some stuff[ed]

2010 woodhead scholar-trip:

some stuff [ed]victoria bolton

01_ the trip + planning 4-9

02_ university campus plannng 18-41

03_ pedagogy 45-53

04_ scientific lab design 56-83

05_ other stuff mixed

06_ what is the future? 86-89

contents

WARNING: This report was written for fun - it’s intention is not to be a serious academic paper - but rather a catalyst for conversation about pedagogy, sustainability and airstreams. Enjoy!

4 victoria bolton - some stuff [ed]

5victoria bolton - some stuff [ed]

the plan


24 September – Arrive (Los Angeles, California, USA)

27 September – 2 October (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

27 September – a full day workshop run by the US Green building Council

(USGBC) on High Performance, Low-Energy Design of Labs

28-30 September – Labs 21 Conference

1 October Balloon Fiesta

4 October (Tempe, Arizona)

Visit Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesen West, Scottsdale

Visit the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University

5-6 October (Tuscon, Arizona)

8-10 October (San Diego, California)

11-14 October (Los Angeles, California)

11 October UC Irvine – Bill & Sue Gross Hall, BioScience 3

14-15 October (San Francisco, California)

15th UC Berkeley – Masterplanning (great research facilities)

24-29 October (Cincinnati, Ohio)

25 -27 October – SCUP Conference “2020:Vision: Planning for the Future”

28-29 EPA Labs

1-2 October (New York)

Visit Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, New York

3 October - Arrive (Sydney, Australia)

2010

introduction: the timetable


2010

Over the past two decades Australia’s education institutions, in particular our universities,

have become our country’s third largest export (1). Within Woodhead our Education

portfolio has become the largest in the company, and the expectation is that it will continue

to grow particularly in the Asian market and in the field of laboratory design(2).

As a company we “need to demonstrate to the market that we can lead the higher

education debate through a carefully considered and articulated design process and world

class thinking regarding ‘learning space’ design” (2).

To lead the debates on an international level we need to know what the issues are, how

they are being addressed and who is leading the discussions.

This year there are two key international conferences looking at the issues of the future of

university campuses and the trends in lab design that I would like to attend on behalf of

Woodhead. In between these conferences I would like to use the contacts that I have made

to visit key new laboratory projects and visit post World War II campuses whose conditions

and challenges echo that of Australian Institutions.

My goal is to create a report + presentation of the conference and case studies that

Woodhead can use for reference as it pitches for more Educational projects.

On a personal note 2010 is a significant year for me – it’s the year in which I will become a

registered architect. I have spent the past few months preparing for the examination and in

doing so have been interrogating my own work to date and questioning my future direction

– what sort of architect do I want to be and what sort of work do I want to create?

Answer – I want to specialise in Education. I see this travel scholarship as a huge career

opportunity for me to focus in an area of architecture that I find interesting.

May 10, 2010: this is an extract from my scholarship application:

introduction: the submission

References:

1. Professor Denise Bradley, ‘Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report’, (Commonwealth of Australia: December 2008), xii

2. Mark Clements, ‘Woodhead Education Portfolio’ - Business Plan 2009


on

the

road

fro

m n

ew m

exic

o t

o a

tru

ck s

top

nea

r ar

izo

na


Source: http://www.pre.wur.nl/UK/Safety/Fume+cupboard/default.htm

travelling by airstream

living the american dream


“this was the first picture taken of the earth from the moon... it is the image that sparked the environmental movement as people began to realise there is only one planet with finite resources” - Dr Trent, Labs21


sustainability


population increase and corresponding C02 emissions

The image on the previous page is “known as Earth Rise… this one picture exploded the consciousness of humankind… within 18 months of this picture the modern environmental movement had begun”

- Al Gore , An Inconvenient Truth

Source: Dr Trent’s Plenary speech, Labs21 Conference 2010

The human population has increased exponentially over the past 100 years. Since the industrial revolution the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere has increased equally as rapidly. The carbon has built up and created a layer that traps the heat from the sun within the Earth’s atmosphere causing a ‘warming’ of the Earth’s temperature.

The question we are all asking ourselves is what can we do about it?

Source: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/galileo-movement-fabricates-science-to-fuel-climate-divide/

University Campuses have the unique opportunity to research and test theories on how we can achieve carbon neutrality within a defined community. This is recognised through the signing of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment and evident in the case study of Cornell University, Ithaca Campus, New York.

1. Population IncreaseIn 1927 the population was 2 billion, by 1999 that had tripled to 6 billion and by the end of this year 2011 we will have passed the 7 billion mark. Whilst the population has increased dramatically, the size of the Earth has remained the same and the human population is now occupying significantly more of it.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution the carbon monoxide levels were fairly constant ranging from 260-280 parts per million (ppm). In the last century the carbon monoxide levels have significantly increased to their current level of over 390 ppm . This increase is due to human activity particularly the burning of fossil fuel (coal, gas and oil) coupled with deforestation.

the greenhouse effect

1000 - 310 million

1800 - 1 billion

1927 - 2 billion

1960 - 3 billion

1974 - 4 billion

1 A.D - 300 million

a m

app

ing

stu

dy

of

the

gro

wth

of

the

hum

an p

op

oul

atio

n S

our

ce: h

ttp

://w

ww

.wo

rld

-nuc

lear

.org

/Jo

hn_R

itch/

The

_Nec

essi

ty_o

f_N

ucle

ar_P

ow

er.h

tml


1927 - 2 billion 1987 - 5 billion

1999 - 6 billion

2050 - 9 billion

179

184

212

An atlas of pollution: the world in carbon dioxide emissions

182

15 Australia418

56Bangladesh

55.1

191

106

204

153

170

42Hong Kong

86.0

India overtook Russia in 2009

3 India1,602

16 Indonesia413

5 Japan1,098

215

45North Korea

79.5

8 South Korea528

166

147

0.2%

32 Malaysia148

172

108

202

135

140

69 NewZealand

39.1

217

0.4%

33 Pakistan140

174

123

209

0.1%

31 Singapore161

197

92

20 Taiwan291

23 Thailand253

183

203

198

207

4.9%

40 Vietnam98.8

167

156

47Philippines

72.4

93

133

Asia & Oceania

Up 7.5%13,264m

on 2008

tonnes of CO2in 2009

Central &South America

Up 3.6%1,273m

on 2008


Eurasia

Down 9.2%2,358m

on 2008


World

Down 0.1%30,452m

on 2008

tonnes of CO2 in 2009

Down 6.9% on 2008

North America6,411m tonnes of CO2

in 2009

Only three years earlier, in 2006, China was in second place, and until recently had been very close to US emissions. But from 2008 to 2009, rapid growth has matched the country’s 9-10%

growth in GDP.Since 2000 the country’s CO2 emissions have

risen by 170.6%

US emissions are down for the second year in succession – after almost uninterrupted year

on year increases since these records began in 1980. The decline has matched the country’s economic woes which have seen it only just

emerge from recession.Since 2000 the country’s CO2 emissions have

fallen by 7.5%

13.3%

7,711million tonnes

1 China

7.0%

5,425million tonnes

2 US

7 Canada541

13 Mexico444

9.6%

8.7%

99

72 Azer-baijan

36.2

52 Belarus60.6

85

121

9.8%

28Kazakhstan

185 120

103

87

111

4 Russia1,572

118

54Turkmen-

istan56.8

28.2%

22 Ukraine255

9.4%

36Uzbekistan

115

7.4%

1.2%

1.9%

75Bahrain

31.1

9 Iran527

3.7%

38 Iraq104

48 Israel70.5

82

43 Kuwait84.9

89

63 Oman49.0

137

51 Qatar66.5

11 Saudi Arabia470

53 Syria56.9

1.2%

26 UnitedArab Emirates

193

79Yemen

22.9

Middle East

Up 3.3%1,714m

on 2008


3.2%

3.2%

124

50 Austria69.2

11.2%

34 Belgium137

66Bulgaria

44.5

81

102

41 Czech Rep95.3

62Denmark

49.6

175

59Finland

52.2

18 France397

6 Germany766

130

5.3%

39 Greece100

61Hungary

50.0

136

67Ireland

40.3

17 Italy408

101

109

139

154

0.2%

25 Netherlands249

68Norway

39.6

3.7%

21 Poland286

55 Portugal56.5

44 Romania80.5

58 Serbia52.3

73Slovakia

35.8

86

19 Spain330

60Sweden

50.6

65Switz.

