door opening hardware Archives - 91��Ƶ

California’s Revised Budget Favors Higher Education

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — While students and administrators of California’s higher education system can breathe a sigh of relief with the revised state budget for the time being, the economy will continue into an era of unpredictability, according to a statement by Governor Jerry Brown.
The new budget has gained positive response from the higher education community. The college tuition freeze and $500 million in funding to California State Universities (CSU) and University of California (UC) campuses will be maintained and improvements for higher education include the elimination of the unit cap and multi-year funding increase. Community colleges will also no longer be expected to take increased responsibility for adult education. However, uncertain times will still call for discretion in the California budget.
“We have climbed out of a hole with the Proposition 30 tax,” Brown said. “That’s good, but this is not the time to break out the champagne.”
Proposition 30, which passed in November with just 53 percent approval, went into effect Jan.1 of this year. The four-year quarter-of-a-cent sales tax is projected to provide California schools with $6 billion each year and relieve the state of “trigger cuts” to education.
The proposition was under heavy scrutiny during the campaign, but the positive outcomes of the measure have now been made clear, Brown said.
“During the campaign the critics said two things: ‘Proposition 30 won’t pass and if it does, the money won’t go to schools,’” Brown said. “Well, they were wrong on both accounts.”
Brown did not downplay the major successes brought forth by Proposition 30, but he did warn that certain risks were involved with the new budget. At both the state and federal level, Brown said, there has been a habit of over-commitment.
“We’re trying to now have honest budgeting and careful budgeting,” he said.
The initial state budget, issued in January, did not anticipate recent economic impacts such as the sequester and the payroll tax restoration, Brown said. The pressure of Washington and the global economy has also played its part in budget projections. But as with years past, there are risks, Brown said.
“We’re sailing into some rather uncertain times as we always have,” he said.
The unit cap was eliminated from the January budget over concern that the proposal was ineffective and unfair to students. If the proposal were approved, students would only be allowed to take about a year’s worth of additional units or 150 percent of units required to complete most degrees.
“We want to get more people through than we currently do and we want kids not to take seven years but four years,” Brown said. “If they get through in four years instead of seven years, there’s more space, we can add more students, the kids don’t borrow as much money and they get into the workforce sooner.”
The loss was one among other gains, the governor said.
“Like everything else we take it in steps,” he said. “Two steps forward, one step backward.”
The multi-year funding plan will increase per student funding by $1,503 for community college students, $1,953 for CSU students and $2,491 for UC students by 2016 to 2017. The budget will increase the general fund contribution to each institution’s prior year funding base up to 20 percent over the four-year period. This represents approximately 10 percent in total operating funds, including tuition and fee revenues.
“It prioritizes higher education by providing new funds to begin reinvesting in the public universities, with the expectation that the universities will improve the quality, performance and cost effectiveness of the educational systems,” the budget revision said. “The plan is rooted in the belief that higher education should be affordable and student success can be improved.”
With Brown’s warning that the economy is still indeterminate, Ana Matosantos, director of the state’s department of finance, said the four-year budget increases are based upon past markers.
“We look at what has happened in the past, the recoveries generally following a recession, and what we think is going to happen,” Matosantos said. “We look at it twice a year and we take our best shot at what we think is going on in the economy and what is going on with revenue; we do the same thing with expenditures.”
Budget revisions have gained favorable responses from representatives of the UC and CSU systems as well as several higher education organizations in California.
“The funding proposed for public higher education in the governor’s May revise is a critical investment in the future of California,” said CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White in a statement. “We look forward to working with the governor and legislature to invest these educational resources while ensuring the accountability of our universities and the success of our students in a way that upholds the mission of the California State University.”
The California legislature will have until June 15 to pass or make revisions to Brown’s proposed budget.

The post California’s Revised Budget Favors Higher Education appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

States Search for Higher Education Funding Solutions

WASHINGTON — Education funding has become a major topic in the presidential race, with both sides promising to preserve or even increase the resources dedicated to the cause, while budgeting to address the federal deficit. Despite this apparent consensus, most states are moving ahead with their own plans to find more stable funding streams and somehow lower the cost of attending college.

The recession is suddenly pushing states to consider more drastic, creative, or unusual tactics in an attempt to keep funding for higher education from reaching historically low levels, when adjusted for inflation. This has led states to consider everything from raising taxes to changing rules about who can attend their schools.

