facilities preferences survey results - committees.kccd.edu · because it replaces the face...

Bakersfield College Facilities Master Plan Survey Results

Frequency PercentOption 1 18 37%

Option 2 31 63%

Total 49 100%


Option 2 30 68%

Total 44 100%


Option 2 33 79%

Total 42 100%


Option 2 31 74%

Total 42 100%


Option 2 28 68%

Total 41 100%


Option 2 29 71%

Total 41 100%


Option 2 32 78%

Total 41 100%


Option 2 27 69%

Total 39 100%


Option 2 29 74%

Total 39 100%

Facilities Preferences Survey Results

Degree of Disruption: Which option provides the campus with the best

separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrians and is less disruptive

for ease of implementation of future construction?

Aesthetics: Which option provides a good balance between buildings

and green space?

Community Development: Which option is more inviting to the

community and fosters connectivity and environmental excitement?

Flexibility of Campus Usage: Which option portrays the ability to

accommodate different programs and/or activities?

Growth/Expansion: Which option provides more of an ability to

expand to meet future growth and development over time?

Functionality: Which option places buildings in a systematic way to be

more beneficial to improve campus interaction?

Supports Mission: Which option provides the optimal physical setting

to support the mission of the college?

Safety: Which option creates a safer and well planned environment?

Accessibility: Which option provides better physical access to

buildings for students, faculty and staff?

Institutional Research and Planning Source: Facilities Preferences Survey (Downloaded May 10, 2012)

1

Functionality: Why did you choose Option 1?

because most buildings need improvements or replacing

Hard to say. I think it has student services more centrally located which I prefer.

I honestly did not care for either option, especially the ranking of the proposed projects. I think we should keep the campus the same rather than redesign it because it is likely we will not be able to afford redesigning the entire campus. Frankly, this redesign should be one that takes into consideration that the public voted years ago to replace the Humanities Building with bond $$$--and that has never happened. Before any option is chosen, we need to review all the promises we have not kept with the taxpayers.I like the traditional layout of the campus as it is.It makes no sense to fix what ain't broke. I do like the fact that they are considering elevation issues. As a senior citizen trying to live up to the lifelong learning philosophy I espoused, I would really appreciate better access/parking near the Levan Center.It seems more reasonable to modify what we have than dream of a totally new design. The latter just isn't practical.It seems more sustainable.keeps the "bones" of the campus and helps to update areas

less disruption to instruction while still maintaining open spaces.Less overall impact on all parties, student services is centrally located.

Renovations needed on buildingsTo retain a sense of history related to most building locations

Why move everything about? The campus isn't broken.

IT WORKS.

Location of student servicesLooks, feels better...

2

Functionality: Why did you choose Option 2?

1. Functionality 2. Access 3. increased parking spaces1. Was told it would really be cheaper in the long run. 2. Better locates the Ag Department as part of the little farm (one location).

Because it replaces the FACE building sooner as far as I can tell. FACE is NOT in the same condition as the Library as indicated in the diagrams- not even close! Our ladies room has no ventilation whatsoever, the plumbing backs up frequently, the air quality is bad in the building, and the floors are still asbestos. The windows are so leaky the pesticide permeates our office when Banks comes on Friday. This building should be farther up on the renovation list if it remains.Better flow

Better layout and walkways; replacement is preferable since renovation costs nearly as much and the current buildings are so unattractive, have no windows, and have much wasted space.Better layout for student access to key areas, less traffic for pedestrian safety, better flow of pedestrian traffic through campuschanging layout is positiveFunctionality for studentsI currently work in student services and i do not think the building is salvageable. But more importantly having all student services in one building is more beneficial to student success. We also need to create a more inviting first place for students to come to.I like the "Long Mall" from Panorama to FB stadium.I like the aesthetics, and by the time renovations are to take place in option 1, the buildings are likely to have a higher FCI rating and would be replaced rather than renovated, so might as well go with the big plan!I like the consolidation of functionality in this plan

I prefer the openness of the plan. It makes the campus appear more connected.I'm actually not sure I do prefer one over the other, but this one seemed to have the buildings organized in a way that makes a little more sense as far as students moving from class to class.Improved movement through campus. Addresses aging buildings. Multiple story facilities with proper elevators would be an improvement. Even with Allied Health building (1995), the attachment to the math/science building the elevator location/access restricts people movement and certainly restricts size of equipment movement.IT WORKS.Layout of buildings, which addresses the traffic problems, maintains green areas and the variation in levels.Location of student servicesLooks, feels better...Many of the buildings are not functional and have multiple problems; remodeling them properly would probably be as expensive as building new, and not remodeling them properly is stupid.More attractive effect. However concerned that I don't know where the Allied Health Wing is being located.Option 2 allows the campus to truly modernize. The buildings that I work in were built for a department that was very different from the current department. New facilities will allow the campus to build for the needs of tomorrow, not simply allow us to "make do" with the buildings of the past.

