Risk Management- Popke Article
After reading the article “Safety Net” by Michael Popke, I could not help but to think that a facility is not responsible for a cheerleading accident that happens while the cheerleader is in the air. The article talked about a teenager who was killed after she landed on her stomach in her cradle. The land caused a ruptured spleen, which she later died from. A facility has a due cause to “provide a reasonably safe environment and at least to carry out the following five duties: Keep the premises in safe repair, Inspect the premises to discover obvious and hidden hazards, Remove the hazards or warn of their presence, Anticipate forseeableuses and activities by invitees and take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from forseeable dangers, and Conduct operations on the premised with reasonable care for the safety of the invitee” (Sawyer, pp. 19). Based on these qualifications, I do not see how the facility and managers can be held negligent in regards to the way the girl landed. The facility was not faulty; she simply had an accident while she was performing her stunt.
Of course, everyone knows that cheerleading can be dangerous, especially when the cheerleaders are doing stunts. I do not think that it is the facility manager’s duty to inform the cheerleaders or their parents of the harm that may occur.
In the text book “Facility Planning and Design” by Thomas Sawyer, he gives the example that a well designed facility allows for a smaller amount of supervisors, where as a poorly designed facility may require multiple supervisors. In regards to cheerleading, I think that there should be more than one supervisor. The facility development should allow for this.
In conclusion, I do not think the facility managers or designers should be held liable for the cheerleaders death. I feel that it was a freak accident that happened and it is a very unfortunate situation, but nothing that happened from the result of a faulty facility.
Source: “Safety Net” by Michael Popke
Sawyer, Thomas H. Facility Planning and Design. 12th ed. Champaign: Sagamore Publishing, 2009. 19-25. Print.
Filed under Risk Management- Cheerleading Accident | Comment (0)Capital Planning with Bob Waddell
Bob Waddell spoke with our Facilities class on Tuesday, September 14, 2010. He explained all of the different aspects that were associated with planning and development of a facility. I was not aware of all of the different aspects that are included in planning for a facility. Obviously, there are a lot of things that need to be taken into consideration, but the small details are in abundance.
One aspect of facility development that Mr. Waddell discussed was the selection of contractors. This is obviously a very important step in the developing process that needs to be examined carefully and with a lot of thought and consideration. The bidding process is a very extensive process.
Another topic covered in the discussion is space. In comparison to building an academic facility, the designers plan for approximately 15 square feet per person inside a single room. An issue that Mr. Waddell addressed is the fact that for a fine arts facility, at least 20 square feet per person is required to allow for enough space for the students to move freely. However, each class requires different needs that also require more movement space per person; therefore it is hard to plan for enough space for each person.
When comparing BGSU’s construction budget to The Ohio State Unviersity’s budget, OSU was just granted with a spending budge of $4.7 billion for all campuses (http://www.osu.edu/news/newsitem2897). Clearly, this is more than BGSU is going to spend in the year 2011, as OSU is allowed for the fiscal year. As my student fees have increased because of the construction, I have become slightly irritated. I cannot imagine having the university budget increase 8.7 percent as OSU’s budget increased for the year 2011 (http://www.osu.edu/news/newsitem2897).
To compare OSU and BGSU to another school, I have chosen The University of Michigan. As Bob Waddell spoke about BGSU being LEED certified, The University of Michigan has also diverted some of their buildings to becoming LEED certified (http://www.michigandaily.com/content/u-buildings-construction-projects-become-leed-certified). By doing so, the buildings will apparently “exceed the national standard for energy efficiency by 30 percent” (http://www.michigandaily.com/content/u-buildings-construction-projects-become-leed-certified).
Filed under Capital Planning with Bob Waddell | Comment (1)Redesigning Historic Brooklyn-Response
In regards to whether or not Brooklyn should reconstruct a mass amount of its town or not is a tough decision. After reading articles and watching a news clip during class, I was at first undecided on my decision. After much thought and consideration I have finally come to a conclusion. I have decided that I do not think Brooklyn should not build the community that was proposed by the developer.
The way that the developer proposed his plan, he made it seem to be as if it were a win/win situation. However, there is a lot of fine print that was not released to the public regarding this proposal. The fact that the residents who live in the “run down houses” will still pay the same exact rent that they did in their old houses seems a bit sketchy (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/brooklyn_11-03.html). There is no way that the developer will build multi-million buildings and only make the residents pay what they would have when the average annual income is less than $65,000. It does not make any sense that a developer would spend this much money out of his own pocket and charge that amount, which would ultimately leave him in the hole. The tax payers will be paying for this somehow and he did not state that publicly when he proposed this project. Also, from my political standpoint, the fact that an ACORN executive is standing behind this proposition seems like a crock to me. Personally, if ACORN is standing behind anything, I will steer clear of it.