45.8

7.3%

24 Turkey253

UK had been ranked 8th for emissions

in 2008

10 UK520

84

Europe

Down 6.9%4,310m

on 2008


7.0%

7.8%

7.4%

9.3%

8.4%

193

3.2%

29Argentina

167

171

90

14 Brazil420

Biggest % increase

74.1%

35 Chile119

49Colombia

70.1

113

77Ecuador

28.7

119

214

168

149

98

157

105

129

88

132

70Peru38.2

151

110

1.4%

30Venezuela

162

181

169

122

160

187

76Cuba30.4

211

83

195

150

95

146

210

96

74Puerto

Rico33.3

194

188201

64Trinidad& Tobago

47.8

213

94

208

0.3%

Latest data published by the US Energy Information Administration provides a unique picture of economic growth – and decline. China has sped ahead of the US, as shown by this map, which resizes each country according to CO2 emissions. And, for the first time, world emissions have gone down

9.7%

2.4%

1.8%

3.7%

0.1%

Biggest % drop in emissions

6.2%

37 Algeria114

78Angola

24.0

134

128

158

189

107

190

196

199

205

116

145

115155

3.5%

27 Egypt192

125

176

112

126

186

104

163185

97

200

180

57 Libya55.0

138

165

177

143

127

71Morocco

36.5

148131

46 Nigeria77.7

142

178

216

206

117

159

164

17391

161

114

141

80Tunisia

22.9

152

192

144 100

162

Africa

Down 3.1%1,122m

on 2008


6.7%

12 South Africa450

Change in emissions, 2008 to 2009

Regional emissions in 2009

1 China7,711

%

Emissions ranking and country

Million tonnes of CO2 emitted in 2009Key

Table shows total carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption of energy

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Country Million tonnes2009

Percent change 08—09



















ChinaUSIndiaRussiaJapanGermanyCanadaSouth KoreaIranUKSaudi ArabiaSouth AfricaMexicoBrazilAustraliaIndonesiaItalyFranceSpainTaiwanPolandUkraine

ThailandTurkeyNetherlandsUnited Arab EmiratesEgyptKazakhstanArgentinaVenezuelaSingaporeMalaysiaPakistanBelgiumChileUzbekistanAlgeriaIraqGreeceVietnamCzech RepublicHong KongKuwaitRomania

North KoreaNigeriaPhilippinesIsraelColombiaAustriaQatarBelarusSyriaTurkmenistanPortugalBangladeshLibyaSerbiaFinlandSwedenHungaryDenmarkOmanTrinidad and TobagoSwitzerlandBulgaria

IrelandNorwayNew ZealandPeruMoroccoAzerbaijanSlovakiaPuerto RicoBahrainCubaEcuadorAngolaYemenTunisiaCroatiaJordanDominican RepublicBosnia and HerzegovinaEstoniaSloveniaLithuaniaPanama

LebanonBoliviaSudanSri LankaBurmaUS Virgin IslandsJamaicaNetherlands AntillesKenyaGuatemalaArmeniaZimbabweLuxembourgCyprusLatviaGhanaHondurasBruneiCameroonMongoliaMacedoniaUruguay

MoldovaEthiopiaCosta RicaTanzaniaIvoryCoastCongoSenegalTajikistanEl SalvadorKyrgyzstanGeorgiaBahamasPapua New GuineaAlbaniaEquatorial GuineaGabonMauritiusBotswanaNicaraguaGibraltarNamibiaParaguay

CambodiaBeninNepalIcelandPalestineMadagascarMaltaNew CaledoniaTogoReunionMauritaniaZambiaCongo, Dem RepMartiniqueMacauMozambiqueGuadeloupeHaitiSurinameUgandaFijiMontenegro

DjiboutiGuamGuyanaBurkina FasoSeychellesBarbadosSwazilandNigerGuineaSierra LeoneMalawiLaosWake IslandFrench GuianaArubaFrench PolynesiaBelizeMaldivesSomaliaAfghanistanFaroe IslandsEritrea

MaliRwandaBermudaLiberiaAntigua and BarbudaAmerican SamoaEast TimorGreenlandGuinea-BissauGambiaCayman IslandsSaint LuciaBurundiCape VerdeBhutanWestern SaharaAntarcticaSaint Kitts and NevisGrenadaCentral African RepublicSolomon IslandsUS Pacific Islands

ChadLesothoSaint Vincent/GrenadinesNauruTongaCook IslandsComorosSao Tome and PrincipeVanuatuBritish Virgin IslandsSamoaMontserratDominicaSaint Pierre and MiquelonTurks and Caicos IslandsFalkland IslandsKiribatiSaint HelenaNiue

12345678910111213141516171819202122

23242526272829303132333435363738394041424344

45464748495051525354555657585960616263646566

67686970717273747576777879808182838485868788

8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110

111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132

133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154

155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176

177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198

199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217

13.3-7.08.7-7.4-9.7-7.0-9.61.23.2-7.83.2-6.7-1.9-0.3-1.82.4-9.3-7.4-8.4-3.7-3.0-28.2

-0.1-7.3-0.2-1.23.59.8-3.2-1.4-0.1-0.20.4-11.274.1-9.46.23.7-5.3-4.9-3.810.36.3

-16.6

14.3-22.4-2.94.87.9-2.54.8-9.56.1-1.21.59.4-3.9-3.2-4.9-7.7

-10.7-8.69.9-4.11.0

-11.9

-11.2-0.3-1.14.0-2.2-8.9-4.5-3.21.64.71.71.813.55.7-4.72.42.1

-15.9-11.80.5

-12.81.7

3.6-2.77.01.7-9.5-3.5-4.6-4.12.4-1.41.5

18.6-11.2-3.58.19.6-2.4-27.1-1.9-3.8-20.1-10.2

-4.17.1

-4.47.12.23.81.8

-10.40.0-0.4-4.93.16.73.8-2.1-3.2-1.07.7-2.9-3.83.73.7

-6.14.33.8-7.44.313.4-2.50.05.60.05.3

18.8-2.66.31.34.6-5.12.94.0-3.0-6.24.3

3.4-3.50.02.16.1

-4.017.03.5-1.25.94.61.1

-4.36.14.27.7-5.43.43.4-2.96.46.4

6.40.04.22.24.42.28.7-4.80.015.4-11.80.04.04.5-11.10.017.611.14.8

-13.025.00.0

11.15.917.69.1

-23.166.725.011.125.025.0-16.758.711.116.70.00.00.011.22.9

7,7115,4251,6021,5721,098766541528527520470450444420418413408397330291286255

25325324919319218516716216114814013711911511410410098.895.386.084.980.5

79.577.772.470.570.169.266.560.656.956.856.555.155.052.352.250.650.049.649.047.845.844.5

40.339.639.138.236.536.235.833.331.130.428.724.022.922.921.520.019.918.317.517.415.815.5

14.813.913.012.812.512.512.111.611.511.311.210.610.69.48.58.17.97.67.57.47.37.2

7.16.96.86.76.66.36.26.15.95.75.35.24.84.64.64.64.64.54.54.44.14.0

3.93.53.43.43.23.13.13.02.82.82.72.72.72.62.42.32.22.12.01.91.91.9

1.81.71.51.41.41.41.41.31.31.31.31.21.21.11.11.1

0.940.920.900.830.800.77

0.740.740.710.690.690.670.630.610.460.440.430.410.370.340.330.320.310.300.300.290.290.29

0.290.270.270.200.150.150.150.150.150.150.150.150.140.110.080.050.040.010.01

Detailed dataFull list of each country’s CO2 emissions and movement in the world emissions league table

GRAPHIC: MARK McCORMICK, PAUL SCRUTON. SOURCE: EIA

2. Global WarmingThe more insidious issue of population increase is the corresponding rise of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and pollution which cause ‘Global Warming’. GHGs ‘thicken’ the Earth’s atmosphere (making it like the glass of a Greenhouse) trapping the heat of the sun and preventing it from radiating back out into space. According to the UNFCC the average temperature of the Earth during 1906 – 2005 increased by 0.74°C, it is projected that the temperature will continue to increase by 0.2°C per decade. In addition the increased Carbon Dioxide levels will result in acidification of the oceans .

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to commit industrialised countries to reduce their carbon emissions. Currently 37 countries and the EU have committed themselves to the reduced carbon and GHG targets. The goal is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

But simply committing to targets from a governmental level is not enough. It is up to us the citizens to make the change. Universities are in the unique position of having a defined educated community with a significant population, money to invest in research and a built environment that they can control.

179

184

212

An atlas of pollution: the world in carbon dioxide emissions

182

15 Australia418

56Bangladesh

55.1

191

106

204

153

170

42Hong Kong

86.0

India overtook Russia in 2009

3 India1,602

16 Indonesia413

5 Japan1,098

215

45North Korea

79.5

8 South Korea528

166

147

0.2%

32 Malaysia148

172

108

202

135

140

69 NewZealand

39.1

217

0.4%

33 Pakistan140

174

123

209

0.1%

31 Singapore161

197

92

20 Taiwan291

23 Thailand253

183

203

198

207

4.9%

40 Vietnam98.8

167

156

47Philippines

72.4

93

133

Asia & Oceania

Up 7.5%13,264m

on 2008


Central &South America

Up 3.6%1,273m

on 2008


Eurasia

Down 9.2%2,358m

on 2008


World

Down 0.1%30,452m

on 2008

tonnes of CO2 in 2009

Down 6.9% on 2008

North America6,411m tonnes of CO2

in 2009

Only three years earlier, in 2006, China was in second place, and until recently had been very close to US emissions. But from 2008 to 2009, rapid growth has matched the country’s 9-10%

growth in GDP.Since 2000 the country’s CO2 emissions have

risen by 170.6%

US emissions are down for the second year in succession – after almost uninterrupted year

on year increases since these records began in 1980. The decline has matched the country’s economic woes which have seen it only just

emerge from recession.Since 2000 the country’s CO2 emissions have

fallen by 7.5%

13.3%

7,711million tonnes

1 China

7.0%

5,425million tonnes

2 US

7 Canada541

13 Mexico444

9.6%

8.7%

99

72 Azer-baijan

36.2

52 Belarus60.6

85

121

9.8%

28Kazakhstan

185 120

103

87

111

4 Russia1,572

118

54Turkmen-

istan56.8

28.2%

22 Ukraine255

9.4%

36Uzbekistan

115

7.4%

1.2%

1.9%

75Bahrain

31.1

9 Iran527

3.7%

38 Iraq104

48 Israel70.5

82

43 Kuwait84.9

89

63 Oman49.0

137

51 Qatar66.5

11 Saudi Arabia470

53 Syria56.9

1.2%

26 UnitedArab Emirates

193

79Yemen

22.9

Middle East

Up 3.3%1,714m

on 2008


3.2%

3.2%

124

50 Austria69.2

11.2%

34 Belgium137

66Bulgaria

44.5

81

102

41 Czech Rep95.3

62Denmark

49.6

175

59Finland

52.2

18 France397

6 Germany766

130

5.3%

39 Greece100

61Hungary

50.0

136

67Ireland

40.3

17 Italy408

101

109

139

154

0.2%

25 Netherlands249

68Norway

39.6

3.7%

21 Poland286

55 Portugal56.5

44 Romania80.5

58 Serbia52.3

73Slovakia

35.8

86

19 Spain330

60Sweden

50.6

65Switz.