3

Poor existing layout that makes pedestrians go around or through buildings to walk across campus. Pedestrian traffic is not comfortable and enjoyable. Lack of building architecture and details that would give a cachet and character to the campus. The entire landscape needs to be retrofitted to a sustainable one anyway and start to save money on grounds maintenance this way. It will probably be more expensive to renovate buildings to accommodate today's needs in such a competitive environment than building an entire new building.seems to make most financial senseThe buildings we work in now (SE) don't have what's needed for the growth expected and the room changes we require to accommodate our work. Renovating the interiors simply won't cut it. The buildings layouts are too constrained, and the spacing is limited and terribly inadequate.The placement of the buildings seems more logical. I like the idea math and the sciences being housed in the same building.The rearrangement seems to make a better atmosphere for student and staff interactions.

4

Safety: Why did you choose Option 1?

Again hard to say. I like the central location of student services.Campus already well laid out.

Construction creates hazards and chaos.

I believe that it is the more reasonable of the two options presented.Neutral opinion on this oneseemed to have less vehicular accessSeems more sustainable.The campus is "safe" now. Put up more blue call stations if necessary.

option 2may help safety of students & visiters

Physical access seems more openSame reason as previously stated.Seemed to have more pedestrian pathways

tRUCKS AND CARS ON CAMPUS

5

Safety: Why did you choose Option 2?

As before, a better layout which addresses our (modern) needs also includes safety considerations. Some of the current labs are (frankly) terribly unsafe for the experiments we perform, and there is no way to rearrange things to make them better while still allowing us to modernize what we do in labs *and* maintain the number of students we want to accommodate in a section.Better layout.Both keeps the traffic out of the center of campus but I think the second option is better.Campus vehicles are mixed with pedestrians. Separate routes must be created. Many areas lack proper long distance visibility. The campus needs large open, yet shaded by tall trees, alleys and boulevards.I like the restriction of driving to outside the campus area.It is just the way that it appears to meKeeps the playground for the kids away from a busy street.Less on campus vehicle traffic.Less traffic through the center of campus, I think.Minimizing the difficulty of walking uphill to parts of the campus and the number of vehicles on campus seems preferable.more open spaceMoves the Child Care Center away from the bus stop.No special reasonOpen viewOption 2 allows for a more open and greener environment. I believe this will facilitate a stronger learning environment.option 2may help safety of students & visitersPeople movement and consolidation of buildings into multiple floors still permits the campus open space. Relocating Student Services to the transit access area is good. Consolidating culinary arts is good idea. M&O location is much safer. Restricts vehicles on campus.Physical access seems more openSame reason as previously stated.Seemed to have more pedestrian pathwaysSeparates pedestrians from vehicles more effectively. Easier access from bus to SS buildingThe pathways for getting to buildings is more straight forward and safe. The Mt. Vernon turn-about access should be shortened. The only complaints I heard about that came from those who don't want to lose a close parking space. Their convenience shouldn't trump pedestrian safety. Keeping the long turn inconveniently forces pedestrians to walk around the turn about or to cross the on-campus street. Why force one of two poor options when we can get rid of half that road and increase safety and improve the look of the campus at the same time?They actually seem pretty equal here, but I picked 2 because of the flow for students as they go from class to class.tRUCKS AND CARS ON CAMPUSWe have been "making do" and letting the campus infrastructure, including security needs, take a back seat to expediency.

6

Accessibility: Why did you choose Option 1?

Acceptable accessibility

campus already has accessibility. Less disruption to existing structure and therefore will more likely be done.See question 1.Total resesign would take decades, and thus would disrupt access for years and years. We need to continue to use our facilities during construction.

We have worked hard to create accessibility to many of the buildings on campus.

this will helpstudentsto move around camusat shorter distance between classes

7

Accessibility: Why did you choose Option 2?

Better gradeBoth options improve the current set up, but the second one really promotes the corridors to the central part of campus, drawing people to the hub of activity, creating an environment that is positive.Campus is not designed well.

