Archive for the ‘Buildings on Campus’ Category

2 comments

Ice Arena Reflection


2011
12.01

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Buildings on Campus, Facility Tours, Opinions | 2 Comments »

After visiting the newly remodeling BGSU Ice Arena, it was clear that the arena is on the uprise once again to being a top-notch facility.  I think that for the new renovations to the multi-purpose room, the locker rooms, and the team meeting room, everything has gone very well.  Compared to how the building used to look and what it looks like now, it is a great place for both the Bowling Green community and the BGSU community.

Looking around the building, it is obvious that the flooring and walls have been redone.  The flooring is now more practical with the inclusion of the rubber flooring that goes all the way around the facility.  The facility used to just have a cement floor that was unable to accommodate skating blades.  The rubber flooring allows skaters to put their skates on in any part of the building and walk to their destination in any part of the building.  The old flooring style only allowed for the skaters to take their skates on and off to walk to the various destinations within the building.  According the textbook, this type of flooring seems to be a relatively good choice for the arena.  The rubber flooring scores high in strength, thermal insulation, moisture protection, and abrasions resistance wearability.  Scoring high in those categories seems to very important for an ice arena considering there are sharp blades constantly wearing down on the floors, the area is always cold, and the blades will almost always be wet due to melted ice bits on the skates.

The walls of the facility have not necessarily been remodeled in the sense of material remodeling, however, they have been decorated more with the renovations.  They now include what looks like painted-on advertisements and mural-like paintings throughout the building.  They have also been spruced up with retired jerseys and old team photos throughout the years.  The walls are still a basic cement block style with a neutral off-white color to them, but the addition of paintings and pictures really adds to the aesthetics of the building.

I do believe that the facility is meeting the needs of the community and the students now more than ever.  Before the remodeling was put into the place, it was a hassle to rent out skates at the pro-shop located within the facility.  You had to get your skates from a little window that was inefficient for the workers to work fast and the same window was used for returns as well.  This all created a lot of congestion within the facility just for a basic skate rental on busy nights.  now, the pro-shop has been completely remodeled with new skates and a new desk area that allows for easy access and a more efficient way to get the skates to the guests.  The remodeling of the locker rooms were also a huge benefit to the facility because it helps attract more community events and tournaments that will in turn generate plenty of revenue for the facility.  It seems that the remodeling has really opened up the facility a lot and these two examples only scrape the surface about what all has been done to improve the facility to benefit both the student and residential community within BG.

The newly renovated pro shop at the ice Arena features an easier ice rental process, new skates, more equipment, and a concession stand.

 

 

 

No Comments

Perry Field House


2011
10.27

Tags: ,
Posted in Buildings on Campus, Facility Tours | No Comments »

Last week, the class took a facility tour of the Perry Field House on campus.  The field house is a relatively new building on campus, built in 1992 as an indoor track facility and multi-purpose area for the campus and surrounding community.  The building is used for various purposes, such as indoor track and field competitions, collegiate football practices, intramural athletics, and even conferences or expositions.

The layout of the facility is easy to navigate and very wide-open.  Walking through the lobby in the entrance, it is clear where you should be going because the two main rooms are visible from that point.  The information desk is located directly through the doors and one must pass by the desk in order to enter either of the two rooms.  One criticism of where the desk is located is that it is too far from the entrance and if there is a line or the attendant is busy, it is easy for someone unauthorized to sneak in the facility.  For safety concerns during large events, it would be recommended to close that gap and put tables near the entrance for check-ins.

Along with the layout, the general aesthetics of the facility are appealing.  The turf room looks very cool and still modern even though it is nearly 20 years old.  The basketball courts still look somewhat new and the colors of the facility fit with the campus.  Unlike the Rec Center on campus, the Perry Field House has aged pretty well over the years even though it is about a decade younger.

Another concern for the facility that was obvious through the tour is the lack of storage.  The builders of the facility did not take into account how much equipment would be used for the facility.  The walls in the basketball court area was lined with equipment that could be potentially dangerous to people.  There are signs posted and people know that the equipment is clearly off-limits, however the equipment is distracting to the whole building.  It looks bad and makes the facility look cluttered and unorganized.  During track and field events it could be especially dangerous because the equipment is so close to the running areas.  Also, for larger events where additional space is vital, the access equipment takes up that extra space and can lead to a crowded feel among the crowd.

