Stetson and Sawyer: Visions for the Future

Acknowledgements

This process was largely collaborative, and we would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the following individuals for the kind information and assistance they provided to us.

David Pilachowski, Michael Brown, and the Stetson Renovation Committee Eric Beattie
Jay Lucker
Michael Card
Ronald Favreau
Morton Owen Schapiro
The Williams College Archives Department
Hank Art, Roger Bolton, and our classmates in Environmental Studies 302

Introduction

Every few decades, Williams College seems to embark on a building flurry that results in the renovation and construction of buildings all across campus. The simple modernist facades of Bronfman Science Center, Mission Hall, and Bernhard Music Center stand testament to one such flurry that occurred in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It appears that Williams College is primed to begin another decade of development. The Unified Science Center, completed this fall, stands ready to be joined by a renovated Baxter and new Performing Arts Center. Stetson Hall and Sawyer Library are also under consideration for renovations in the near future.

The possibilities for improving Stetson and Sawyer are, some would say, boundless. Our team was given the task of distilling the most cogent, practical, necessary possibilities and using them to make recommendations for the renovation of the two buildings.

Stetson Hall is infamous on campus as being a confusing building. Many freshman find that their first experience with the building is getting lost on the way to a professor's office. The front of the building has floors 1 through 4; the back, levels a through h. Furthermore it is possible to go up a staircase from one level only to find that the next landing you come to is two levels above the one you were just on. The building's layout simply isn't intuitive. Furthermore, the demands placed on the building are quickly outgrowing its space.

Sawyer Library fortunately lacks Stetson Hall's confusion but unfortunately also lacks its beauty, both in its interior and exterior. More important than its aesthetics, though, is the building's lack of space. Built in the pre-computer era, the library is rapidly running out of space for books, computers, study areas, and everything else.

The college decided two years ago to investigate renovating Stetson Hall and more recently decided to also investigate the renovation of Sawyer Library. This project researches the needs of both buildings as well as possible options for their renovations. We view this renovation as an opportunity for the college to make a positive impact on the architectural atmosphere of the campus.

History

Stetson Hall was built in 1921-1922 to serve as the college library. It cost $750,000 to build and was designed by the architectural firm Cram and Ferguson. The money for the building was donated by Francis Lynde Stetson, a generous alum who was also the former lawyer for J.P. Morgan (Warren, 1999). In 1957, an addition was completed onto Stetson to provide more room for stack space, but is currently used as faculty offices. The 1957 addition was designed by the same architects who designed the original building. In 1962, the Roper Public Opinion Research Center was built as an addition by Hoyle, Doran, and Berry, Artchitects. After the Roper Public Opinion Research Center left the building, the space was taken over by the Office of Career Counseling and faculty offices on the second and third floors, remaining in these locations through the present (Beattie, 2000).

Stetson's history helps to explain the building's current confusing floor plan. The ceilings in the original building were very tall. When the 1957 addition was built, two stories were put in for every one story in the original section (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the stacks in the original part of the building were an integral part of the structure of the building. This meant that they could not be removed easily during renovation. Thus, when the 1957 section was converted into office space, connections were built on the outside of the building to the north. These connections only connected to every other level in the 1957 addition, due to the differences in floor heights. This is the reason why people unfamiliar with the building often have trouble finding their way from the front, original part of the building to an office located in one of the back additions.

In 1998, a committee formed to consider renovation options for Stetson. The formation of this committee occurred largely because of calls for more, improved faculty offices. They submitted a preliminary proposal outlining one option for the renovation of Stetson to the Trustees and public in the May of 1998. When it became clear that Sawyer was also going to be renovated, a joint committee to oversee the renovation of both buildings formed and the former proposal was reconsidered. The Stetson and Sawyer renovation committee is still currently working on putting together a proposal for both buildings (Brown, 2000).

Sawyer Library was built in 1974-75. It was built when it became clear that Stetson Library was rapidly running out of space. Sawyer Library (referred to for a brief period of time as the Smilin' Jack Sawyer Library) was designed by the architectural firm Harry Weese and Associates. They designed Sawyer Library to be highly energy efficient (this was during the oil crisis of the 1970s). Sawyer Library did not have air conditioning; the cool mountain breezes were supposed to flow through it during the summer and cool down the building naturally. Its double roof has an exhaust fan system designed to pull off hot air from the top of the building. The hollow courts in the center of Sawyer were designed to let air and light in. The lighting in Sawyer was purposefully dim to conserve energy; lights were installed at each work station so that students could use the lights only when they were needed. When it was built, Sawyer Library was considered an architecturally wonderful building. It was praised by at least one architectural magazine of its time as showing "a joint concern for [its] surroundings and for the comfort and convenience of those who use them" (Schmertz, 1978). The library is once again showing signs of running out of space and therefore its renovation is being discussed.

Needs for Stetson Hall

Built in 1923 to hold the Williams College Library, Stetson Hall is an elegant classical building with high ceilings, large rooms, and intricate detailing. In the eighty years since its construction, however, Stetson's function has greatly outgrown its form. The first set of additions, constructed in 1956 to provide additional stack space, is now used as office space for an ever-expanding faculty, and the Roper Center, built in 1962, now is home to a cramped Office of Career Counseling. It is clear that Stetson needs to be renovated; the ways in which this will occur are still largely under consideration.

In order to get a sense for the opinions of students and faculty, we sent out a series of email surveys designed to bring forth the major points of consideration. Three hundred students were randomly selected from the student body and emailed a series of questions about their use patterns and opinions of the building (see Appendix 3 for a copy of the survey questions and raw data), from which we received 98 responses. We also sent an email survey to the entire faculty of Stetson, a total of 149 people, from which we received 49 responses. In addition, we spoke to the Stetson Renovation Committee, various faculty and staff located in the building, and administration members integral to the project. Though the collaboration of these various sources was daunting, it revealed several strong trends.

It was clear from the research that the largest shortcomings in Stetson relate to issues of space and accessibility. These concerns reveal themselves in demands for additional, improved faculty offices, additional common spaces, increased space for non-academic departments, a clearer floor plan, and the preservation of the original façade of Stetson. Faculty office spaces in the additions are one of the most pressing concerns driving the renovation of Stetson.

Offices are small and irregularly shaped, with few open common spaces. Ceilings are low, hallways are cramped, and there is no clear floor plan dictating the layout of the rooms or the flow of traffic. In addition, more offices are needed; as many as 90 additional offices may be required if current projections about an enlarged professorship and increased space needs from Emeritus Professors hold true. The survey results showed that 40% of the student respondents and over 80% of the faculty in Stetson strongly believed that renovation of the offices should occur (Appendices 3G and 3B, respectively).

In addition to the need for office space for increased faculty, there is also a possibility of relocating the offices of the Foreign Language and Economics Departments to Stetson. Relocation into Stetson might help make these departments less alienated from other Division I and II departments (Pilachowski, October 2000). When faculty from the Foreign Language and Economics departments were surveyed, however, they were mixed in their feelings about moving (Appendix 3E). The ramifications of relocation should be carefully considered before any decisions are made.

Another important consideration is the current lack of large social spaces in the additions of Stetson. Many offices adjoin small foyers or landings, but these are plagued by the same problems as the offices; low ceilings and cramped, irregular spaces. Many faculty and students voiced frustration that there are no spaces in Stetson conducive to interactions between professors and students. Faculty also expressed interest in having common areas that facilitate interchanges between faculty of different departments. Of the faculty respondents in Stetson, over 85% rated improved office space as a critical concern (Appendix 3B). In addition, nearly 70% of the student respondents considered that additional common spaces were of moderate-to-high priority (Appendix 3G).

The renovation of Morley Science Center included the addition of many large open spaces. These spaces help to link departments and to combine large spaces with smaller, more enclosed alcoves that encourage small group conferences and one-on-one communication. Thus far, these spaces have been considered a success, and can serve as a model for what could occur in Stetson.

There are also many non-academic departments stationed in Stetson, and they too are vying for more space. The Office of Information and Technology (OIT), Office of Career Counseling (OCC), and Office Services have all expressed a need for enlarged or improved office space. Stetson was not built to house the technology required by the OIT. As a result, the OIT offices are strung with wires and extension cords in an effort to supply it with the energy it requires. It is impractical, as well as unsafe, to put such a strain on the capabilities of the building. Additionally, the role of the OIT will most certainly continue to expand, and should have the space and technological capabilities with which to do so.

The OCC, now located in the Roper Center, struggles with its ability to serve all students fully, in part because it is not centrally located and lacks the space to expand. Staff members in the OCC have expressed the need for more small conference rooms for interviews and information sessions (Pilachowski, October 2000). Students have expressed dissatisfaction with the location of the OCC, and suggested that a more centrally-located office would more easily attract a broader segment of the campus.

Office Services, housed on the basement level of the original segment of Stetson, has the most pressing space concerns. As the technology and demand of printing have increased, Office Services has had to continually add to its equipment, causing a severe overcrowding within the office. Recently, the acquisition of a new color copier wreaked havoc in the office because there was no space to put it. Electrical cords hang from the ceiling in pipes in order to reach the machines stationed in islands in the center of the office; there is little else that can be done to conserve or create space (Favreau, 2000).

Students, faculty, and staff alike clearly disliked the building's current floor plan. Many commented on the confusing, counter-intuitive design of the additions. When asked if the floor plan of Stetson should be changed during the renovation process, more than 80% of the student respondents said that it was a high concern (Appendix 3G).

The floor plan of Stetson is complicated because of the repeated expansions, the intended use of the building, and the fact that the library stacks are imbedded within the structure of the original wing of Stetson. Because the building was designed to be an impressive showcase as well as the College library, it was built with vaulted ceilings. The 1956 addition, intended to be used as stack space and storage, was built with ceilings half the height of the original building. Because there are two floors of the addition for every floor of the original Stetson, passage from one side to the other can only take place every other floor. To complicate the design further, the stacks that protrude from the back of Stetson were designed to be weight-bearing and permanent. This prevents the inclusion of a walkway through the room or an easy method of building around it (Pilachowski, October 2000). Instead, the 1956 addition simply added on to the back, and is connected to the old Stetson with enclosed ramps situated along the exterior of the north wall of the stacks. For these reasons, the floor plan will be hard to alter without intensive reconstruction of the additions.

