ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS CENTER -...

1

ProtocolsIdeasProgrammingSchematic DesignConstruction

Firm IdentityHistoryFirm Structure

DFCMFaculty & StudentsWeber State UniversityDonors

Client MeasuresSummary

ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS CENTER

SYNOPSIS CLIENTS DESIGN TEAM DELIVERY MEASURES

CASE STUDY

Prepared by:William CalderTodd KelseyBrenda RobertsRobert Waters

Architecture 6965-Case Studiesin Contemporary ArchitectureWilliam C. Miller, FAIACollege of Architecture + PlanningUniversity of Utah

PRESCOTT MUIR ARCHITECTS, ArchitectCOMTROL, General ContractorDAVE CHRISTENSEN, Landscape ArchitectVAN BOERUM & FRANK, Mechanical EngineersSPECTRUM ENGINEERING, Electrical EngineersGREAT BASIN ENGINEERING, Civil Engineers

Weber State UniversityOgden, Utah 84408(801) 626-6000

2





I. SynopsisII. Clients


III. Design TeamFirm IdentityHistoryFirm Structure

IV. DeliveryProtocolsIdeasProgrammingSchematic DesignConstruction

V. MeasuresClient MeasuresSummary


TABLE OF CONTENTS

main floor plan

Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center

Weber State University

Prescott Muir Architects

20’


SYNOPSIS

With each new building, the opportunityarises to explore different ways to engage thedesign process. The manner in which the designteam adapts the process to the unique set of cir-cumstances encountered in each project deter-mines its success.

The Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Cen-ter at Weber State University presents a case inwhich the architect had to establish a high-profiledesign solution while working with multiple clients,a multi-faceted building program, and the concur-rent develpoment of a new teaching philosophywithin the institution’s art department.

For some time, Weber State University’sDepartment of Visual Arts sought to develop plansfor a new facility. A new building with improvedphysical resources would allow WSU’s art pro-gram to become more competitive in the Inter-mountain West and potentially attract a more di-verse body of students. The facility would giveinstructors the ability to impliment a different peda-gogy, more compatible with the group problem-solving and critiquing methods found within thelocal artistic community.

In addition, the need for a local art galleryin the City of Ogden grew from a wealthy, localfamily’s desire to donate their art collection to thecity. Regrettably, the city lacked an appropriatefacility in which to house such a gift, and eventu-ally, they placed the collection at the Utah Museumof Fine Arts on the University of Utah campus inSalt Lake City, approximately 35 miles away. This

was a poignant event in the long struggle to-wards a new art facility on the Weber Statecampus.

View of 3d model by PMA.

View of 3d model by PMA.

Preliminary third floor plan by PMA.


SYNOPSIS

Prescott Muir Architects (PMA), a designfirm from Salt Lake City was selected for both theprogramming and design phases of the newschool. This dual role, given to one architect, isnot practiced anymore in State of Utah projects.The firm’s past experience in designing art cen-ters, museums, and cultural facilities, coupled withtheir interest and involvement in the local art com-munity was demonstrated in their excitement andinterest in this particular project. By finding waysto balance the wants and desires of the students,faculty, community and donors, the Ethel WattisKimball Visual Arts Center serves as a mecha-nism to facilitate the successful integration of dif-ferent agendas through architecture.

The design team was composed of princi-pal Prescott Muir, Jack Robertson as the projectarchitect with Lisa Arnett as the design associate.Other consultants participating in the venture wereDave Christensen, landscape architect; VanBoerum & Frank, mechanical engineers; SpectrumEngineering, electrical engineers, Great Basin En-gineering, civil engineers; and Comtrol as generalcontractor. In the span of one year, this team ofprofessionals created a structure that has becomean invaluable asset to the city of Ogden and We-ber State University.

