Memorial Union Reinvestment
Design Committee Meeting #6
November 1, 2011
Meeting Minutes 2010-2011
Beefeaters – Memorial Union
Members
Katie Fischer, Union President XJohn Staley, UW Faculty/Staff Rep X
Colin Plunkett, Student Project Manager XMark Haebig, UW Alumni Rep (MUBA) X
Kathryn W. von Below, Proj. Manager, Ex-OfficioXTom Smith, UW Alumni Rep (MUBA) X
John Skic, Student Appointee XKelli Kruschke, ASM Chair Designee X
Brigid Hogan, Student Appointee XRachael Smith, ASM Appointee X
Courtney Severson, Student Appointee XEleanor Wroblewski, ASM Appointee
Mark Guthier, Union Director XKatie Ruocco, ASM Appointee X
Hank Walter, Union Associate Director XTed Crabb, Emeritus Director, Ex-Officio X
John Sharpless, UW Facutly/Staff Rep X
Guests: Jake Imme, Del Wilson, Open Forum speakers.
TOPIC / DISCUSSION / ACTIONCall to Order
Open Forum
Approval of Minutes
Answers to Outstanding Questions
Approve 2nd & 3rd Floor Design Development Floor Plans
Theater Lounge Update
Priorities Review
Finishes Concept Report
Future Design Committee Dates
Adjournment / Ms. Fischer called the meeting to order on November 1, 2011 at 6:05p.m.
John appealed to save the oak tree on the terrace. Taking it and additional area down will cost unnecessary money. Leaving them in place will save money. He also mentioned enjoyment of the Brat Stand and interest in the traditional open space as is currently laid out.
Matt referenced the recent student referendum results, stating the Theater Lounge project should be abandoned, and that any addition should adhere to the basic architectural integrity and should follow the initial referendum that was passed in 2006. He also expressed desire in open forums regarding any financially-related student and project budget matters that arise.
Kate expressed her positive view on the disapproval of the Theater Lounge vote. She asked about the Hoofers area, and how it extends to the east and the elevation change and view from the Rathskeller. Kate also referred to the oak tree, inquiring if anything could be done to save it, and that the topic should be discussed.
Dierk stated the Theater Lounge project should be dropped from further discussion that the recent voting made clear this idea is not desired by the student body.
Chris raised concern of the potential for ‘mission drift.’ He urged the committee and project to stick to the Union’s mission of students and faculty to engage in social life, play, and work.
The minutes from meeting #5, August 29, 2011, were presented for approval, where Mr. Haebig made a MOTION to approve them as such. Mr. Smith SECONDED. Being no discussion, Ms. Fischer called the question. The minutes were APPROVED unanimously.
Mr. Plunkett asked for any outstanding questions or concerns on the project.
Mr. Sharpless requested the capacity of the Sunset Deck, where Colin reported from the Design Team that “the Sunset Deck is approximately 2,300 square feet and about 154 people with no tables or chairs present.”
Mr. Crabb asked about the possibility of a second door leading to the Theater Lobby, which was confirmed by the Design Team.
Mr. Plunkett stated the last question raised was in regard to additional toilet support for the first floor, which can be included in the north/south corridor.
Mr. Walter requested the credit of noting Dr. Allison, a professional arborist and professor at the University, where Mr. Plunkett obliged. Colin stated Dr. Allison was hired to observe and study the trees, most notably the oak tree located on the terrace. Concern with the oak tree involves a severe amount of decay and root rot. There is a video on the MUR website sampling and reporting his study and conclusion and recommendation.
Mr. Plunkett presented the second and third floor plans and described changes from Design Development up until the present day.
Second Floor:
- The 1925 Gallery has changed from rounded to squared shape
- Provides additional wall space for use
- Separated doors providing entrance to the Play Circle moving into a single entrance
- Additional doorway leading onto the Theater Deck
Mr. Skic asked if the Art Committee had been consulted with regarding Gallery changes, where Mr. Plunkett confirmed the group’s approval.
Mr. Staley inquired if a specific reason to restrict the first and second Theater Wing stairway to one door. Colin repeated that it is not shown in the plan, but two doors are possible to place in the locations.
Mr. Sharpless raised the question of the Theater Deck having a ramp for accessibility options. Mr. Plunkett confirmed.
Mr. Walter made a MOTION to approve the design with addition of an additional door to the top and bottom of the first and second floor stairwell in the Theater Wing, as Mr. Crabb proposed. Ms. Hogan SECONDED.
Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion.
Mr. Staley asked Ms. von Below if a central post will be required in the double-door feature, where Wendy forwarded the question to Mr. Wilson, who stated it will be an unlikely requirement.
Being no further discussion, Katie called the question.
The MOTION PASSED without objection.
Third Floor:
- Server Room space reconfigured and fire doors added
- Desire to create larger lobby space
- Theater staff office space significantly reconfigured
- Desire for area usage flexibility
- Openness for gatherings
- Theater program area/Open Space no longer needed, therefore designated to storage area
Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion, being none, she called the question.
The MOTION PASSED without objection.
