Community center design without drawings - computer design programs

Parks & Recreation, July, 1993 by Walter M. Hosack

In 1989 Upper Arlington, Ohio, thought it was designing a $15 million community center. The architect returned with schematic design drawings and a preliminary cost estimate of $33 million! The reaction was predictable, but the resolution was unique and can be used by anyone who is, or will be, involved in planning and constructing any building type. In fact, no one needs to find themselves so far down the road with a set of design drawings they can't use if they follow the process we developed after the fact.

Designing a building to satisfy the needs of diverse interest groups has never been easy. When budgets are restricted and compromise is necessary, the search for an equitable allocation of resources among these groups within one building, or building complex, becomes an extremely complicated process. Since an unlimited construction budget is extremely rare, if not extinct, the quest to balance program against land available; revenue generated; and costs, including construction cost, operating expense, and debt service; is a balancing act with literally hundreds of potential combinations. As a general principle, the more combinations that you can explore, the better your chances of identifying the most appropriate.

Unfortunately, most current evaluation processes involve drafting, which is a time-consuming, labor-intensive effort which limits the number of options you can explore because of the time it takes to draw each one. The fewer the options explored the greater the risk of missing the best one.

Obviously, with our project at $33 million, excluding architectural fees, we needed to explore more options than traditional drafting methods could produce within a reasonable time and cost frame. I went home to my computer and explored an approach I had been thinking about for quite some time, but had not applied. The community center provided the opportunity; and the result was a flexible, interactive program which produced design alternatives in a split second. It allowed us to explore hundreds of options ranging from $4 million to the original $33 million program without having to draw a single line. It also allowed us to explore these options in group settings involving people from diverse special interests.

With a computer, printer and overhead projector at each meeting, we could immediately enter into the program changes discussed in these group settings. The program would instantly recalculate the construction costs, income expected, operating expense created and land area required by the changes suggested. This immediate feedback presented the group with the combined implications of the change suggested, without having to wait weeks for new drawings. This often generated another idea. This ability to interact with the program allowed the group to think creatively, test concepts and slowly focus on those solutions capable of reconciling cost, need, income, expense and land available. After evaluating at least 50 such options, an $11.5 million solution brought all factors into alignment. I've selected three examples from these 50 alternatives to explain the process.

Table 1 presents the original $33 million program as seen on the computer screen after translation from the original architect's documents. It is a spreadsheet which lists function, detail, unit area, quantity, total area and square foot cost estimates as received. it adds mechanical areas, parking requirements, furniture expense, open space, sculpture garden and architectural fees to project the anticipated cost of a complete package. It also adds a site analysis component which lists the area available at 13 potential locations. The project area needed is subtracted from each site to project the area that would be left. Obviously, if there is a negative number the project doesn't fit. This site analysis showed that when a realistic parking lot component was included, the $33 million project didn't fit at most potential sites, and left very little land for other purposes at those which could accommodate its size. [TABULAR DATA 1 OMITTED]

We needed to overcome two problems before we could evaluate design alternatives objectively. First, the original room area list was expressed in square feet, which made it difficult for people to determine the scope of service implied and how much it could be cut back. Second, there were no room priorities which could be used to systematically reduce the program without being arbitrary. The second problem was resolved by circulating a questionnaire among the design task force and the Upper Arlington City Council. The questionnaire asked them to rank the rooms within the overall program. This was then used as an initial road map to guide the evaluation process.

We resolved the first problem by changing the quantity category from one room, for instance, to 100 people; and by modifying the unit from square-feet-per-room to square-feet-per-person wherever possible. Look at the men's locker room in Table 1 as an example. It shows one room at 5,000 square feet. Now look at Table 2. It shows 100 people at 12 square feet per person yielding a room of 1,200 square feet. If you modify the number of people served, you modify the room size, resulting construction cost, and overall land needed. For instance, if you change 100 people to 150 people, the program recalculates all areas and costs, instantly yielding the combined financial and site implications of the proposed change. If you print the revised spreadsheet, you have a hard copy which can be compared to earlier options for evaluation. [TABULAR DATA 2 OMITTED]