45.8

7.3%

24 Turkey253

UK had been ranked 8th for emissions

in 2008

10 UK520

84

Europe

Down 6.9%4,310m

on 2008


7.0%

7.8%

7.4%

9.3%

8.4%

193

3.2%

29Argentina

167

171

90

14 Brazil420

Biggest % increase

74.1%

35 Chile119

49Colombia

70.1

113

77Ecuador

28.7

119

214

168

149

98

157

105

129

88

132

70Peru38.2

151

110

1.4%

30Venezuela

162

181

169

122

160

187

76Cuba30.4

211

83

195

150

95

146

210

96

74Puerto

Rico33.3

194

188201

64Trinidad& Tobago

47.8

213

94

208

0.3%

Latest data published by the US Energy Information Administration provides a unique picture of economic growth – and decline. China has sped ahead of the US, as shown by this map, which resizes each country according to CO2 emissions. And, for the first time, world emissions have gone down

9.7%

2.4%

1.8%

3.7%

0.1%

Biggest % drop in emissions

6.2%

37 Algeria114

78Angola

24.0

134

128

158

189

107

190

196

199

205

116

145

115155

3.5%

27 Egypt192

125

176

112

126

186

104

163185

97

200

180

57 Libya55.0

138

165

177

143

127

71Morocco

36.5

148131

46 Nigeria77.7

142

178

216

206

117

159

164

17391

161

114

141

80Tunisia

22.9

152

192

144 100

162

Africa

Down 3.1%1,122m

on 2008


6.7%

12 South Africa450

Change in emissions, 2008 to 2009

Regional emissions in 2009

1 China7,711

%

Emissions ranking and country

Million tonnes of CO2 emitted in 2009Key

Table shows total carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption of energy

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008

Rank/changeon 2008





















ChinaUSIndiaRussiaJapanGermanyCanadaSouth KoreaIranUKSaudi ArabiaSouth AfricaMexicoBrazilAustraliaIndonesiaItalyFranceSpainTaiwanPolandUkraine

ThailandTurkeyNetherlandsUnited Arab EmiratesEgyptKazakhstanArgentinaVenezuelaSingaporeMalaysiaPakistanBelgiumChileUzbekistanAlgeriaIraqGreeceVietnamCzech RepublicHong KongKuwaitRomania

North KoreaNigeriaPhilippinesIsraelColombiaAustriaQatarBelarusSyriaTurkmenistanPortugalBangladeshLibyaSerbiaFinlandSwedenHungaryDenmarkOmanTrinidad and TobagoSwitzerlandBulgaria

IrelandNorwayNew ZealandPeruMoroccoAzerbaijanSlovakiaPuerto RicoBahrainCubaEcuadorAngolaYemenTunisiaCroatiaJordanDominican RepublicBosnia and HerzegovinaEstoniaSloveniaLithuaniaPanama

LebanonBoliviaSudanSri LankaBurmaUS Virgin IslandsJamaicaNetherlands AntillesKenyaGuatemalaArmeniaZimbabweLuxembourgCyprusLatviaGhanaHondurasBruneiCameroonMongoliaMacedoniaUruguay

MoldovaEthiopiaCosta RicaTanzaniaIvoryCoastCongoSenegalTajikistanEl SalvadorKyrgyzstanGeorgiaBahamasPapua New GuineaAlbaniaEquatorial GuineaGabonMauritiusBotswanaNicaraguaGibraltarNamibiaParaguay

CambodiaBeninNepalIcelandPalestineMadagascarMaltaNew CaledoniaTogoReunionMauritaniaZambiaCongo, Dem RepMartiniqueMacauMozambiqueGuadeloupeHaitiSurinameUgandaFijiMontenegro

DjiboutiGuamGuyanaBurkina FasoSeychellesBarbadosSwazilandNigerGuineaSierra LeoneMalawiLaosWake IslandFrench GuianaArubaFrench PolynesiaBelizeMaldivesSomaliaAfghanistanFaroe IslandsEritrea

MaliRwandaBermudaLiberiaAntigua and BarbudaAmerican SamoaEast TimorGreenlandGuinea-BissauGambiaCayman IslandsSaint LuciaBurundiCape VerdeBhutanWestern SaharaAntarcticaSaint Kitts and NevisGrenadaCentral African RepublicSolomon IslandsUS Pacific Islands

ChadLesothoSaint Vincent/GrenadinesNauruTongaCook IslandsComorosSao Tome and PrincipeVanuatuBritish Virgin IslandsSamoaMontserratDominicaSaint Pierre and MiquelonTurks and Caicos IslandsFalkland IslandsKiribatiSaint HelenaNiue

12345678910111213141516171819202122

23242526272829303132333435363738394041424344

45464748495051525354555657585960616263646566

67686970717273747576777879808182838485868788

8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110

111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132

133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154

155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176

177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198

199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217

13.3-7.08.7-7.4-9.7-7.0-9.61.23.2-7.83.2-6.7-1.9-0.3-1.82.4-9.3-7.4-8.4-3.7-3.0-28.2

-0.1-7.3-0.2-1.23.59.8-3.2-1.4-0.1-0.20.4-11.274.1-9.46.23.7-5.3-4.9-3.810.36.3

-16.6

14.3-22.4-2.94.87.9-2.54.8-9.56.1-1.21.59.4-3.9-3.2-4.9-7.7

-10.7-8.69.9-4.11.0

-11.9

-11.2-0.3-1.14.0-2.2-8.9-4.5-3.21.64.71.71.813.55.7-4.72.42.1

-15.9-11.80.5

-12.81.7

3.6-2.77.01.7-9.5-3.5-4.6-4.12.4-1.41.5

18.6-11.2-3.58.19.6-2.4-27.1-1.9-3.8-20.1-10.2

-4.17.1

-4.47.12.23.81.8

-10.40.0-0.4-4.93.16.73.8-2.1-3.2-1.07.7-2.9-3.83.73.7

-6.14.33.8-7.44.313.4-2.50.05.60.05.3

18.8-2.66.31.34.6-5.12.94.0-3.0-6.24.3

3.4-3.50.02.16.1

-4.017.03.5-1.25.94.61.1

-4.36.14.27.7-5.43.43.4-2.96.46.4

6.40.04.22.24.42.28.7-4.80.015.4-11.80.04.04.5-11.10.017.611.14.8

-13.025.00.0

11.15.917.69.1

-23.166.725.011.125.025.0-16.758.711.116.70.00.00.011.22.9

7,7115,4251,6021,5721,098766541528527520470450444420418413408397330291286255

25325324919319218516716216114814013711911511410410098.895.386.084.980.5

79.577.772.470.570.169.266.560.656.956.856.555.155.052.352.250.650.049.649.047.845.844.5

40.339.639.138.236.536.235.833.331.130.428.724.022.922.921.520.019.918.317.517.415.815.5

14.813.913.012.812.512.512.111.611.511.311.210.610.69.48.58.17.97.67.57.47.37.2

7.16.96.86.76.66.36.26.15.95.75.35.24.84.64.64.64.64.54.54.44.14.0

3.93.53.43.43.23.13.13.02.82.82.72.72.72.62.42.32.22.12.01.91.91.9

1.81.71.51.41.41.41.41.31.31.31.31.21.21.11.11.1

0.940.920.900.830.800.77

0.740.740.710.690.690.670.630.610.460.440.430.410.370.340.330.320.310.300.300.290.290.29

0.290.270.270.200.150.150.150.150.150.150.150.150.140.110.080.050.040.010.01

Detailed dataFull list of each country’s CO2 emissions and movement in the world emissions league table

GRAPHIC: MARK McCORMICK, PAUL SCRUTON. SOURCE: EIA


We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social, economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.

While we understand that there might be short-term challenges associated with this effort, we believe that there will be great short-, medium-, and long-term economic, health, social and environmental benefits, including achieving energy independence for the U.S. as quickly as possible.

We believe colleges and universities must exercise leadership in their communities and throughout society by modeling ways to minimize global warming emissions, and by providing the knowledge and the educated graduates to achieve climate neutrality. Campuses that address the climate challenge by reducing global warming emissions and by integrating sustainability into their curriculum will better serve their students and meet their social mandate to help create a thriving, ethical and civil society. These colleges and universities will be providing students with the knowledge and skills needed to address the critical, systemic challenges faced by the world in this new century and enable them to benefit from the economic opportunities that will arise as a result of solutions they develop.

We further believe that colleges and universities that exert leadership in addressing climate change will stabilize and reduce their long-term energy costs, attract excellent students and faculty, attract new sources of funding, and increase the support of alumni and local communities. Accordingly, we commit our institutions to taking the following steps in pursuit of climate neutrality.

1. Initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible.

a. Within two months of signing this document, create institutional structures to guide the development and implementation of the plan.

b. Within one year of signing this document, complete a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from electricity, heating, commuting, and air travel) and update the inventory every other year thereafter.

c. Within two years of signing this document, develop an institutional action plan for becoming climate neutral, which will include:

i. A target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible.

ii. Interim targets for goals and actions that will lead to climate neutrality.

iii. Actions to make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students.

iv. Actions to expand research or other efforts necessary to achieve climate neutrality.

v. Mechanisms for tracking progress on goals and actions.

