UNH’s James Hall is a second generation 58,663-gsf legacy building that was originally built in the 1920s to house the chemistry department, and is located on the University’s main quad. After the chemistry department relocated in 1968, the building became home to the natural resources and earth sciences departments. In 2005, $20 million was approved to modernize the building and create a 14,000-gsf addition for a total project size of 73,000 gsf. The resulting facility will accommodate four departments and two separate colleges: the College of Life Science & Agriculture and the School of Engineering & Physical Science.

“We had three main goals with this project. The first was to provide interdisciplinary research and teaching space for the natural resources and earth sciences departments; the second was to consolidate disparate program elements currently spread out around campus; and the third was to restore the luster of one of the University’s most significant buildings,” says David Clark, space utilization specialist at UNH.

As part of the planning process, EYP architects interviewed UNH faculty extensively about their scientific and educational goals to develop a program wish list.

“We asked the faculty to fill out forms projecting how they will want to teach in the future. We initiated discussions about their ambitions for growth. The program is looking ahead at the number of people who will need to be accommodated, particularly in regards to the flexibility of the research space,” says Charles Kirby, principal with EYP.

In the midst of this phase the UNH administration asked the team to look at incorporating the resource economics and geography departments in the building as well. After all the additions and wish list features were compiled, it turned out that the building would need a 66,000-sf addition, instead of a 14,000-sf addition. The total amount of space allocated in the “blue sky” version of the plan rose to 105,053 gsf and the price tag more than doubled to $42 million.

Utilization Diagram

To bring the project in line with the actual budget and space allowances the planning team used a range of innovative tools to calculate exactly how much space was required to accommodate the requested programs.

Teaching laboratories originally comprised approximately 24 percent of the wish list program, with 16.18 percent allocated to dry teaching labs and eight percent for wet teaching labs. EYP employed a utilization diagram that itemized the curriculum needs of each department.

“There can be a lot of emotional angst with faculty over what space they need to have. We like to get people thinking about the actual data. So we sent a form to all the faculty members, the department chairs, and the registrar’s office, asking them to provide us with data on all the courses they currently teach and those they intend to teach in the new building,” says Kip Ellis, a principal at EYP.

The utilization diagram extrapolates space usage over two academic years providing an accurate model of anticipated occupancy. Data for each room is laid out in a color coded tabular format.

“Utilization diagrams are really useful for academic space programming. In some cases educational research space was being heavily utilized, in other cases you might see a necropsy laboratory that is only scheduled to be used two days a week, once every two years. It might be a million dollar room. So that’s a significant red flag,” says Ellis.

The space utilization tool allowed EYP architects to reduce the program need for teaching laboratories by seven percent.

“Another benefit of the utilization diagram is that it reveals opportunities for collaborative space use, particularly where two departments may be able to share one teaching laboratory by looking at strategic opportunities,” says Ellis.

Strategic Alignment

Research labs were another significant spatial consumer in the wish list program, accounting for 28 percent of total space.

“Research labs present a challenge because they are not scheduled the same way academic courses are. When we met with the faculty, of course everyone said, ‘I need my research space.’ In fact, people are in varying stages of their academic careers. Some researchers are less active than others; some researchers don’t even need a laboratory, but they need support space for their theoretical or social policy activities,” says Ellis.

By finding opportunities for less active researchers to collaboratively use lab resources the team realized a 32 percent reduction from the initial wish list allowance for research space without compromising the programs.

Sharing Support Space

Support space, which accounted for 19 percent of the total, requires a different type of analysis. Since both of the departments are involved in the environmental sciences, the team zeroed in on opportunities for collaborative sharing. The UNH system charges rent to departments for support spaces, so there is a financial incentive for departments to split the costs. There’s also an opportunity to reduce costs by finding ways to share equipment.

Both natural resources and earth sciences departments are field-oriented. One way redundancy was eliminated was by creating a combined fieldwork suite that could support endeavors in both fields.

“Beyond the economics, there are real scientific reasons for wanting to share support resources. It encourages synergistic collaboration and maximizes interdisciplinary opportunities,” says Ellis.

Through dialog with the faculty the team reduced support space needs by 18 percent.

The team also used a tool called the adjacency diagram to study the relationship between lab components, research space, teaching laboratories, support space, and write-up space.

A Modern Legacy

Once the performance requirements were determined, the team conducted an in-depth analysis of the impacts of upgrading the 1920s-era building to accommodate flexible 21st century research space.

“The good news was that the existing structural system allowed us a great deal of freedom in terms of removing interior partitions. The real question for UNH came down to how much of the character of that existing historic fabric is maintained, and how much is removed to provide maximum flexibility,” says Kirby.

The team developed two test fit scenarios to look at the relative opportunities and limitations of both.

“We looked at a range of possibilities including maximizing critical adjacencies to shared research labs, teaching labs, and support instrumentation, and organizing communities of faculty offices and discussion areas,” says Kirby.

The planning sessions involved collaborative live sketching of different options and exploration of different layout arrangements.

“There was a lot of discussion about the various possibilities. Everyone involved in the project helped inform the design team in terms of choices,” says Kirby.

Of course, the team also had to incorporate computer laboratories, classrooms, and informal discussion areas. Once the elements to be housed in the addition were identified, the team analyzed the existing historic fabric to determine where the addition could go with a minimal impact on the building’s presence.

“When the addition got to be about 110 percent of the original building, we were getting nervous regarding our responsibility to preserve this legacy building. Once we got it back down to being 20 to 25 percent maximum, we felt much more comfortable about how it would fit on the site.  It’s a delicate issue with the users, but it is a very important thing when you’re dealing with one of the most architecturally significant buildings on the campus,” says Kirby.

Costs and Conclusions

In the end, the addition was increased to 19,790 gsf, raising the total combined gross square footage of the project to 73,000. UNH will spend $25.5 million on construction costs to realize the final project, as opposed to the originally estimated $20 million. While efficiencies have increased, inflationary pressures continue to drive prices. Total project costs will reach $35.4 million. The approved project will cost $370/gsf, as opposed to the $274/gsf targeted in the initial 2002 feasibility study.

 “What we’ve been told is that the historically normal escalation in the industry is an average of four percent per annum, which means that if a donor contributes a million dollars in the year 2000, it would only be $750,000 in today’s dollars. The reality over the past few years is that construction prices have accelerated much faster than expected, reducing $1 million to $610,000. This can be difficult for administrators, donors, and board members to understand,” says Kirby.

Kirby emphasizes the importance of using analytical tools for building critical consensus with faculty, students, donors, and academic administrators regarding what a new or renovated building must accomplish.

“The analytical process provided us with an objective climate for discussion, which helped defuse some of the personality issues. It also helped when we came up against last minute program changes because we were informed and therefore able to think creatively. Most importantly, when we finally had our program, we were confident that we were going forward with what we needed in that building,” says Clark.

By Johnathon Allen