The survey results and conversations with the community make it clear that the façade and function of the original part of Stetson should be preserved as much as is possible. There is no similar public attachment for the additions to Stetson. Old Stetson holds Chapin Rare Books Library, Williamsiana, and a large elegant faculty lounge, as well as a few small classrooms and some faculty offices. When asked if the preservation of old Stetson should be a consideration during the renovation process, nearly 80% of the faculty respondents reported that preservation should be a critical priority. When asked the same question regarding the additions of Stetson, 85% of the respondents reported that preservation was of low priority (Appendix 3B).

Students felt even more strongly about maintaining the historical original building. Nearly 90% of student respondents rated the preservation of the original building to be of critical concern (Appendix 3G). They felt slightly more attached to the additions as well; more than half responded that preservation of the additions were of moderate-to-high concern.

Needs for Sawyer Library

After 25 years of diligent service the student and faculty facilities of Sawyer Library have become severely lacking. Due to many different issues concerning the amount and the type of space that the library currently has, the issue of expanding Sawyer was incorporated into the College plans for renovating Stetson. In order to specifically determine the needs of the students we sent out a survey to 300 students selected at random, with 98 responses total. In addition, we interviewed some of the faculty that work in the library as well as sitting in on faculty and student input discussions to determine any new additions that are needed in Sawyer Library.

The primary reason that Sawyer needs to be expanded is a lack of space for book and journal storage. During conversations with Dave Pilachowski, the College Librarian, and Jay Lucker, the current library consultant for the College, it was determined that Sawyer will need to be expanded 50-75% to have enough space to accommodate enough storage for the College library resources. In the past, the library created space to store books by decreasing the aisle width between the stacks to allow more stacks to fit in the library. Another method to increase book storage is the placement of books in inconvenient locations such as the top and bottom shelves, which are difficult for library users to reach. The projected expansion of 50-75% would allow the library to place the stacks farther apart as is required by law as well as accommodate book growth for the future.

The widening of the aisles between the stacks is also one of the legal issues pertaining to the renovations of Sawyer. Presently, the narrow aisles are 24-32.5 inches wide, and are not wide enough for handicapped access. This prevents the library from complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as enforced by the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB). To become compliant, the library would have to extend the aisles to 36 inches in width at a minimum, and preferably to 42 inches wide (AAB, 2000). Also, other issues such as counter height, study carrel height, water fountain height, and open space in study areas will need to be brought in compliance with the laws of the AAB. The fire prevention systems may also need updating. Although not required by state law, the local fire marshal could require an update of the current sprinkler and smoke detection systems in Sawyer, in which case Williams would have to comply with his recommendations. The renovations needed to bring the library in compliance with Massachusetts state law could be very expensive, although they will have to occur at some point in the future and will increase the overall safety for the College.

Besides more stack space, library faculty desire a loading dock and more office space as part of the Sawyer Expansion. The lack of a loading dock has made it very inconvenient for any deliveries to come to Sawyer. Deliveries are brought into the library by hand cart, which can be quite a hassle considering how many books and journals the library receives on a daily basis, and the cumbersome nature of many of the deliveries. Also, the weather in Williamstown is not always cooperative, and a covered or sheltered loading dock area would prevent any damage to new books or other library resources during delivery. The original plan for deliveries to Sawyer was to use the loading dock on Stetson Hall, and then use hard carts to move the goods through the corridors of Stetson and through the underground tunnel into Sawyer. However, this concept was abandoned long ago and the current practice of clogging Sawyer Library Drive with delivery trucks became the status quo. The addition of a loading dock would reduce the amount of time needed to complete book deliveries, and help prevent any damage to new library goods.

Another problem for the staff of Sawyer is the amount of space that they have to work in. Although some improvements were made to the cataloguing department over the summer, the faculty facilities are still inadequate. The cataloguing department still does not have enough space in their facilities, and the librarians themselves feel that their office size is inadequate. Another possible area for expansion would be classrooms in the library which could be used both for regular classes as well as librarian-taught classes on using the library resources. Although not the top priority, any renovation plan for Sawyer should include some improvements in all of these areas.

The other major need for Sawyer besides more stack space is a major renovation to the study spaces in the library. Behind individual rooms, Sawyer is the most popular place on campus for students to study (Figure 4). Although it is commonly used by students, the building lacks many essential aspects of a well designed study space. The results from our surveys indicate that the top needs for students are both group and individual study spaces, but 24 hour study spaces and computer resources ranked close behind (Figure 5). When judging the characteristics of a good study space, students cited comfort and lack of noise as the most important, but a 24 hour study space ranked slightly below these. Another method of collecting data for the future of Sawyer was to obtain student input and suggestions directly. On November 13, 2000, the primary considerations of the students at an input forum were group study spaces, which would isolate noise yet allow student interaction while working, increased computer resources, and an increase in the amount of open space in the library to reduce the feeling of being cramped or enclosed while studying. The computer resources should include regular desktop systems to write papers and conduct research as well as more advanced products such as scanners, image manipulation software, and multimedia hardware. As Williams increases its reliance on computer use for all classes, it will become more important to have the cutting edge of computing technology accessible to students. Lastly, another possibility in a renovated library would be space for display areas, where student as well as faculty work in all academic areas could be visible. Possible displays include artwork, research papers and projects, thesis research, faculty-published books, and extracurricular publications or projects.

Another consideration during the renovation process is the structural design of the building. Both students and faculty find the current entryway to Sawyer very inconvenient, because the layout forces anyone entering the building to go up a flight of stairs, whether or not they want to the second floor or the basement. Also, handicapped users must pass through two sets of manual doors before pressing a button to receive assistance from a librarian. The librarian uses a key to unlock the elevator (which is back through one of the manual doors) and which goes to every floor. This entryway should be changed as part of the renovation project, not only for disabled library patrons but also for all students and faculty (Pilachowski, October 2000).

Another possible structural change to Sawyer would be a change in the façade of the building, especially the South façade facing Route 2 and Spring Street. Sawyer was built to be large, "When finished, it bulked large--a massive warehouse of learning materials with a magnetic effect on students day and night" (Lewis, 1993). This description points out one of the major flaws of the building, its similarity to a warehouse, which does not flow with the other buildings on the Williams Campus or in the Williamstown area. Although Sawyer is just as wide and tall as the original wing of Stetson, Sawyer appears larger because of its block-like building style. A change to the South façade with a renovation of the entry courtyards could break up the size of the structure using architectural techniques such as different lines and setbacks in the façade. Examples of this were drawn in the Williams College Art History 257 course entitled Architecture 1700-1900, which was taught in the Spring of 2000. Although some of these were more complicated than others, they nevertheless used relatively simple design changes to show that the current façade could be changed to make the building more similar to the surrounding environment. However, the feedback we received for a change in the façade was mixed, as most people disliked the façade, yet they felt that in the future it could be architecturally important as a design type. Before any façade changes are made more research is needed to determine what the public reaction would be to the change.

Zoning Considerations

Williams College is in both the General Residence I (GR1) and General Residence 2 (GR2) Districts, as is the site we are studying (Figure 6). Local zoning may not prohibit the use of land or a structure for religious or educational purposes. However, reasonable dimensional requirements still apply to educational uses. Dimensional requirements include the bulk and height of buildings, setback requirements, parking requirements, and lot coverage. In GR1 and GR2, the maximum height of a building is 35 feet normally. With a special permit, the height can legally be raised to 45 feet (§70-4.1. of Williamstown Zoning Bylaws). To qualify for such a special permit, the college would have to show a plan that minimizes the perceived bulk of the building.

This can be done through taking advantage of topographic features such as slopes to minimize the apparent height of the building, through good building design that reduces the apparent height and mass of the building, and through the use of landscaping to reduce the apparent height and bulk of a building. For GR1 and GR2, another dimensional requirement that is likely to be important is the maximum lot coverage requirement. Maximum lot coverage is the greatest percentage of a lot that can be covered with a building. For both GR1 and GR2, the maximum lot coverage allowed is 20% of the lot. Many potential options for renovating the buildings in question, including an expanded Sawyer, would likely cover more than 20% of their lots. However, should a proposed plan violate this section of the zoning bylaws, it is possible that the College would still be allowed to build the building. The Dover Amendment is a section of the state legislation that precludes towns from excluding educational or religious uses with unreasonable dimensional requirements. As has been interpreted in court cases, such as Campbell and others v. the City of Lynn, educational uses may be allowed that fail to meet zoning requirements if rigorous application of the zoning requirement would significantly impair the educational use of the building without advancing the goals of local zoning laws. The new Science Center on the Williams College Campus exceeds the lot coverage requirements by 18.6%. The College could argue for a similar exception in the case of expanding Sawyer. Since Sawyer is in the middle of campus, and abutted on all sides by Williams College-owned lots, it is unlikely that its expansion would meet much opposition from the town.

Another aspect of renovation that is likely to be affected by local zoning laws is parking. Local zoning bylaws specifically require that, in schools (a category educational buildings such as Stetson would definitely fall under), there must be one parking space for each classroom and office, and one parking space for every three seats in an auditorium. Extra parking and loading spaces also may be required by the building inspector. All required parking spaces must be on the same lot as the building. For the purposes of parking, the entire campus would probably be considered one lot. This essentially means that if more offices or classrooms are added to Stetson, more parking must be provided, unless an office is taken away somewhere else (for instance, a Spanish professor's office in Weston is converted to another purpose when that professor moves to an office in Stetson).

The restrictions placed on the renovations are not insurmountable, and the college has considerable leeway because of its status as an educational institution. Nevertheless, zoning requirements must be taken into account when formulating any plans for these buildings.