2. Initiate two or more of the following tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gases while the more comprehensive plan is being developed.

a. Establish a policy that all new campus construction will be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Silver standard or equivalent.

b. Adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products in all areas for which such ratings exist.

c. Establish a policy of offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions generated by air travel paid for by our institution.

d. Encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution.

e. Within one year of signing this document, begin purchasing or producing at least 15% of our institution’s electricity consumption from renewable sources.

f. Establish a policy or a committee that supports climate and sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where our institution’s endowment is invested.

g. Participate in the Waste Minimization component of the national RecycleMania competition, and adopt 3 or more associated measures to reduce waste.

3. Make the action plan, inventory, and periodic progress reports publicly available by submitting them to the ACUPCC Reporting System for posting and dissemination.

In recognition of the need to build support for this effort among college and university administrations across America, we will encourage other presidents to join this effort and become signatories to this commitment.

Signed,

The Signatories of the American College & University

Presidents Climate Commitment

Text of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment

Sou

rce:

htt

p:/

/ww

w.p

resi

den

tscl

imat

ecom

mitm

ent.

org/

abou

t/co

mm

itmen

t


The American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) was established in 2006 after the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) annual conference. The ACUPCC signatories have pledged to eliminate their campus’ net green house gases (that is to be carbon neutral) by 2025, 2040, or 2050. There are 685 universities who have agrees to the ACUPCC and over 200 have submitted their plans. Refer to

http://acupcc.aashe.org/

In Australia, we have the Australiasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS), refer to http://www.acts.asn.au/. Established in 2006, this group promotes and provides resources for sustainable campus design, but unlike the ACUPCC it does not yet set targets. This is in part because it does not have the support of the government; whereas in the USA APUPCC has been endorsed by the president, and it has the potential to tie funding to targets.

Regardless, ACTS has significant following in Australia. Its members include:

- James Cook University, - Australian National University- Griffith University- the University of Technology Sydney- the University of Melbourne, and- the University of New South Wales.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has” - Margaret Mead

3. American College and University President’s Climate Commitment

4. Carbon Neutral Research CampusesParticular emphasis needs to be placed on Campuses with laboratories, as these are the most energy heavy. Laboratories can use 3-8 times the amount of energy of a typical office building, multiply that operational expenditure across several research buildings on a campus, then multiply that by several campuses and you can understand why the US Government set up the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

The NREL Climate Neutral Research Campuses outlines a 5 step process for setting up a Climate Action Plan (CAP).

1. Determine Baseline Energy Consumption

2. Analyse Technology Options

3. Prepare a plan and set priorities

4. Implement the Climate Action Plan

5. Measure and Evaluate the Process

For more information on the process refer to http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/climate_neutral/

Example Carbon Emissions Inventory

This shows how each campus is unique and has different areas it needs to focus on to achieve carbon neutrality. For example Cal Poly’s Transport carbon emissions are it’s biggest concern, whereas Cornell’s issue it’s its electricity consumption.neutral/


cornell universitysustainable campus design

5. Case Study: Cornell UniversityCornell University’s Ithaca Campus has set their sustainability target to be Carbon Neutral by 2050. That is CAP is to reduce their carbon based emissions to zero by 2050. Their CAP can be divided into 5 broad streams:

- Green Development: Building Energy Standards, Space Planning and Management; Improved Land Use

- Energy Conservation: Building energy conservation, conservation outreach, steam line upgrade, smart grid

- Alternative Transportation: Commuter Travel, Business Travel, Campus Fleet

- Fuel Mix and Renewables: Hybrid; Wind Power, CURBI, Upgraded Hydro Capacity; Wood Co-firing, Turbine Generator Replacement

- Offsetting Actions: Defined Offsets, Undefined Offsets, Community Offsets.

Extract from Cornell’s Carbon Action Plan


Whilst these initiatives are environmental, at the core of the decision making is money, the campus was spending almost US$60 million per year on utilities on a building area of approximately 125.4 ha (13.5m sqf). Therefore, their focus has been on renewable energy including:

- Hydroelectric plant (produces 4GW/ht or 2% of the campus consumption)

- Co-generation plant, built 1986, (produces 30GW/hr or 12%)

- Lake Source Cooling, saves over 25 GW/yr- Combustion Turbine with Heat Recovery

Steam Generator

For more information refer to www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/climate

Above: Analysis of carbon emissions for the Ithaca Campus

Below: Schmatic of Heating and Cooling System for the Campus.

Resources for Further Reading:

Government / Corporate:

NREL Carbon Neutral Campus Guides - http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/climate_neutral/

ACUPPC - http://acupcc.aashe.org/UNFCC - http://unfccc.int/press/fact_sheets/items/4978.php Labs 21 - www.labs21century.govDatabase of State Incentives for Renewable Energy - www.dsireusa.orgAmerican Institute of Physics - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htmWhole Building Design Guide - www.wbdg.orgAustraliasian Campuses Towards Sustainability - http://www.acts.asn.au/EAUC - http://www.eauc.org.uk/

Sustainable University Guides:

Cornell - www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/climateArizona State University Campus Metabolism: http://cm.asu.edu/Harvard - http://green.harvard.edu/Rensselear + SOM CASE - www.case.rpi.eduMelbourne Uni - http://sustainablecampus.unimelb.edu.au/UTS - http://www.green.uts.edu.au/index.html


“No

inst

itutio

ns in

mod

ern

soci

ety

are

bet

ter

equi

pp

ed t

o ca

taly

se

the

nece

ssar

y tr

ansi

tion

to a

sus

tain

able

wor

ld t

han

colle

ges

and

un

iver

sitie

s. T

hey

have

acc

ess

to t

he le

ader

s of

tom

orro

w a

nd t

he

lead

ers

of t

oday

. Wha

t th

ey d

o m

atte

rs t

o th

e w

ider

pub

lic”

- D

avid

W. O

rr, p

rofe

ssor

and

aut

hor,

Ob

erlin

Col

lge,

from

The

Las

t R

efug

e

According to the APPA Thought Leaders Series 2009

1. Adjusting to the new sustainability reality.

2. Developing an institutional vision of sustainability.

3. Creating a leadership role for facilities managers in addressing sustainability.

4. Confronting economic challenges.

5. Fixing broken budget models.

6. Managing rising energy costs and energy volatility.

7. Engaging the campus to address energy challenges.

8. Managing space.

9. Prioritizing renewal needs.

10. Meeting the challenges of workforce development.

To read the full article please refer to:

http://www.appa.org/tools/measures/documents/ThoughtLeaders2009ReportFinal.pdf


facilities management:top 10 issues


1 October, 2010

.... we camped with the “four corners” airstream convention. 80 airstreams of different ages parked overlooking the albuquerque balloon fiesta



how does the campus respond to the urban edge?



cooper union, new york

Urban sprawl and densification mean that universities which were once on the periphery of the city are now integrated into its urban fabric. To examine the way institutions respond their urban edge let’s looks at two contrasting case studies in New York - the neo-Classical University of Columbia and the up and coming Cooper Union.Cooper Union is so woven into the fabric of downtown NY that it is kind of sneaks up on you. There is no traditional fenced in campus – rather the university occupies 3 buildings and students frequent the shops, bars and eateries of the neighbourhood creating a seamless university precinct. Whilst being integrated into the city has its advantages, major issues it faces are those of publicity/privacy, identity and place that has been addressed through the introduction of a vertical piazza the new 41 Cooper Square Building.

What is interesting about Cooper Union is that there is no sense of “us and them”. In the older buildings there is a dichotomy between the security guards at every entrance, and the visual permeability of the ground floor. A passerby can look directly into the study space of the library – the theatre of studying. At night the students are backlit; their focused and furrowed brows illuminated by the light emanating from their laptops.

When I looked in I had a moment where I was caught in the gaze of a student looking at directly at me whilst fixing her hair. It was unsettling and the experience evoked a memory of Beatriz Colomina’s analysis of Adolf Loos’ ‘House for Josephine Baker. Loos designed this house for the dancer as a series of rooms for him to frame Baker for his viewing pleasure in her domestic life. Culminating in a central backlit pool in which :

“Swimmers can see their own body reflected in the window frames, super-imposed on top of the visitor’s eyes, whose shadowy form is cropped by the frame... [their] narcissistic gaze is interposed as a layer on top of that of the voyeur.”



2. Vertical Piazza

Cut to the new 41 Cooper Square Building designed by Morphosis, which manifests the institution ideal as a centre for innovative teaching in Architecture, Art and Engineering. The key driver of this building is inviting in public and fostering community and collaboration through the internal grand staircase in the atrium.

Unlike the old buildings, the new building is transparent and inviting manifesting the institutions goal of “free, open and accessible education. The ground level is an open semi-public space from which one can easily access the 200-seat auditorium and a gallery space located one level down.

The real feature of this building is central staircase. It is 20 ft wide and connected all four levels of the building through a central atrium off which social and collaborative spaces hinge. Their generous proportions and location make them a place where people gather and meet (think of the Spanish Steps in Rome).

What I love about this building is that it is social, sculptural and sustainable. It a joy to see both day and night as the light and shadows ‘reverberate’ off its mesh skin.

Right and above : Images of the vertical piazza, Source: Morphosis



columbia university, new york

My first impression of Columbia University made me think of Robert Frost’s observation that “good fences make good neighbours”. The giant wall around the perimeter of this campus was affronting, it set a clear delineation between itself and the city of New York, and the neo-classic proportions and architecture were at odds with the city beyond. What is interesting is that this is all about to change with the proposed Manhattanville – a 17-acre extension of the campus which has recently received governmental approval.Columbia University was established in 1754 as Kings College by King George II of England. It is fifth oldest institution in the USA. Originally located in 49th st and Madison it moved in 1897 to 116th and Broadway. The neo-classical university masterplan was designed by Charles Follen McKim (of McKim, Mead and White) and exemplifies the “City Beautiful” movement of the early 20th Century.

