43 21 053 6:15:00 PM 47 47 36 0 23 26 22 18 044 6:30:00 PM 31 58 33 3 9 11 27 11 328 7:00:00 PM 33 56 33 6 9 13 27 11 428 8:00:00 PM 25 28 31 6 6 9 12 9 422

Key: 60% - 100%40% - 60%20% - 40%0% - 20%

36% - 100%24% - 36%12% - 24%0% - 12%

4/22/2013 VII-1DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY

Table VII: TEACHING SPACES - TIME UTILIZATION ANALYSISMassachusetts College of Art and Design - Space Planning Studies 2012



Classes in Session at:

Percent of Spaces UtilizedM% T% W% R% F% M% T% W% R% F%

55 SpacesPercent of Stations Utilized844 Stations

8:00:00 AM 22 29 24 20 10 17 25 19 1815 9:00:00 AM 29 44 31 25 19 24 35 22 2327 9:30:00 AM 29 44 31 25 19 24 35 22 2327 9:45:00 AM 29 44 31 25 19 24 35 22 2327 10:00:00 AM 29 44 33 25 19 24 35 24 2327 11:00:00 AM 29 44 33 25 19 24 35 24 2327 11:30:00 AM 29 44 33 25 19 24 35 24 2327 1:00:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 02 1:30:00 PM 42 0 38 15 29 39 0 34 1036 1:45:00 PM 42 0 38 15 29 39 0 34 1036 2:00:00 PM 53 0 45 15 37 46 0 36 1047 2:10:00 PM 53 0 45 15 37 46 0 36 1047 3:00:00 PM 53 29 47 15 39 46 21 39 1049 3:15:00 PM 53 31 47 15 39 46 22 39 1049 3:30:00 PM 53 31 47 15 39 46 22 39 1049 4:00:00 PM 53 31 47 15 39 46 22 39 1049 4:45:00 PM 49 31 45 13 39 43 22 37 949 5:00:00 PM 45 31 45 13 37 42 22 37 947 5:15:00 PM 45 29 45 13 37 42 21 37 947 6:00:00 PM 38 22 36 13 34 36 16 33 940 6:15:00 PM 38 22 36 13 34 36 16 33 940 6:30:00 PM 22 33 5 2 8 11 23 3 011 7:00:00 PM 22 25 5 2 8 11 19 3 011 8:00:00 PM 22 11 5 2 6 11 8 3 09

Key: 60% - 100%40% - 60%20% - 40%0% - 20%

36% - 100%24% - 36%12% - 24%0% - 12%

4/22/2013 VII-2DOBER LIDSKY MATHEY



6 APPENDIX

DEPARTMENT INTERVIEW NOTES

Massachusetts College of Art and DesignSpace Planning Studies 2012 - 2013

Dober Lidsky Mathey ♦ Creating Campus Solutions

MEETINGNOTESDate: 10 October 3:00 PM - 4:00 PMRe: Studio for Interrelated Media (SIM)Place: North 173

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressNita Sturiale Chair, SIM 617.879.7481 [email protected]

Max Azanow Technical Director,SIM 617.879.7477 [email protected]

Michele Furst Senior Associate VP 617.879.7366 [email protected]

Cam Roberts CRA Principal 617.833.7333 [email protected]

George Mathey DLM Principal 617.489.1162 [email protected]



Studio for Interrelated Media

No Topic Discussion Item Action

A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss SIM’s currentorganizational structure, academic programs, futureprogram direction and space use.

B. Discussion Current Program OverviewThe Studio for Interrelated Media was established 40 yearsago, growing from theatre roots to explore fundamentalelements of the visual arts: light, sound, music.

Since its founding, the department’s activities havespawned a number of other current departments andcollege functions, such as the department of Video Art,the Computer Arts Center, and the College’s first website.

In addition to its teaching activities, the department is alsoresponsible for management of the Pozen Center, they areheavily involved in the Electronic Projects Lab and theycoordinate the Experimental Choir. They also assist in themanagement of the Godine Gallery.

The department currently has about 70 majors. OnThursdays they run the SIM Major Studio that typicallyfollows one of two formats: Big Group Day (meet in Pozen)and Small Group Day (the majors split into smaller groupsand use multiple spaces).

Current Space UseThere are 2 major teaching spaces – Pozen (N 178) and N181, a studio/classroom. The department also operates aSound Studio (N 185) which is supported by an ante room(multi-function, N184) and a media work room (N 184.1).