The value of this case is to demonstratehow similar pedagogies were implemented amongthe client groups and the design team in order tobring about a successful project that met the ex-pectations of all involved. The overall theme of agroup problem-solving method is evident in thearchitecture through the ample hall spaces, which

allow for greater interaction among the disci-plines housed within this facility. The differingentities involved in the project maintained adialogue, as well, that allowed Prescott Muirand his team to gain input from and accom-modate the needs of the constituencies whiledeveloping the overall vision for the EthelWattis Kimball Visual Arts Center.

View southwest corner of the facility.


CLIENTS

CLIENTS-The basis for each new architectural

project stems from the clients’ needs. In the EthelWattis Kimball Visual Arts Center, this projectdeveloped from the needs of multiple clients. TheVisual Arts Center would not have met its full po-tential if it were not for the complex interactionsand relationships that developed among the clientgroups. Those involved in the process includedthe Department of Visual Arts Advisory Commit-tee (DOVA), the Division of Facilities Construc-tion and Management (DFCM), Weber State Uni-versity (WSU), Art Department faculty and stu-dents, and various donors.

With its beginnings more than a decadeago, the principal focus of the DOVA, chaired byBob Herman, was to address art awareness inthe community. As part of this focus, they beganto create a case for a new facility and developed itwith the University administration. Through theyears, the committee strengthened its case, de-veloping a building program, a preferred site loca-tion, a comparative institution analysis, funding op-tions, and so on. Many on this committee wereinstrumental, especially in the advocacy and fund-raising phases, including Jim MacBeth and Rich-ard Van Wagoner, both past chairs of the DOVA,and committee members Gwen Williams, FrancesHawk, Gaylor Schmitt, Telitha Lindquist andCarolyn Nebeker. Early on, these individuals setthe tone for the development of the project as amulti-faceted committee.

DOVA then took a less active role as the


Looking into the main space.

Interior of a studio space.


CLIENTS


actual programming and design phases of the Vi-sual Arts Center began, though still maintaining apresence in the process. For example, duringthe programming phase, the DOVA participatedin a workshop conducted by PMA’s team, provid-ing expectations for the facility--especially the gal-lery--on behalf of the community. The value DOVAplaced on acquiring a diverse collection of inputset the tone for later architect-client relationshipsand overall project development.

7


CLIENTS

DFCM-The State of Utah participated in this

project through the Division of Facilities and Con-struction Management. DFCM’s role differedfrom its typical status as the sole client and deci-sion-making entity, because donors contributedthe majority of funding for the project. The DFCMwas a client essentially because the proposedfacility was to be located at a state-owned insti-tution, Weber State University, and was intendedfor use by state employees and university stu-dents in addition to a museum-going public.DFCM’s main role in this project was to ensurethat the project was completed on time, with nodelays or trouble from state auditors, and withas little litigation as possible. DFCM representa-tive Blake Court’s role in this project was con-tract administrator and budget keeper; he solic-ited proposals, wrote contracts, and authorizedpayments for the various tasks performed. Ulti-mately the state’s voice was heard through theDFCM by contract language and Mr. Court’s par-ticipation in meetings. The state also had a rolein the project through Weber State’s planning andadministration. The diminished role of the DFCMover typical state projects allowed the client, com-mittees, and design team to develop their ideaswithout bureaucratic red tape.


8



CLIENTS

FACULTY AND STUDENTS-The manner in which the project developed

was a direct result of the implementation of a newteaching philosophy within the Art Department ofWSU. This philosophy encourages the interac-tion among the disciplines taught at the school.These ideals were brought to the project throughinvolvement by the faculty and students who lenttheir input during the design development phaseof the new Visual Arts Center. James Jacobs,the faculty chair, represented the Art Department’sdesires and goals. Initially, Mr. Jacobs acted as aliaison between the faculty, students, and theschool’s administration. With input from facultyand students, Mr. Jacobs and the WSU’s admin-istration decided how much money to allocate tothe project. They also helped choose an architectand construction company that they felt would bestrelate to the design goals and reflect their teach-ing pedagogy. Through steering committees, Mr.Jacobs held considerable influence in all stagesof development. DFCM and campus adminis-tration took a less active role as the design pro-gressed, while faculty, students, and donors allparticipated more assertively in the decision-mak-ing process.

