...
- that coming generations of planners are content with cloning the current generation of spaces for science, giving no attention to the changing context
that in 2030 people will be bemoaning the current generation of spaces in the same way we are now bemoaning those from the Sputnik era. - We don't want to be stuck with a static model of the 21st century science facility.
...
- no need for inventory on individual campuses
- promotes 24 hour life cycle of a space in being a "serial reusable lab," with project based activity space elsewhere
- the '"virtual' " requirements are electronic or paper
- activity is/can be small scale, components (e.g., small robotics)
- students have the ability to build something complex, such as a material or a chemical process
- need a separate, "hands-on" personal space for recreation, such as a greenhouse for growing orchids.
...
- flexible spaces that can change many times during the life-time of the facility
- building components that will remain stable during the useful life of the facility
Further questions: who Who owns or controls the facility? Who owns or controls the program spaces?
...