Finally, I felt that building could use at least one more bathroom facility.  I did not get a chance to look into the bathrooms but as far as i could see there was only one bathroom facility.  The facility can hold a lot of people during large events  and those people have to go somewhere.  It seemed to me through my observations during the tour that in the case of a large event, the bathroom facilities are probably over-worked with too many people, long lines, and trouble staying clean.

Overall I enjoyed the facility and I loved knowing that is is nearly 20 years old but it still feels like a new building on campus.  The building has aged well and is still a staple on campus for students to use for some sort of function during their 4 years.  It may have its faults, but for a 20 year old building, those problems were probably not thought of at the time and are hard to fix at this point in time during the building’s history.

For a super awesome video of the facility, click on the following link (couldn’t get the video to embed at the moment so I’ll have to go old-school for now): Super awesome Perry Field House video

 

No Comments

Stroh Center


2011
10.20

Tags: ,
Posted in Buildings on Campus, Facility Tours | No Comments »

A few days ago the class visited the Stroh Center, a new multi-million dollar athletic facility that houses the Men’s and Women’s basketball teams as well as the Women’s volleyball team.  The facility was impressive in its sustainable practices and general architecture.  The most obvious, striking thing to me was the reserved parking spaces for “Fuel Efficient Economy Cars” that plastered the first two rows leading into the main entrance.  I had never seen anything like that before and thought immediately how this building was going to be great in its sustainable practices.  The outside of the facility is very intriguing as well, the front of the building looks very modern and artistic, while the sides of the building look dull and have a sort of warehouse-esque to it.  The inside of the building could use some more decor and color, but time will help heal that process as more memorabilia and ideas emerge.

The functional layout for the facility seems to be pretty good.  The locker rooms were located in an area that is hard for fans to access during the game, and there is a practice court that is open 24/7 to all players.  Everything a student-athlete needs seems to be within the building.  When there is another event within the building, the athletes still have a place to practice which makes it easy to reserve court times and keep a consistent practice schedule.  There seemed to be ample storage within the facility so ease of access to the equipment seemed to be pretty good if an athlete wanted to come in during off-hours to practice on their own or with a small group.

In comparison, I think this facility matches up pretty well with any other facility.  It meets the needs of the athletes and surrounding area.  It only seats a little over 4,000 people for any athletic event which is concurrent with the population size and fan base.  The General Manager even stated that it was nice to have a smaller facility because it was easier to fill up which adds to a more exciting atmosphere.  If I could compare it to any other facility I guess I would compare it the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland.  The Quicken Loans is highly versatile; holding concerts, ice hockey, and other special events.  The seats all fold up or are stored elsewhere to make for more room and on basketball game day it provides a big atmosphere without too much seating.  While the Stroh Center does not have the versatility the Q does, it does have the proper amount of seating and the comfort of the Quicken loans Arena.  It seems that both facilities meet the needs of all the parties involved and that each is different in their own way but yet the same in other ways.

1 Comment

Program Statement – Eppler Complex


2011
09.19

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Buildings on Campus | 1 Comment »

The Eppler Complex, located to the right, is a three story academic building that features gymnastics rooms, a basketball court, and many classrooms and office space

The Eppler Complex, located in the middle of campus near Olscamp Hall and the Bowen-Thompson Student Union, is home to the Tourism Leisure and Event Planning (TLEP) offices and advisers.  It has a full-size basketball court, gymnastics rooms, an indoor track, and some weight lifting equipment.  The building was originally two separate buildings that included a Men’s Gymnasium and a Women’s Gymnasium.  These were built around 1927 and were not connected.  Between 1979 and 1980, renovations were completed to connect the two buildings and completely form a new building, the Eppler Complex (BGSU, 2011).  Seeing as it has not been renovated since 1979-1980, the building is relatively outdated and seems to have much of a defined function, especially since the Rec Center was built around the same time the building was undergoing renovations.  Part of the planning process is the Program Statement which is a detailed description of the requirements to build a new facility or renovate an existing one.   The top ten elements of my proposed Program Statement would be:

1.) Objectives:  The main objective in the renovation of the facility would be to define the purpose of the building.  The purpose would be a building would be to combine recreation and academia.  There would be classrooms just outside the recreational facilities that still exist and the offices would be relocated.