Through the initial programming process,the constituents developed the theme for the fa-cility, that of group problem solving. Interactionbetween students from a variety of art disciplineshelped stimulate discussions, and the potentialfor involvement across the several artformstaught at the school was identified. This demo-cratic and resourceful way of generating dialogue

was the underlying concept that drove most of thedecision-making. This theme applied to the art fac-ulty as well. They wanted to emphasize interdiscipli-nary discussion brought out into a more public forum,which in turn could engage students in discussion.These goals informed the architect’s design, and ledto the creation of the large hallways and corridorsfound throughout the building that act as circulationpaths as well as extensions of the classroom spaces.

Faculty offices on the second floor.

9


CLIENTS

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY-Weber State’s presence as a client, from

the schematic phase through design development,was informed by a University committee com-prised of the following individuals: Ann Millner, thenVice-President for Community Relations; DavidEisler, University Provost; Alan Simpkins, Vice-President of Administrative Services; Craige Hall,Associate Vice-President of Administrative Ser-vices; Mike Perez, Director of Facilities Manage-ment; Jim Cox, Architectural Services; and JunePhillips, Dean of the College of Arts and Humani-ties. While some participants were not as vocalas others, this committee proved influential on thedesign of the building. David Eisler, in particular,had a strong interest in the project and lent hisinfluence, while giving Jim Jacobs a significantvoice in all matters. Four representatives fromAdministrative Services also strongly participatedin the design phase, voicing their opinions on manyfacets of the design. This diversified body of rep-resentatives channeled the desires of those whomthey represented to the design team, which turnedidea into reality.

The Art Department represented WSU asthe project entered the programming and designphases of the project. However, six weeks into theconstruction of the project, WSU assigned JimHarris, the Campus Master Planner, to serve asthe Project Manager. His role was to manage theconstruction budget and to voice his opinions inthe interest of the University. This was accom-plished by working directly with and holding weeklycoordination meetings with the architect, the con-


tractor, and DFCM. Again, the collaborativeprocess of decision-making allowed problemsto be solved fairly and easily because of therelationship that existed at that level.

10

Mr. Harris and his department expressed,from the start, their interest in the evolution andcontinuity of the entire campus as a whole andhow this building fit into that scheme. With hisdepartment also responsible for site planning andfacility maintenance, his opinions and concernsplayed an important role in this aspect of theproject development. One concern he raised wasthat the location of the new structure requireddevelopment of areas that were being used forparking. Weber State University is largely acommuter campus, and parking is always aconcern for the school. Another concern was thatcampus utilitiy lines ran under these parking lots,and rerouting them would require additional timeand money, as well as a large construction areato safely maintain. Another important issue wasthe maintenance of safety for students andfaculty, ADA accessibility and service vehicleroutes into campus during the constructionphases of the project.

Mr. Harris played a vital role in ensuringthat the project developed smoothly on-site andwith as few inconveniences to the campus aspossible. Mr. Harris’s insight to potential issueshelped the team develop strategies before theybecame problems. As such, his role in thiscollaborative process helped keep the channels ofcommunication open, and as such representedthe school’s concerns and implemented ways toovercome them.


CLIENTS


11


CLIENTS

DONORS-The donor committee for the Ethel Wattis

Kimball Visual Arts School and Center proved tobe the most public of the client groups. This wasa direct result of their funding the majority of theproject, and the inclusion of the Mary Elizabeth DeeShaw Gallery, which connects the public to the fa-cility and the university. The donor committee’sdesire was to elevate the notoriety of the schooland bring art awareness to the surrounding com-munity. Bob Herman, the donor committee chair,represented these desires, while negotiating withthe other parties involved. His being a licensedarchitect was advantageous to all, for he contrib-uted knowledgeable insight to the tasks at hand.Mr. Herman’s role was critical and his political in-fluence was essential for creating a successfulproduct. If too much or too little influence were tobe imposed by the donors the building would havesuffered. The donors wanted a public art galleryas the main feature of the facility, and needed tobe spacious and in a prominent location. Mr.Herman helped negotiate these desires while work-ing with the architect and others to develop an artschool and center that would be functional as bothan educational and a museum facility, and be vi-sually and intuitively cohesive in its concept anddesign. Although the donors funded the major-ity of the project, they were open to the collabo-rative spirit of the project.


