HISTORY OF PLANNING PROCESS

History of Planning Process

During the summer of 1994, a representative group of faculty and staff, a student, and an individual from the greater community served as members of the 21st Century Review Committee, which engaged in an in-depth review of the College. The members of this group developed a series of recommendations and reports. These ideas were reviewed and critiqued by faculty, staff, the administration, and the Board of Trustees during the 1994-1995 academic year, and presented in the fall of 1995 in the document, Toward the 21st Century, which outlined plans for the next five and ten years at the College. With regard to facilities, the report states

Given the quality of our science programs -- particularly biology -- we must devote attention to needs in this area. The life expectancy of a typical science building is thirty years. Our biology facilities have far exceeded that life expectancy. During the next decade, we will be faced with the question of revitalizing our biology facilities as another priority need for the College.

Currently, the offices and laboratories of the Biology Department are housed in a portion (8,000 gross square feet, gsf) of the Phillips Science Building and the adjoining Phillips Science Annex (9,000 gsf), which were built in 1951 and 1965, respectively. Conceived and constructed in the decades of the 1940's to the 1960's, the Phillips Science Building and the Phillips Science Annex were never designed to accommodate the revolutionary changes that have dramatically altered the way science is taught, the way faculty interact, and the way that contemporary students learn. Phillips Science and Annex were conceived either before the structure of DNA was discovered or its vast implications were realized, before the advent of the personal computer and the communication revolution. They were constructed for a style of teaching that stressed lectures rather than active learning, students working alone rather than collaboratively, and minor departmental interdisciplinary activity. They were designed with little consideration for undergraduate research, which today is an essential pedagogical requirement; there is one dedicated laboratory for this activity. The facilities lack animal rooms, a greenhouse, a museum, a radioisotope laboratory, a tissue culture facility, a cold room, a darkroom, an equipment room, and house deionized water, pressurized air, and vacuum. Many laboratories lack exhaust hoods, gas lines, and safety devices. The handicapped access, number of restrooms, and the climate control systems are less than satisfactory. The laboratories are also undersized and crowded, a problem exacerbated by the addition of many pieces of large equipment items in the laboratories with the attendant noise problem. Some laboratories are even taught in a classroom in which the desks have been replaced by tables.

The Chemistry and Physics Departments are primarily housed in the Stephens Laboratory Center, which adjoins the Phillips Science Building (16,000 gross square feet, gsf; built in 1990) and contains primarily teaching laboratories for those disciplines; some offices and laboratories are located in a portion (9,000 gsf) of the Phillips Science Building. However, even this new facility was constructed with little consideration for undergraduate research. There is one undergraduate research laboratory. After the completion of the Stephens Laboratory Center, most of the existing chemistry and physics laboratories in the Phillips Science Building were converted into needed offices and classrooms. The floors previously occupied by the chemistry and physics departments now house faculty and staff from administrative computing, church relations, English, French, history, humanities, philosophy, a print shop, and Spanish.

Classroom space is also problematic: lecture halls, and seminar and conference rooms are limited, and although most classrooms and laboratories allow access to the campus computer network, many are not designed for or equipped with computer technologies

The biology and other facilities in the Phillips Science Building and Annex are "deteriorating, structurally-inflexible, and obsolete" -- both technologically and pedagogically. They do not remotely resemble the types of spaces that foster a vital, collaborative learning community of students, faculty, and staff, which is a primary goal of the natural science faculty, as outlined in the vision statement prepared in 1995 as part of a proposal to request a PKAL/Keck consulting team to evaluate the College's science programs, and the revised mission statement (see below).

The Toward the 21st Century report was meant to be a working document, and subcommittees charged with determining the progress of the project and with fine-tuning the goals determined that although the needs for new facilities in biology were by far the greatest, there were also needs for chemistry and physics, particularly spaces for undergraduate research, which has grown considerably at the College, but also in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. Additionally, the College was formulating plans to create an interdisciplinary major in environmental studies, and to strengthen the current biology/psychology interdisciplinary major, developing a neuroscience program. Both programs could also be partially housed in a science facility. The College’s views on facilities were reinforced by the attendance of Jeannette Runquist, Chair of the Division of Science and Mathematics; and Leo Pezzementi and Wayne Shew, Biology Professors, at a 1995 PKAL Facilities Planning Workshop in Washington D.C., and by a PKAL/KECK consulting team, which visited the College in the spring of 1996; they stated

First of all, we believe that your aspirations -- forming "a vital, collaborative learning community of students, faculty, and staff in the natural sciences" at least partly by "maintaining, supporting, and expanding field-and laboratory-intensive, investigative curricula"--are exactly right. Strong colleges in science have demonstrated that such a strategy works.

With regard to facilities, we concur that Birmingham-Southern needs another significant capital investment in science facilities sometime in the next five to eight years... We believe it is not too early to begin the planning process necessary for an effective outcome...and use a science facility planning process to drive a broader science education improvement planning process.