Ms. Fischer noted on the October 17-19 ASM Fall Ballot, an Advisory Referendum was put to a vote and the results are noted on the attached handout. The ballot inquired, “do you support the current design of the Theater Lounge addition for the Memorial Union?” Results tallied 49.76% voted “Yes,” where 50.24% voted “No.” Katie expressed that the Architects have been notified of this result and were asked to draft new designs for the area.
Mr. Plunkett noted what the approved 2006 Referendum requested in terms of design for the space. Mr. Wilson expressed the new approach has the Theater Lounge addition moving forward, and having it designed similar to the current building style. Early design talk by the architects are showing that the total square footage can be reduced, and the design can be pulled back to achieve a simple “bump out” style. By pulling back and exposing the northwest corner, people will always have a view of the original historic building. This strategy can be worked and discussed with the Historical Society. Del made it aware that the Historical Society has an expectation of transparency in the Theater Lounge, which is why glass is being used in design.
Mr. Staley pointed out the current canopy as it extends on the north and east sides of the Theater with glass, and asked about the potential to use that glass material to enlarge the Student Theater Lounge along the Lobby’s “L-shape.”
Ms. Kruschke noted the elevator in this area was removed from the design and asked if this would affect accessibility, where Del responded it would not be hampered. Kelli added if a timeline exists where more detailed floor plans will be released. Mr. Wilson responded that updated design drafts will be available within the next 30 days.
Mr. Haebig asked if a deck area or extension would result as a possibility from the “bump out” of the Theater Lounge. Mr. Wilson answered there is a chance of a Sunset Deck, but it would be considerably smaller in area than the previous design.
Mr. Sharpless stated from research, that preservationist’s opinions seem to be divided, and if any additions to the building occur, they need to be striking in appearance. Facades can e differed, but they must fit guidelines. The discussion of the façade debate lies between the direction to take; traditional or more strikingly different. John asked Del if the upper terrace idea above the extended Lounge space is still planned, where Del confirmed.
Mr. Crabb asked for the continual damage to the canopy needs to be addressed. Simply moving the curve of the street’s curb might not provide a sufficient solution.
Mr. Smith noted a vision of accessibility for the building as previously existed with the elevator in design plan. As it was dropped, the promise for the elevator to be added later in time should be considered. The elevator factors in accessibility to the area in terms of catering and disabled or elderly patrons. Mr. Wilson added Union Council approved 4,000 square feet to fill the Theater’s need for space. This amount was reduced to 3,000 square feet. Therefore, revisiting programmatic area requirements is necessary, as they are the primary need to be understood and filled.
Mr. Sharpless stated the elevator was originally about Hoofers being able to transport supplies to the shop area, to service Park Street, and then it was moved to double usage as catering to the area.
Mr. Skic added the space needs to take student desire in mind, relating to study space attractiveness for study use by students.
Del noted all comments and ideas with be taken into consideration, and a report will be brought back to the Design Committee with a proposal plan for design within the 30 day period.
Ms. Hogan asked if multiple designs would be planned for discussion or if a composite idea will be submitted for discussion. Mr. Wison responded a composite plan is the path that will be followed.
Mr. Walter presented the “Pros & Cons” Budget Reflection as well as a Budgets Alternates Review document for the Theater Wing. The Project needs to target $52 million, or at least be very close to this number. The State Building Commission has approved a Construction Manager At Risk, who will negotiate a fair, guaranteed maximum price. Different parts of the Project will be bid out and actual cost figures will be determined for Phase I, and could cost more or less than planned. Hank stated the Design Committee can react to events as they unfold and adjust actions toward add/alternate accordingly. A list of items that could be added if the funds from the Other/Donor Category arise over time.
Mr. Sharpless noted that all add/alternate projects occur in Phase I, as confirmed by Mr. Walter. Hank added that in the future, add/alternate projects could be taken out of consideration and then added back at a later time upon donor/funding recognition. If cuts occur, the Theater may absorb some as well as possibly take cuts itself if aspects of the Phase cost more than expected.
Mr. Crabb asked for clarification regarding the Budget Alternate Review document as a recommendation or plan. Mr. Walter stated the items allow for future flexibility. The recommendations were reviewed between architects and project managers.
Ms. von Below referenced page three of the Budget Alternates Review document, where four items exist for discussion between the Design Team and the Design Committee in better understanding them. The items relate to the Pros & Cons Budget Reductions document:
After lengthy discussion, Ms. Fischer asked for a consensus on whether the Design Committee desired to discuss the four budget reduction items and vote on each of them. Ms. Hogan made a MOTION for the Design Committee to come to a consensus and provide recommendations for the four budget reduction items.
Being no discussion, Ms. Fischer called the question. The MOTION PASSED by a 14-1 vote.
Delete Exterior Stair on East-make Interior Stair
Mr. Guthier made a MOTION to delete the exterior stair and create an indoor stair.
Mr. Walter SECONDED.
Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion.
Ms. Hogan stated desire to not put additional pressure on Theater space usage and to leave the stairway as exterior.