Donor wall in the main hall.

12



DESIGN TEAM

FIRM IDENTITY-Prescott Muir Architects is a mid-sized ar-

chitectural firm located in the heart of Salt LakeCity that employs professionals dedicated to awork grounded in a location, people, culture, andtime. This architectural approach was of upmostimportance for the successful implementation ofthe project. The architectural selection of PMA bythe committee was in part due to their unique ar-chitectural approach. PMA’s open-minded philoso-phy allowed for the successful integration of thegroup-problem solving method into their program-ming and design.

PMA is “dedicated to providing solutions toarchitectural challenges by corroborating a narra-tive founded on client, community and architectcommunication1.” This dedication proved suc-cessful during the development of the new artsfacility. As Muir and his team processed theconstituent’s desires and opinions, they allowedthem to inform the project’s response. As a re-sult, the physical expression grew from the “as-semblage of incremental, or detailed ‘proofs’ orsolutions mediated by the inherent tension betweenuse and representation1

.”

Skylights in the gallery under construction.

1 Taken from the firm’s website,www.prescottmuir.com

13



DESIGN TEAM

HISTORY-

After receiving a Bachelor of Architecturedegree from the University of Southern California in1972, Mr. Muir continued his education at the Uni-versity of Utah, graduating in 1982 with a Bachelorof Fine Arts degree with an emphasis in paintingand drawing. He went on to study at Columbia Uni-versity and received his Master of Science in Archi-tectural Design in 1986. In addition to heading upthe firm, Mr. Muir also participates as a studio criticand has taught a design theory/history course atthe College of Architecture + Planning at the Uni-versity of Utah. He has lectured and exhibited hiswork at the University of Southern CaliforniaCarnegie Mellon University, the University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte, the Las Vegas Center for Con-temporary Art, and the Salt Lake Art Center.

PMA was founded in 1976 by Prescott Muir,and in its 28 years of practice has developed a na-tional reputation for their design of uniquely craftedbuildings and urban interventions. The firm hasestablished itself as an award-winning firm with adiverse body of work, ranging from performing artscenters and art museums to private residences andaffordable housing projects. In addition, they par-ticipate in the programming process of project pro-posals.

Mr. Muir devotes an extensive amount of timeto community and professional services. He hasserved as the President of the Utah chapter of theAIA; has participated as a member of the Salt LakeCity Planning Commission; has served as Chair ofthe Board of Directors of the Salt Lake Downtown

Alliance; Salt Lake Olympic Cultural Affairs Com-mittee; Salt Lake Art Center Board of Trustees;Governor’s Envision Utah Scenarios Committee;Utah Transportation Management Association Ex-ecutive Committee; and the Town of Alta PlanningCommission.

Faculty office windows look out on a secondfloor balcony.

14


DESIGN TEAM

FIRM STRUCTURE-The architectural firm Prescott Muir Archi-

tects (PMA) is a medium-sized operation, headedby architect Prescott Muir. Two partners completethe firm structure. Jack Robertson, AIA, is the part-ner who has led the project management for mostof the firm’s major projects. Lisa Arnett, the sec-ond partner, has led and collaborated in the de-sign efforts of many of the firm’s projects. Thesmall architectural staff includes a number of in-dividuals with varied responsibilities. Due to theclose-knit nature of the firm, the three partnersare able to work closely on all the projects thefirm takes on, which they feel leads to a higherquality solution. As projects come in, the partnerscollaborate on a work timeline, and assign appro-priate responsibilities, which vary from project toproject. As assignments are dispersed, the teamcoordinates in a timely manner to ensure that theclient’s needs have been heard and will be suffi-ciently met.