Options for Stetson

Given the parameters set by need, zoning, and space, there are several renovation possibilities that can be considered as feasible options for Stetson. The easiest option is to simply make no structural renovations to the building. This is the least expensive option, which is an important factor when these renovations are viewed in tandem with the multiple other projects currently being considered for the near future.

In addition to the issue of funding, the do-nothing option will allow that the building continue to be non-compliant with the laws of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB). If any renovation work is done to the building, the Grandfather Clause of the building code will no longer apply to Stetson, and it will have to be made to comply with all building codes, and rules set by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fire Marshall. This would include ceiling heights, handicap access, and fire prevention measures, all of which Stetson is deficient in (Pilachowski, October 2000). These additional changes would increase the cost of renovations beyond the original scope of the needed changes.

However, there seems to be strong consensus between the administration and the community that the decision to do nothing to Stetson would be a poor one. The need for additional space is going to be ongoing and increasingly important, and the insufficient amenities will continue to plague the building. Additionally, many of the changes that would be required in order for the building to meet code are changes that faculty and students have expressed the need for anyway, such as ceiling height and easier access.

Another possible way to incorporate all the additional space that is needed for uses within the building is to massively expand the footprint of Stetson. This would eliminate the need for a new building and would allow all of the offices and departments to stay connected. There is room to expand Stetson to the North, in the direction of Kellogg and Seeley. The benefit to expansion in this direction would be that the slope leading down to Kellogg would help hide the bulk of the building. It could also be expanded to the East, which would also take advantage of topography in order to decrease the appearance of bulk.

In 1998, the Stetson Renovation Committee, co-chaired by David Pilachowski and Michael Brown, issued a recommendation for the renovations that consisted of the removal of the current additions and the construction of two large wings that extended East from the back of Stetson.

The idea of a major expansion is certainly a feasible one, but was not our final recommendation. The primary reasons we passed over this idea were that it will become too large a building in relation to its environs, it might be more costly than starting from scratch, it might reduce parking or encroach upon existing buildings, and that there is bedrock close to the surface, making construction costly and difficult.

Because Williams is a small school in a rural setting, the issue of scale is an important one. Williams College does not share the space constraints and building needs of larger, more urban, institutions. It thus seems inappropriate that our campus should build an industrial size building that holds 190 offices in addition to several non-academic departments, classrooms, and archives. The addition of 90 offices, at 10x15ft2, plus the requisite space for bathrooms, hallways, and closets, would require approximately 18,000ft2. The additional space for common areas and non-academic departments would contribute as much as 8,000 to 10,000 ft2 to the new additions, for a total of nearly 30,000 square feet. The space required is essentially the same size as current additions, meaning that the square footage of the additions of Stetson would double.

If built to the North, an expansion of this magnitude would probably necessitate the removal of Kellogg and Seeley, as well as eliminating the open space there. If built to the East, Stetson would eliminate some of the parking spaces in Thompson Parking Lot. In addition, an expansion of Stetson might be more expensive than building a separate annex from scratch, because of the necessary changes in order to bring the existing building up to code. There is a possibility with an added extension to the building that traffic flow and ease of travel between wings would only become worse. If the current additions were demolished and a single new addition was put in their place, as the Stetson Renovation Committee suggested, the addition would have to be nearly 60,000 ft2. The sheer size of the addition would necessitate that some combination of parking and open space be sacrificed.

Options for Sawyer

One aspect of a major project such as this is financial support; before Williams could make any of these changes it would need to find funding to undertake the project. Although President Schapiro guaranteed enough money for this project as well as the new Theater and Dance Center and renovations to Baxter Hall, there are some arguments for the status quo.

If no changes were made to Sawyer then money that would be spent on the project could be spent in other areas by the College. Since there are several major impending renovations or constructions planned, some money could be saved on this project without sacrificing the major user needs. Another reason is that any renovation to the building would require compliance with the laws of the Massachusetts AAB, since these have a Grandfather Clause written in to them. Also, increased fire prevention measures could be mandated by the local fire marshal. The effect of compliance with these laws would be an increase in the cost of the project beyond the original construction costs.

Although not expanding Sawyer would have cost benefits, there are certain drawbacks to this proposal. First, the amount of space for book storage is decreasing rapidly at the library, and in the very near future the library is certain to be filled to capacity. Even so, the amount of growth in the library resources is not going to decrease at all, since the number of journals and newspapers continue to arrive and need space for storage. It is inevitable that the library will run out of storage space, so not expanding it now only means that this problem will have to be dealt with in the future. The lack of space in Sawyer is causing other problems, as the library is unable to find space to expand its computing capabilities and increase the amount of work space. Also, if no changes are made the lack of group study areas will remain, and the problems with faculty space, the lack of a loading dock, and the entryway will persist. Although these problems need attention, they could be aided with other changes to Sawyer.

One option to not change the size of the building yet alleviate many of the current problems is to use off-campus or on-campus auxiliary storage facilities to store library resources. The lack of storage space in libraries across the country is an increasing problem, according the Library Administration and Management Association:

"Many academic libraries and large public library systems have found their collections bursting the seams of their traditional library buildings. In many cases, funding agencies are unwilling to add to existing buildings or build new library space on expensive, central property. Across the country, libraries have turned to storage facilities to relieve the space pressures in the stacks" (Muller, 2000)

This would allocate more free space in the building which could be used for more individual and group study space and computer resources. Also, the size of the faculty offices could be expanded, as well as the Cataloguing Department. The entryway design and loading dock problems would not be solved, but the other needs for the building would be satisfied.

Since Sawyer will not be expanded as part of this solution there are other benefits besides solving most of the current problems. The amount of green-space on campus will not decrease in this area if auxiliary storage is used. A book storage facility could be built somewhere else on campus that could be much smaller since its only purpose will be to store books and would not need any space for student use, thus preserving more open space on campus. A major problem on the Williams campus is the lack of large areas of open space that have a central location, and a storage facility would prevent the library form expanding into any of this space. Another possibility would be buying an existing building somewhere in the area that could be used for book storing. Since most existing structures are less expensive than major renovations, the option of buying an existing building would be more affordable than either expanding the library or building a storage facility on campus.

Off-campus storage is a feasible and possibly less expensive option to store library materials, but the drawbacks for students and faculty and the variable costs of this option are important. If library materials were not stored at the library, there would have to be a waiting period for delivery, which would probably be at least a day. Students and faculty would have to submit requests for materials, and then wait while library delivery workers, possibly a new campus job opportunity, retrieved the book from off-site and then brought it back to Sawyer. The result of this would be more inconvenience for faculty and students, and the need for better time management when conducting research for a paper. No longer would students be able to get any documents the day before a paper was due and then write it that night and faculty would not be guaranteed to find a specific journal article for a handout for their class in one hour.

Of course, one possibility would be to put only lesser used library materials in this storage facility, so the demand for them would not be great enough to warrant every day delivery service or severely inconvenience library users. Albany university uses a system where books that have not been checked out since 1984 were put in a storage facility and now requests must be made to obtain them, with delivery service usually taking 24-48 hours and only available Monday through Friday (Libraries Page, 2000). Oberlin College uses a multi-point system of criteria to determine if books should remain in their main library or be stored in their on-campus storage facility, which is only open to library workers (Carnegie Library Storage, 2000). The criteria for storing books in Sawyer or at a storage facility would have to be determined by the librarians, and the stored books would also need to be re-catalogued.

The inconvenience of storing books in an off-site location is costly to the faculty and students, yet the off-site location itself might be costly to the College. A storage facility that is purchased by the College could be less expensive than constructing an addition to the library; however, the purchased building would need to have the proper climate control, security, and storage mechanisms, which could mean a tremendous amount of renovations. For example, if Williams purchased one of the many abandoned mill buildings in this area, it would then need to make extensive renovations to create a suitable environment for storing books.

Furthermore, the sunk cost of construction may be less, but a storage facility has more future costs. The establishment of a delivery system would cost money, both for a vehicle as well as paying a worker to retrieve books once or twice daily. After these costs are taken into consideration, it could be that a storage facility could end up costing more to build (or buy and renovate) and maintain than an expansion to the existing library. Another factor in this equation is the cost of the green-space that the addition to the library would remove, and how this value would factor into the on-site off-site equation.

Overview of Our Recommendations for the Renovations

After our research, our team feels that the following combinations of actions would be the best course of action for Williams College to follow. This does not imply that every option that we reviewed above is without merit; this combination of options is simply what we consider to be most optimal. We recommend renovating and expanding Sawyer Library to the north, while potentially altering its façade to the south. The additions to Stetson should be demolished and new additions of similar size built. A new building can be built to the north of Stetson and Sawyer, which will provide the extra space for faculty offices and other facilities that Stetson Hall requires. Lastly, Kellogg House, whose atmosphere will be impaired by the new walls of brick in its vicinity, can be moved to a new site on campus between the Congregational Church and Hopkins Hall.

Our Recommendation for Stetson Hall

That Stetson needs to be renovated is not debatable. The lack of space for offices, non-academic departments, and common spaces will continue to be problematic, and will require more than a quick fix to be solved.

We are recommending a combination of strategies that provides the needed additional space while retaining the integrity of the building and surrounding areas. Our recommendation consists of the removal of the current archival stacks and the reconfiguration of the archival space there, the demolition of the current additions and redesign of a new extension with a similar footprint, and the retention of the original character of Stetson.

First, we suggest removing the stacks and replacing them with compact shelving. The stacks, built as an integral part of the structure of Stetson, will be costly to replace. However, if the original stacks remain, they will continue to limit the options for surrounding construction. The stack space, which is on the interior of the building, has poor lighting and access, making it poorly suited as office or common space. Thus, we suggest that it continue to be used as stack space for archival storage, and possibly include additional storage space for non-text archival material, such as artwork and objects. We also suggest the addition of climate control and heightened security in order to help preserve the valuable items within.