I actually think both options address this

I like the location of buildings better but in both accessibility is addressed.I wrote about this on previous questionI'm not sure there is a *lot* of difference between the two in this regard.Just appears to be more accessible...

More new buildings will ensure better flow, up-to-date code compliance, puts Student Services and Administration close to bus access. Classes for career education are closer to the Campus Center. Culinary Arts program will be upgraded to better plumbing system and also closer to Campus Center.More peripheral parking areas so students can park closer to most used buildings.More well-plannedPoor accessibility with current layout, especially for disabled.See my previous responses.See previous response.seemed to have more pedestrian pathwaysThe elevation change is something that I never thought of. It must be difficult for physically challenged students to climb to the top of the campus. The new plan is fairer to these folks.There is not much of a difference between both options. Disappointing. Yet the second option is more open and reflects better the scale of the space.

this will helpstudentsto move around camusat shorter distance between classesWith the exception of Ag, this looks like a workable design; admin and student services close to an entrance and each other, and then the classes are a bit separate from them but are closer to each other.

8

Growth/Expansion: Why did you choose Option 1?

Because "future growth" will depend on future budgets.It seems to work

Seems more likely to happen and current campus already has room to grow. No need for a whole bunch of new buildings. I'm sorry to see that the area between student services and science engineering building will be lost to another building, even if it is another science building. Can't we extensively remodel/rebuild the Science Engineering building to handle the growth?

There is lots of space/room on current campus.Unlike when the District office was able to move to rented facilities during rennovations, the Panorama campus must continue to squeeze function into existing forms.

We need a complete change

9

Growth/Expansion: Why did you choose Option 2?

Better locations and allows to build 'up' to address growth.better utilization of space

creates a swing space (old S&E) to smooth transitions

Having new buildinds (with multi-floors) can provide ample growing space without encroaching too much on the open lawn space. It allows for a nice balance between building and open space. Both options get rid of the University side total parking lot/asphalt sea. I thing getting the soccer fields in the corner of Haley and University is inspired, and moving that portion of parking to mid-Haley is inspired. Maybe the regular access of Haley can be used?

I beleive this is the better optionIf you really think the state will allow growth/expansion, then build at the southwest corner and put in a multifloor parking structure. I thought our enrollment was capped?Looks like there is more space left for future building pads.More bulding pads, and a couple are in areas that have room to spread out.

Moves to more two and three story buildings to make better use of limited space.No special reason...

See my comments about using old outdated buildings - plan 2 will allow growth!See my previous responses.The campus needs two main pathways that intersect. The second option will allow this eventually.this may help the growth or student population to move around quickerWe can plan for buildings which can address the needs we (will) have and the space/infrastructure required. The setup would be far more integrated and workable than trying to force fit things into an existing layout with others buildings added to expand on the current limitations.We need a complete change

When Allied Health was built, it was designed as the "same" replacement as was located across mt. vernon. The Allied Helath classrooms and labs and the x-ray lab are too small for student population. A complete new building is necessary.

10

Supports Mission: Why did you choose Option 1?

After 100 years of BC campus it would be better to keep old traditions & spend less tax payers monies.campus is already pretty well laid out.I don't believe we will ever see the money for grandiose plans. We've been through numerous plans, yet nothing changes at BC. We just have to keep working with what we have.

It already supports the college's mission.It seems cheaper with less disruption for the students and faculty.Neutral opinion

Same answers as previously

11

Supports Mission: Why did you choose Option 2?

Better support of student success (one stop shop for student services in particular)both options meet the mission

Both options meet the needs.

I really don't know on this one--I think they are pretty equal in this area, actually.I think both plans are adequate for mission.I think that the campus will be enhanced greatly with option 2.It will look nicer and actually give the rest of the community the impression that we are trying to move into the 21st century with our heads in the clouds instead the ground...Long mallMany of our building seem beyond repair, and the architectural style of the campus is less than inspired. Because the campus has chosen to build new structures consistent with the original prison block style, BC certainly isn't a beautiful old campus, like Pasadena City or Santa Rosa.More accessibility for all students, staff, and faculty.More beautiful and functional. More modern.More open entries and campus: better to invite the community in. New buildings should be built with LEED certification in mind. Resolves pedestrian traffic and service vehicle traffic issue.Much of the current campus seems like "wasted space.'NA

One of our goals has been to improve our image and show Renegade pride. New buildings and landscaping will appeal to all who work here, students will want to spend time here, and the community will see us as a place to hold events and be proud of how their tax dollars are spent. Obviously education is our number one mission- doing it in decent, safe, and appealing surroundings benefits all of us.Same answers as previouslyThe location of buildings and the combination of disciplines or types of functions is better. Can design for the future rather than trying to redesign an existing space.