This team collaboration proved very effec-tive in the development and completion of theVisual Arts Center. With open lines of communi-cation within the firm structure, a clear and directapproach to the design of the project developed.The ease of communication within the firm set thetone for the communication with all involved, lead-ing to a more efficient use of time and talents allaround.


15


DELIVERY

PROTOCOLS-As the initiative for a new art school and

gallery evolved, the network of decision-makingcommenced. The task at hand was not a diminu-tive one—the scheme was to create a visual artsschool that would better serve the faculty, students,and community. The involvement of various con-stituents throughout the process proved fruitful astheir input synthesized and structured the overallsuccess of the project.

Whenever more than three entities areinvolved in the design and construction of abuilding, there inevitably exists the potential fordisagreements in design, programming, andeven construction. When numerous constitu-ents bring their ideas, agendas, and priorities tothe table, these disagreements can escalate.Differences of opinion regarding issues of styleand placement of the structure, among others,proved to be a challenge for all involved. Know-ing this potential for conflict, Mr. Muir and histeam proactively used this to the advantage ofthe design. The constant assessment andcriticism were perceived as opportunities toadvance ideas even further until a rewardingoutcome ensued. Mr. Muir’s team acted as afilter for ideas in order to develop a unifiedproject, rather than dicating what they thoughtshould happen. This approach, consisting ofopen lines of communication, is an essentialcomponent of not only good design, but alsogood relations and a viable building that canstand the test of time. The collaborative natureof this venture established by DOVA and contin-

ued by PMA and the various steering com-mittees carried through the delivery of theproject including the programming, sche-matic design and construction phases.


Skylight structure allows indirect light into the gallery.

16



DELIVERY

IDEAS -The ideas behind the Visual Arts Center

evoke inspiration, optimism, innovation, creativityand criticism. In this project, ideas evolved to ul-timately deliver better learning and teaching facili-ties. The implementation of these ideas by thearchitect and the constituents helped provide anew, healthier environment physically and men-tally for students and faculty. The design teamand various committees adopted the notion ofdeveloping a high level of innovation and creativ-ity. Ideas about future art and community involve-ment and how this building and academic pro-gram could evolve were successfully addressedin the overall scheme of the facility.

To elevate the status of the school’s artprogram, the clients desired a cohesive teachingphilosophy combined with a successful level ofstudent interaction within the campus environ-ment. From this desire they conceptualized agroup problem-solving pedagogy. Initiated by thefaculty, this idea was researched and addressedby the various committees involved in the process.The idea of group problem-solving eventually mani-fested itself through the architectural design of thebuilding and in the teaching practices of the fac-ulty. An early idea was that the building shouldprovide group interaction and criticism by allow-ing students from different emphases and back-grounds to be constantly surrounded and envel-oped in one another’s work. The creative talentsbetween different disciplines and individuals actas stimulation, support, innovation, and criticism.For example, students involved in photography can

get inspiration from digital media, or from more tradi-tional trades like basket weaving or ceramics. Theunderlying concept is that all skills and media aretransversely influenced and affected by each other.The overall intent is that of energy, creativity and criti-cism.

Wide, curving hallway on the first floor serves as display area.