A green room for Pozen is located across the hall thatdoubles as a student lounge (N183) N 183.1 is currentlyserving as an installation room. While this space is quitesmall, since the Gym is off-line, it provides some space forlonger-term and larger scale work.

The department has 2 storage spaces:1 for lighting instrument storage (N 182)1 for other equipment (N002)

The department has a very liberal equipment reservationpolicy that allows any MassArt student to check out gearfor up to a week for use in projects. The storage and



distribution “cage” for this equipment is N 001.

The rest of the department’s space is offices and sharedmeeting/workrooms N172-175, 183.2

The major constraint the department works under isaccommodating the highly varied work their students andfaculty engage in, using effectively 3-4 project-orientedspaces. This constraint is further exacerbated now thatinstallation spaces in the Gym are off-line for renovation.More specifically, because the Pozen Center is theCollege’s only flat-floor auditorium, and because thePozens’ gift stipulates that the facilities be available to thewhole College and the community, this major space isfrequently unavailable for department activities. Last yearwas typical, with 55 non-SIM events scheduled into thespace. When these events are large and/or multi-day,they can also involve the Green Room (N181), the GodineGallery, and effectively the corridor that connects thesespaces.

Future NeedsNita feels there is demand for the number of majors togrow to 125, but this is the maximum number that couldmaintain the sense of community the seek to create.

The department feels strongly that they need access toadditional space(s) to better accommodate theirstudents’ and faculty’s diverse needs. They are exploringthe concept of developing a shared (or “agnostic”)fabrication laboratory (fablab) with 1 or more otherdepartments (ID for one).

They are also interested in developing a full-domeprojection facility to create realistic simulatedenvironments. There is a nice example of one of these atthe Northeastern University Admissions department.

Being specific about the directions the department mighttake in the future is not necessarily productive. They seetheir work and role as being the “bow of the ship” – the firstto encounter new media, fields, and forms of expression.Controlling the spontaneity inherent in this role couldconstrain faculty and student imagination.

George andCam will updatethe College’sspace inventory

Max will providea list of Pozenevents, andcoursesscheduled intodepartmentspaces.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 10 October 4:00 PM - 5:00 PMRe: Fashion DesignPlace: Tower 644

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressSondra Grace Chair, Fashion 617.879.7674 [email protected]






Fashion Design


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Fashion’s currentorganizational structure, academic programs, futureprogram direction and space use.

B. Discussion Current Program OverviewThe Fashion department has experienced dramaticgrowth in the past 15 years:1994 = 2 faculty | 32 UG majors2012 = 6 Faculty | 110 UG majors | 100 CE students

The department occupies space that was never designedto support Fashion activities. The space has some otherglaring deficiencies such as roof leaks, and some of thespace is unfinished. These conditions lead to a poor imageof the department and low morale. In the past, theseissues have seemed more manageable, but in the lastyear or so, the combination of increased enrollment,heightened expectations and continuing poor physicalconditions have caused the department to “hit the wall”.

There is no studio space that can be continuouslydedicated to specific students and their work. Hence,Sophomores and Juniors are repeatedly required to packup their projects at the end of a class session to make wayfor another class - UG, PCE, or Saturday Studio.

The department provides common project space in T640for students from all classes to work on projects outside ofscheduled class time.

The class breakdown of the 110 majors:

2 Post Seniors27 Seniors (2 sections)32 Juniors48 Sophomores1 Freshman

While the department is glad to have the senior studio, thefact that it is separated (in T2C3) from the rest of thedepartment is unfortunate as it separates the seniors andthe advanced project work they are engaged in from therest of the majors. Additionally, T2C3 is an oddly-shapedroom and poorly configured for teaching activities.



Fashion Illustration currently meets in T659, which works wellfor their needs with tiered seating providing good sightlines to a model on a pedestal placed in the “well of theauditorium with sufficient ceiling height to accommodatethis arrangement.

The department requires 3 types of teaching space: Atelier Studio with work areas assigned to specific

students for a semester or year. Teaching Studios flexible teaching spaces for

regularly-scheduled course meetings Illustration/Lecture Rooms for live model drawing

and large-group meetings

All studios should have first-rate projection capabilities andsignificant white/blackboard space

The department also has a strong focus on textile designsupported by their digital design studio T642 and T642.1.These spaces were re-purposed from a former mail room,and do not have all the environmental qualities theyshould. This suite is heavily utilized making expansion ofthese courses problematic.