2.) Basic Assumptions of the Facility:  The facility would be used solely for the purpose of classroom instruction and learning within actual recreational facilities.  The building is confusing right now with the mixture of offices, recreational facilities, classrooms, labs, and resource centers.  The building needs to be a strict classroom and educational recreational facility.

3.) Factors Affecting Planning:  The biggest factor that I would see that would affect planning is the size of the building.  The renovation that would take place would take offices out of the building and leave rooms vacant.  The building is a very large building, however, the size of the building also adds to the confusion of the building.  I would tear down some walls and expand some of the classrooms into mini-lecture hall classrooms.  If need be, the South and Center sections of the building would still be connected but the North end would be walled off from the building and made available for other departments or the remaining office space.  This would not be the first option though.

4.) Explanation of Current and Proposed Programming:  The building would still be open to rent the gymnasium and other recreational equipment on the weekends to all students.  The primary focus of the building would be to create a recreational learning environment for those who have to take classes that include recreational activities.  With the facilities being renovated as well, it would certainly serve as a secondary location for rented space outside of the Rec Center on campus.

5.) Space Needs and Allocation:  The current building is very confusing with the long hallways north-south hallways and the maze-like hallways that run east-west.  The renovated building would need to seek a solution to the confusing layout by re-evaluating the floor plan and wall structure to see if there is a way to tear down walls and make the hallways and classrooms easier to navigate.  The classrooms need to be bigger and have varying classroom spaces.  The current building has a few dozen rooms that all hold between 25-40 people and are in long rectangles that make the learning environment cramped and uncomfortable.  Classroom space would definitely be a major concern for the renovation.

6.) Purpose and Use of Auxiliary Space:  The auxiliary space would be used classroom learning objectives throughout the week and then be of use during the weekend for campus organization rentals.  The auxiliary space would be newly renovated so it would be an attraction for students to want to rent out the space and could potentially attract outside sources for rental.

7.) Service Facilities:  The renovated building would include newly renovated bathrooms and locker rooms for the gymnasium and areas near the classrooms. It would also include a front office that would be in charge of the building and the rental information.  The office would not take up much space and would be more a “welcome” desk for any visitors that may have questions about the facility or renting equipment.

8.) Spatial Relationships:  As mentioned earlier, the renovation would have the classrooms more centralized to the gymnasium and other recreational facilities within the building.  the classrooms would be connected to the facilities and would require the soundproofing feature to be added so as to not disturb any classes.  The classrooms would be bigger and would be shapely to help students focus and be more comfortable in the classroom setting.

9.) Environmental Necessities:  The newly renovated building would include an updated lighting system, heating system, and water/sewage system to help ease the costs to the environment.  Lowering the amount of energy used and the resources used to operate the building could have a significant impact on the environment and could help set the example for other buildings to start updating their energy conservation plans.

10.) Equipment and Furnishings:  Virtually everything in the building is outdated or uncomfortable.  The gymnasium does not need to be state of the art but the floor should be replaced, the lighting needs to be brighter, and the walls need to be renovated to be more acoustically pleasing.  The classrooms need to be re-painted and the desks need to be replaced.  Many of the desks are mismatched, broken, and highly uncomfortable.  The chalkboards need to be replaced by dry-erase boards and the sporting equipment needs to be updated as well.

Program statements are extremely important to the development of buildings and facilities because it lays out the project’s purpose and what the expectations are for the development.  They are meant to guide the planning process and give a general visualization of what the building will be like after it is completed.  It is meant to be more of an outline and generalized statement then a fully-detailed plan and that allows for the flexibility of the master plan for the building.

 

 

Skip to toolbar