Our next and foremost suggestion for Stetson is to demolish the current additions and rebuild an extension with a similar footprint and square-footage., using topography to minimize the bulk of the building. We are suggesting that the new additions have a similar square footage as the current additions (approximately 30,000ft2), but that it be used primarily for faculty offices, social spaces, and an expanded OIT. Our suggested placement of the remaining offices, the OCC, and Office Services will be discussed in the following section.

While it is clear that the additions need to be altered, it was clear through our research that the original Stetson is of significant sentimental and aesthetic value to the community at large. We thereby stress that the original façade of Stetson should remain the same. In addition, the current structure of old Stetson seem well suited for its uses as the location of Williamsiana, the Chapin Rare Book Library, Archives, and the Faculty Lounge. The high ceilings and intricate interior detailing lend an air of elegance and historical worth to the collections within, and should be retained as much as possible. The classrooms and offices on the third and fourth floors of the original Stetson, however, have less historical value and in some cases are in disrepair. These should be considered for renovations.

Our Recommendation for Sawyer

The fact that the library needs to be renovated is not debatable, as almost everyone on campus realizes that it is severely lacking in many areas. However, there is no clear plan for alleviating all of these problems while pleasing everyone involved - faculty, students, town residents, and certain alumni. In designing a plan that would satisfy all of the major needs of the library uses while being feasible for the college, we tried to incorporate several different options for expanded space.

The lack of space in Sawyer is a critical issue, and it will only increase as time passes and more library materials enter the Williams library system. In order to remedy this problem the library should be expanded to the North as originally designed. An expansion to the North would be relatively easy as the wall on that side of the building was initially constructed with little load bearing properties, making it very easy to tear down for an expansion. Almost all of the wall could be removed to create more space while keeping the open appearance of the library design. The size of the expansion is debatable, as it depends on how much more space the library will actually need. Dave Pilachowski, the College Librarian, says that an expansion of 50-75% would be sufficient to allow the proper storage of the current library materials while accommodating disabled users, as well as leaving enough room for future library growth. This size expansion would also leave enough room for an increase in computer facilities as well as group study rooms or study areas.

The crucial issue of the library is space, and although an expansion would solve that problem, there are two ways to decrease the size of the expansion. Any expansion or renovation to Sawyer should include the use of compact shelving to store the majority of library materials; it can provide up to 100% increase in storage capacity, while saving as much as 50% of floor space (Compacting Systems, 2000). Compact shelving is also a great solution to materials that are infrequently used, as they are stored very densely but can be accessed by any library user at any time that the library is open. Most compact shelving is also ADA compatible, as it is easily moveable and the width of the aisles can be expanded to meet the 36 inch requirements for wheelchair access. Currently, there is mechanical compact shelving in the Schow Science Library at Williams, with the stacks spreading open to create an aisle at the touch of a button. Although the price of compact shelving is more than ordinary shelving, this price is offset by the decrease in construction costs since less area will be needed in the expansion.

Another expansion decreasing measure would be to investigate the possibility of a storage facility either on-campus or off-campus that could house many of the older and infrequently used library materials that currently waste space in Sawyer. Moving many of the materials to a storage facility would be inefficient, because they are used frequently enough that they would need to be brought to the library every day, but many older journals and congressional documents could be moved to a storage facility and could be retrieved whenever there is demand for them. The crucial aspect of a storage facility is calculating the present and future costs of it versus the present and future costs of an expansion. As was outlined above, when all the variable costs are considered, a storage facility could be either less or more expensive than expanding Sawyer. Only after calculating the different costs and getting student and faculty input on the two options should the College determine whether the storage facility option is beneficial. With the amount of library materials continuing to grow and the amount of space on campus remaining finite, Williams will eventually have to begin storing materials in another location or increase its book sharing programs with other regional institutions.

Beyond the space issues of the library, there are several other important considerations that need attention. If the library expanded North, the building would encroach upon Sawyer Library Drive, probably forcing a design change of this access road. By slightly altering the site of this road and adding a loading dock to the North wall of the library, an effective delivery area could be established that would allow all of the library deliveries to use a loading dock and a parking area. The placement of the loading dock in the Northeast corner of the building conceals it from most viewing areas around the center of campus, and it is very close to the Cataloguing Department which is where the majority of the deliveries go to be processed .

Another small structural change to the library would be the renovation of the entryways on both the East and West sides of the building. A relatively easy way to solve the entry problem would be to reconfigure the current mezzanine level of the library so that it connected to the entryway. The circulation desk could be moved downstairs and this entire area could be reconfigured so that users would no longer have to walk upstairs to go everywhere in the building, and disabled persons would not have to seek assistance just to enter the main library area.

There is one last structural detail which needs attention, the façade of the building. If Williams chooses to change the façade of the building to reduce its environmental dissimilarity, there is a simple yet effective method to change the façade while increasing the area of the library and creating group study spaces. Since the South wall of the library is load-bearing, it is not easily removed to expand in that direction. However, one method to expand would be to add onto the South wall and then create a row of group study rooms or computer labs for the entire length, so the original wall could remain intact except for doorways leading into the rooms. With this design, the façade could be changed and the library expanded, yet the original wall could remain in place and isolate the noise of the group study rooms and computer labs.

With some combination of space saving measures and an addition to the current structure the amount of space in the library for the needs of all the library users could be greatly increased. At the same time, Williams could make several structural changes that would greatly improve both the utility and the aesthetic value of the library, creating the perfect balance of architectural form and function.

Our Recommendations: A New Building

As part of our final recommendation, we believe that a new building should be built to the north of Sawyer and Stetson. This new building would presumably be three or four stories tall and occupy a footprint that is roughly the same size as the original part of Stetson. The new building would help to meet many of the needs that Stetson currently has while preventing Stetson from becoming too massive.

The new building would include faculty offices, common spaces, and some classrooms. This would allow the faculty size to grow and for Division I and II faculty to be consolidated into a single area on campus (though admittedly split into two buildings). The offices in the new building should meet the same standards as offices in the renovated Stetson. They should be larger than many of the offices in Stetson. Combined with the renovated Stetson there should be approximately 180 offices in the two buildings. The classrooms in the new building should be technologically advanced.

Other non-academic departments could be moved into the new building to give them more space and better facilities. Office Services, which currently is desperately in need of more space, could be located in the new building. If Office Services were located in the new building, they could be greatly expanded both to give them adequate space for the equipment they already own and extra space in anticipation of future growth. As technologies change, it is reasonable to expect that Office Services will be purchasing new technology. It is also reasonable to expect that with the growth in faculty, there will be an even greater demand on Office Services.

The Office of Career Counseling (OCC) could also be moved into the new building. If they were located in the new building, they could build exactly the type of space that they need, with small rooms suitable for interviews. The Office of Career Counseling could also be moved to a renovated Baxter. Many colleges have their offices of career counseling in their student centers. Such a central, well-used location makes the office more prominent and promotes student use. Currently, the OCC is difficult to find and easily missed by students. Of course, even being in a prominent location in the new building would be a vast improvement over the current location.

The new sections of the new additions to Stetson that currently have faculty offices total approximately 18,000 square feet. Since part of this square footage is composed of bathrooms, closets, stairwells, and hallways, the actual square footage of office space is less than 18,000 square feet. Assuming that the new faculty offices will be 10' by 15' (the recommended size), there will need to be 27,000 square feet dedicated to office space in both the renovated Stetson and the new building combined to house 180 professors. The additions to Stetson are going to be torn down and the new additions will be composed of fewer floors, as the ceiling height will be increased. Office sizes will also be increased in the renovated Stetson, and there will also be more common areas in a renovated Stetson. This means that there will be a net loss of square footage of office space in Stetson after the renovations. Assuming that the new building has the same footprint as the original part of Stetson, if it is three stories tall, it will have approximately 20,000 total square feet if it is three stories tall and over 27,000 total square feet if it is four stories tall. Even if the new building is only three stories tall, that would be sufficient to meet current needs. However, the college may want to build a four story building since that would give them space to expand in the future, and it is easiest to build a fourth story when the building is first being constructed.

The building's bulk can be minimized through architecture that breaks the building visually into different sections. It can also be minimized by placing it on the slope west of Kellogg's current site. The slope would hide part of the building from many angles. Similarly, the back sections of Stetson are not visible from many angles because of the slope there. By placing the building further north, the gentle downward slope there would ensure that from a distance the lower part of the building would not be visible, thus reducing its apparent size.

The most traditional way of setting the building would be to set it at square angles with Stetson and Sawyer, thus forming a traditional college quadrangle. The one problem with this is that, due to the expansion of Sawyer to the north, it would be impossible to form a symmetrical quadrangle, with the new building equal distances from both Sawyer Library and Stetson Hall. The new building could be set even further north than the expanded Sawyer which would mean that it is further away from Stetson than Sawyer. The new building could be set alongside Sawyer , be built in an "L" shape, set farther north of both buildings , or could be placed at an angle to both Stetson and Sawyer . Our team is not recommending any of these options specifically. We believe that a skilled architect could make more than one of the options work well aesthetically. A skilled landscape architect would be able to make a welcoming courtyard between the three buildings with more than one of the options.

One major problem with any new building in the area is that it will have to be carefully placed in order to maintain an adequate pathway heading to the north. Our team conducted a random survey of 300 students to determine how often they used either the pathway in between Bernhard Music Center and Sawyer Library and the sidewalks between Sawyer Library and Stetson Hall. Ninety-eight students responded to the survey. Both sidewalks were used considerably, but the sidewalk between Stetson and Sawyer was used very heavily. Almost half of the respondents said that they used that sidewalk 4 times a week or more (Appendix 3I). That sidewalk is one of the main paths towards Mission Park; any building to the north of Sawyer and Stetson must leave a path open for sophomores to walk to their rooms in Mission. A new building built alongside Sawyer may not feasible because of this; such a design would essentially create an alleyway for students to walk between Sawyer and the new building.