Just as MassArt’s Fashion program’s enrollment has grownsteadily over the past 15 years, so has its reputation forcreative and rigorous instruction and productivity. Theywere recently invited to partner with the Royal Society ondigital textile design. This kind of recognition signifies adepartment that deserves to have facilities that match thehigh quality of the program, its faculty and students.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 16 October 10:00 AM - 11:00 AMRe: Studio FoundationPlace: South 303

Attendees Organization Phone Email Address

Nancy Aleo Chair, StudioFoundation 617.879.7388 [email protected]

Taylor Davis Faculty, StudioFoundation 617.879.7379 [email protected]

Jarrett Davis Faculty, StudioFoundation 617.879.7559

Kyle Brock Studio Mgr., StudioFoundation 617.879.7530 [email protected]






Studio Foundation


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss StudioFoundation’s current organizational structure, academicprograms, future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion There are not enough drawing rooms to accommodatethe current load of 27 sections of Drawing 1 &2

3 Drawing studios and 3 Visual Language Studios arerequired now.

Over-utilization of the current studios leads to support issuesespecially in the Visual Language spaces.

The insufficient number of drawing studios to handle theheavy course load forces 1/3 of drawing classes to bescheduled at a distance from the department in T310. Thisis less than ideal, isolating these sections and separatingthem from the critical equipment cages in South.

Studio Foundation requires 3 types of teaching spaces:Visual Language Studio – designed to support equalstudent focus on tactile and digital materials andprocesses.Drawing Studio – (dirty) 5-hour class sessionForm Study – (dirty) 5-hour class session includingfabrication

Kennedy 307 needs the platform extended, and only has 1window.

The department has advocated reallocating S311 to SF toprovide another studio in the core of the department.

Part of the scheduling problem arises from College policysuch as the decision to hold the common Freshman corecourse in Art History on Friday from 9-12.

All rooms are open until 10PM daily.

An open studio space in the Artist’s Residence is availablefor the use of commuter students.

Form Study Lab and Plaster Room are open daily from 2PMfor student project use.



Studio Foundation serves two primary objectives:Preparation for College-level workPreparation for more advanced work in the College’smany disciplines. It is critical to the department to maintaina focus and provide facilities for work with tactiletechniques and materials. It is essential that the programnot be reduced to only the digital. As one interviewparticipant expressed it, “We believe in the intelligencethat is developed by the hand.”

The space constraints are hampering SF’s ability to provideall that is required in students’ first year. Not only aredrawing courses held at a distance from the department,but while SF offers Drawing 2 and Visual Language 2, thereis no space and no time to offer Form Study 2. Thedepartment is working on a way to integrate all threeapproaches in one course. This integration would be verydifficult to achieve in the current space.

75-80% of the other college departments said they expecttheir new majors to have drawing skills to succeed in theirmajor. If an art education/vocation is seen as being themost promising way to develop “renaissance people” thenproviding excellent preparation for success in thiseducation is key to the College’s success.

There is a strong feeling at Mass Art and in SF particularlythat a contemporary Art College has the ultimateopportunity to focus on the development of 21st century“renaissance people”. There is significant demand amongMass Art students for double majors and multiple minors. SFhas a primary role in advancing this goal.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 16 October 11:00 AM - 12:00 PMRe: History of ArtPlace: Tower 541

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressEllen Shapiro Chair, History of Art 617.879.7589 [email protected]






History of Art


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss History of Art’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 9 FT faculty (all with offices in the T541suite), and 9 Adjuncts (who share offices in the suite).

The department has 50 majors (approximately 40 arepursuing double majors.)

They were experiencing a shortage of classrooms whichwas resolved by being able to use T201.

The department is in initial discussions regardingdeveloping a Master’s program that would require anadditional 1-2 faculty and engage approximately 8students.

Also in discussions with Studio Foundations and ArtEducation about developing a survey course inContemporary Art for a total of about 400 students.Freshmen would take the course in sections of 15, whileSophomores and Juniors would be in sections of about 25.

T555A is a horrible seminar room – too hot, insufficient airchanges – very uncomfortable to teach in.In general, temperature control in the classrooms is aproblem. Heat is either on or off and windows don’toperate reliably.

Would like to convert adjunct positions into full-time facultylines.

The department does some of its teaching in Bostonmuseums.

They also use the Library for some teaching and researchcoaching sessions.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 16 October 1:00 PM - 2:00 PMRe: Graphic DesignPlace: Tower 633.1

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressLiz Chair, Graphic Design 617.879. [email protected]

Jan Professor, GraphicDesign 617.879. [email protected]

Chaz Professor, GraphicDesign 617.879. [email protected]

Joe Professor, GraphicDesign 617.879. [email protected]

Brian Professor, GraphicDesign 617.879. [email protected]

Gunther Professor, GraphicDesign 617.879. [email protected]






Graphic Design


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Graphic Design’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 7 FT faculty, and 6-8 Adjuncts.