12

Community Development: Why did you choose Option 1?

Again, maintaining a sense of history is important. This was evident at the recent Retiree Reception hearing comments made by some 'old timers' about campus history.Bakersfield is a conservative community and taxpayers would prefer an option that does not redesign the entire campus as they know it.Community Development is not BCs mission.From viewing the presentation slides, it is hard for me to tell any difference.Rather than tearing down buildings and shifting to new locations, minimize environment disruption and use current layout. Also, much more likely that we'll just tweak current layout because of funding limits.

The community resents capital expenditures at public facilities.

See previous response.See prior answer.

The green belt and student movement around campus is good.

13

Community Development: Why did you choose Option 2?

Better look and feel to campusBoth options are improvements in these areas, but if forced to choose, I go with option 2.Community? Is BC part of the community?I find the repetition of the circle motif in this option interesting and attractive.

I think both plans are adequate for connectivity and excitement.I think that the placement of the student services building is key in plan two. Also the forum and gathering places are more conducive to bring people on to campus.Improve buildings access & earthquake improvement. This may help to improve student growth or population as technallogy improves.It's hard to envision any of this happening with the budget austerity that California faces and is imposing on education, but having a beautiful campus that is convenient and welcoming for community events would foster better relations with the community. How long had the Indoor Theater been a dangerous embarrassment befiore its closure this year--a long time. We also need more space for students to congregate out of the weather--a student union-type structure.Long mallMaintains just enough of the old (traditional) with the appearance of a new look to the campus.More appealingmore beautifulMuch more attractive.Newer and MODERN campus to boost our community.Placement of buildings is more convenient to students and the community at large.See previous response.See prior answer.

The current entrances are not very friendly, in fact, some are actually quite ugly. Option 2 allows for planning of welcoming entrances for the community.The green belt and student movement around campus is good.

14

Flexibility of Campus Usage: Why did you choose Option 1?

Since new and replacement buildings would take too many resources from day-to-day activities, the less robust plan appears to be more flexible.We need to reconsider how we use our buildings no matter which option, but I prefer the first design.

Works well with tweaksYou can be flexible without creating new problems.

15

Flexibility of Campus Usage: Why did you choose Option 2?

Because we can plan for it, as I've said before...

Both options make better use of parking for events (arts/drama or sporting).

Each year the student population grows &the campus will gave quicker access from buildings so students can move around campus at a shorter time.easier access More grounds designed for a purrposeI think both are pretty good for this, actually.Location of servicesMore room left over for expansion by concentrating on multi-story buildings in the center of campus.More thoughtful use of space is present in Option 2.new buildings would be designed with flexibility in mindNo special reason...One hope that when these buildings are designed, we won't make the errors of the past. Chris Addington's design of the library ignored so many issues, so, although the library is new, it's fraught with problems in function. The Language Arts Building--build in the late 60s--is "younger" than many buildings on campus but is a mess. The addition to the old library--which used to be a lovely addition to the library--was converted to the Learning Center--which has never been effective classroom space. Hire experts. When the library was designed, we could have hired an architect who specializes in libraries; had we done so, we would have a better, more functional library without a tinker toy structure and useless Corian kiosks.previously statedReasons stated in previous answers.Where will the Renegade Room Customers Park ???

16

Degree of Disruption: Why did you choose Option 1?

Construction causes major disruption and compromises access. Fix the access barriers we currently have first (curb cuts, tree trimming, signage) to prove that the district can handle more ambitious construction.Disruption is unavoidable with either Option, the planning and attitude of those present will determine just how much disruption, real or perceived

I'm no expert on this, but this design looks like the easiest because it keeps much the same. Then again, both will likely be somewhat disruptive.

It is least disruptive.No reason. You'll do what you want regardless of my opinion.

They will both be disruptive during the construction phases

17

Degree of Disruption: Why did you choose Option 2?

Both options are improvements, but option 2 seems best.Both would be disruptive. We need to get vehicles off campus--which means changing campus culture as well as moving facilities.