Impacts on Kellogg House

With the proposed new building to the north of both Stetson and Sawyer, Kellogg House would not necessarily be immediately encroached upon. The building could be built in that site without making the destruction or removal of Kellogg necessary. The existence of the building there would, however, have other effects on Kellogg House. Currently, if someone is sitting in the computer lab in Matt Cole Library, they see a brick wall to the south and a pleasant view of the Forest Garden and Seeley House (another small house) to the west. With the new building in place, people would see brick walls to both sides. The placement of the building in this area would not have any direct structural effects on Kellogg House, but it is also important to consider the effects of the building on the visual and spatial characteristics of Kellogg.

The new building could be placed so that the large brick wall is nearer or further away from Kellogg, but the existence of the brick wall will remain. Kellogg House would probably receive even less sunlight due to the surrounding buildings. According to the figure we have created, a new building would probably come right to the westernmost side of Seeley right now . If the building is angled, only one corner would be that close to Kellogg. If the building is aligned parallel to Sawyer and Stetson, that entire wall would be the same distance from Kellogg. If the building is arranged so that it runs lengthwise parallel to Kellogg, the brick wall would be a good deal further away, but would continue to block the view.

The Possibility of Moving Kellogg House

Kellogg has been moved twice before. It could potentially be moved again. The advantage of moving Kellogg is that the house could be moved to a new site where it is no longer cramped. The first that must be asked is: does such a site exist? The campus has been getting noticeably fuller over the past few decades; not many open sites for buildings exist anymore. Nevertheless, our team has found a site that we believe would meet the criteria for a new site for Kellogg. The lawn in between the Congregational Church and Hopkins Hall is a potential site for Kellogg House. Kellogg House would fit comfortably in the space there . If Kellogg House were moved there, its beautiful, traditional New England front could be easily seen by all passers-by. Visitors to the campus would see Kellogg House as one of their first impressions of campus instead of seeing Sawyer (assuming that Sawyer's façade isn't altered). Kellogg House is the first president's house; its architectural style fits in well with the rural, New England atmosphere of the town.

Assuming that the Center for Environmental Studies would continue to be in Kellogg House, it would probably be well-served by its greater prominence on campus. Currently, there is a fairly large number of students on campus who have no idea where CES or Kellogg House are. In its new site, every admissions tour would walk by it and point it out. There would be greater potential for interactions with local townspeople in its new site; the Center for Environmental Studies could be more of a community center for local discussion of environmental issues than it currently is.

According to our survey, many of the things people like about Kellogg House are related to its generally comfortable, homelike atmosphere (Appendix 3D). There is no reason to believe that these qualities would change with its new location. The kitchen, the living room, and the general interior of the building would not have to be altered at all. The one change that may affect the atmosphere of the building is the Forest Garden. It does not seem likely that the Forest Garden will be transplanted to the new site. For reasons that we will explain later, the area behind Kellogg will probably remain lawn and the area in front of Kellogg will probably be landscaped similarly to the other nearby buildings. The Forest Garden would probably remain close to where it currently is, possibly shifting to take over the space left behind by Kellogg House. To protect the garden during construction from the heavy machinery, the college may want to consider removing the perennial plants together with their soil and transplanting them somewhere else during the duration of the construction.

Another potential disadvantage of the new site would be the loss of more green space on campus. However, in our experience, the lawn in question is not one that is highly used by students. There is a day care which uses that lawn, but their play area is located far enough back that they would probably still be able to use the portion of lawn that they currently use. Therefore, the main value of that lawn would probably be aesthetic. It is the belief of our team that Kellogg House, if situated in that site, would also be aesthetically pleasing and therefore the loss of that lawn would not be a great.

Probably the largest consideration in moving Kellogg would be the cost of such an undertaking. While the original section of Kellogg House has been moved before, Matt Cole Library, the newest addition to the building, has never been moved before. That section of the building may be the hardest to move. Its heating system is under the floor in concrete. It is possible that the building would have to be moved without the heating system and the heating system could simply be rebuilt at the new site. It is also possible that the original part of the building could be moved separately from Matt Cole Library or that Matt Cole Library could simply be demolished only to be rebuilt at the new site. Obviously, demolishing the library and rebuilding it would be very wasteful. Another factor in determining the cost is the topography near Kellogg. Kellogg would have to be moved uphill to get to its new site. The gentlest slope it could take would be for it to move northwest and then south, going partially over the site where Seeley currently is. While this route is less direct than going directly west and then south, it would probably be more feasible due to the gradient of the slope. It cost $136,000 to move Jenness House from its previous site (now covered by the new Science Center) to its current location near Hardy House. However Jenness was not moved as far and it was moved downhill. Therefore, the cost of moving Kellogg could potentially be greater than $136,000, especially considering the added difficulties that Matt Cole Library will pose.

Parking

Parking was a factor we were forced to consider because of its pervasive influence on use of space on campus. The zoning bylaws require how much parking there must be on campus, but the college has considerable leeway in where they can put the parking on campus. Any plan that increases the overall number of offices and classrooms on campus will require more parking spaces. However, faculty are reluctant to walk more than a few minutes from their cars to their offices. While it is easy to dismiss these concerns as mere whining, our team felt that we could not simply impose our beliefs about cars upon others. Also, when trying to create a solution to the parking problem, we wanted one which could be easily implemented and would not have to be part of any campus-wide parking change, as that is not our topic of study. Instead, we worked within the boundaries of the current parking strategy of the college to design our system. Any massive renovation of a faculty office building on campus will be an inconvenience to professors for a while. If the renovation is finished only to have a significant portion of the faculty parking located near Poker Flats, there would be an uproar from faculty who wouldn't want to brave the snowdrifts and ice during inclement weather. Therefore, our team made an effort to try to find parking for the majority of the faculty and staff from Stetson and Sawyer relatively close to the two buildings.

Our team accepted the recommendations of last year's 1999 Environmental 302 project on Cars on Campus, and has been careful to align our recommendations related to parking with their conclusions last year. There are currently 20 parking spaces on Sawyer Library Drive. Some of these will be lost with the construction of the new building. There are 146 spaces in Thompson Parking Lot, and there are 40 spaces in the Dodd Area. The Cars on Campus team essentially wanted to consolidate all parking together on campus into a smaller number of main lots. Thompson Parking Lot was one of the lots that they wanted to keep and possibly expand. Thompson Parking Lot could potentially be expanded to the east according to Buildings and Grounds. The Cars on Campus team also mentioned the possibility of expanding the Dodd Parking lot near the Dining Hall, though this was not one of the options they recommended most strongly. We feel that expanding the Thompson Parking Lot would probably would be a good idea.

We also advocate the removal of student parking to the periphery of campus, an idea that is currently being considered by the administration, according to Eric Beattie of Buildings and Grounds. Having student parking near the periphery of campus would discourage excessive car use among students. The parking lots near Poker Flats and Mission Park could be expanded to accommodate more cars , and a new parking lot could be built off of Stetson Court to the southeast of Poker Flats. In relation to our project, removing student cars from the Dodd area would free forty parking spaces for use by faculty. Together with the 146 spaces currently in both the upper and lower Thompson Parking Lots, there would be spaces for all of the 180 faculty in Stetson Hall and the new building. There would not, however, be spaces for all of the faculty members, all the staff from Office Services, the OCC, and Office of Information Technology, and all of the Library staff. Some of the faculty and staff may live close enough to campus that they regularly walk to work anyway. Some of the faculty and staff may not mind walking five minutes from Poker Flats to Stetson Hall or Sawyer Library. However, the college may still want to expand Thompson Parking Lot to keep up with the likely increase in demand.

Environmental Considerations

The renovation of Stetson and Sawyer provide an important opportunity to implement environmentally conscious and energy efficient architecture, building practices, and amenities. Both buildings provide the opportunity to meld old brick and mortar with new technology, and have the potential to set a precedent for environmentally conscious design on the Williams campus. The College would be joining a growing number of campuses around the nation that are turning to green building practices in the construction and renovation of new buildings.

There are many ways to incorporate environmentally consciousness into a new or renovated building, ranging from installing energy-efficient fixtures to creating a full-scale self-generating building. We realize that an entirely green building might not be feasible for the renovations of Stetson and Sawyer and the construction of the annex. However, certain green building techniques should no longer be considered an optional luxury.

An architect with experience in green building should be used for these projects, and environmental techniques and materials should be used in the construction process. In addition, the aesthetic impact of the buildings should be considered. The expansion of Stetson and Sawyer will have a direct impact on the surrounding open space; this should be minimized as much as possible by minimizing the bulk of the buildings and blending them with the surrounding landscape. Sawyer, with its current façade, should be an example of how not to design a building to fit into its surroundings; it is square, bulky, and largely un-landscaped.

The major renovations of Stetson and Sawyer, along with the possible construction of a new annex, provide an opportunity for Williams College to display its commitment to the advancement of environmentally-conscious architecture and design.

Conclusion

In the past Williams has focused on the design of individual buildings, but there has been a neglect for the incorporation of buildings into the entire campus. However, a building can not be constructed without first considering the surrounding landscape, and how the project will fuse with its environment to create a unified campus. The task to assimilate the needs and wishes of the community is a daunting one. Our recommendations for Stetson, Sawyer, and the surrounding area reflects our desire to accommodate the needs of the buildings while maintaining a sense of moderate scale, retained open space, and aesthetic beauty.

By rebuilding the Stetson additions, creating a new Stetson annex, expanding Sawyer and relocating Kellogg House, all of the space needs can be met without sacrificing a significant amount of open space. This project provides the College with an opportunity to rectify many of the planning decisions of the past; both Stetson and Sawyer should be considered on their own as well as part of their surrounding environment. While it would significantly alter the appearance of the campus, we feel that expansions of these buildings would be a positive change.

We have come to realize the extent to which planning is a collaborative effort, and hope that these recommendations will be of assistance during the continuing discussions of Stetson and Sawyer.

Text References

AAB Rules and Regulations. Massachusetts Architectural Access Board. 12 December,
2000. (http://www.state.ma.us/aab/aab_regs.htm).

An Introduction to Sawyer Library. Williamstown, MA: Williams College, 1975.