The department has had about 140 majors consistentlyover time.

Their program of study follows the core and electivesmodel.

Graphic Design students make heavy use of the computerlabs on T3.

Studio courses typically meet for 5 hours and employSeminar teaching as well, involving design/researchproblems with team teaching, and often, students usemultiple rooms in the course of one course meeting.

T310 and its adjacent spaces is a great suite for teachinginformation architecture and typography.

T306 and 308 are traditionally-configured computer labsthat don’t work well for current pedagogy that emphasizesgroup work, pinning up, projecting images, layingmaterials out on work tables.

When teaching or meeting larger groups, the departmentoften uses T659. Some instructors make good use of theroom’s seating tiers, while others would prefer a flat floorspace for meetings of this size.

Limitations with teaching space on T6 include: No group printers available Inadequate space dedicated to student projects

limits the department’s ability to effectively employthis approach

There is insufficient power to teach with laptops The need to share studio space with other

departments (like Illustration) using “dirtier”materials is a real frustration – affecting the look ofstudent work and the time applied to assignments.

Movable furniture in all studios is essential to GraphicDesign instruction.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 17 October 9:00 AM - 10:00 AMRe: Industrial DesignPlace: Tower 1007

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressJames Chair, Industrial Design 617.879. [email protected]

Bob Professor, IndustrialDesign 617.879. [email protected]






Industrial Design


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Industrial Design’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion One of the major challenges facing ID and Architecture,the departments that share the 10th floor, is that theincrease in the size of the Sophomore class means thatthey can no longer all fit in the atelier adjacent to thefaculty offices (T1000.2). This overflow is handled bysophomores “squatting” in less-used stations in the Jr/Sratelier (T1000.1)

For large studio sections, they need to book additionalspaces I the “triangle” between the ateliers, in the T1002classrooms, T621, etc. Course meeting durations vary:

Lecture – 3 hours Hybrid Critique – 3 hours Hybrid Studio – 5 hours Studio – 6 hours

The department uses 4 different types of space to supportit’s instructional activities:Product Development – Advanced projects with outsideclients that require confidentiality/security which iscompromised by the open nature of the surroundingstudios. They currently use unnumbered space south ofT320 [T320.1?])ID1 / ID2 – These are 5-hour hybrid studiosMan and Process – this is a 3-hour course capped atsections of 20 (cap is too high to support good instruction)combines lecture, case studio work and some hands-onproject work. Currently use 629 and 659.MDes – This is a cohort masters program under discussionwhich would require a dedicated room assigned to thecohort with nearby breakout/support space.Research – some work on campus some in the field. Loc??Space with break out for different research teams of 3-6people. These currently meet in alcoves on the 10th floor.These alcoves are generally pretty messy, but they workwell for these groups. A good example of the “loungestudio” space type, not permanently dedicated to anyone group.Model Shop is shared with Architecture.They also use the plaster-casting room in North.They don’t have the storage and crib space they need for



equipment and check-out.Studio Manager has no office space visible for student toeasily access.Wood Shop – ID students use the wood shop for 1 course/year.Storage for the wide variety of materials, projects-in-progress, completed projects, etc. is a real need andcurrently a big problem that is currently solved through ad-hoc storage racks in nooks and crannies of studio space.Movable furniture in all studios is essential to GraphicDesign instruction.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 17 October 10:00 AM - 11:00 AMRe: Film/ VideoPlace: East 112

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressEricka Bergman Chair, Film/Video 617.879. [email protected]

Gretchen Professor, Film/Video 617.879. [email protected]

Soon-Mi Professor, Film/Video 617.879. [email protected]

Joe Professor, Film/Video 617.879. [email protected]






Film / Video


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Film / Video’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion Much of the facility need of the department remainsconstant – the need for space with specialized, controlledlighting for capturing images hasn’t really changed whilethe gear used has become more digital.

All classes are running Monday through FridayThe department Also uses classroom on T7 (T735).Classroom in the Film / Video context is a screening roomwhich needs to be soundproof, have a control room,black finishes, table and chair seating.

The major facility need of the department is Multi-purposespace for:

installations of differing types set-building space Reviews Painting Costume-making Lighting Etc.

While the Design Center will have 12 project roomsincluding 2 small lighting studios which will respond to someof these needs, the department needs another of thesededicated to its ongoing use.