17


DESIGN TEAM

PROGRAMMING -In the delivery of a project, programming

is a crucial element in defining and achieving theend result. When Prescott Muir Architects wasinvited to participate in the programming of theEthel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center, they con-tinued the method of problem solving that DOVAhad established. They worked with members ofa programming team that included the DFCM, acampus steering committee from the Weber Statecampus facilities department, and an advisorycommittee from the Art Department to establishthe building’s program requirements. They touredsimilar visual arts centers in Bowling Green, Uni-versity of Northern Iowa, University of California-San Diego, and the University of California-Irvine,among others. These facilities are focused onincorporating technology into their visual arts pro-grams, as well as exploring the coexistence of tra-ditional and innovative art techniques. After learn-ing what had been done at other schools, they thenset to work to establish their own needs and de-sires for the Weber State facility. The local needfor an art gallery coupled with faculty decisions asto where the visual arts program was headedweighed into the program development process.Shifts in future visual arts education, such as themore frequent presence of digital methods whilephasing out of more traditional analog methods,was discussed, and flexible working spaces be-came a significant factor to facilitate the group prob-lem-solving methods used to educate students.Other factors affecting the development of thebuilding’s design requirements included the com-munity partnerships to be involved and environ-


Second floor plan by PMA.

18


DESIGN TEAM

PROGRAMMING -


mental concerns affecting the building and its us-ers.

Together they created a programming studythat included the needs assessment of six distinctprograms that were at the time in various locationson the Weber State campus. The program alsosuggested a different site location for the buildingthat ultimately proved to be very successful in en-hancing the overall image of the University and theadjacent Browning Performing Arts Center. Thiswas accomplished by suggesting that in moving theproposed facility down the hill about seventy yardsto an alternative site location, it would complete animplied campus square, creating a better flow oftraffic and an enhanced representation of a plannedcampus. This would allow for an improved collabo-ration of the new art center with the student ser-vices and performing arts buildings in a manner thatwould frame an outdoor space to create a plaza,thus reinforcing a commitment to the students andtheir experience at Weber State.

With the programmatic requirementsestablished, a State-managed selection processdetermined the architect of record was to bePrescott Muir Architects, chosen by the selectioncommittee for their 64,000sf design proposal.Weber State administration appointees acted asthe liaison for the project. The key constituents:Mr. Court, Mr. Muir and his design team of Mr.Robertson and Ms. Arnett, Mr. Herman, Mr. Harris,and Mr. Jacobs met periodically in a committeesetting so all would remain informed and and begiven the opportunity to provide input on thecourse of the design.

Site plan by PMA.

Preliminary exterior elevations by PMA.

19



DELIVERY

SCHEMATIC DESIGN -From their programming studies, PMA in-

corporated the idea to provide space for as manyfacets of the arts as the University offered in a singlefacility. The early concept was to unify the existingcampus by creating visual and physical axes tothe campus grid and providing an avenue for theinteraction of ideas. This was accomplishedthrough large sidewalks leading through the pri-mary entrance into spacious atrium that servesas the central point from which the programmaticpieces radiate.

Once inside, on the immediate left are theadministrative offices. To the right is the Mary Eliza-beth Dee Shaw Gallery, followed by a gift shop andan open student lounge area. A lecture hall isplaced at the end of this main hallspace. The class-room wing, with access by stair or elevator fromthe main hall, stretches to the east, with rows ofclassrooms flanking the north side of the wide hall-way. Woodshop spaces, painting studios, andpottery classrooms are located on the south sideof the hall, giving access to the outdoors and cre-ating caged storage spaces as well as loading/unloading areas and ease of ventilation. Upstairs,the north side of the spacious hallway houses rowsof lofty studio spaces, and faculty offices and acommon area occupy the south side. These di-verse programmatic elements act as further con-duits for ideas and interaction.

The program creates a T-shaped building,and with careful placement of the differing func-tions housed within, successfully marries the twomain functions of the building. The studio artschool provides painting and drawing studios, vi-

sual communication digital labs, print-making,photography, ceramics, textiles, casting,sculpture and small metals studios, and afoundry. The generous hallway spacesthroughout promote the underlying theme ofgroup problem-solving, as they allow amplespace for interaction and discussion betweenthe disciplines housed in the same building.Another prominent feature of the design is themain art gallery promoted by the donors, whichincludes collections handling and storagespaces. A student commons, food servicearea, and a gift shop links the two functions inthe main hall space. The entire building workstogether as a physical manifestation of the ArtDepartment’s philosophy.

Sidewalk heading north towards the east entrance.