Art, Hank and Roger Bolton. Planning Project: Stetson and Sawyer Expansion. Environmental Studies 302 Class Handout, 2000.

Beattie, Eric. Personnel interview. 2 November, 2000.

Brown, Michael. Update on Stetson-Sawyer Planning, Fall 2000 (memo). Fall 2000.

Brown, Michael. Stetson Planning Documents Page. Williams College. 4 October 2000 (http://www.williams.edu/anthsoc/stetson/background.htm).

Brown, Michael (facilitator). Sawyer Library Open Meeting. 13 November 2000.

Card, Michael. Personnel interview. 28 November, 2000.

Carnegie Library Storage. Oberlin College Libraries Page. 12 December, 2000 (http://www.oberlin.edu/library/colldev/storage.html).

Compacting Systems. Borroughs Corporation. 12 December, 2000 (http://www.borroughs.com/Products/HighDensity/CompactingSys-tems.htm).

Lewis, R. Cragin. Williams 1793-1993 : a pictorial history. Williamstown, MA: Williams College Bicentennial Commission, 1993.

Favreau, Ronald. Personnel interview. 29 November, 2000.

Herman, Peter and Charles Tseckares. Executive Summary from CBT (memo). 17 October, 2000.

Libraries Page. University of Albany. 12 December 2000 (http://www.albany.edu/library/services/storage.html).

Muller, Karen. "LAMA to sponsor preconference on library storage." Online posting, 11 May, 1999. The Preservation Administration Discussion Group. 12 December, 2000 (http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/padg/1999/05/msg00007.html).

Olmsted Brothers. Report on Plan of Buildings for Williams College 1902. Williams College Archives.

Pilachowski, David. CBT Faculty Open Meeting. 28 November, 2000.

Pilachowski, David, Michael Brown, and Jay Lucker. Personnel Interview. October, 2000.

Schapiro, Morton O. Personnel interview. 13 November, 2000.

Schapiro, Morton O. Environmental Studies 302 Class Discussion. 7 November, 2000.

Schmertz, Mildred F. "Design for Readers: three libraries designed by different architects." Architectural Record July 1978 pp. 89-98.

Warren, Philip H. What's in a name: the building of Williams College: a collection of essays. Williamstown, MA: Williams College, 1999.

Wassenar, Winthrop. Personnel Interview. November 2000.

Survey References

Salant, Priscilla and Don A. Dillman. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1994.

Appendix 1. Pertinent Sections of Williamstown Zoning Bylaws.

§70-4.1. Height regulations.

A. Basic limitation. The height of any building or structure shall not exceed 35 feet, or 2 1/2 stories in the case of homes of conventional design, or three stories above the average ground level in the case of split-level design, except that in no case shall the height exceed the limits permitted by Section 35A to 35D, inclusive, of Chapter 90, and any more restrictive amendments thereto, of the General Laws of Massachusetts. 1. Height Modifications [Added 5-18-99 ATM, Art. 29]

1. Intent. The intent of these modifications is to assure that all structures in Williamstown fit into their surroundings in terms of scale and mass, and that viewsheds are maintained.

2. Village Business District. In the Village Business District, building height may be increased to forty feet.

3. Height Increase by Special Permit. In all districts except Village Business and Rural Residence 1 building height (except one and two-family dwellings) may be increased to forty-five feet, provided the Board of Appeals grants a special permit, based upon the following criteria, in addition to the general special permit criteria of Section 70 - 8.4:

a. Siting. The building will be sited to take advantage of topographic features, such as slopes, which can mitigate its height and bulk.
b. Setbacks. The front setback will be no less than the setback of adjacent buildings or the required setback (Section 70-4.3), whichever is greater. Side and rear set-backs will preserve access of adjoining premises to light and air and to allow for landscaping consistent with the standard of (3)(d).
c. Building Design. The exterior design will reduce the apparent height and bulk of the building. Design features may include emphasis on architectural elements (such as windows, entries, balconies, etc.) that divide the building into smaller pieces, articulated rooflines, selection of façade material, and color. Applicants are required to present plans that demonstrate consistency with this objective.
d. Landscaping. Landscaping should reduce the apparent height and bulk of the building. Landscape design will include large trees, singly or in clumps, arranged to break up the mass of the building and provide a more human scale.

4. All special permit submittals shall include the following:

a. A locus plan, in accordance with the requirements of Section 70 - 8.2.B. (1).
b. Plans showing pre-development and proposed contours of the land, locations and details of landscaping.
c. Plans showing detailed exterior elevations of all proposed buildings.
d. A three-dimensional representation of the building, post-development topography, and landscaping features of the site and neighboring properties (within 300 feet).

1. Method of measurement. Height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the average ground elevation around the exterior walls of the structure or, in the case of built up land, the highest elevation at the site prior to such change in contour, to the highest point of the roof surface in the case of a flat roof, and to the mean height between eaves and ridge in the case of a pitched roof. [Amended 5-18-99 ATM, Art. 29]

1. Exclusions. Limitations of height shall not apply to spires, domes, steeples, radio towers, chimneys, broadcasting and television antennae, bulkheads, cooling towers, ventilators, silos and other appurtenances usually carried above the roof. [Amended 5-18-99 ATM, Art. 29]

§70-4.3 DIMENSIONAL SCHEDULE.

			MINIMUM YARDS (FEET)
DISTRICT	MINIMUM LOT AREA	MINIMUM FRONTAGE (feet) [1]	FRONT	SIDE	REAR	MAX % BUILDING COVERAGE	MIN % OPEN SPACE
Rural Residence 1	5 acres	300	100	100	100	.	85
Rural Residence 2
Rural Residence 3
General Residence 1
General Residence 2
Single & Two Family Residence	10,000 s.f.	100	30	15	15	20
Limited Business			30		15	50
Tourist Business	1 acre	200	75	25	25	25	40
Village Business				5	5
Planned Business	20,000 s.f.	125	30	15	15	30
Limited Industrial			150	50	50	30
Business Campus	2-1/2acres	150	50	25	25	20	50

§70-6.1 Off-street parking and loading.

A. [Amended 5-16-1995 ATM, Art. 28] Number of spaces. Off-street parking and loading spaces required to meet the following standards shall not hereafter be reduced, nor shall one be counted as or substituted for the other.

Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be required as follows. Schools: one parking space for each classroom and office therein, plus one parking space for each three seats in the auditorium thereof.

Appendix 2. Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Regulations Pertaining to Educational Facilities.

521 CMR: ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD 3/6/98 521 CMR - 47

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

12.1 GENERAL

Educational facilities shall comply with 521 CMR, except as specified or modified in 521 CMR 12. Educational facilities shall include but not be limited to: public and private schools, nurseries, pre-schools, day care facilities, colleges and universities, libraries, galleries, museums, and training facilities.

12.1.1 Applicability: Administrative spaces, instructional spaces, and areas open to students or the general public shall comply with 521 CMR.

12.1.2 Dormitories shall comply with the requirements of 521 CMR FACILITIES, LODGING FACILITIES.

12.1.3 Amphitheaters, lecture halls and classrooms of educational facilities shall comply with 521 CMR 14, PLACES OF ASSEMBLY.

12.2 LIBRARIES

Shall comply with the following and Figure 12A.

12.2.1 General: All public areas of a library, including but not limited to, reading and study areas, stacks, reference rooms, reserve areas, and special facilities or collections, shall comply with 521 CMR 12.

12.2.2 Reading Areas, Study Areas and Computer Workstations: Where tables, study carrels, computer workstations, or fixed seating are provided, at least 5% with a minimum of one of each element shall be accessible, be on an accessible route, and comply with the following:

a. Access aisles: A 36 inch (36" = 914mm) access aisle shall be provided between tables and between study carrels. No seating shall overlap the access aisle. See Fig. 12A.
b. Clear floor space as defined in shall be provided at each seating space. Such clear floor space shall not overlap knee space by more than 19 inches (19" = 483 mm). See Fig. 12A.
c. Knee Clearances: If seating for disabled persons is provided at tables or counters, kneespaces at least 27 inches (27" = 686mm) high, 30 inches (30" = 762mm) wide, and 19 inches (19" = 483mm) deep shall be provided. See Fig. 12A. d. Height of Tables or Counters: The tops of accessible tables and counters shall be from 28 inches to 34 inches (28" to 34" = 711mm to 864mm) above the finished floor or ground.

12.2.3 Check-Out Areas: At least one lane at each check-out area shall have a counter a minimum of 36 inches (36" = 914mm) in length and a maximum of 36 inches (36" = 914mm) in height. See Fig. 7A.

3/6/98 521 CMR - 47

12.2.4 Security Devices: Any traffic control or book security gates or turnstiles shall not prevent access or egress to people in wheelchairs. Security gates shall have a 32 inch (32" = 812mm) clear opening. If turnstiles are used, an adjacent accessible, unlocked door or gate shall be provided. Any level changes created by such devices shall comply with and 521 CMR 20, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE and 521 CMR 29, FLOOR SURFACES. .

12.2.5 Card Catalogs: Clear aisle space at card catalogs shall be a minimum of 36 inches (36" = 914mm) and comply with Fig. 12B. Maximum reach height shall be between 18 inches (18" = 457mm) and 54 inches (54" = 1372mm), with a height of 48 inches (48" = 1219mm) preferred.

12.2.6 Stacks: Aisles between stacks shall have a minimum clear width of 36 inches (36" = 914mm) and preferably 42 inches (42" = 1067mm), where possible, as shown in Fig. 12C. Shelf height in stack areas is unrestricted.

Appendix 3. Survey Questions and Data

Appendix 3A. Stetson Faculty Survey

In the near future, Stetson Hall will undergo major renovations to expand and improve facilities. The extent and nature of these renovations depend largely on the needs of the faculty that will be housed there. As part of Environmental Planning (ENVI 302), we are conducting a semester-long examination of the remodeling of these buildings, and collecting input on student and faculty needs in order to create a set of recommendations for the administration and planning committee.