I really think the relocation of the parking lots makes a great deal of sense. I also like the fact that trucks will not drive into the pedestrian areas in this option.Make sure we use a delivery truck road that comes off of Haley for deliveries beyond that parking lot.More peripheral parking = less distance to classes.Presently it takes students longer to walk around campus & parking is sometimes too far from main campus .Short term inconvenience... long term improvement.swing spaceThey appear to be about the same, but I still like option 2.We remove and/or move buildings to solve all the existing problems. It is therefore logical to opt for option 2 for this category. Option 2 is suggested to solve those existing problems that the current layout impose on us.

18

Aesthetics: Why did you choose Option 1?

Campus greenery is also important for students activities & events.Current layout already pretty well laid out with green areas.Neutral opinion, both look goodProbably more green space with present campus, but as we grow this will change anyway.

The campus is quite lovely now. I've seen much worse.We can add aesthetic touches now, without waiting decades for new buildings. Plant some trees. Place some benches along covered walkways. Pick up trash. Clean the cobwebs. Do the little things now.We have a pretty campus in terms of green space, but we need more staff to maintain it.

19

Aesthetics: Why did you choose Option 2?

Actually both do; I think the change at Haley and University is good.Better green space!!!Better look to the campus...

both are quite niceBoth do a good job of keeping and maximinzing open space but 2 is better because of the overall plan.

Both options are good, but 2 seems better.

Like locationsLike the lookLong mallLooks betterMore green space, higher buildings seems more sustainable.More open wide boulevards. Hopefully, they will let go of their grass....Northern side appears more spread out, and open areas more prominent. Are there many more of these questions???There seems to be lots of brown/weed space now.They seem equal--I just like this design better.

20

Please provide any other general comments you have about the future planning of Bakersfield

College.

Although many people complain about having more important things pending it is also important to be thinking toward the future even though neither of these plans is likely to be the option chosen in 2025 and beyondAlthough there are some elements of one that are appealing, the reality of having to modernize old building that will be even older is not realistic. I would like to maintain the unique design qualities of the existing campus and ensure that we don't have one or two that are too futuristic .Answers above may not be too valuable - don't know enough details about what goes in which buildings. Where is the Levan Center? Is there a one stop shop? What are classrooms like? Size? Don't like building number two in either one. Don't take the greenspace!!!!!!!!!!Both designs are quite exciting--thanks for sharing!Hire architects who specialize in designing colleges.I appreciate all the thought and hard work that was put into this vision of BC's future. It is exciting to think how our campus might be transformed.I don't believe we will ever see the money to complete a revised campus vision. We're being told to cut 60 of our 67 majors and almost all basic skills classes. There won't be any need for fancy buildings if we get rid of the majority of our students and faculty.I hope that we can keep the green area space between Science-Engineering + Student Services without having to build another building in that area. If we must build a new building, then totally re-build on the current Science-Engineering site since it already has an FCI greater than 64%.I just hope that this time the plan moves forward to acuality; there have been far too many starts and stops regarding BC and not only is it time to do it; we need to insure that no more money is wasted on useless plans that are never put into effect.

Keep the needs of students your first priority. Be sure AV and AC and bathrooms are in good working order. That's enough to worry about now. Don't be looking for ways to spend what you don't have.Make sure that math has plenty of large classrooms, and also make sure that there is sufficient office space available for math and english faculty.New buildings should be LEED certified if we want to be at the top of novelty and be a representation of our teaching and knowledge. It is time the entire landscape were retrofitted to our environment requirements and money could be saved. Is sustainable landscape also included in the plan or will the KCCD continue to waste money in grounds maintenance?No matter which plan is chosen, taxpayers who have voted for renovations that have never occurred must be considered if we hope to maintain credibility in our community. Less is more.Option 2 is a nice design, and provides something positive to look forward to. I also look forward to a more sustainable landscape, one that doesn't require as much water.Please determine location of Allied Health in option 2

This entire project assumes that all existing programs will continue to be located on the Panorama Campus. Is this the best location for Allied Health, Ag, and other programs that would be better suited for other locations in the city and/or property already owned by the District? How will transportation costs, parking, and growth of Bakersfield influence student accessibility in the future?This whole exersize is rediculous. Why is ANY money being spent on this while students are being charged excessive tuiton fees, having to choose from fewer class offerings and faculty are fighting to keep their jobs. Every dollar spent on this complete waste of time should have been spent to serve our CURRENT students' needs!Where will the Renegade Room Customers park?Why does it have to come after when I would leave? :((

21

facilities preferences survey results - committees.kccd.edu · because it replaces the face...

Documents