Mr. Skic noted one of the goals of the renovation is to improve the flow of the building, and moving the stairway indoors would cause problems, adding his support to placing it exterior
Ms. Fischer called the question. The MOTION was DENIED unanimously.
Craftshop Dark Room to Storage
Mr. Smith made a MOTION to eliminate the Dark Room. Mr. Plunkett SECONDED. Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion.
Plunkett said the common theme for the project is to plan for the future of the building, where the future of photography does not lie within a Dark Room. It would be a shame to see a $45,000 project turned into a closet within a five year period.
Ms. Hogan opposed the motion, stating that having a Dark Room adds to the aspect of Social Education by providing students and community members to learn a form of art.
Mr. Smith mentioned in five years, film may not be purchasable; therefore the Dark Room should be abandoned.
Mr. Skic noted that no one can definitely state whether a Dark Room will be needed or not within a short period of time. The committee needs to stay within its goal of providing Social Education to patrons.
Ms. Ruocco expressed that it should not necessarily be the Wisconsin Union’s responsibility to meet the need for a Dark Room for the entire community. Ms. Fischer made a point of clarification that there are no other public Dark Rooms in Madison.
Mr. Sharpless conveyed this as an activity that is losing steam. Ten years down the line, supplies and maintenance will be similar to the present-day 35mm film situation, where supplies will be discontinued and cost will gradually increase.
Ms. Severson stated the Craftshop still holds a desire for space, not necessarily for Dark Room usage. The committee should consider alternative uses that will benefit the Craftshop and overall goal of Social Education.
Mr. Guthier asked if a Dark Room has an appropriate ventilation or exhaust system, can the space be used for other purposes. Mr. Wilson confirmed.
Mr. Haebig called the question.
Mr. Staley made an amendment to the original motion, adding “and be used for an alternative purpose,” not simply for storage.
The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-5.
Terrazzo to Alternate Surface in the Theater Area
Mr. Smith made a MOTION to keep terrazzo as the surface of choice for the floor in the Theater area. Ms. Ruocco SECONDED.
Ms. Kruschke mentioned that terrazzo is the most durable surface available and will be the best cost effective surface. Mr. Wilson agreed.
Mr. Walter made a MOTION to table the vote on this topic, as Mr. Staley SECONDED. Being no discussion, Ms. Fischer called the question. The MOTION WAS TABLED without objection.
Delete 5th Floor Elevator Stop
Mr. Staley made a MOTION to keep the elevator stop to the 5th floor. Mr. Smith SECONDED. Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion; being none she called the question.
The MOTION PASSED without objection.
Wendy reviewed the Budget Alternates Review. Action Items taken by Design Committee are noted within their respected areas:
- General Building alternatives total a $20,000 reduction.
- Theater alternatives total a $1,576,816 reduction.
- Hoofers alternatives total a $507,662 reduction.
Mr. Sharpless expressed extreme hesitance to approve or approach this section.
Mr. Crabb expressed interest in a motion to approve a concept or strategy to approach the Hoofers section of reductions, where the Architects would complete designs and report back accordingly to the committee. Ms. Hogan accepted and Mr. Smith did not accept the amendment to the motion.
Mr. Walter made a MOTION to amend the original motion to ask the Architects to consult with staff and Hoofer Council in order to identify options to change the structure in order to save approximately $500,000. Mr. Smith SECONDED.
Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion; being none she called the question. The amendment to the original MOTION PASSED without objection.
In accepting the full motion, with the approved amendment, on the table, Ms. Fischer opened the floor for discussion; being none she called the question. The full MOTION, with approved amendment, PASSED without objection.
- Meeting Rooms (CESO) alternatives total a $270,000 reduction.
- Dining Services alternatives total a $1,153,786 reduction.
- Directorate or Administration alternatives total a $73,049 reduction.
- Other alternatives total a $500,000 in reduction.
The total in alternative reduction, $4,101,313, brings the Project closer to the targeted $52 million.
Ms. von Below presented the Interior Design Concept and Strategy, stating that when there is a architectural design of any kind, it is important to have a concept to base the design, in conjunction with a strategy, along with an implementation plan. The document discusses a concept and strategies to support the concept. As the concept, strategies, and overall language is worked through, it is the intent to use this document along with Design Committee input to assist in the implementation process. Wendy described the specific concept and strategies which include:
- Follow Preservation Plan Recommendations
- Promote Sustainability
- Upgrade Infrastructure
- Achieve a Universally Accessible Building and Site
- Improve Sense of Arrival
- Enhance Wayfinding and Circulation
- Maintain and Restore Historic and Iconic Integrity
- Recognize Two Distinct Historic Architectural Styles
- Modernize and Upgrade Building Technology
- Improve Program Spaces
- Honor Our History
- Consider Acoustics, Maintenance, Lifecycle, Durability, and Aesthetics
Mr. Plunkett will form an online Doodle poll, distribute, and collect the information accordingly to set the date and time for the next meeting.
Being no further items for discussion, Ms. Fischer adjourned the meeting without objection at 10:02p.m. / MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
NO ACTION TAKEN
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
MOTION
TABLED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
MOTION
APPROVED
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
MOTION
APPROVED
1