As a faculty member who currently resides in the building, your input and opinions are fundamental to creating a sense of what aspects of Stetson need improvement. Please help us by answering this short list of questions. Do so by hitting reply and filling in the blank next to each answer.

Thanks so much for your time,
Sarah Barger
Heather Brutz
Garry Sanders
____________________________________________________________________
1) How would you rate the quality of the following aspects on a scale of 1(excellent) to 10 (needs to be renovated). If you don't know, write 0.
__ classrooms
__ offices
__ the floor plan
__ lounges and other social spaces
__ the original (front) of Stetson
__ the additions (the back parts of Stetson)

2) on a scale of 1(Crucial) to 10 (not needed), rank the importance of the following in a RENOVATED Stetson Hall.
__ expanded and improved office space
__ more common spaces for interdepartmental gathering
__ more common spaces for student/professor interactions
__ preservation of the original facade of the original building
__ preservation of the later additions (where most offices are)

3) When a major renovation occurs, the surrounding buildings and open space might be encroached upon. On a scale of 1 (irreplaceable) to 10 (easily replaced), rank the personal importance of the following nearby buildings. If you don't know, write 0.
__ Fernald House (Econ dept.)
__ Seeley House (Econ dept.)
__ Kellogg House (CES)

4) One possibility for an expanded Stetson is to relocate the Economics and Language departments into the building, thereby concentrating most of the Division I and II departments into one building. Rate this possible conglomeration on a scale of 1 (desirable) to 10 (disruptive).
__

5) Was comfortable office conditions and accomodations a consideration while considering Williams? Rate this consideration on a scale of 1 (very important) to 10 (negligible).
__

6) On a scale of 1 (excellent) to 10 (miserable), rate your office in Stetson.
__

Appendix 3B. Stetson Faculty Survey Responses

1) How would you rate the quality of the following aspects on a scale of
1 (excellent) to 10 (needs to be renovated). If you don't know, write 0
	Classrooms	Offices	Floor Plan	Lounges	The Original Stetson	The Additions
number of 1s	1	0	1	3	20	0
number of 2s	0	2	0	4	15	0
number of 3s	2	2	3	5	5	3
number of 4s	0	3	0	2	0	1
number of 5s	12	7	4	12	1	2
number of 6s	3	3	1	1	0	1
number of 7s	4	1	1	1	0	5
number of 8s	9	3	1	7	0	3
number of 9s	1	4	3	0	0	7
number of 10s	10	21	31	10	0	19

2) on a scale of 1(Crucial) to 10 (not needed), rank the importance of the following in a RENOVATED Stetson Hall.
	improved & expanded Office space	more lounges for interdepartmental gathering	more spaces for student/professor gathering	preservation of original façade	preservation of additions
number of 1s	36	13	8	26	2
number of 2s	1	4	6	5	2
number of 3s	4	7	7	5	0
number of 4s	1	3	2	0	0
number of 5s	3	11	10	3	3
number of 6s	0	0	2	1	0
number of 7s	0	1	4	2	1
number of 8s	0	3	4	1	6
number of 9s	1	1	0	0	4
number of 10s	1	3	3	1	26

3) When a major renovation occurs, the surrounding buildings and open space might be encroached upon. On a scale of 1(irreplaceable) to 10 (easily replaced), rank the personal importance of the following nearby buildings. If you don't know, write zero.
	Fernald House	Seeley House	Kellogg House
number of 1s	2	2	4
number of 2s	3	2	3
number of 3s	0	0	4
number of 4s	1	1	3
number of 5s	1	1	7
number of 6s	1	1	0
number of 7s	2	1	1
number of 8s	3	3	2
number of 9s	2	3	3
number of 10s	19	19	8

4) One possibility for an expanded Stetson is to relocate the Economics and Language departments into the building thereby concentrating most of the Division I and II departments into one building. Rate this possible conglomeration on a scale of 1 (desirable) to 10 (disruptive)
number of 1s	11
number of 2s	4
number of 3s	10
number of 4s	2
number of 5s	5
number of 6s	2
number of 7s	0
number of 8s	6
number of 9s	0
number of 10s	4

5) Was comfortable office conditions and accomondations a consideration while considering Williams? Rate this consideration on a scale of 1 (very important) to 10 (negligible).
number of 1s	2
number of 2s	2
number of 3s	1
number of 4s	1
number of 5s	8
number of 6s	1
number of 7s	1
number of 8s	10
number of 9s	3
number of 10s	17

6) On a scale of 1 (excellent) to 10 (miserable), rate your office in Stetson.
number of 1s	5
number of 2s	1
number of 3s	6
number of 4s	6
number of 5s	8
number of 6s	3
number of 7s	2
number of 8s	10
number of 9s	3
number of 10s	3

 

Appendix 3C. Text of the Survey Sent to the Center for Environmental Studies Listerv.

In the near future, Stetson Hall and Sawyer Library will undergo major renovations to expand and improve facilities. The extent and nature of these renovations depend largely on the needs of the faculty that will be housed there. As part of Environmental Planning (ENVI 302), we are conducting a semester-long examination of the remodeling of these buildings, and collecting input on student and faculty needs in order to create a set of recommendations for the administration and planning committee.

Such a renovation could potentially affect nearby buildings. Therefore we are conducting research on the opinions of people who use the nearby buildings. We would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes of your time to answer the following survey.

Thank-you,
Heather Brutz
Sarah Barger
Garry Sanders
_________________________________________________________________
1. Are you a student, faculty, or staff person? 2.

If you are a student, how often do you use Kellogg House (the building that the Center for Environmental Studies is located in? (put an x next to your answer)

__a. never
__b. once or twice a semester
__c. 1-2 times a month
__d. 1-2 times a week
__e. 3-4 times a week
__f. 5 or more times a week

3. Put an x next to all of the uses which you use Kellogg House and its immediate vicinity for:
__ cooking
__ studying
__meeting with professors
__using the public computers/printers
__group meetings
__using the GIS lab
__ gardening in the Forest Garden
__other (please specify)

4. Do you support the idea of moving the Center for Environmental Studies into another building, either with the sciences or the social sciences, as a way of facilitating interaction among faculty of different disciplines? (Put an x next to your answer)
__yes
__maybe (specify if possible why)
__no
__I don't know.

5. On a scale of 1 (I love the idea!) to 10 (I hate this idea!), how much do you like the idea of building a new "green" building that is designed to be very energy efficient and have a low impact on the environment and putting the Center for Environmental Studies there? Put a 0 if you don't know. If you would like to write additional comments about the idea, please feel free to do so.
__

6. On a scale of 1 (This is vital to my enjoyment of the building) to 10 (This impedes my enjoyment of the building), with 5 being a neutral ranking (This doesn't affect my enjoyment of the building), please rank the following aspects of Kellogg House:
__the kitchen
__faculty offices
__the living room
__Matt Cole Library
__The GIS Lab
__The Forest Garden
__The historical value of the building
__The aesthetics of the building Faculty Responses
Number of

Appendix 3D.

Faculty Responses - CES Listserver Survey Responses
Number of Responses
	Put an x next to all of the uses which you use Kellogg House and its immediate vicinity for:
	__ cooking
	__ studying
1	__meeting with professors
	__using the public computers/printers
3	__group meetings
	__using the GIS lab
	__ gardening in the Forest Garden
	__other (please specify
2	__library
1	__faculty seminars
	Do you support the idea of moving the Center for Environmental Studies into another building, either with the sciences or the social sciences, as a way of facilitating interaction among faculty of different disciplines?
1	__yes
2	__maybe (specify if possible why)
2	__no
	__I don't know.
	Do you support the idea of having CES in a newly constructed, environmentally low impact building
	(1=high support, 10=very low support)
Responses:
5
9
8
3
1
6
5

On a scale of 1 (This is vital to my enjoyment of the building) to 10 (This impedes my enjoyment of the building), with 5 being a neutral ranking (This doesn't affect my enjoyment of the building), please rank the following aspects of Kellogg House:

kitchen	faculty offices	the living room	Matt Cole Library	GIS lab	Forest Garden	historical value	aesthetics
8	5	9	8	1	5	5	5
3	1	1	1	2	3	2	2
5	3	2	1	5	1	5	1
3	2	5	5	4	6	5
3	2	5	5	3	3	3

 

Student Responses
number of responses
	If you are a student, how often do you use Kellogg House (the building that the Center for Environmental Studies is located in? (put an x next to your answer)
	__a. never
7	__b. once or twice a semester
4	__c. 1-2 times a month
21	__d. 1-2 times a week
6	__e. 3-4 times a week
8	__f. 5 or more times a week
	Put an x next to all of the uses which you use Kellogg House and its immediate vicinity for:
24	__ cooking
40	__ studying
23	__meeting with professors
31	__using the public computers/printers
28	__group meetings
12	__using the GIS lab
10	__ gardening in the Forest Garden
	__other (please specify)
2	sleeping
2	drink tea and read newspapers
2	chillin w/ friends
4	class
1	cozy fires
	Do you support the idea of moving the Center for Environmental Studies into another building, either with the sciences or the social sciences, as a way of facilitating interaction among faculty of different disciplines? (Put an x next to your answer)
3	__yes
12	__maybe (specify if possible why)
21	__no
7	__I don't know.
	Do you support the idea of having CES in a newly constructed, environmentally low impact building?
	(1=high support, 10=very low support)
number of 1s	9
number of 2s	7
number of 3s	6
number of 4s	1
number of 5s	6
number of 6s	0
number of 7s	1
number of 8s	0
number of 9s	1
number of 10s	5

On a scale of 1 (This is vital to my enjoyment of the building) to 10 (This impedes my enjoyment of the building): with 5 being a neutral ranking (This doesn't affect my enjoyment of the building), please rank the following aspects of Kellogg House:
	kitchen	faculty offices	the living Room	Matt Cole Library	GIS lab	Forest Garden	historical value	aesthetics
number of 1s	10	1	13	11	2	10	2	3
number of 2s	11	5	14	12	6	9	9	13
number of 3s	8	9	8	8	1	10	4	12
number of 4s	3	8	3	2	1	4	5	5
number of 5s	1	19	1	6	30	6	19	9
number of 6s	1	0	1	1	2	2	2	1
number of 7s	2	0	1	1	1	0	1	0
number of 8s	0	1	2	1	0	1	1	1
number of 9s	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0
number of 10s	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0

Appendix 3E. Williams College Economics Department Faculty Survey.