The department also uses the College’s Auditorium forstudent shows.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 17 October 11:00 AM - 12:00 PMRe: Art EducationPlace: South 106.1

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressLois Chair, Art Ed 617.879. [email protected]

Steve Professor, Art Ed 617.879. [email protected]

Amy Professor, Art Ed 617.879. [email protected]

John Professor, Art Ed 617.879. [email protected]

Adrianna Professor, Art Ed 617.879. [email protected]

Kyle Studio Manager, Art Ed 617.879. [email protected]






Art Education


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Art Education’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion Art Education can be described as an art-making,community-engaged department. The department offersa range of degrees focusing on different aspects oflearning and teaching Art:BFAArt Teaching (9 semesters)Studio Education (9 semesters)Community Edcuation (8 semesters)Museum Education (8 semesters)TPP (post bac) (3 semsters)MAT (4 semesters)

Majors take 7 electives (5-6 inside the department)

3 department classroom spaces are for studio work2 classroom spaces are for lecture coursesThe department runs 2 community outreach programs thatprovide a critical public face for the College to the city

The College’s historic Saturday Studio program forabout 250 area school children (K-12) which uses14 rooms campus wide over 8 weekends in the Fall.

Capstone courses – are pre-practicum for talentedart students that is designed to work as a feeder forMassArt.

The Arnheim Gallery is an essential facility for thedepartment.

Space Deficiencies:These affect advanced Seniors and Grad students morethan Sophomores and Juniors.An overarching concept regarding space is that itshouldbe assigned to students, not to departments. Thisapproach would support interdisciplinary practice andthinking, while focusing on student development ratherthan the disciplines per se.Because Art Ed studies are inherently multi-media,the department’s students need access to 4 of theCollege’s fabrication labs:Wood ShopModel Shop



T4One Other

But because these facilities are departmentally-assignedthey are rarely available to students from outside thosedepartments, limiting student development. Looked at thisway, the notion that the departments with more studentsshould have more space is actually counter-productive.Each MassArt student should have full access to allresources they would need to complete their degrees.

Art Ed studios have about 17 stations each for portfolioclasses

There has been serious discussion about changing thename of the department to Learning and Teaching in theVisual Arts to better capture what the department is reallyfocused on.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 22 October 10:00 AM - 11:00 PMRe: Architectural DesignPlace: Tower 10

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressPaul Chair, Architecture 617.879. [email protected]

Meg Professor, Architecture 617.879. [email protected]

Leo Professor, Architecture 617.879. [email protected]






Architectural Design


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss ArchitecturalDesign’s current organizational structure, academicprograms, future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion Unscheduled use of studios can be extracted from DaVinciby looking at the “other” day, enrollment and timecolumns.

Establishing a sign-up sheet for the Triangle area hashelped coordinate the use of this shared space.

The department expects to be fully accredited in 1 year’stime which will increase enrollment. They are projecting anincrease from 43 to 90 majors with masters enrollment of30.

MassArt’s architecture program continues to emphasizehand work in traditional techniques.

All space is multi-purpose. They mix grad students in withthe undergrads in the atelier.

They are at the tipping point between enrolling 1 and 2sections per grade which strains their capacity.

They don’t have sufficient quality space with appropriatelycontrolled access for: material and project storage, shopactivities, 3-D printer and laser cutter.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 22 October 11:00 AM - 12:00 PMRe: IllustrationPlace: Tower 9 (west end of T900)

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressLinda Burke Chair, Illustration 617.879. [email protected]

Wollinsky Professor, Illustration 617.879. [email protected]

BArins Professor, Illustration 617.879. [email protected]

RGolsk Professor, Illustration 617.879. [email protected]

Luanne Studio Manager,Illustration 617.879. [email protected]






Illustration


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Illustration’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 6 FT faculty185 Majors

They run multiple sections of every required course

The 9th floor is the most heavily scheduled in the College

They use space on the 5th, 6th, and 9th floors

Space Issues:Their spaces all have poor ventilation, lighting, and noisecontrol. The department has no dedicated computer lab.

The most recent peer review of the department identifiedtheir facilities as the weakest component of their program.

Because of poor ventilation, they cannot use oil paint, orpastels.

None of their teaching spaces has proper lighting.

Only 1 room has a sink.

Students faint and people get sick due to insufficient freshair.

The open drawing studio scheduled on the 9t floor onWednesdays and Thursdays is not big enough toaccommodate the cap of 16 students.

In short, they don’t have any true art studio space.

The nearly 400 students majoring in Illustration and GraphicDesign hold a lottery for the 146 desks placed in the 9th

floor atelier. To keep your desk, you must use it at least 10hours a week. Others use incidental space on the floor.