McKim emulated the “City Beautiful” approach which focused on the use of axis and centralism. At Columbia the most important building, the Low Library, is placed at the centre of the intersecting major axes atop of set of stairs so that students could “climb the stairway to knowledge”. McKim set up simple rules for the layout of the masterplan which allowed for the steady addition of new buildings as funding became available.

The notion of placing important buildings at the heart of the city with an open area for gathering known as the ‘agora’ harks back to the Hippodamian plan . This reference to the ancient world also extends to the vocabulary of the library which emulates the Panthenon in Rome and the herringbone pattern of the stone in the South Court is akin to that of the Roman Forum.

It’s interesting to note that McKim’s original the intention was to keep the north-south axis clear so that one could stand in front of the library and seamless read the city as an extension of the university, but the Butler Library now obscures that vista and makes the campus feel inward focused. The placement of one building within a view plane can significantly alter the perception of a campuses relationship to the city.

Right: Masterplan of Columbia’s Morningside Height’s Campus


Res

ourc

es:

http

://w

ww

.col

umb

ia.e

du/

cont

ent/

hist

ory.

htm

l

http

://c

250.

colu

mb

ia.e

du/

dkv

/ext

ract

s/02

40_l

ow.h

tml

http

://t

here

ald

eal.c

om/is

sues

_art

icle

s/co

lum

bia

-bre

aks-

conv

entio

ns-w

ith-i

ts-n

ew-a

cad

emic

-bui

ldin

g/

http

://w

ww

.nei

ghb

ors.

colu

mb

ia.e

du/

pag

es/m

anp

lann

ing/

ind

ex.h

tml


As Columbia continues to grow the edges of the campus are being altered. The proportions of the City Beautiful Campus are being challenged by the new modernist and post-modernist constructions. The Northwest Corner Building designed by Rafael Moneo has recently caused a stir, and the pedestrian link to the Greene Building creates more connection to the city beyond.

But the defined campus cannot accommodate the Columbia’s growth, hence “Manhattanville”.

Manhattanville is the proposed new 17-acre satellite campus development designed by Renzo Piano and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM). This is currently under construction and is located in West Harlem in an ex-industrial zone. The new campus will include new buildings for the Business School, School of the Art and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Unlike it’s Morningside Height’s campus, Manhattanville will seamlessly intergrate Columbia University into the city of New York. It’s defined series of blocks and focus on pedestrians will give it the potential to identify the campus as a neighbourhood.

Will this be sufficient to a significant identity for the new ampus with a heart and soul? Or will it just be a seemless extension of the city like Cooper Union?



cincinnati university

From 1990 to 2000 the University of Cincinnati’s campus underwent a significant building program which now has it listed in Forbes ‘The Worlds’ Most Beautiful College Campuses’ putting it the same category as Stanford, Oxford and Princeton.

Just 20 years ago this was not the case, the building program was ad hoc and the rate of student acceptance was in decline. The UC ‘Master Plan 2000’ is a clear example of the power of a good master plan to redefine an institution. The four guiding imperatives of the ‘Master Plan 2000’ were academic, open space, connectivity and quality of student life and services.

• Academic: the establishment of state-of-the-art teaching and research facilities that put the University at the forefront of learning, culture and research development the world over.

• Open Space: The creation of a campus for students that is conductive to learning and reinforces the University’s image and identity

• Connectivity: The creation of a campus as a fully connected pedestrian environment whose many distinct districts and campuses are connected for both functional gathering and for reinforcing coherent identity

• Quality of Student Life and Services: the recognition that learning extends beyond classroom and the provision of the various recreation, retail, social, dining, residential, cultural and administrative faculties and services that will radically remake the University campus into a thriving energetic, round-the-clock hub that stimulates all parts of a student’s development.


For the purposes of this report we will focus on the physical changes to the campus namely the strategic open space and connectivity design of the campus. However there were a series of other initiatives which programmatically complemented and informed the built form. These included:

• Internal initiatives: the establishment of the Medical Campus, an increase on-campus housing and more on-campus recreation including “Varsity Village”.

• External Initiatives: an alliance with the Hospital, community partnerships and the development of light rail.

The focus on the Campus design was on the creating a framework for the Open Space to make the campus people friendly. The understanding being that people’s experience of a university heavily dependant on their impressions of the campus which has more to do with the open space than the building that frame them. The landscape/urban design strategy was developed by Hargreaves Associates. Each of the eight districts were given distinct landscaped identities and connected through a series of pedestrianised routes which responded to the ‘force fields’. The campus was analysed to determine where buildings should sit relative to the open space, and these voids were filled by Starchitecture.




Buildings from this period include:

- Michael Graves, Engineering Research Centre, 1994- Peter Eisenman, Aronoff Center for Art And Design, 1996- Pei, Cobb Freed and Partners, College-Conservatory of Music,

1999- Frank O. Gehry, Vontz Center for Molecular Studies, 1999- Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects, Tangeman University

Center, 2004- Moore Ruble Yudell, Steger Student Life Center, 2005- Morphosis (Thom Mayne), Campus Recreation Center, 2006- Bernard Tschumi, Lindner Athletic Center, 2006- STUDIOS Architecture, Care/Crawley Building, 2008

on

the

road

fro

m la

s ve

gas

to

new

mex

ico



Blog: October 16, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

Okay so being on the road for 2 weeks I

have come to love Starbucks – not just

for their sweet caffeinated beverages,

but also because every Starbucks in the

USA has free wireless internet. As I sit

here and type surrounded by twenty-

something students, middle aged

businessmen and group of 10 ‘autumnal’

book lovers I realize that about half of

them have laptops in their possession.

Admittedly some people are having a

social chat, but what is interesting is that

somehow Starbucks have successfully

created a corporate chain of ‘sticky

spaces’.

When I say ‘sticky space’ I am not

referring to carpet of dodgy bar on a late

night (Starbucks has an excellent state of

hygiene/cleanliness), but rather a sticky

space in an educational design sense

is referring to informal learning seats for

students. Essentially it is a place were

people come to meet, hang out and stay

on campus to learn peer to peer; the

aggregate of informal learning promotes

‘watercooler’ conversations and chance

meetings.

Why are sticky spaces in?

1. Less contact teaching hours

for students – due to budget cuts,

conflicting timetables, and promotion

of distance education. There is a

preference for tutorial spaces rather

than large lectures in auditoriums. I

know of at least one institution that

looking at strategies to reduce their

lectures by 40% over the next 10

years.

2. More courses on-line. As one

university professor noted “in a course

of 300 its easier to check course

attendance via electronic login to

webinar than it is to count heads in a

lecture theatre”, in addition students

can post comments on wikis/bulletin

boards

3. When students do go to uni the

preference is for more tutorial type

teaching which gives them face-to-

face time with their instructor.

blog rant: sticky spaces + starbucks


As an architect and an educator I am fascinated by the places in which people learn. I believe that the built environment is the third teacher. Consequently I find the pedagogical trends that have emerged in the past 20 years due to the internet intriguing as they have significantly physically altered learning and teaching suite. Teaching is less didactic, more ‘active’ and experiential. Learning is not limited to the classroom, but can occur in any space one has access to the internet.

As now learning occur in any space, therefore the notion of ‘place’ is more potent. Thus I believe we are on the cusp of significantly transforming our university campuses to focus more on the ‘genius loci’ and sense of community.

why should students physically go to university? how can we encourage them to choose go to campus? how can we make them want to stay there?

pedagogy


Above: Learning Centres for student centric learning, Source: Dr Kenn Fisher


designing for learning

The advent of the digital age has seen a huge paradigm shift in the way information is disseminated. Pedagogy has shifted from being teacher-centric to learner-centric.Teacher-Centric

Traditionally teaching was didactic – the knowledge was held by a professor who would ‘broadcast’ the information via a packed theatre hall. If you weren’t there you would miss out or have to get notes from someone else. Similarly the library was the cornerstone of knowledge for the university – students would have to physically go there to research information.

The physical implications for this were:

- Broadcasting: large lecture theatre halls – for 200- 500+ people

- Medium sized classrooms for 40-100 people

- Small tutorial sized rooms for 6-25- The library was a quite space for

focused research

Learner Centric

However the introduction of the world wide web has completely shifted the knowledge base. If a student (or for that matter a layman) wants to find something out they just have to google it. The role of a teacher is becoming less about being an absolute authority on a subject and more of a guide to facilitate students learning - showing them how to evaluate data and information sets (get them to look at sources such as Wikipedia critically).

Moreover there is an increased focus on online learning. A student’s base for learning is wherever their laptop (and wi-fi) is. Refer to Dr Kenn Fisher’s learning spaces on the right.


Above: Macquarie Bank at 1 Shelley Street, Sydney | Middle: Tapscott’s ‘Grown Up DIgital’ Bottom Right: Glasgow’s Saltire Centre Learning Commons


Every university in the nation has an online portal to load up course materials, have discussions and collate marks. The nature of these portals varies considerably from informal facebook like applications such as ‘Ning’ or the more rigidly structured WebCT.

The implications of this increased online presence is less class time but more a lot more preparatory work for academics – marginally for coursework, but considerably more time spent answering questions online. It becomes harder for academics/tutors to be able to ‘switch off’. But this is an issue of our times – not limited to the HE sector.

The physical implications:

- Broadcasting: lecture theatres are being retrofitted with recording devices so that students can watch the information on-line (I have worked with a university in Sydney who were looking to reduce their physical lectures by almost two-thirds)

- Smaller Tutorial Space for more focused discussions - it is anticipated that students will access the information prior to the class so tutorials are more focused on ideas or reviewing students work.

- More experiential learning – in the form of TEAL labs, or workshops

- Increased informal learning spaces where group work and study can take place – often this manifests as ‘learning commons’

Informal Learning and the ‘sticky campus’

As there is an increase of information and learning online there is less requirement for students to physically go to campus. Infact students can take courses entirely online. So why go?

