By Dennis Munroe, Director of Physical Education and Recreation

In the mid 1990’s UO students had a vision of a new recreation facility on campus, replacing “Old Esslinger” (a 58-year old physical education building in desperate need of repair and upgrading) as the University’s student recreation space. In 1995, U of O students passed a ballot measure that paved the way to building the first two phases of the Student Recreation Center (SRC).  Phase I was the expansion and renovation of Old Esslinger to create the Student Recreation Center that we enjoy today. Phase II was the construction of the Student Tennis Center now located behind the SRC.

 We had no doubts that UO students valued recreation and fitness activities, but in our wildest dreams, we could not have predicted just how popular the new facility would be. The Field of Dreams quote “if you build it they will come” certainly has been the UO experience! Students were supportive beyond our expectations in1999 and their support in terms of participation (SRC turnstiles hum to the tune of 3,500 to 4,000 entries each day) remains strong today. At last count, 80% of freshmen, 65% of all undergraduate and 50% of all graduate students utilize SRC facilities, classes and programs as they endeavor to balance physical, mental, and social well-being in their student experience.

We outgrew the new SRC almost immediately upon opening in the year 2000. If you come to exercise after 4 p.m. on any given day, you will experience elbow to elbow conditions in the fitness rooms, long waits to work into a pick up basketball game and if you desire a locker in the locker room, you’d better wait in the long lines the first day each term because they are quickly rented out and many are turned away.

In 2003, students on the Student Building Fee Allocation Fee Committee prioritized funding for a concept study to be completed that led to the report and links that follow this introduction. That Conceptual Design was conducted by Yost Grube Hall Architecture from Portland, Oregon and involved considerable hours of work with student focus groups and committees in identifying needs and priorities.

During planning for Phase I, needed swimming pool space, racquetball courts, and other major components of the original building plan were removed to make that project fit a diminished construction budget. We have a wonderful facility today…but it is an unfinished facility…and this Conceptual Design gives us a master plan we can get our arms around, with floor plans and artist renderings, that we know meet student needs and desires.

Although we now have a Conceptual Design, no funding exists to actually build the master plan. Inflation alone increases the cost by over a million dollars each year we delay. Of course, we will be most grateful for any gifts that may come from dedicated donors; however, the remainder (and perhaps most) of the cost will need to come from students getting behind the project to successfully pass a referendum. A successful referendum vote, if approved by UO and OUS, would create a special student fee to retire the bond debt and fund operational costs. Funding is all that stands in the way of making this exciting conceptual design a reality.

 A nationwide research project conducted recently on university campuses revealed that students who participate in recreation and fitness activities are more likely to succeed at their college work and be more satisfied with their overall college experience. We look forward to the day when we can complete these much needed facilities for students of the University of Oregon.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1994 a programming needs assessment created by the Sports Management Group recommended adding almost 14,000 SF of new aquatic space. Further analysis in 2001 revealed the need for 19,000 SF of aquatic space, 4,100 SF of locker space and 4,800 SF of racquetball court space. 2001 recommendations for renovations to existing spaces included multipurpose spaces, an auxiliary weight training room and upgrades to Leighton Pool. The Student Recreation Center expansion phases One and Two created a facility for the expressed use of recreational fitness and physical education. The Phase One and Two projects, including 79,000 SF of renovation and 49,000 SF of additional recreational space and six covered tennis courts, were completed in 2000. Planning for Phase One and Two projects anticipated future expansion of the Student Indoor Tennis Center and the addition of a natatorium complex.

The Student Recreation Center Phase Three Team identified an inclusive process for this study that included representatives of the following groups:

• PE & REC - Physical Education and Recreation
• U of O Planning Office
• EMU Club Sports
• Student Advisory Board

Two committees were established to participate in the development of the project. The SRC Phase Three Planning Team is made up of PE & REC (Physical Education and Recreation), the U of O Planning Office and the Student Advisory Board. The Student Advisory Board is made up of U of O students. The consultant team met monthly with the SRC Phase Three Team and held two workshops with the Student advisory committee.

The SRC Phase Three Team developed the following project and process goals:

1. Learn from the recent program work and incorporate relevant analysis in Phase Three planning.

2. Use the committee of experienced staff to evaluate to define optimum program and prioritize space needs:
• Evaluate the needs of the various user groups; PE & REC, Club Sports, etc.
• Make aquatics the central priority of Phase Three.
• Prioritize aquatic program options like lap swimming, spa, recreation pool, water polo, wet classroom.
• Evaluate design options like the use of daylighting strategies, views in and out and outdoor areas.

3. Project future long-term needs and plan for them where possible.

4. Create a unified facility:
• Upgrade the existing “back” portion of the facility and integrate with the Phase Three additions.
• Evaluate a second public entry and service access.
• Make wayfinding and accessibility better throughout the facility.
• Evaluate a controlled access point to the tennis center.

5. Incorporate spaces for formal and informal gathering and social interaction.

6. Create a flexible, low-maintenance, economical facility using sustainable strategies.

7. Improve existing HVAC in some areas.

The design of the SRC Phases One and Two were guided by the Long Range Campus Development Plan and the Campus Design Patterns. The SRC Phase Three Team refined previous SRC Project Patterns and also created additional project patterns:
• More than just going to classes.
• Creating an environment that supports social interaction.
• Physical activity: a critical component of holistic health.
• Maximize income opportunities.
• Circulation, sight lines, and adjacency
• Fresh air.
• Rooms that fit and that are flexible.
• Activity storage.
• Maximize outdoor playing field use.
• Organizational meeting space.
• Leave the good part alone.
• Energy saved is good for the environment.
• Access to all.
• Comprehensive yet complementary activities.
• Easily supervised.
• Technology integration
• Easily maintained and durable.
• Maximize value.
• A good fit with the campus architecture.
• A unified facility.

The U of O Long Range Campus Development Plan (LRCDP) requires every project to consider the following patterns:
• Site repair.
• Main gateways.
• University street.
• South facing outdoors.
• Accessible green.
• Promenade.
• Quiet backs.
• Positive outdoor space.
• Four story limit.
• Connected buildings.
• Building complex.
• Family of entrances.
• Activity nodes.
• Small public squares.
• Operable windows.

The Building Design Concept presented in this report resulted from the development of three options for SRC Expansion leading to definition of the final expansion concept. The design process included review of program priorities and phasing options leading to definItion of three phases of expansion for the existing SRC with separate project scopes for the Tennis facility expansion and Gerliger renovation.

Using the 1997 Concept and Schematic Design Report as a starting point, the consultant team combined the program requirements developed by the SRC staff with information gathered in the meetings and workshops to establish firm program and space requirements. The program was divided into prioritized program elements which comprise five potential phases of construction totalling approximately 143,000 S.F. of new and renovated area.

1.7 Cost Analysis

The project team reviewed existing building conditions and generated a quanity based cost estimate divided into five phases of proposed work. The estimate is not included in this report because its detail could be misleading since it is based on many assumptions regarding existing building conditions and phased construction logistics necessary to accomodate the ongoing operation of the SRC. The project direct construction costs were divided into five phases of work including contingencies which total 21,000,000 in 2004 dollars.

1.8 Schedule and Phasing Considerations

To accommodate incrumental funding, the program priorities were divided into three potential construction phases for the existing SRC / Gerlinger Expansion with the Tennis Expansion and Gerlinger Pool conversion defined as potential phase four and five projects. The total time required to design and construct the projects will depend on the final funding and number of actual phases of work. An estimated 24 months are required for new construction, with phasing options adding 7 more months to fi nish renovations of existing buildings (from “Capital Construction Budget, Project Narrative”, U of O).