The problems with education funding seems even more glaring this year, as President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped many states backfill their education funding gaps, inserting the one-time funding in the place where tax revenues used to be. States were able to use these funds to varying degrees over the three-year period from 2009 to 2011, but the amount of funding was already being outpaced by rising costs in the time between 2010 and 2011. During that period, stimulus funding went down while general costs went up, as is always the case, due to inflation. Now that the stimulus funding is mostly spent, colleges are faced with the full brunt of their economic troubles.

Though the economic downturn has clearly exasperated the problem, the hole in education funding is linked to a much more basic economic truth. The demand for higher education has gone up and the federal government has not increased the supply of funding at a rate that in any way comes close to matching the increased number of prospective customers. In a nutshell, this means education is becoming more expensive. If demand goes up and supply stays relatively the same it drives the price of education up. While more people want a service, there is about the same amount of supply available, and this means people begin outbidding each other to get at the limited resources, leading to a massive increase in price in this case. This has led to a dual effect, where state and local governments must contribute more to education costs, while simultaneously charging students more, because federal funding is functionally decreasing.

One tactic many states and colleges are currently turning to is a greater emphasis on attracting students from other states to attend their universities. This is because attending a college in a state other than the state considered to be the student’s permanent address is far more expensive. Students who go to a school in their own state get an in-state discount for tuition and neighboring states often offer discounts to each other’s residents as well. Some states embraced this strategy a while ago, with the University of California drastically increasing the amount of out-of-state and international students admitted into its system over the last three years.

The debate on this strategy has not ended however, as state Senator Michael Rubio (D-Shafter) is currently trying to build support for his California Students First Act, which would cap the amount of non-resident undergrads enrolled each year at 10 percent of that year’s total admissions. The University of Colorado has taken the opposite approach, as its cap currently sits at 33 percent of admissions. North Dakota has taken the concept even further, with more than 50 percent of students at two of its major universities coming from outside the state. The University of North Dakota at Grand Forks and North Dakota State University have both exceeded that rate, at 55 percent.

The average out-of-state enrollment rate for all higher education institutions in the country stood at 19 percent in 2010. There is also currently a debate on the topic in Michigan, where Business Leaders for Michigan, a nonprofit made up of business executives and education officials, is arguing for increased enrollment of students from other states. Michigan currently lags far behind the national average, with 9 percent of its students coming from other states.

While trying to attract students who must pay more than their peers is becoming a more popular solution, it is not solving the problems with higher education funding on its own. The largest change in most universities is still a general increase in the cost for all students to attend college. The price of attending college is going up, the expectation that jobs require a degree from a higher education entity is not slowing down, but the average paycheck is not keeping up with the increased cost of receiving an education. This lack of balance has led the total amount of student debt in the nation to exceed $1 trillion.

Students are also taking more time to complete college, with many finding it difficult or near impossible to get into all their required classes within four years, which increases the cost of higher education and extends the period of time students are in school, instead of focusing solely on their careers and paying down their debt.

The issue has come to the forefront in Nevada, where only 36 percent of students earn their four-year degrees within six years, the worst rate in the contiguous United States, with only Alaska ranking worse in that statistic overall. The problem extends even further, as less than 11 percent of full-time community college students in the state graduate with a two-year degree within three years of enrolling. Not only is Nevada failing to get its students through the higher education experience, it is also struggling to keep students living in the state after they graduate. Economic problems in the region have led to an exodus of college graduates. The state ranks last in the nation in terms of the proportion of people between ages 25 and 34 who have a college degree.

The Nevada System of Higher Education, the organization that oversees state-supported universities and colleges, has proposed a unique solution to this problem. The organization has called upon political leaders to reform the state’s higher education system by refocusing funding metrics. The proposal calls for rewarding schools based upon how many credits students complete, compared to the current system, which funds colleges based on how many students they enroll. This plan would also include financial incentives, which would encourage higher education institutions to concentrate on specific fields like natural resources, engineering, biological and biomedical sciences, architecture and nursing.

Ohio Governor John Kasich has proposed a similar approach, asking officials at two- and four-year institutions to work together to identify a better system for divvying up higher education funding. Like leaders in Nevada, Kasich emphasized that any new system for determining funding levels should put a premium on graduating students, instead of enrolling them.