Answer: Make the campus AWESOME, make the learning environment a destination for students which is superior to working home, the beach or the local café.

To this end universities have set about making incredible informal learning spaces or commons.

Evolving Workplace

Moreover today’s students are next year’s workers, thus we can see this phenomenon of informal learning manifest in the workplace in the form of “Activity Based Working” (ABW). This format of working has been adopted by Google in all of its offices and can be seen in Sydney at both Macquarie Group’s 1 Shelley Street and Commonwealth Bank’s Darling Quarter Offices.



active teaching

There is a lot of work being done on Technology Enabled Active Learning, also known as TEAL Labs. A site I highly recommend has been setup by North Carolina State University (NCSU) – http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/

The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrolment Undergraduate Program, or SCALE-UP was established to create “a highly collaborative, hands-on, computer-rich, interactive learning environment for large, introductory college courses” (Beichner)This project was initially piloted in 1993 in the faculty of the Engineering and Science and known as the IMPEC (Intergrated Maths, Physics, Engineering and Chemistry) project.

The concept was that the traditional lecture/laboratory format would be replaced with a studio and workshop. The class size ranged from 50 to 100 and the staff to student ratio was varied 24:1 to 50:1.

In the class students would work through activities in small groups of 3-4, supported by 2-4 instructors.

Cooperative Groups

According to Johnson, Johnson and Smith there are 5 critical characterics that define successful cooperative learning:

1. Positive interdependence. Team members have to rely upon one another and benefit from working together

2. Individual Accountability. Each member is responsible for doing his or her own fair share of the work and for mastering all the material

3. Face-to-face interaction. Some or all of the group effort must be spent with members working together

4. Appropriate use of interpersonal skills. Members must receive instruction and then practice leadership, decision making, communication and conflict resolution.

5. Regular self assessment of group functioning. Groups need to evaluate how well their team is functioning, where they could improve and what they should do differently in the future.

This notion is also explained by Edgar Dale’s Cone of Learning, which is based on the premise that “the more you do, the more you learn”.


Pedagogical Goals:

• Create a co-operative learning environment that encourages students to collaborate with their peers, questioning and teaching one another

• Use PER-based activities as much as possible to minimise lectures

• Coach students during activities by assisting them in answering their own questions and by letting

• The studio/workshop is taught in 2 hour blocks organised in 5-15 minute segments interspersed with brief class wide discussions. Students are scheduled for 4-6 hours of studio/workshop.

• In-class activities focus on problem solving and conceptual understanding

• Typical lectures are replaces with readings for which students are tested online prior to the class commencing. There is still a broadcast within the workshop/studio but this is limited to 10-15 minutes to provide a summary, overview or motivation.

• Technology is used to provide a phenomenological focus for students , allowing date collection, analysis mathematical modelling, microcomputer-based laboratories and video-based laboratories as well as applets and simulations”

• Students are asked to explain their thinking and resolve cognitive-conflict through semi-Socratic dialogues.

Grading

Is not done on a typical bell curve this can discourage collaboration. Rather marks are earned throughout the term across a broad range of quizzes, lab notes with only 10-15% on mid-terms.

Educational Impact

Below is a table showing the results of 6000 students at six different institutions, who all took the same test. It shows demonstrates that students who in an interactive collaborative students had a better conceptual understanding of the subject.

Key References:

Robert Beichner et el “The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrolment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project – www.ncsu.edu/per/Articles/Varenna_SCALEUP_Paper.pdf

http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/


Blog: November 4, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

“… Faced with the need to house library

materials and offer a wide variety of

new services in already overcrowded

campus buildings, academic libraries

have few options. They can campaign

for costly new buildings and scarce

space on college campuses. They can

attempt to artificially limit collection size,

thereby negatively impacting research,

teaching and learning. Or they can

manage collections by sharing them

through [consortial] partnerships, housing

selected collections in less expensive

space, and saving precious campus

buildings for other uses.”

As libraries move away from being the store house

of books to being learning commons and central

hub of universities, the question becomes what do

we do with the hardcopies? There is a hestitancy to

throw books out (unless it is the 4ths copy of “An

idiot’s guide to Photoshop 1.0), so now we move to

warehousing them.

Different libraries have adopted varying policies on the

extent of the hardcopy books kept and the location.

The extent of books kept depends on whether or

not the library has an obligation to record local

publications (e.g. Sydney University has an extensive

archive).

Whilst the location of the warehouse (on or off site)

depends largely on the economics – i.e. the cost of

land, the amount of books being stored and the

estimated numbers of times the collection will be

accessed.

e.g. UTS will be storing a large proportion of their

collection, therefore have opted to have their ‘book

warehouse’ on site.

Personally I think the notion of storing books is

good. The more we store online the greater access

by all to all the information. That is I am far more

likely to access a dissertation that I can google,

rather than go to the back end of a library and

sort through the piles of ancient manuscripts.

For book warehousing to work there must be an

equally ambitious campaign for digital recording of

hardcopies (which Google has been persuing with

rigour).

However my thoughts are not shared by all. At

the end of last year I attended a conference on

Learning Commons and Libraries. Upon seeing the

warehouse of books the librarian sitting next to me

was agast. Describing the notion of storing books

by size as post-modern and ridiculous. Dewy has

worked for so many years.

… and its true, Dewy has worked hard and has

made me feel comfortable in the 720 section of

the library. But with space at a premium and a

pedagogy shifting towards accessibility and peer

based learning we all must adapt.

Other links worth checking out:

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/future-

warehouse-of-unwanted-books.html

http://greeningyourlibrary.wordpress.com/

blog: libraries are no place for books


universities are based on ratios

1 x academic

3 x Higher Degree by Research (HDR)

1 x Post Doctorate

20 x Effective Full-Time Student Unit (EFTSU)

0.6 x General Staff


... so if a campus has 50,000 EFTSU

...how does this change once the recommendations of the

Bradley Report are implemented?

... how does e-learning affect these ratios?


“Labs embody the spirit, culture, and economy of our age… what the cathedral was to the 14th century and the office building was to the 20th century, the laboratory is to the 21st century” - Don Prowler, Labs21


labs


trends in lab design

When talking about Lab Design there are some clear trends which kept coming up.

1. Flexibility In design to accommodate change – be generic not specific. Funding sources will change and the nature of the research will follow. Use a adaptable grid as the basis for design.

Select furniture which can be disassembled and re-assembled.

2. Design for technology There are increasing research tasks which are computer based – consider how equipment, bench space and workstation may need to be integrated

For teaching environments consider how interactive teaching equipment is integrated into the labs - e.g. the London Metropolitan University’s SuperLab or the University of Bristol’s Dynamic Lab Manual.

Create state of the art conference education and presentation centres to provide high level multiuse access to advanced interactive computer systems

3. Design for SustainabilityOn average, a typical laboratory uses 3-8 times the amount of energy of a typical office building. Where does the energy go?

What can we do?- Fume Cupboard – use efficient hoods (VAV

preferably) educate users about electricity cost- HVAC – optimise ventilation rates and design low

pressure drop HVAC design- Electrical – design appropriate plug loads; use

lights that have sensors to turn off when lab is unoccupied

- Natural Daylight into labs (where appropriate) for reduced energy use and occupant productivity

- Minimise heating and cooling - analyse occupancy, fume hood and equipment location/density, climate

- Maximise Energy Recovery- Use Renewable Energy Sources- such as fuel

cells, photovoltaics or wind turbines.- Water efficiency (recycled, waterless urinals)


4. Share ResourcesShared resources and expensive equipment across faculties and disciplines minimise space which can only be used by one group

Specialist equipment such as SEMs, NMRs are expensive and if under utilised fall into disrepair (Case Study: UNSW’s Analytical Centre to see how this can be achieved)

5. Connectivity Create a Social Building which fosters opportunities for both formal and informal interaction across disciplines.

Create a sense of community within the building

Research has become more team based and this needs to be accommodated

Meeting places break out/ meeting rooms atrium spaces – places for people to congregate outside of the their labs to talk with one another

6. More team based researchWrite up space and offices need to allow for teams to work together, and should be located in close proximity to the labs.

7. Home vs. University For undergraduates there is the question of learning from home vs. coming to university

What is the capacity to do course work from home? How is it integrated? Are tutorials in large rooms or filmed/streamed? Look at the pages on for more information

8. Metering and Commissioning

Begin this at an early stage by an independent authority to pick up on problems and ensure equipment is functional and operational. Large saving to be made from correcting faulty equipment and practices,

Resources

Daniel D. Watch, “Building Type Basics for Research Labs” 2nd Ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 2008)

Brian Griffin, “Laboratory Design Guide” 3rd Ed. (Architectural Press, 2005)

Labs21 Conference

www.RealWinWin.org

http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/PUBS/Cx-Costs-Benefits.html

www.BCxA.org

www.PECI.org

www.CaCx.org

www.ASHRAE.org

www.ACEEE.org



the biodesign institutearizona state university

Located on the eastern edge of the Tempe Campus, the Biodesign Institute is significant as both a physical gateway to the campus and an intellectual gateway for research on the campus. There are currently 32,500 m² (350,000 sqf) of research space across two buildings including research labs, offices and ancillary spaces. The basement level of Building A includes a specialised area for nano-engineering and research. The 13-acre site will eventually have another 2 buildings – bringing the total research space to 74,300 m² (800,000 sqf).

Where as traditional research facilities separate scientists via their speciality, there has been as increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary research practices. There are 15 centres that occupy this building; these have been organised around 4 key strategic research focuses: biosignatures, biosensors (nano), bionics (cognitive) and biofactories (sustainability).