T555 is furnished and managed by Illustration, but theycan’t use it in the evening when PCE schedules classes.T659 is a good space but the tiers are awkward and thesight lines not good on the sides of the room.



The department prepared a plan for reconfiguring andrenovating their space. This plan should be implementedas soon as possible.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 22 October 1:00 PM - 2:00 PMRe: AnimationPlace: Tower 732

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressFlip Chair, Animation 617.879. [email protected]

Steve Professor, Animation 617.879. [email protected]

Adam Professor, Animation 617.879. [email protected]






Animation


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Animation’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 3 FT faculty and about 1 FTE ofadjuncts.82 Majors comprised of 2 cohorts (of approximately 45)with course sections capped at 15. Adding another cohortwould raise the enrollment to 135.

The department is 10-years old, young for MassArt. As aresult, they have occupied “interstitial” space that noother department claimed. They are dispersed in threelocations: T3, T7, and North 2.

The range of instructional activities students engage ininclude: work with computers; materials,; fabricating;editing; sound design.

Space Issues:They use 2 main teaching spaces, one of which is theirprimary studio space (T330). T330 has 19 computers and 2shooting stations. The room has no sink although they needone for collaging, painting, etc.

They’d like to acquire an articulated motion controlcamera rig, similar, but more sophisticated than those inN272. This needs a space at least 15’x15’.

N272 is the studio where they run a required animationclass (Stop Motion 1). It is also used for project space,fabrication editing. An expansion of this space wouldprovide significantly increased access for students tocomplete projects. The space should be extended withcurtained-off booths assignable to student projects. Thiswould promote sharing of common space, tools, materials,etc.

They also like to create the following supplemental spaces: a general-purpose “hang out” lab, project studio scheduled teaching studio Foley lab

PCE also uses some of their space, especially T721.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 22 October 2:00 PM - 4:00 PMRe: FIne Arts 3DPlace:

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressMatthew Hincman Chair, FA3D 617.879. [email protected]






Fine Arts 3D


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Fine Art 3D’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 13 FT faculty and about 18-20 HCadjuncts.200 Majors distributed roughly as follows:Ceramics = 29Fibers = 40-50Glass = 19Jewelry & Metalsmithing = 27Sculpture = 83

20 minors

The department is responsible for a wide range ofdisciplines, so its curriculum is designed into areas ofconcentration that share a set of core requirements incommon:

Projects in Wood course is taken by all FA3Dsophomores.

Senior Seminar (combined lecture and seminarcourse)

Junior/Senior 3-credit course on contemporary art Advanced Studio

Almost all other courses are studio electives open to all inthe College, so the department has a high service load. Inthis way, the department’s strength in teaching hand workis leveraged college-wide.

The department is introducing technology through CNCmachines, but this poses its own problems. The machinesare costly and expensive to maintain.

While there are issues with the facilities supporting most ofthe concentration areas, one of the space shortages thataffects the whole department is finding sufficient space atthe end of each semester for crit sessions. With so manymajors displaying such a wide range of projects workingthese sessions out in a timely way that shows eachstudent’s work in a supportive way is a real challenge.Note: The interview continued subsequently with athorough tour of the department’s space.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 31 October 10:00 AM - 11:00 AMRe: PhotographyPlace: Kennedy 618

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressLaura Chair, Photo 617.879. [email protected]

Steve Professor, Photo 617.879. [email protected]

Barbara Professor, Photo 617.879. [email protected]

Matt Studio Manager, Photo 617.879. [email protected]






Photography


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Photo’s currentorganizational structure, academic programs, futureprogram direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 13 FT faculty and about 18-20 HCadjuncts.110 Majors (the historic high was 127)20 GR students50 Continuing Ed

While the “squatting patterns” from the initial relocation ofthe College to this complex are still evident and not alwayssupportive of current enrollment distribution, thedepartment loves Photo’s location on K6 and therenovations done (and upcoming) for their space.

However, their current space is designed for 80 majors,and is now asked to accommodate a total of over 200students active in the department.

Most spaces are serving multiple uses.

They need a dedicated lighting studio.

There is in reality no studio space at all for gallery, crit,installation. Ideally, there would be 1 each for junior, seniorand grad students.

Need a larger cage space for equipment checkout andgeneral storage for lights and other equipment used in thedepartment.

The overall curricular sequence moves from Black & Whitefor Sophomores to Digital for Juniors and a range ofElectives for Seniors.