Stimulus Funding Impact on Higher Education Budgeting
Combined Budget for All States in 2010: $138.5 Billion
Total Amount of Stimulus Funds Spent in 2010: $4.5 Billion
Combined Budget for All States in 2011: $143.8 Billion
Total Amount of Stimulus Funds Spent in 2011: $2.8 Billion
Source: State Higher Education Executive Officers

Amount of Funding from State and Local Governments Per Year
1986: $31.4 Billion
1996: $47.8 Billion
2006: $77.0 Billion
2008: $88.8 Billion
Source: State Higher Education Executive Officers

The post States Search for Higher Education Funding Solutions appeared first on 91��Ƶ.

Trends in Campus Architecture and Planning

On Nov. 16-18, 2011, Trespa hosted the Cutting-Edge Campuses program at its Design Centre in lower Manhattan, bringing together leading architects responsible for shaping the landscape of colleges and universities across the United States to explore ideas regarding 21st century planning, design and programming.

Trespa’s presentation on “Facade Applications for University Projects,” showcased materials and applications of rain-screen cladding systems at universities.

The keynote Presentation was entitled “Inside The Box: Capitalizing Upon Creativity,” by Lori Pavese Mazor, RA, LEED AP, associate vice president for global facilities, planning and policy, New York University.

Architects welcomed a three-hour roundtable on Nov. 17 as an opportunity to share ideas. Comments questioned the line between construction management and architectural services; architect led design-build; design-build turnkey; AIA documents; the use of Revit, BIM and AutoCAD; tracking energy use on a widescale; independently metered buildings; façade specialties; bridging documents; the pace of state-funded projects, student-funded projects and bank-funded projects; and the importance of owner-provided documents.

Here are words from each of the 11 panelists, the architects to watch.

• Daniel Beyer, AIA, LEED AP
Senior Associate, Continuum Architects + Planners, Milwaukee, Wisc.

“We have seen the higher education market in somewhat of a transition period over the last few years. The top factors that college administrators and planners are looking for when they embark on a building project are sustainability; recruitment; smart, quality and community buildings.

“We see campuses not inquiring about sustainable buildings, but instead requiring sustainable buildings. Buildings on today’s campus must be designed to use less energy, to use less water, and to use sustainable materials. LEED certification is not a must, but following the LEED guidelines and goals is often a pre-requisite to a college campus building.

“Colleges are placing a high value on constructing buildings that will aesthetically enhance their campuses and contribute to the student atmosphere. Administrators are aware that new buildings and environments are not only beneficial to recruiting students, but also integral in improving the quality of the college’s applicants.

“Colleges are looking for smart building buildings that can integrate seamlessly into their existing information technology systems, as well as be state-of-the-art technological hubs that facilitate Wi-Fi and cloud computing.

“Simply put, buildings have to be easy to operate, easy to clean, use appropriate materials for their occupants, and be durable long-lasting edifices.”

• Douglas Dahlkemper
Architect and Principal, SmithGroup, Washington D.C.

Dahlkemper received an undergraduate degree in landscape architecture and fine art from Penn State University and completed a Masters Degree in architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture. His interest in design and architecture is based on a holistic understanding of the environment as a continuum. Dahlkemper has over 20 years of work experience in architecture and has worked on a variety of project types including museums, cultural and performance centers, instructional laboratories, academic buildings, master planning and urban design efforts. He is currently working on higher education projects including law schools, general academic buildings and student centers.

Describing the role of university leadership, in the design process, Dahlkemper noted that they have definitive preferences in terms of style, what message the completed facility should project, materials and more, making it difficult to generalize marketwise.

“We all have expertise in different avenues and one of the benefits of today was hearing from people who are really intimate with the process. One unique aspect of higher education is the alumni. It is very unique as a project type.”

• Fauzia Sadiq Garcia, AIA, LEED AP
Voith & Mactavish, Philadelphia, Pa.

“Repurposing existing space based on an institution’s priorities and sustainability are current trends in the design and planning of higher educational facilities. Increasingly, clients are asking for design ideas prior to the award of the project and any interaction with the stakeholders. As designers, we should take into account what is not anticipated by talking with school officials, faculty, staff, and students to create more efficient, multi-use and flexible spaces to accommodate the client’s needs.