The possibility of building the arena in Brooklyn is something that I would take into consideration. It would ultimately create more jobs, more travel into the city and a larger income. It would also create more crime, which would ultimately generate more jobs for police officers, nurses, doctors, and fire fighters. The arena would create more jobs directly inside the arena as well. It would also give the community something to do and would possibly direct youths away from the violence and crime from the streets. Based on reading a proposal sent by New York Department of Transportation, there are a lot of different updates that are scheduled to take place within the next couple of years (www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/sidewalks/pedestrian_projects/shtml). This will undoubtedly cause the tax payers money., my overall response to the question of whether or not Brooklyn should build the proposed eight acre community, I would say no. Not only did I state earlier that there are a lot of unopened plans, but Brooklyn is known for its history and historic buildings and by tearing them down, part of what Brooklyn is about will also go with the destruction of those buildings. Like the news clip said, the “glamorous Manhattan is just across the bridge” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/brooklyn_11-03.html). Brooklyn is known for the old historic city that is just a few miles from the glitz and glamour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/brooklyn_11-03.html).
House in Downtown Brooklyn
ADA Scavenger Hunt
While walking around the BGSU campus, I made myself look for different areas that are or are not in compliance with my understanding of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
Here is a list of compiled areas that I took a special look at:
-The elevators in the Union. There are two different elevators, which I believe is enough for the size of the Student Union. These two elevators give the disabled options as to which elevator to use, which ever is closest since there is an elevator on each side of the facility.
-There is a ramp to get in and out of Hayes Hall which sits slightly elevated. Once inside Hayes Hall, there is a ramp in the basement next to the stairs that make up for the elevated floor.
-At Stellar Field (baseball diamond), there is a ramp to get in and out of the grand stands.
-The education building has two elevators (located right next to each other) that are accessible to every floor of the building.
-East Hall (English Department) also has two elevators that are available to use.
-Jerome Library has a ramp on the side of the entrance that is available for people who cannot use the stairs. Once inside, there are two elevators that are available to reach any of the floors (at some points, only one elevator is working).
Ramp on right side of entrance
-In the parking lot behind the Union, there are a lot of handicapped parking available. The only problem that I see is with the placement of these spaces. The first row of spaces are reserved for state and university vehicles. The second and third row have reserved handicapped spaces that are located in the middle of these rows. It is odd to me how the state and university vehicles are allowed to park closer to the building than the handicapped.
-Parking at the library and Anderson Arena allow for a lot of handicapped parking as well. However, the placement of the parking spaces for the library work well. The spaces are in the front row and down by the library. When it comes to handicapped parking for Anderson, there is only one spot that is a couple of spaces down. The rest of the parking that is up close to the building, once again, is reserved for state and university vehicles.
-Olscamp Hall, which is a very busy student center only has one elevator. There are three stair cases to get up to the second level. The elevator is located in the middle of the building.
-University Hall has a ramp into the building right next to the stairs.
Filed under ADA Scavenger Hunt | Comment (0)Program Statement for Eppler Complex
The Eppler Complex that is located on BGSU’s campus is a fairly up-to-date facility. While there are many nice and simplified aspects to this facility, there are also some let downs that have occurred over time and even so during the designing stage.
A program statement is important for planning and designing a facility because it compiles a set of objectives that are to be followed (http://www.usaid.gov/business/business_opportunities/aps/).
Program statements also allow the public to become aware of the planning process and become knowledgeable of what to expect in the future. Although Bob Waddle stated in a presentation that rendering shows an example of what is to be expected, but does not guarantee what the outcome will be due to inevitable changes that will happen. The rendered images are a good way to bring expectations to the planners and to the public, but as stated before do not always provide the correct image. These statements are also ways that the builders can keep everyone else updated on recents change and progress (http://www.cprinc.org/facilities_pgm.aspx).
In regards to Eppler Complex, I think that there needs to be more restrooms. When I need access to a restroom, I have to walk to the middle of the building to find one. If I am in a class in Eppler South, then the closest is the ladies locker room, which results in more time outside of the classroom. The restroom areas that are located in the building are slim. Once I enter the female restroom, I have my option of a total three different stalls. I feel that since the building is so large and a heavily populated building, there should be more stalls available.
Another part of eppler that I think needs to be renovated is the amount of elevators that are located in the building. There is one elevator that is located in the center of the building. To better serve the disabled, I think that there needs to be another elevator at one end of the building to give more options.
The gym needs to be renovated as well. There is little lighting, causing the gym to be dark and gloomy. The walking track that is above the gym looks out dated. It still serves the intended purpose, but it looks old.
The clocks that are located in the hallways hardly work. Most of the days when I am walking to my classroom, the clocks are rapidly turning back in time.
Most of the classes that I attend in Eppler are full. If the rooms were bigger, then more students would be able to take the class at a time; resulting in not having to wait to take the class.
Short range planning for Eppler would include which is most critical to fixing first. Mid term planning would entail which would be what is next on list to effectively better the complex. Long term planning would be to set the least important project on the back burner, such as exanding the class rooms.
Given the current renovations that are occuring on campus at the moment, I know that the chance of any of these renovations happening to a fairly new building on campus is slim to none. However, within ten years or so, these problems need to be addressed before further issues arise.
Filed under Program Statement for Eppler | Comment (0)