For cohesiveness and efficient sharing of the darkroomsand digital techniques lab, the department feels stronglythat the Grad and Continuing Ed students remain with theUG activities.

They have discovered that digital processes threatendepartmental community because students feel they cando much of their work on their own, independent of thedepartments and its special facilities.



Would also like to add an office space for adjuncts tobetter integrate them into the department, and providemore consistent access to students.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 31 October 11:00 AM - 12:00 PMRe: Fine Arts 2DPlace: Kennedy 510.1

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressStuart Chair, FA2D 617.879. [email protected]

Peggy Studio Manager, FA2D 617.879. [email protected]






Fine Arts 2D


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Fine Arts 2D’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion The department has 17 HC faculty with 9 of those FT tenuretrack.130-140 Majors (85-90 Jr/Sr)12 GR students

The department needs studio space for both “messy” and“dry” work shops.

While studios are technically capped at 15 students, studiosection sizes range from 14-16 students.

K307 is mainly used to support Studio Foundation courses.

The only teaching space for electives in the department isK407 and K510

Grad studio is K404

There are 6 Jr/Sr studios and 3 Sophomore studios.

Space Needs: There is no proximate viewing/crit space in the

department. This is important for students to seetheir work outside the studio context. This wouldalso provide a venue for visiting artists’ shows, andpresentations of all types.

They also need a dedicated “shooting space” tophotograph student work.

Common areas / discussion Space in studios for models and still life setup Storage for materials Better lighting in studios and viewing areas More electrical outlets in studios Better natural lighting control

Currently, Jr./Sr. studios are very traditional with fixedcubicles for students, which tends to isolate them andconstrain the size and type of work they can engage with.Ideally, studios would be updated to facilitate better



flexibility and capability. One thought is to create a studiowith partitions, backgrounds and curtains that could dropfrom the ceiling or extend from a wall when needed andbe retracted when not needed.

The whole College needs better wi-fi for faster internetperformance.

They need to find a way to promote greater interactionbetween UG and GR students. Currently, GR stay tothemselves and don’t participate in the life of thedepartment. There would be real benefits to all if theycould open themselves up to departmental activities.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 15 November 3:30 AM - 4:30 PMRe: PCEPlace: PCE/Grad Office

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressAnne-Marie Director, PCE 617.879. [email protected]

Susan ??, PCE 617.879. [email protected]

Liz ??, PCE 617.879. [email protected]






PCE


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss PCE’s currentorganizational structure, academic programs, futureprogram direction and space use.

B. Discussion PCE offers 100+ classes per semester not including YouthPrograms (for grades 4-12). This translates to 800-900 classseats. 1,000 to 1,100 class seats are offered in the summersession.

These course’s studio needs are met in MassArt’sundergraduate and grad space.

They are not meeting NASAD-set credit hour requirementbecause sharing spaces limits their access to 6-10 eveningsand just half the Saturdays in each semester.

PCE really feels that the space limitatations Collefe-wideare exacerbated by the multiplicity of recording systemsused to track space utilization. This makes the picture ofspace use partial and confusing to most. The Collegeshould act to integrate and centralize this record-keepingand sharing.

The Youth Program session starts in July and it’s increasinglyhard to find space for them given that the followingprograsm are competing for some or all of the studiospace on campus: UG, GR, CE, Youth, Art Ed (SaturdayStudios & Feeder program)

CE is the de facto manager of teaching space on campusafter 6 PM.

Youth programs could grow, the demand is there, butfinding space, especially in the key time of schoolvacation is exceptionally difficult.

Artward Bound is now offered in Smith Hall, which as aresidence hall should not be open to others who are notresidents of the hall.

There is pressure for CE to generate more revenue. Paintingclasses are very popular, but they’d need to arrange forspace and faculty to teach an additional course.

Also popular and candidates for growth are:



silk screenJewelry/MetalsFashionFibersFilm/VideoFurniture Design

A feature of the MassArt UG calendar is the midday arthistory seminar which all students take. This essentiallypushes the day program out to 8 PM which effectivelyeliminates the evening program on those days.

They’d like to establish a PCE lounge space on campus.

The current location of their offices has created a goodwork space, but, being across the street from the maincomplex, it is isolated from the life of the College

Ideally, the Youth Programs would have a consolidatedsuite of spaces for more effective and efficient operationof these courses and control of the population takingthese classes. Currently, Saturday Studios have spreadthroughout the complex. At a minimum, Art Ed should beallocated a space to configure as a model instructional“lab school” studio.

The After School program runs 1 afternoon/week usually asa drawing class.