1) How would you rate the quality of the following aspects on a scale of 1(excellent) to 10 (needs to be renovated). If you don't know, write 0
__ classrooms
__ offices
__ the floor plan
__ lounges and other social spaces
__ the original (front) of Stetson
__ the additions (the back parts of Stetson)

2) on a scale of 1(Crucial) to 10 (not needed), rank the importance of the following in a RENOVATED Stetson Hall.
__ expanded and improved office space
__ more common spaces for interdepartmental gathering
__ more common spaces for student/professor interactions
__ preservation of the original facade of the original building
__ preservation of the later additions (where most offices are)

3) When a major renovation occurs, the surrounding buildings and open space might be encroached upon. On a scale of 1 (irreplaceable) to 10 (easily replaced), rank the personal importance of the following nearby buildings. if you don't know, write 0.
__ Fernald House (Econ dept.)
__ Seeley House (Econ dept.)
__ Kellog House (CES)

4) One possibility for an expanded Stetson is to relocate the Economics and Language departments into the building, thereby concentrating most of the Division II departments into one building. Rate this possible conglomeration on a scale of 1 (desirable) to 10 (disruptive).

5) Was comfortable office conditions and accomondations a consideration while considering Williams? Rate this consideration on a scale of 1 (very important) to 10 (negligible).

6) On a scale of 1 (excellent) to 10 (miserable), rate your office in Fernald or Seeley. Please indicate which building.

Appendix 3F.

Economics Department Survey Responses
Rank following aspects of Stetson:
classrooms	offices	floor plan	lounges and Other social spaces	the original (front) of Stetson	the additions
1	7	7	1	1	8
5	7	8	5	1	8
8	8	10	7	2	10
	10	10	8	2	10
		10	10	3	10
			10	5
Personal Importance of nearby buildings (1=high, 10=low)
Fernald		Seeley		Kellogg
1		1		5
5		5		5
5		7		6
5		8		10
6		10
8		10
9		10
Should the Economics Department be relocated to be with other Division 2 departments?
(1=very good idea, 10=terrible idea)
1
2
3
5
7
10
Were office Conditions important in choosing Williams?
(1=very important, 10=not important)
1
1
2
3
7
10
10

Importance in a renovated Stetson: (1=very important, 10-not important)
expanded and improved office space	more common spaces for interdepartmental Gathering	more common spaces for student/faculty interaction	preservation of original façade of original building	preservation of the later additions
1	1	1	1	8
1	1	1	1	10
1	1	1	1	10
1	1	2	2	10
1	5	5	3	10
1	5	7	5	10
1	9	9	5
Rate office in Fernald or Seeley.
Fernald		Seeley
5		1
8		1
		10

 

Appendix 3G. Student Survey Responses

Question 1: where do you study on campus?
Sawyer	Schow	Goodrich	Baxter	CES	Bronfman	Room	Other
64	58	33	29	12	10	80	16

Question 2: on a scale of 1(Crucial) to 10 (not needed), rank the importance of the following in a RENOVATED Sawyer library. If you don't know, write 0.
	late hours/all night hours	group study spaces	individual study spaces	expanded computer services
# of 1's	21	15	26	9
# of 2's	12	15	13	13
# of 3's	9	20	12	15
# of 4's	5	8	8	12
# of 5's	9	11	10	9
# of 6's	4	9	2	1
# of 7's	3	4	5	10
# of 8's	7	3	7	8
# of 9's	8	5	3	4
# of 10's	6	2	2	3

Question 3: what are the most important characteristics of a study space? Rank from 1 (very important) to 10 (not important)
	comfort	availability of computers	proximity to dorm/ location	lack of noise /distractions	able to talk or study in group	open late /all night
# of 1's	33	12	8	39	13	20
# of 2's	21	16	22	18	16	20
# of 3's	17	15	18	9	11	8
# of 4's	9	17	8	5	17	11
# of 5's	5	12	14	4	12	8
# of 6's	2	6	5	5	6	4
# of 7's	1	5	5	3	6	2
# of 8's	1	2	6	2	8	8
# of 9's	1	3	2	3	3	1
# of 10's	0	2	2	2	1	5

Question 4: How many hours a month do you spend in Sawyer Library?
0-5	5-15	15-30	30-60	60+
36	24	14	13	6

Question 5: On a scale of 1 (very important) to 10 (not important), how important is a 24 hour study space to you?
# of 1's	16
# of 2's	10
# of 3's	10
# of 4's	6
# of 5's	11
# of 6's	7
# of 7's	2
# of 8's	10
# of 9's	11
# of 10's	9

Question 6: On a scale of 1 (very important) to 10 (not important), rank the importance of the following parts of Stetson.
	classrooms	professor offices	the floor plan	lounges/ social spaces	the original (front) of Stetson	the additions (back wings)
# of 1's	1	1	0	3	42	2
# of 2's	3	0	0	3	19	1
# of 3's	9	8	1	2	8	1
# of 4's	3	7	0	5	3	3
# of 5's	5	10	5	9	1	12
# of 6's	6	5	4	5	2	2
# of 7's	5	5	3	4	1	11
# of 8's	5	7	14	10	1	7
# of 9's	4	8	8	2	0	3
# of 10's	7	9	40	5	1	18

Question 7: When a major renovation occurs, the surrounding buildings and open space might be encroached upon. On a scale of 1 (irreplaceable) to 10 (easily replaced), rank the personal importance of the following buildings. If you don't know, write 0.
	Fernald	Seeley	Kellogg
# of 1's	3	3	18
# of 2's	1	1	9
# of 3's	1	0	4
# of 4's	2	1	3
# of 5's	0	3	3
# of 6's	1	0	1
# of 7's	2	2	1
# of 8's	2	3	0
# of 9's	4	6	3
# of 10's	17	13	3

Appendix 3H. Student Circulation Survey Text.

This is a survey for the ENVI 302 Environmental Planning class. We are studying the future renovation of Stetson and Sawyer. In this survey, we are trying to determine the amount of use that pedestrian walkways around Stetson and Sawyer receive. We would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to fill out this survey. Filling out this survey and returning it to us will automatically enroll you in a drawing at the end of the semester for a chance to win $25. Fill in an x next your answers.

1. How often on average do you use the sidewalk between Sawyer and Brooks Rogers?

( ) a. less than once a week
( ) b. 1-3 times a week
( ) c. 4-7 times a week
( ) d. more than 7 times a week

2. When using the sidewalk between Brooks Rogers and Sawyer, where are you often walking from or going to? (Check all that apply)

( ) a. the Dodd area
( ) b. the Mission area
( ) c. Baxter and the Frosh Quad
( ) d. Greylock
( ) e. the Science Quad
( ) f. the Odd Quad or Goodrich
( ) g. the Row Houses

3. Do you often use a bike on the sidewalk between Brooks Rogers and Sawyer?

( ) yes
( ) no

4. How often on average do you use the sidewalks that pass between Sawyer and Stetson? ( ) a. less than once a week

( ) b. 1-3 times a week
( ) c. 4-7 times a week
( ) d. more than 7 times a week

5. When using the sidewalks between Stetson and Sawyer, where are you often going to or coming from?

( ) a. the Dodd area
( ) b. the Mission area
( ) c. Baxter and the Frosh Quad
( ) d. Greylock ( ) e. the Science Quad
( ) f. the Odd Quad or Goodrich
( ) g. the Row Houses

6. Do you often use a bike on the sidewalks that pass between Sawyer and Stetson?

( ) yes
( ) no

Appendix 3I. Student Circulation Survey Results.

How often on average do you use the sidewalk between Sawyer and Brooks Rogers?
% respondents
28%	25	( ) a. less than once a week
29%	26	( ) b. 1-3 times a week
20%	18	( ) c. 4-7 times a week
22%	20	( ) d. more than 7 times a week

When using the sidewalk between Brooks Rogers and Sawyer, where are you often walking from or going to? (Check all that apply)
42%	38	( ) a. the Dodd area
16%	15	( ) b. the Mission area
69%	62	( ) c. Baxter and the Frosh Quad
13%	12	( ) d. Greylock
20%	18	( ) e. the Science Quad
16%	15	( ) f. the Odd Quad or Goodrich
11%	10	( ) g. the Row Houses
	2	Brooks Rogers (other)
	1	Stetson (other)
	1	Sawyer (other)

Do you often use a bike on the sidewalk between Brooks Rogers and Sawyer?
7%	6	( ) yes
87.80%	79	( ) no
How often on average do you use the sidewalks that pass between Sawyer and Stetson?

22%	20	( ) a. less than once a week
30%	27	( ) b. 1-3 times a week
16%	14	( ) c. 4-7 times a week
31%	28	( ) d. more than 7 times a week

When using the sidewalks between Stetson and Sawyer, where are you often going to or coming from?
39%	35	( ) a. the Dodd area
30%	27	( ) b. the Mission area
42%	38	( ) c. Baxter and the Frosh Quad
13%	12	( ) d. Greylock
24%	22	( ) e. the Science Quad
41%	37	( ) f. the Odd Quad or Goodrich
8%	7	( ) g. the Row Houses
	3	Stetson (other)
	1	Brooks Rogers (other)
	1	Sawyer (other)
	2	Griffin
	1	Spring Street

Do you often use a bike on the sidewalks that pass between Sawyer and Stetson?
10%	9	( ) yes
87%	78	( ) no

 

total that survey was sent to: 333 students

respondents: 90 students

---

A Grandfather Clause states that the law does not apply to buildings or structures that were constructed before the law went into affect. Grandfather clauses also occur in zoning laws and in the Massachusetts Wetlands and Rivers Protection Act. (return to text)