Thus, during the 1996-1997 academic year, discussions began to center around the needs for improved science facilities, with an emphasis on biology, rather than a separate biology building. However, because of the site of the science complex, centrally and prominently located on the main academic quadrangle, and the recent construction of the adjoining Stephens Laboratory Center, with its modern, albeit limited facilities, this decision posed a problem. In preliminary discussions between the science faculty and the Provost, it became immediately clear that the existing interdisciplinary interactions and sense of community in the natural sciences must be preserved and developed. Plans for the revitalization of the science facilities started with the assumption that the natural science faculty would remain together, and not be divided between a new biology building at another location, and a chemistry and physics building that would be a renovation of the existing science complex.

In meetings of science faculty and members of the administration, it was at first thought that because of a planned technology center, there were not any available sites of adequate size near either the Stephens Laboratory Center, or the main academic quadrangle, other than the site presently occupied by the Phillips Science Building and Annex. In additional meetings a tentative proposal to satisfy all of the requirements of the project was to demolish the antiquated Phillips Science building and Annex and replace it with a new facility, attached to the existing Stephens Laboratory Center, in a two phase process in order to accommodate the required laboratory instruction during the construction period. Renovation of the older facilities was considered a less attractive option because of their deteriorating, inflexible structures, particularly true for the Phillips Annex. All new construction was not considered because of the existing Stephens Laboratory Center; cost was also a factor. Leo Pezzementi, Chair of the Division of Science and Mathematics, and Dave Hazlett, Construction Manager of the College attended a 1997 PKAL Facilities Planning Workshop at the Salk Institute to obtain additional information about the planning process. PKAL Volume III was also an invaluable resource for planning.

During the 1997-1998 academic year, the Academic Affairs Subcommittee of the Board of Trustees, under the leadership of James T. Stephens, became interested in the state of the science facilities at the College. Through meetings and tours the serious nature of the situation was made clear and the decision was that something needed to be done. The Board authorized the College to retain a facility-planning consultant to determine the best course of action -- renovation alone, a combination of renovation and new construction, or all new construction. Thus, Art Lidsky, senior consultant of Dober, Lidsky, Craig and Associates, Inc., whose work we became acquainted with through PKAL Facilities Workshops, began to assist with the planning process. Dober, Lidsky, Craig and Associates, Inc. is a professional firm located in Belmont, Massachusetts that specializes in college and university campus planning, facility planning, and facility programming. They have over 350 clients worldwide. Before his consulting assignments, Mr. Lidsky was Assistant Director of Long-Range Planning for MIT. He has been a consultant for the National Science Foundation (Academic Research Infrastructure Program), and has given lectures, presentations, and invited papers for such organizations as the Society of College and University Planners, International Association of College Unions, and the Municipal Art Society of New York. Recent science, mathematics, computer science, and technology-related clients include Auburn University, Allegheny College, Bowdoin College, Brown University, Bucknell University, Carleton College, Colby College, Colorado College, Cornell University, Furman University, Grinnell College MIT, Middlebury College, Smith College, Spelman College, SMU, the University of Alabama, the University of Chicago, Washington and Lee University, and Williams College.

In the planning process for the new science facilities, a facilities-planning committee was formed. The committee consisted of Leo Pezzementi, Professor of Biology (Co-Chair); David Schedler, Assistant Professor of Chemistry; Kurt Bachmann Assistant Professor of Physics; Barry Spieler, Assistant Professor of Mathematics; Lynne Trench, Assistant Professor of Psychology; Reneé Norrell, Professor of French; and H. Irvin Penfield, Provost of the College (Chair). The committee started with the Mission and Academic Plan for the College and the Sciences, since curriculum should drive the design of a facility and not the other way around. The entire faculty of the natural sciences revised and updated the Mission Statement for the Natural Sciences:

SCIENCE MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the natural sciences at Birmingham-Southern College is to promote scientific literacy emphasizing the process, content, and interdisciplinary nature of science, to develop critical thinking skills, to enhance verbal and written communication abilities, to encourage reasoned debate on scientific issues, and to promote civic responsibility. The natural sciences will meet these goals in a vital, collaborative learning community of students, faculty, and staff centered on student-active, investigative curricula in the classroom, field and laboratory. In this active, collaborative learning environment, students will have opportunities to develop their skills and abilities through intensive study, hands-on experimentation, undergraduate research, one-on-one interactions with faculty, group interactions with other students, and outreach activities to local institutions. Graduates in the natural sciences will have the scientific foundation necessary to be competitive in the 21^st Century, whether in the work force, or in quality graduate and professional programs, including those in the health care fields. Both majors and nonmajors will have the skills to make informed decisions on increasingly complex, technological issues affecting their communities.

The next step taken by the committee was the collaborative completion of a Science Facilities Program. Mr. Lidsky first met with all members of the science faculty. Over the next year, the committee working with Mr. Lidsky produced 9 versions of the Science Facility Program, continuously refining an outline of the needs in the sciences for classrooms, offices, laboratories, and ancillary support spaces. During this process the committee members in the sciences discussed these needs with faculty in their disciplines and visited new science facilities at other colleges. Mr. Lidksy provided key benchmarking data to calibrate the program. The space available to the sciences at the College as expressed in net square feet (NSF) per full-time science faculty member equivalent (FTE) is considerably below a peer group of 41 liberal arts colleges and a smaller group of Southern Institutions (Berry College, Davidson College, Furman University, Millsaps College, Samford University, Spelman College, The University of the South, and Washington and Lee University).

In conjunction with the Facilities Program, was the elaboration of a Facilities Development Strategy, where particular buildings or clusters of buildings were considered as part of the program. The Phillips Science Building, the Phillips Science Annex, and Stephens Laboratory Center were obviously considered, but since Phillips Science houses much of the humanities and other departments, the uses of the Phillips Administration Building and Munger Hall were also discussed in light of the proposed Master Plan for the College, which envisioned the consolidation of all the faculty of the Division of Humanities in a single location. Various alternatives were considered. Since the planning committee operates at the facilities development and facilities program level and acts to open up discussion outside the sciences and keep the campus informed, these alternatives were shared with the faculty of the humanities. Mr. Lidsky also met with the faculty of humanities to assess their needs and produced a preliminary facilities program.

On April 28, 1999 Mr. Lidsky presented a preliminary Science Facility Planning Study for the College to a representative group of members of the Board of Trustees. In this version, all faculty currently residing in the science complex remain (science, humanities, etc.). The existing buildings are renovated and an addition for the sciences of 56,000 gsf is constructed attached to the Stephens Laboratory Center. The project costs are $23.25 million with an additional $2 million for an equipment endowment, for a total of $25.25 million. Discussions of the Board of Trustees, the administration, the co-chairs of the facilities planning committee and Mr. Lidsky centered on the costs and adequacy of the project. Would this solution serve the College well for the next 30 years? Could the College afford the largest construction project it would ever have undertaken? An alternative project consisting of entirely new construction for the sciences and renovation of the current science complex for the humanities began to receive serious consideration. In this scenario, the project costs for new construction are $23.9 million, with an additional $2 million for an equipment endowment. The project costs for renovation of the Phillips Science Building and the Stephens Laboratory Center for humanities and other departments, and the demolition of the Phillips Annex, a structural, functional, and aesthetic nightmare, are $4.3 million. The total project costs are then $30.2 million. In this alternative, a new state of the art science facility would be constructed West of the Stockham quadrangle, near the Olin Computer Science and Mathematics Building, which also houses members of the Division of Science and Mathematics, producing a new academic quadrangle, and allowing the consolidation of the faculty of the Division of Humanities.

On May 19, 1999 Mr. Lidsky presented this alternative to the Board of Trustees, and the project was approved. Elton B. Stephens and James T. Stephens donated $15 million that will be used to towards the construction of the new 99,500 gross square foot facility. The gift is in the form of a pledge to contribute $10 million and up to an additional $5 million to match gifts received for the project over a three year period. Additional funds will be needed for the renovations for the humanities.

During the summer of 1999, a national search for an architectural team to design the new Elton B. Stephens Science Center was conducted. Eighteen architectural firms were invited to submit preliminary proposals, and fourteen of these firms responded to the initial request. Five of these architectural teams were invited for interviews in which Clyde Stanton, Associate Professor of Chemistry; Leo Pezzementi, Professor of Biology; H. Irvin Penfield, Provost of the College; Johnny Johnson, Vice-President for Business and Finance; and board members Carl F. Bailey and T. Morris Hackney participated. All of the design teams had impeccable credentials and made excellent presentations. The College selected an architectural team composed of Perkins and Will, Atlanta, an architectural firm with considerable experience designing and constructing science buildings at universities and liberal arts colleges, including the Georgia Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, and Spelman College; The Garrison Barrett Group, Birmingham, a local firm that has considerable experience here at the College; and Research Facilities Design, San Diego, a firm that specializes in designing science laboratories, including those specifically for liberal arts colleges, e.g., Grinnell, Colorado College, and the Claremont Colleges. Perkins and Will and RFD are very active in PKAL Facilities Workshops. Groundbreaking took place 24 May 2000. The facility was dedicated 9 May 2002.

The new Elton B. Stephens Science Building has been designed to support the mission of the natural sciences at the College. It houses state of the art offices, classrooms, laboratories for teaching and for collaborative student-faculty research, an integral part of science education, and support spaces for the disciplines of biology, biology/psychology, chemistry, environmental science, and physics. The building has also be designed to be consonant with the existing buildings on the Stockham Quadrangle, and to be an inviting space that will attract students to the sciences at the College.