Summer Studios are a 4-week pre-college program for highschool students. 5-6 sections of Foundation studies: 2D, 3D,etc. This and the Grad activity in the summer really limitsadditional PCE offerings.

Youth programs involve 750-800 participants total per year:Summer Studio = 75-80Vacation Week = 110Extreme Week = 30Portfolio Prep = 20

PCE programs are not allowed to use the new digitalphoto labs and the artist’s books and letterpress on T9.

Scheduling all of these activities requires closecoordination with the Studio Managers

There is no good, secure place for Youth Programparticipants to drop their stuff when they arrive oncampus. This would be a big help.

Ideallly, PCE offices should be closer to program space. Agood location would be adjacent the Galleries and



Admissions.

An alternative future for PCE and Grad programs would beto identify a new location that would support growth.Strong Grad candidates include Graphic Design, IndustrialDesign, Drawing and other 2D. This notion might alsosupport “access labs” that could be rented to local alums,artists, and community groups. Both studio space and an“artist’s service bureau” of high-end digital tools that arenot often available due to prohibitively high cost. Thiscould be another revenue stream for PCE and theCollege.



MEETINGNOTESDate: 16 November 1:00 PM - 2:00 PMRe: Liberal ArtsPlace: Tower 533.1

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressBob Gerst Chair, Liberal Arts 617.879. [email protected]






Liberal Arts


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss Liberal Arts’scurrent organizational structure, academic programs,future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion 12-12.5 FT faculty+- 25 Adjuncts

Liberal Arts teaches all 1,700-1,800 students enrolled atMassArt offers out of 5 classrooms, 3 seminar rooms and alecture hall. This equates to roughly 1/3 of the College’scurriculum in 9 spaces.

60%-65% of courses are taught by adjuncts (as opposed tothe target of 20%). Adjuncts’ typically variable schedulemakes it a challenge to work out course schedules eachsemester.

In addition to the classrooms and seminar rooms on T5,they also use K406 and K201

Most sections are capped at 25. Fresman seminars arecapped at 15.

The College has no Science labs, so the science curriculumis embarrassingly limited.

A lot of the teaching space furniture and fixtures arerudimentary at best and do not communicate a collegiatesetting to students. This is further exacerbated by poorsound control between classrooms.

It would be wonderful to have a Liberal Arts StudentLounge to give students an opportunity to spend sometime in the department.

A college-wide faculty lounge would be a terrific space tohave.

They need storage space.

To satisfy accreditation guidelines, they want to implementa digital anthology of student work. IT doesn’t seem tohave the resources to make this happen.Need better adjunct faculty accommodations.



MEETING NOTESDate: 16 November 3:30 AM - 4:30 PMRe: Graduate ProgramsPlace: PCE/Grad Office

Attendees Organization Phone Email AddressJenny Gibbs Director, Grad Programs 617.879. [email protected]






Graduate Programs


A. Introductions The purpose of the session was to discuss the GraduateProgram’s current organizational structure, academicprograms, future program direction and space use.

B. Discussion Master of Achitecture

For the program, they need more collaborative space andless individual work stations. They are currently located inGR Studio on T4, should have accommodation for cohortsof 12 and they want 3 cohorts. There are now 10 FT andsome PT students. CAD computers and plotters should beintegrated into the Cohort space.

MFADMI MFA in dynamic media uses a project space withinthe Grad Studio on T4. This group also has space in the“point” on T3.

Design Innovation (“Jamie’s program”)Involves a great deal of group work and heavy reliance onthe laser cutter for prototyping. Having a centralizedfabrication lab in DMI would be great for both programs.This now involves 17 students plus 3 post-bacs which shouldgrow to 30.

Fine ArtsCarrels on T4 are assigned to studios but are sometimesunused because of inadequate HVAC systems to ventilatefumes, etc. Accordingly, this space is typically used forstorage. The northeast corner of this studio is often used asinstallation space.

PaintingHas temporary use of space in the Grad Studio on T4. Theywill need to find new space in about 2 years. This programhas the strongest and largest (120) applicant pool.

The Fine Art GR programs prefer that UG and GR activitiesare co-located. This is less important to the Design GRprograms which could be separated. Artist’s Asylum inSommerville is a good model of what this “remote” Gradspace might be like.

PhotoLocated on K6



MFA Low-Res program began last summer and runs inBoston and Provincetown. Most students prefer thesummer schedule and most are pursuing a degree inpainting. The P’town cohort should move to Boston. Eachcohort is 7 students. The goal is to double this number.

Ttoal GR enrollment should be 180 students.

Documents

MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN