.
To: Mr, D. P. Robertson
Secretary, Senate
1M
Paper S-51
From: Dr. J.F. Ellis
Acting Dean cf Education
Subject:
SPACE
September 6, 1967.
I The following motion was passed by the Faculty of Education at
its meeting on Tuesday, September 5, 1967:
"that the Space Committee be enjoined to set up a subcommittee
to deal. with the problem of long range space planning, with
particular direction for a reconsideration of the adequacy
of Phase III planning, and to coordinate with other bodies
who are concerned with similar problems"..
This motion serves to express the genuine concern of the Faculty
of Education for realistic conceptions of long and short range academic oarnig
and building planning in the light of the direct relationship between the
two.
Of particular concern to the faculty were the proposed p'ans for
Phase III. In view of past experience with space problems, a serious
reconsideration of the original plans for Phase,lII was deemed essentaL, c
the extent that an independent study should be initiated in consultation wuh
architects who are familiar with alternative modes of construction, and who
might be able to offer advice on how space could be deveLoped more econ:;mLcaHy
and with a higher degree of flexibility.
TheFacult y
of Education views this matter with extreme urgency
and requests Senate t:o take action on it with emphasis on the interaction f
space and educational requirements. It was noted at the meeting that th
problem of space planning should not be considered a matter exclusiveLy for
the Board of Governors, since the direct relationship between space and
educational. requirements must necessarily preclude consideration of the
two in isolation,
The concern of the Faculty of Education grew out of the following
kinds of thinking:
1.
Enrollment patterns are much better known now than they were
a year and a half ago. The need for the numbers of different kinds
of labs, tutorial rooms, etc., may now be quite different in
the light of new information.
/2.
0
S
tM4
SM
c k• /á'i
1t97
2.
Phase III was not planned with sufficient attention given
alternate uses of space. We now have clear evidence that
a. It is costly to reconvert fixed space for one purpose
another, and
/ b. That it is inefficient to use space designed for one
prpC.C,
for another.
3.
The Faculty of Education is not convinced that there is :iuI'ucv
in the University on the large group, small group style of
course presentation.
4.
The Faculty of Education believes that the architectural rrc:1s tc'
has given a great deal of thought recently to pruced:res tel
creating space which, when compared with conventional prec d:'e..
are more economical and more flexible.
In a word then, the Faculty of Education believes that it woul.d he iac
for Simon Fraser to proceed with the present plans for Phase. III wiL.r
being certain that:
a.
We were getting the best value for our money
b.
That we were building for flexibility, and
C.
We were attending to educational and enrollment data.
Accordingly, I would propose that Senate request the Board of
vern ' i-
to authorize a sum of money (say $2-3,000) to conduct an arc itctued
educationaistudy of Phase III in order to make certain that cxistiiz
Phase III plans -
a.
give us the most space for the money
b.
give us the capability of rapid and inexpensive mdtiicat:in
facilities to changing needs
C.
that they meet the demonstrated and projected needs of
teaching and research program.
J. F. I11i.s
