Dec. 15, 2009 issue
Swing space plan for Pray-Harrold, Science Complex in development

By Geoff Larcom

 

Swing space. It's a simple term for a complex challenge facing Eastern Michigan University. The definition is easy enough. "Swing space" denotes possible temporary areas for classrooms and offices during the renovation of the Pray-Harrold and Mark Jefferson buildings.

Yet, the term also represents one of the most dramatic and important logistical undertakings to occur on the Eastern campus in many years. The approximately 340 faculty and staff members who work and teach in Pray-Harrold will need a temporary home after they all move out when the winter term ends and construction begins next spring on EMU's largest and busiest classroom building.

SWING SPACE: The Tower Room in McKenny Hall was once used for numerous events, including Family Day and monthly union meetings. Now vacant, it is a prime example of swing space that could be used as a classroom next year while Pray- Harrold and Mark Jefferson are simultaneously under renovation.

With that challenge, however, comes a beacon at the end of the tunnel: long-sought and much quicker renovation of this vitally important building. It is a case of short-term inconvenience for significant long-term gain. Faculty, staff and construction professionals who have examined the Pray-Harrold project conclude that more than a year will be saved in the renovation time by having all staff move out at once, as opposed to a phased moving process.

Construction is already under way at the Science Complex, but most of those offices will be self-contained in the addition and the renovation.

Pray-Harrold is another matter for faculty, students and staff. If all goes as planned, the building would reopen for the fall semester of 2011. IT staff on the first floor would be affected only during the calendar year 2010, and would move back into the building once first-floor renovations are completed in August 2010. But the rest of those faculty and staff who use Pray-Harrold face more than a year of temporary, new classrooms and offices at another location on campus.

How can such a large-scale move be accomplished with the proper degree of efficiency, openness and transparency? A team of EMU staff members, faculty and consultants has been extensively studying the question since last year. The group includes:

• Representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences.

• Advisory committees for Pray-Harrold and the Science Complex, which include both faculty and staff.

• Physical Plant staff, including construction managers.

• A Colorado-based space utilization consultant, Paulien & Associates, which has advised numerous universities on similar moves.

• Architects for the Science Complex and Pray-Harrold projects.

• The Educational Environment and Facilities Committee, which is a continuing group of seven faculty representatives and seven administrators. Administrators include Bob Neely, associate provost; Wade Tornquist, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences; Dennis Beagen, department head, Communication. Media and Theatre Arts; Deb deLaski-Smith, interim dean, Graduate School; Fraya Wagner-Marsh, department head, management; Michael Bretting, associate dean, College of Education; and Polly Buchanan, associate dean, College of Technology. Faculty members include Steve Camron, special education; Matt Evett, computer science; David Crary, economics; Eric Owen, Halle Library; Sandra Hines, nursing; Mary Brake, engineering technology; and Mary Vielhaber, management.

• A swing space subcommittee consisting of Bob Winning, professor of biology; Sean Braden, manager of planning and design, physical plant; Tornquist and Crary.

Initial criteria for the project included a primary objective that the University use existing on-campus space and not resort to renting on-campus portable units or off-campus space.   

LIBRARY LEARNING: This room on the second floor of Halle Library could serve as potential classroom space while Pray-Harrold and Mark Jefferson undergo renovations next year.

The team initiated a comprehensive evaluation of the entire campus to assess potential available space. Highest consideration was given to space that was considered move-in ready, essentially space that already included telephones, computer drops and adequate power. Spaces stewarded by the Division of Academic Affairs received the highest ranking, as did areas that provide large, contiguous blocks of rooms.

Based on the criteria, the subcommittee worked with Braden in leading tours of possible spaces. Faculty members and department heads from Pray-Harrold and Mark Jefferson viewed facilities, and were asked to comment on the suitability of spaces for office and department space.

Last spring, an accounting of Pray-Harold occupants and needed office assignments for each department was completed. The formula provided one desk per each FTE (full-time equivalent) staff member, faculty member or full-time lecturer; one desk per two FTE adjunct lecturers and one desk per three FTE graduates students. The physical plant, led by Braden, completed a report entitled "Eastern Michigan Potential 'Swing Space' Physical Location Assessment."

According to the "Swing Space" assessment, top candidates to house office space include Hoyt Residence Hall (space for 240 offices), the third and fourth floor of King Hall (space for 40 to 50 personnel) and the front office area of Bowen Field House (space 10 to 12 personnel). Lounges in Hoyt Hall may be considered as departmental space.

Among the swing space assessment's other conclusions:

• The majority of classes can be accommodated without changing the day or time of the course. Along with already regularly used classroom buildings, approximately 10 to 15 rooms will be needed in non-academic facilities to accommodate the remaining classes.

• Noteworthy possibilities for classroom locations include McKenny Union, Halle Library and The Student Center. Those buildings, which have existing space available for temporary use, were designated as offering a relatively easy opportunity for swing space to house classrooms.

• The analysis also noted a variety of buildings that did not have available rooms, but where space could arguably be freed up through more efficient use. Examples include Strong, Sherzer or Sill halls.

• Buildings with no logical space or those with special purposes, such as the physical plant building or Pierce Hall, were labeled as "not feasible" for swing space.

Those involved in the facility inventory emphasize that the swing space report is just an assessment at this phase and not the final plan. Final locations and details for classes will not be decided until affected academic units do several reviews of scheduling scenarios generated by the R25/S25 software projects under the division of Academic Affairs.

This fall, Neely, Tornquist, Braden and Scott Storrar, director of facilities, planning and construction, for the physical plant, have been working with affected departments to match the results of the swing space study with the documented office needs in order to develop a tentative office assignment plan. Affected departments are now reviewing the proposed plans, with their response expected later this month. Revisions will be completed in January 2010, after which departments will be asked to identify specific faculty office assignments by mid-February.

In addition, Academic Affairs will be evaluating issues such as accessibility for those requiring barrier-free access and the need for class-specialized equipment and materials.

One hope is that the temporary dislocation creates a variety of new relationships, plus new energy and synergy on campus, Braden says.

The faculty and staff groups plan frequent updates on the swing space process. Regular updates will appear in FOCUS EMU, via e-mail, and on a special section of the emich.edu Web site.