“At VMA, we have designed new buildings and have also worked with many higher education clients to re-evaluate their existing and underused spaces to create better organization and utilization for the growing needs of the institution. We employed the latter model when conducting renovations at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Programmatic priorities were established after completing a space-use study and interviewing the school community about which spaces were valuable, which needed to be flexible and what goals they wanted to accomplish. Collegiality was promoted by creating impromptu collaboration spaces, often in underutilized areas of the building, including corridors. We turned spaces that were older and almost never used to create more active seminar spaces, and IT offices. Spaces that were once dark and avoided are now destinations for studying and collaboration amongst students and faculty.”

• Marc Gee
Principal, Peter Gluck and Partners Architects, New York, N.Y.

“We start with an owner, an individual or organization that has need for a new facility. After identifying his project, he needs a designer and ultimately a builder, to handle its construction. At this critical point the schism begins. The owner has a separate relationship, both legal and physical with the contractor. In essence, a wall grows between the two entities, each charged with fulfilling his needs. As it turns out, that wall overtime has grown impenetrable, it has become legal, cultural and, certainly, adversarial. There is need for communication, sharing of information and strategic decision making across that wall, but the only means whereby the process can occur has devolved into a cumbersome, legalistic dance the purpose of which being to reduce each parties’ liability for error. Where is the owner in this dance macabre? When the inevitable conflict occurs, he becomes the arbiter, the judge in an arena where he has little experience or knowledge. His position is compromised, and made impossible by the legal and professional structures that have resulted from this separation of function. The obvious solution to this dilemma is to merge the interests, knowledge and talents for design and construction into one entity. In this paradigm, the owner has one single source of communication and one single source of responsibility for his project. We feel that this integrated process allows for the communication, knowledge sharing and cultural integration necessary to produce great buildings efficiently and cost effectively. Secondly, as architects we feel that those charged with the design and ultimate operation of the owner’s project are best able to lead the design build entity, for it is the design of the project that ultimately leads to its success; functionally, practically, artistically and ultimately responsibly to its community.”

• Kevin S. Herrick, AIA
Principal, S/L/A/M Collaborative, Glastonbury, Conn.

In addition to principal, Herrick is a market leader in the Higher Education Studio. With more than 23 years of international experience in the industry, he brings a distinctive set of skills to projects and a personal commitment to clients and project teams. In addition to award-winning design expertise, he possesses a broad range of project management experience. His most recent projects include a 235,000-SF biomedical research facility for Nationwide Children’s Hospital Research Institute, a new 450,000-SF facility for the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, and a master plan for a new 25,000-student science and engineering research campus for Shandong University in Quingdao, China.

“Client budgets can be overcome through the presentation of innovative design — making traditional design firms more competitive against design-build firms through the creation of high-performing prestige projects.”

Herrick’s experience says there are strategies firms can employ to convince college and university clients that they do not have to settle for pre-fabricated metal buildings, but can, and should, aim higher.

• Daniel R. Kenney, AICP, AIA
Principal and Planner, Sasaki Associates, Watertown, Mass.

“As a planner and designer specializing in the campus realm, I recognize the issues my clients face are not necessarily new. What is changing in these tough economic times is the way we approach these issues. Funding for both public and private institutions is unpredictable and most colleges and universities are experiencing a lack of funding. Some experience surges of unanticipated funding for donor driven projects, which sometimes limits the institution’s ability to proceed with strategic priority projects. Combined with this unpredictability is the student and faculty demand for the best of the best. This disparity in capital project drivers is a challenge and an opportunity. Problem-solving is at the heart of design and these limitations provide an opportunity to foster creativity and innovation. Designers need to reexamine their process, allowing for new thinking and ideas that result in reinvention. Because academic goals have physical implications, strategic planning and space programming are now more important than ever in making decisions about capital allocation and development. Master plans can no longer survive as static documents. They must be fluid strategies that respond and adapt to change.”

• Benjamin C. Kou
Associate and Director of Design, Stantec, Boston, Mass.

“The current trends in the design and planning of higher education facilities revolve around the technological advancements in classrooms and the evolving pedagogy of educators. The intersection between these areas has benefited from a research-based approach to the design of flexible and dynamic ‘learning environments.’ This term can be used to describe specialized classrooms types such as team-based learning classrooms, as well as informal learning spaces that encompass oversized corridors with seating spaces and touchdown stations. These environments integrate student social life and learning, which increases the attractiveness of campuses to future and current students.