20



DELIVERY

SCHEMATIC DESIGN -The art center utilized this group problem-

solving method through the long halls and corri-dors that act as pin-up stations. By widening thehallways, the architects created useable class-room space in the halls. The art can be left upafter class for review and display. Also, the build-ing has the ability to expand and adapt. This isaccomplished by using few solid load-bearingwalls and an adaptable grid system in the interiorspaces, allowing for future reconfigurations withlittle disturbance to the structure. The ability tochange with future needs was extremely impor-tant to maintaining a long-term high quality art pro-gram.

Another major concern to PMA was thephysical health of students and faculty. Great re-search and detail was undertaken in the mechani-cal systems and layout to properly and efficientlyexhaust harmful fumes and recirculate healthy air.The scattering of wet labs for photography keepsthe chemical levels low by not concentrating largeamounts of chemicals in one area. In addition,the extensive use of large hoods placed at criticallocations in rooms helps to properly ventilate thefacility. The deliberate exposure of such equip-ment reassured the attention paid to the health ofthe occupants.

All of the ideas and innovations were de-veloped and integrated to elevate the school’svisibility nationally and to elevate art awarenessand understanding in the community. The groupproblem-solving method employed in the facility isa reflection of the same method that created thebuilding. Students, faculty, donors, committees,

architects, and university and state agenciesworked in conjunction, feeding off each other’sknowledge, experience and opinions to pro-duce the functional end result.

Inside the shops.

21



DELIVERY

CONSTRUCTION -The Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Center

followed the traditional design, bid, build deliverymethod. In designing the Visual Arts Center, PMAprovided the full range of architectural services. Atthe time, current government policy did not prohibitthe firm providing the programming from being thedesign architect. Therefore, PMA maintained agreater level of involvement with the project than istypical now among state projects. This degree ofinvolvement proved to be of great value to WeberState University’s new facility.

As mentioned earlier, the master plan for thecampus of Weber State initially required the newfacility to be placed in a different location than whatwas finally realized. However, the programming andsite analysis had a direct impact on the final place-ment of the Visual Arts Center. In addition, utilitystudies confirmed the need to design a utility tunnelconnecting the new building with the existing me-chanical resources on campus.

Maintaining the value of a diverse body ofusers, PMA placed careful consideration on adher-ing to ADA standards, though not required by law,allowing the necessary access to all building occu-pants. The design firm created a beautiful buildingboth outside as well as inside, handling all of theinteriors, signage, and furniture purchasing in addi-tion to providing excellent lighting that is adjustableand accommodates the changing needs of the artschool. The University’s location near a major faultline required the building to be designed to meet orexceed the seismic requirements of its location so

The center under construction.

22



DELIVERY

CONSTRUCTION -that the life-span of the building would be maximized.In order to comply with the overall aesthetic of theUniversity, the architect was required to undertakematerials research resulting in a building that fit thecampus, yet is a prominent feature of the centralportion of it.

The architectural firm oversaw the construc-tion administration as well. Several issues aroseduring the construction phase that had to be re-solved. For example, the original steel contractorhad to be replaced with a different contractor due totheir inability to fulfil their contractual responsibili-ties. Another example is with the company that wascontracted to produce the window shading devicesfor the studios. The original company went bank-rupt, and had to be replaced during the construc-tion phase. Although the project was not completedon time (the decision to provide an excellent facilityrather than an on-time, but poorly constructed build-ing was a conscious one), the building was com-pleted under budget regardless of the constructiondelay. Comtrol, the general contractor, success-fully delivered what some might consider a difficultproduct.

The original project budget was $11,787,000,to which a new parking lot and utility piping wereadded, and a few owner-provided items were de-ducted, bringing the final project budget for bid to$11,803,000. The final cost of the building was$11,832,000 or roughly $164.00 per square foot.Change orders totaled $184,117, attributed to er-rors and ommissions.