This notion of interdisciplinary work is manifested architecturally as a large 4-storey atrium running the length of the building. The stairs are centralised and on the cross bridges there is ample room to stop and have a chat or use one of the white boards which are strategically

The BioDesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

“transparency of research”

Architect: Gould Evan Associates (www.gouldevans.com) with Lord Aeck & Sargent Architecture (www.lordaecksargent.com)

Cost: $149.5 million

Size: 32,552 sqm (350,392 sqf)

- 12,179 sqm (131,089 sqf) of lab space

LEED Certfied

Thanks to Tom Mason and Susan Quisenberry



located throughout the building. In between building A and B is an area known as co-lab – a larger informal space with seating and vending machines adjacent which provides a hub for researches to meet informally (showing off the values of communication, collaboration and connection).

We meet Susan and Tom at the entry and pass through the secured access (which has a iris scan for after hours access). The most striking thing upon entry is how light and transparent the building is. The entire building is naturally lit by diffused light from the overhead skylight 4 storeys above. As we move through the building there is a clear delineation between the fully glazed offices on our left and then the open plan labs to our right.

connection through transparency The labs are designed to be open plan with all the services (water, air, etc) coming from above. Moreove all the joinery items are on wheels allowing for easy adaptability, adjustability and expandability. In its current layout there is a clear zoning of furniture with the lighter write up desks adjacent to the walkway, the research benches and then the ‘heavier’ equipment closer to the service risers. A nice detail is the presence of the white boards at the end of the research benches, scrawled with noted they allow the passer by to see what is happening behind previously closed doors and makes the research activities truly transparent.



Green Project:

•Building A received LEED® Gold Certification

•Building B received LEED® Platinium Certification

•Fly ash – a waste by-product of coal burning power plants – was used to offset the energy demands of a typical concrete structure.

•A reflective roof membrane and high-albedo paving materials mitigate the Phoenix area’s urban heat island effect.

•A 5,000-gallon irrigation water cistern collects air conditioning condensate water, which eliminates the use of potable water in landscape irrigation. Rain water from the roof and paving are routed directly via pipes to the drought-resistant native desert landscaping.

•Low-flow lavatories, kitchen sinks, showers and waterless urinals use 30 percent less water than conventional fixtures.

•An exterior shading system on south and west facades controls unwanted heat from the hot desert sun.

•The top portion of the interior shade louver system is automatically controlled to maximize daylight penetration by reflecting diffuse light onto the ceilings.

•Office occupancy sensors automatically control artificial lighting, reducing both lighting energy demand and associated cooling loads. These strategies reduce energy use by 29 percent.

What impressed me about this lab was the attention given to appropriate lab support. There are three types of lab support:

1. The equipment to support the labs directly accessible from the labs e.g. fume hoods

2. The shared lab support not directly accessible from the labs such as autoclaves, media prep, cold rooms, etc

3. Lab support pass-through which connect the open labs to the support zones, these spaces have been designed to be wide enough to afford large equipment which has a high heat-load and/or are noise generating e.g. ultra-low freezers or centrifuges.

All these support spaces are anchored off the vertical service chases to minimise service runs and allow for easy servicing, refer to diagram below. As you can see from the section both the chase and service penthouse a the easily serviceable.

Servicing is a key item when designing research labs, the goals is not to have any days when the labs cannot operate due to maintenance as this is a huge cost issue. The ideal is to have a clear delivery system, zone for back of house, then research area and office space. The Biodesign Institute exemplifies this notion.

In terms of delivery the building is 1.5m (5’) above natural ground level to allow for the a shared servicing between all four of the planned buildings, and account for the cross fall on the 13-acre site. The site itself has been landscaped with a Sanoran Desert Garden visible from all the offices.


Typical Laboratory Level.

LABORATORY

OFFICES

BOH

SERVICE RISER


LABORATORY

OFFICES

BOH

SERVICE RISER


vavarium

interstitial floor

services in ceiling

vertical chase

back of house

plant room

labs offices


•Terrazzo floors were made with locally available materials, including area river rock. This pays tribute to the Salt River that flowed through the site long ago.

•Ozone-friendly refrigerants were used to help mitigate ozone depletion.

- An innovative variable-volume exhaust system was designed in place of a conventional, constant-volume system, reducing energy demand associated with meeting laboratory ventilation requirements in the desert.

- A two-week flush-out was performed to improve indoor environmental air quality before occupying the building.

Project Awards

2006 Lab of the Year award from R&D Magazine

References:

‘Connection Through Transparency – The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University’, Lord, Aeck & Sargeant Architecture (2006)

http://www.sourcesanddesign.com/archives/0709/0709_green_scene.html

http://www.dpr.com/projects/phoenix/detail.cfm?ProjectID=321

http://www.biodesign.asu.edu/



bill + sue gross halluc irvine

Gross Hall is located in the Science district of the campus. The key concept in the layout of the labs is that there are 3 zones of mechanical services – the workbenches, the equipment and the offices. There is no heavy equipment within the labs themselves rather the fridges, incubators etc are all located within a designated zone on the periphery of the lab (and central to the building) which has higher electrical and mechanical loading.

Bill + Sue Gross Hall, UC Irvine, CA

Cost: $80 million

Size: 9, 300 sqm (100,000 sqf)

LEED Platinum Certfied

Thanks to Matt Gudorf + Lynette Willliams

Design Strategies:

Centralized Demand Controlled Ventilation – real-time indoor air quality monitoring, varies the ventilation rate

Occupancy Based Controls – controls both ventilation system & lighting

Natural Ventilation – operable windows linked with mechanical ventilation

Smart Lighting Controls – day lighting sensors used with perforated blinds

Energy Star Equipment – freezers, refrigerators, ice machines & copiers

Air Handling System – larger components allow a low velocity system, reducing pressure drops throughout the system

Building Exhaust – right sized exhaust system eliminates bypass air


laboratories

public entry

offices

hospital

deliveries around the back

cast of CSI:NY


office of the chief medical examiner, new york

I think the thing that surprises me the most about this lab is that whilst I have never been in a forensic lab, TV shows such as “CSI” have somewhat prepared me for what I am about to see. There is the crime scene reconstruction, the lab for the examination of cars involved in crimes and the analysis labs where cool scientists (like Abbey) analyse the DNA of the crime scene.

However, for all its apparent similarities there is a lot of innovation and nuance in the design that one does not appreciate on TV. For starters this is a narrow site and the available footprint is much smaller than a typical lab. The designers have overcome this by the use of dumbwaiters which allow the main flow of evidence to be vertical rather than horizontal.

The OCME building is on 26th Street, adjacent to the heritage Bellevue Hospital – an old sandstone and copper building from 1736 which is credited as the oldest public hospital in USA. These two Medical icons are connected at ground level by a common garden.

The entrance lobby of the OCME is a grand 2 storey event with a security desk,

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner DNA Building, New York

“Science Serving Justice”

Architect: Perkins Eastman (http://www.perkinseastman.com/)

Lab Designer: Health, Education + Research Associates (www.herainc.com)

Cost: $167 million

Size: 33445 sqm (360 000 sqf)

- 6500 sqm (70 000 sqf) of office space,

- 5780 sqm (62 000 sqf) of lab space

Thanks to Laurie Sperling, Mecki Prinz + Zoran Budimlija

laboratories

public entry

offices


waiting area, large pieces of art and an inscription on the wall reading “Science Serving Justice” – a fair call considering this building processes the majority crime DNA identification for greater NY – processing around 100,000 specimens per year. In fact this was the first lab in the USA to use Y-chromosome STR’s in forensic casework; and from 1999 it has been DNA testing sexual assault cases. Also, it is here that all 1618 victims of the September 11 were identified by DNA analysis.

For the people who work in the labs the evidence is delivered at ground floor, it catalogued and it travels up to the first of the forensic labs. It’s interesting to note that the size of the samples from a piece of torn cloth, a glass, a gun to a king size mattress or even a car. So if you complain about filing paper – think about the type of filing these guys have to manage.

Once the DNA has been extracted in the labs, it is tested using PCR and catalogued to be kept for umpteen years as per the legal requirements. What is interesting is that these

Images of the labs inside OCME. Source: HERA


samples move vertically through the lab via dumbwaiters; or in the case of amplification travel horizontally via pass-throughs. The OCME also have a full level dedicated to training Medical Examiners, who also move vertically through the building as they progress.

The labs themselves are accessed via bio-vestibules (for gowning/de-gowning) to protect both the evidence and the personnel. The labs, designed by HERA (who also designed the State of New Mexico Labs) are beautiful and functional. The layout has been arranged on a modular grid with repetitive functions centrally located to allow for future flexibility.

These working labs of the building are located on the lower levels up to the height of the Bellevue Hospital. The circulation of these labs is along the northern face of the building which has been glazed to borrow the view of the adjacent heritage hospital; the aged sandstone and green copper juxtapose with the new sterile white labs. The labs salute the old traditions of nursing and are themselves a testament to the advances of medical technology.

The forensic labs on the lower levels deal with not only the minutia of DNA analysis but also crime scene reconstruction. We enter the lab of the Forensic Analysis and Reconstruction Unit (FARU), a is large room with fixed joinery and facilities at the extreme ends, and no other fixed furniture. Instead there is an expressed 2.4m steel grid on the ceiling from which technicians can hang partitions to set up the scene as per a crime. When we walk in there are two scenes in progress, one of which has a dummy in front of a wall with spattering of “blood” on the wall behind. Very CSI.

With all this work comes a tonne of report writing and paperwork, lucky for the team at OCME they have some of the most spectacular offices in the city. To the east is a view to Manhattan, to the west an unobstructed view over the river and Brooklyn. Everyday the staff at OCME are able to look out over the city which they serve through science.