“As students need to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy, how they learn is paramount to what they learn. In recent years, educators have begun to emphasize a wider array of instruction methods, including collaborative and project-based learning, smaller group discussions, and distance learning. These changes in the educational process have resulted in a need for classroom designs, which emphasize flexibility and multimedia support. Innovations in this area include mobile furniture systems with integrated power and data, lab spaces that can be combined through folding wall systems, and rooms with video capture whiteboards. Classroom layouts must not only flexibly accommodate both team-based and traditional learning, but they must also allow students and educators access to information through Wi-Fi, laptops and tablets.”

• Raimund McClain AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
Director of Projects, Van H. Gilbert Architect PC, Albuquerque, N.M.

“Our firm is observing that the bar for sustainability in projects is being set continually higher. The owner realizes that the project represents an opportunity to make a long-lasting positive impact. This is happening in large part because owners are seeing the economic advantages of green buildings not only in terms of energy efficiency but also in terms of greater degrees of student satisfaction, longer lasting buildings and reduced maintenance costs. We are seeing that project design processes are most successful when they strategize to integrate project requirements and all stakeholders to develop collaborative goals that are unique to each project. These unique project goals come about as a result of ever greater recognition that learning environments are defined by the relationships and processes which they set into motion, not by the walls, floors and ceilings that may surround them. Similarly, during project delivery, a project may develop a highly specific combination of strategies, which involve a number of diverse stakeholders converging on an issue such as the reduction of water use. The stakeholder group may represent such interconnected areas as: site and roof drainage, rainwater harvesting, water storage, water efficient plumbing fixtures, landscaping and irrigation. The end emphasis is not on the work/contribution of individuals but rather on the successful execution of goals, which create collaborative solutions at a meta-disciplinary level.”

• David O’Shea
Project Architect/Construction Administrator, LS3P Associates, Raleigh, N.C.

O’Shea has been with LS3P for four years where his primary role has been overseeing projects through design phase into construction documents, with special attention to assisting project teams on specialty design detailing and constructability issues, as well as taking these jobs into the field as primary construction administrator. While at LS3P, he has worked on several high profile projects with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, Court of Appeals Renovation project, Wake County High School and, currently, North Carolina State University, Centennial Student Housing.

“What we talk about and hear, and what we will continue to talk about, is having projects with real budgets, getting owners to buy-in to the end product, and getting real estimates so when we are going along our path to deliver the project — we know we can meet it. As architects we would like to see our end product match what our vision was at the beginning.”

O’Shea enjoyed hearing his peers’ experiences with various building methods and noted he feels frustrated that money issues can lead to sacrifices of design aesthetics.

• Tania S. Salgado, AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Design Principal, RNL, Denver

“There are many trends in planning and designing for today’s higher educational facilities. Four hot topics I hear often are technology, classroom design, change management and sustainability.

Allocating money for technology is a challenge for colleges and universities. In attempts to finding new means to teach and connect to our students, we design into new spaces the latest and most innovative technologies. Learning new technology becomes a barrier, so ease of use in adaptable systems that are plug and play, must be interactive and intuitive. Think multi use technology, equipment, and software instead of single-use/purpose.

“Classroom planning is often based on standards rather than on need. We understand that learning spaces must be flexible, yet not so flexible that it cannot be customized. Change management includes identifying student needs and optimal educational spaces to better learning success. Solutions include reallocating space by identifying misused and sub optimized space in addition to designing new classrooms optimally. Success is evaluated and defined based on financial, environmental and social impacts. Change occurs when the university leadership is in support and drives for change.”

• Michael Thrailkill, AIA, CSI, LEED AP BD+C
Associate/Owner, Yost Grube Hall Architecture, Portland, Ore.

Thrailkill is a project manager and specifier with public and private education projects in the United States and abroad. He has been involved in all phases of design and construction and heads the YGH cost control and specifications department. As a team member, he values clear lines of communication and timely response to client demands and project developments. His experience at facilitating and maintaining construction progress has been proven on difficult projects.

He was very interested in the interaction of building systems and mentioned his time working with a sophisticated contractor whose versatility and experience helped the design team explore how a façade system could be optimally balanced with interacting systems for positive lifecycle assessment.

The post Trends in Campus Architecture and Planning appeared first on 91��Ƶ.