Due to the specialized equipmentand programmatic space requirements inthe arts center, continual monitoring of theenergy consumption of the building is re-quired. The art program and the relatedfacility needs are not particularly energyefficient. However, the systems are inte-grated into the building in such a mannerthat, if at any time the needs of the schoolchange, differing zones can be bypassed,allowing the building to potentially reduceits energy intake and become more effi-cient.

23



MEASURES

CLIENT MEASURES -The several client groups involved look at

the successes of the building in different ways. Mr.Court (DFCM representative) has a unique view-point. Because the project was entirely funded bydonors, he placed emphasis on meeting the needsof the students and faculty rather than strictly ad-hering to any other agenda. The DFCM views thebuilding as successful in that it is a much betterfacility for educating students and that it met its bud-get requirements. Mr. Jacobs (faculty representa-tive) says, “I think the overall design is more innova-tive than many others on the campus.” The changein siting of the project has helped it become a moreprominent feature on campus.

In addition, the wide corridors provide muchmore interaction between students and facultyalike. The gallery spaces as well as the high techequipment in the classrooms and lecture halls in-crease the capabilities of those environments. Thegift shop and café that were included are not assuccessful as had been hoped. Because of thecommuter nature of Weber State University, theseelements do not see the amount of revenue thatwas intended, and in fact, the café has since beenremoved. Mr. Harris (University representative)praises the good interior traffic flow and the ac-complishment of meeting curriculum requirements.The exterior of the building, he says, “deviates sig-nificantly from the campus ‘standard,’” although hedoes not comment on whether or not that is a goodthing. In addition, the students seem to be pleasedwith their new facility and are now in the third fullyear of occupancy.

As design is undertaken, ethicalquestions unavoidably surface. In this par-ticular project, because DFCM is contractu-ally the client but the building is situated onthe campus of Weber State, there is con-cern about how to provide the best buildingfor the campus while maintaining the inter-ests of the clients. Fortunately, as was pre-viously mentioned, communication and goodrelationships among all of the entities involvedsmoothed over what could potentially havebecome a point of major contention. Al-though this is somewhat of a balancing act,the support of the steering committees andthe entire project team supported an attitudeof doing what was best for the project, withthe realization that the building would outlastany of the people or personal interests in-volved. Mr. Muir kept himself open to the dia-logue, but maintained a unified and clear vi-sion for the project.

Night view of the north facade.

24



MEASURES

SUMMARY -The Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Cen-

ter was a successful project not only from thestandpoint of its completion within budget as a sig-nificant addition to the campus of Weber State Uni-versity, but also according to the experiences ofthose involved. A crucial factor to that successevolved from the relationships that existed amongall of the entities involved, which focused concernon delivering a high quality facility rather than ca-tering to any specific agenda.

The Visual Arts Center evolved into 72,283square feet of classroom space, production facili-ties, gallery, exhibition and lecture space, and wasoriginally scheduled for completion in August 2001.However, due to some setbacks caused byweather and other factors, the actual completiondate was May 2002. This delay did not result inpenalization of the contractor. The project teamopted to focus on the realization of a well-built build-ing that achieved all of the intended goals insteadof pushing the contractor to meet a deadline, pos-sibly sacrificing those goals. This was accom-plished with no cost implications.

PMA is extremely pleased with the out-come of the Ethel Wattis Kimball Visual Arts Cen-ter. They had the opportunity to participate in thedevelopment of a unique project that has raisedthe standard for education in the arts at WeberState University and the State of Utah. The newbuilding facilitates increased interaction among thedesign disciplines while meeting their individualneeds. The architect was able to provide a build-ing that meets the goals of all of the organizationsinvolved: the university, donors, DFCM, and usergroups, while orchestrating the overriding vision

of the Visual Arts Center. Accomplishing this,in addition to falling within budget and the ab-sence of litigation over the project, proves tobe a success.

View of the northwest corner of the facility.

Elementary students enjoy avisit to the gallery.

ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS CENTER -...

Documents

Transcript of ETHEL WATTIS KIMBALL VISUAL ARTS CENTER -...