(Also worth checking out is the extension to the Bellevue hospital next door by I.M. Pei)



care crawleyuniversity of cincinatti

CARE Crawley, University of Cincinatti, Ohio

“fosters collaboration between scientists and students”

Architect: STUDIOS Architecture in collaboration with Harley Ellis Devereaux

Cost: $177 million

Size: 22,297 sqm (240,000 sqf)

Gold LEED Certification

Opened August 2008

-Thanks to Gregory Braswell and Jacquie Thomas

The University of Cincinnati’s new Center for Academic and Research Excellence, also known as the CARE / Crawley Building, is home to state-of-the art laboratory and teaching spaces. It is strength is its internal urban-like setting in the atrium which fosters interactivity and community.This building was one of my favorites of the trip because it had excellent technical and pedagogical spaces, which were supported by varying social spaces that created a sense of community.

The main architectural feature of the building is the large nine storey glass atrium which connects the old Medical Sciences Building to the new laboratory space. The two buildings are physically linked by seven glass bridges which span between the old and the new. The new consists of six floors of open bench teaching


laboratories with conference rooms and back of house ancillary spaces.

At ground level there are a series of informal study spaces ranging from open seating, to semi-private booths to ‘study huts’ which the students/ scientists can book for meetings or discussions.

In the centre of the space is the new research library. A glass circular construction which references the library at Alexandria.

In addition, the there is a new dining area, fitness centre and bookstore.

The building received a LEED Gold Rating from USGBC. Some of the strategies adopted include:

- Naturally ventilated central atrium space- Natural Daylight to 75% of the spaces,

and views to daylight to 90%- Automated occupancy sensors in the

classrooms and labs to control the lighting

- Extensive stormwater system designed to hold 90,000 gallons of water used to irrigate the campus.

- Reflective roofing material to reduce the radiant heat gain.

Designers paid careful attention not only to high-tech qualities, but also to “humanistic elements” that nurture innovative thinking, scholarly collaboration and scientific discovery among researchers and students.- UC Media Release [http://magazine.uc.edu/issues/0904/construction.html]

Above: Section through CARE/Crawley Atrium, Right: Photo though CARE/Crawley Atrium, Source: Greg Braswell



Simulated Learning

A key part of the teaching suite is the simulation labs. There are 16 doctor consult rooms located around a communal learning area. Students learn in a group environment (pictured bottom left) where they go through the theory and can practice on mannequins (e.g. how to insert needles into plastic arms bottom right).

They then break off into the sixteen consult rooms (pictured top right) where they practice ‘typical scenarios’ with actors. Their performance is recorded and analysed by the staff (pictured top left).


Ground floor plan (NTS)


fume-a-saurus

tyranasaurus

stegasaurus

scientists using fume-a-saurus to extract the heat from equipment

(Image Source: HERA, OCME)


On average 44% of a Laboratories energy usage is consumed by ventilation. Therefore the design and strategic management of air is very important.A key principle of ventilation design is that air will flow from low velocity to high velocity. Thus the circulation space will have a low velocity, a laboratory will have a higher ACH and the fume cupboards/ air extractors will have the highest velocity.

Therefore is it important to understand the ventilation requirements – how much play do you have with the variants in temperature? Air Changes per Hour (ACH)? What is codified? Standardized? Applicable?

1. Optimise Air Change Rates

- Labs use a once-through airflow system- What is the safest lowest ACH (air change per

hour)- 4-6 ACH at night

2. Reduce Fume Hood Energy use

- VAV vs fixed volume- Locate supply air so that it doesn’t blow into fume

hoods- Avoid locating Fume Hoods near circulation routes

3. Minimise simultaneous heating and cooling

- Separate ventilation from thermal loads

Moreover, using demand-based control of air change rates can more than halve the use of outside air in lab buildings. That is when a lab is in use it can have 8-10 ACH, and at night this can drop to 4-6 ACH. Further savings can be made when this is combined with the reduction of fume hood velocity to minimum flow rates (as prescribed in ANSI Z9.5).

This demand based control of air-change rates has been used in over 75 facilities in the US. University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) where it is their campus’s single largest energy conservation measure, or at the ASU (Arizona State University) Biodesign Institute facility where they have calculated potential savings of about $1 million a year from this 330K sq. ft (gross) project.

Demand based controls can also be used beyond the lab. At ASU they have adopted the Aircuity based demand control ventilation approaches in over 20 of their buildings including sports arenas, offices and classrooms.

air flow


on

the

road

fro

m lo

s an

gel

es t

o la

s ve

gas



“the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones” - Dr Trent, Labs21


the future???



what next? knowledge clusters...

We as architects are designing buildings for the next 50 years, so we need to be mindful of what the campus of the future is and how the buildings we design respond to that narrative. Universities are no longer just for teaching and producing primary research, they are catalysts for economic development! When examining the discourse of the campus must look at how they integrated into the built fabric and anchors for knowledge clusters.

What I would like to further analyse is the importance of place and the quality of the built environment into the discussion on knowledge clusters. Simultaneously taking the conversation about education out of the classroom and into broader context the role of universities within future regional development.

What can we as designers do to cultivate a unique sense of place and identity? How can we develop the third spaces? Foster linkages and networks? Create anchors of activity? What elements in the built environment are critical?

Increasingly universities are the anchors for knowledge clusters . The university acts as an attractor for talent to the local area where students’ explicit and tacit skills are developed, and primary research is conducted. The industry benefits by recruiting from the pool of talent, and there is an ongoing support form the university for the firm’s R + D. In addition both partners benefit from the greater network of knowledge. Successful examples include North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park in Taiwan. In both these examples there is a strong symbiotic relationship between industry and academia.

What I am finding in my research in on knowledge clusters is that the papers highlight the importance of university-industry connection, the governance, local leadership and place. Yet this idea of what makes place successful is largely undefined, but critical if incorrect.

“Japanese experience, such as the Kyoto Research Park, has shown that technology clusters grow and develop better when the people within them interact on a daily basis. Indeed, the lack of social interaction and need to welcome newcomers has been one of the biggest challenges for the two major Japanese science cities (Kansai Science City and Tsukuba Science City).”

Looking forward I believe that universities need to strategically redefine their role and work with industry to develop knowledge clusters. There have been key recent examples of universities acting as the catalyst and anchor for these clusters, either forming organically as at in Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s ICT corridor of Route 128; or through strategic government intervention as in Japan’s MEXT “Regional Innovation Cluster Program” and METI “Industrial Cluster Program” .

Research around what makes knowledge clusters successful highlight the importance of university-industry connection, governance, local leadership and place . Yet this idea of what makes place successful is largely undefined. Richard Florida in his writings on “creative capital theory” asserts the quality of place is a key draw card . This is evident in the Bay Area of San Francisco where UC Berkeley and Stanford University provide the anchor for Apple, Facebook, Google and AutoDesk – the power of physical location has overcome the de-localising capacity of the internet.

industry benefits by recruiting from the pool of talent, and there is an ongoing support form the university for the firm’s R + D. In addition both partners benefit from the greater network of knowledge. Successful examples include North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park in Taiwan. In both these examples there is a strong symbiotic relationship between industry and academia.

What I am finding in my research in on knowledge clusters is that the papers highlight the importance of university-industry connection, the governance, local leadership and place. Yet this idea of what makes place successful is largely undefined, but critical if incorrect.

“Japanese experience, such as the Kyoto Research Park, has shown that technology clusters grow and develop better when the people within them interact on a daily basis. Indeed, the lack of social interaction and need to welcome newcomers has been one of the biggest challenges for the two major Japanese science cities (Kansai Science City and Tsukuba Science City).”

We as architects are designing buildings for the next 50 years, so we need to be mindful of what the campus of the future is and how the buildings we design respond to that narrative. Universities are no longer just for teaching and producing primary research, they are catalysts for economic development! When examining the discourse of the campus must look at how they integrated into the built fabric and anchors for knowledge clusters.

Looking forward I believe that universities need to strategically redefine their role and work with industry to develop knowledge clusters. There have been key recent examples of universities acting as the catalyst and anchor for these clusters, either forming organically as at in Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s ICT corridor of Route 128; or through strategic government intervention as in Japan’s MEXT “Regional Innovation Cluster Program” and METI “Industrial Cluster Program” .

Research around what makes knowledge clusters successful highlight the importance of university-industry connection, governance, local leadership and place . Yet this idea of what makes place successful is largely undefined. Richard Florida in his writings on “creative capital theory” asserts the quality of place is a key draw card . This is evident in the Bay Area of San Francisco where UC Berkeley and Stanford University provide the anchor for Apple, Facebook, Google and AutoDesk – the power of physical location has overcome the de-localising capacity of the internet.

What I would like to further analyse is the importance of place and the quality of the built environment into the discussion on knowledge clusters. Simultaneously taking the conversation about education out of the classroom and into broader context the role of universities within future regional development.

What can we as designers do to cultivate a unique sense of place and identity? How can we develop the third spaces? Foster linkages and networks? Create anchors of activity? What elements in the built environment are critical?

Increasingly universities are the anchors for knowledge clusters . The university acts as an attractor for talent to the local area where students’ explicit and tacit skills are developed, and primary research is conducted. The


Imag

e S

ourc

e: h

ttp

://w

ww

.dan

gero

usm

ind

s.ne

t/ta

g/N

eil-

Youn

g

thanksThe Bolton Family: Mumma, Pappa, BB and MB

Tim Martin + the Martin Family

Juliette Churchill

Geoff Hanmer, Mark Clements and David Holm.

Lynette Williams

Jacquie Thomas

Nicole Robinson

Jennifer Krack

Anna-Marie Pittman + Rache Moore @ Fraggle Rock

Tom Bassett, Minna Ninova + Andrea Marpillero-Colomina

Christian and Ulysses Oliver (Marshmallow Productions)



other stuff

Documents

some stuff[ed]