<%BANNER%>

Action Research as a Planning and Designing Approach

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021486/00001

Material Information

Title: Action Research as a Planning and Designing Approach Post-Occupancy Evaluation of the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center at the University of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (190 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lamar, Jennifer C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: action, architecture, design, interior, library, planning, programming, research
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This case study investigated the role of action research methodologies in the planning and designing process of a university facility. The Levin College of Law at the University of Florida began its planning process for its law library (know as a legal information center) in the fall of 1999. The action research partnership with the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Law with the faculty and students of the College of Design, Construction, and Design influenced the process employed with the chosen project architects, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates and Ponikvar & Associates. The planning process involved many, sometimes competing objectives and many constituency groups. The intent was that the Legal Information Center (LIC) serve as a center or ?heart? of the college while representing the ideals and the prestige of the profession. Further goals for the design included the preservation of books, dissemination of information, and the development of study and work areas for patrons and staff alike. To evaluate the action research process for the Legal Information Center, this study used a multi-method process and triangulation with qualitative and quantitative methods. The researcher initially analyzed the programming document created during the action research partnership between the faculty, students, and staff of the College of Law and the faculty and students of the College of Design, Construction, and Planning to determine expressed user needs and preferences for the new building. These items, user needs and preferences, were then cross-checked against the following: (1) the University of Florida's Facilities Construction and Planning Request for Proposals that invited project proposals from architectural firms , (2) the final architectural program created by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, and (3) the completed renovated building. User surveys also were conducted to determine the student and staff?s satisfaction. The study developed an Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework that presented the findings on user satisfaction through Technical, Functional, Ambient, and Psychological dimensions. Third, in-depth interviews were conducted with key participants in the planning and designing of the LIC. Utilizing an action research model, a democratic process in which all involved parties work together to plan for a solution, appeared to facilitate the design and building process. Recommendations for conducting action research in similar projects are presented.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer C Lamar.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hasell, Mary J.
Local: Co-adviser: Portillo, Margaret B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021486:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021486/00001

Material Information

Title: Action Research as a Planning and Designing Approach Post-Occupancy Evaluation of the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center at the University of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (190 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lamar, Jennifer C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: action, architecture, design, interior, library, planning, programming, research
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This case study investigated the role of action research methodologies in the planning and designing process of a university facility. The Levin College of Law at the University of Florida began its planning process for its law library (know as a legal information center) in the fall of 1999. The action research partnership with the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Law with the faculty and students of the College of Design, Construction, and Design influenced the process employed with the chosen project architects, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates and Ponikvar & Associates. The planning process involved many, sometimes competing objectives and many constituency groups. The intent was that the Legal Information Center (LIC) serve as a center or ?heart? of the college while representing the ideals and the prestige of the profession. Further goals for the design included the preservation of books, dissemination of information, and the development of study and work areas for patrons and staff alike. To evaluate the action research process for the Legal Information Center, this study used a multi-method process and triangulation with qualitative and quantitative methods. The researcher initially analyzed the programming document created during the action research partnership between the faculty, students, and staff of the College of Law and the faculty and students of the College of Design, Construction, and Planning to determine expressed user needs and preferences for the new building. These items, user needs and preferences, were then cross-checked against the following: (1) the University of Florida's Facilities Construction and Planning Request for Proposals that invited project proposals from architectural firms , (2) the final architectural program created by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, and (3) the completed renovated building. User surveys also were conducted to determine the student and staff?s satisfaction. The study developed an Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework that presented the findings on user satisfaction through Technical, Functional, Ambient, and Psychological dimensions. Third, in-depth interviews were conducted with key participants in the planning and designing of the LIC. Utilizing an action research model, a democratic process in which all involved parties work together to plan for a solution, appeared to facilitate the design and building process. Recommendations for conducting action research in similar projects are presented.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer C Lamar.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hasell, Mary J.
Local: Co-adviser: Portillo, Margaret B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021486:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAABU INGEST_TIME 2010-11-18T15:57:25Z PACKAGE UFE0021486_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 56399 DFID F20101118_AABFMB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH lamar_j_Page_125.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
fc34756be2d7a2f66b5779d26ea3596e
SHA-1
1eaca6a6dc42a5aa49b56034adc801633068a63b
78770 F20101118_AABFLN lamar_j_Page_097.pro
e3c673830e3a6fc808daeba6fb4e078d
6f48145c36aaba228f59d4a2081f11ae6ffee612
49027 F20101118_AABFKY lamar_j_Page_059.pro
10444f58cc83e21460882f5c09314a21
27f71ad06b46179d68e6b7df35b2bddc8b7ae7aa
14044 F20101118_AABEIL lamar_j_Page_156.QC.jpg
83a5a69cb7c280d8b65817be2050155c
5187433069fc4c3c1034fd76153d525da5cc8660
6650 F20101118_AABEHW lamar_j_Page_111thm.jpg
582adadf43e18595d013713a023d606b
73cb7dc16376fb1d4f0ddbdbe0b60c5f338f7735
59831 F20101118_AABFMC lamar_j_Page_129.pro
fbc0bea09a2150bca69b8e182dea18f3
50d10b242ba6dace3edf1f7e0d3d6eb65ad658bf
66840 F20101118_AABFLO lamar_j_Page_099.pro
36caf7f752e2dc23f313997c42f33ec6
32e0359ed02b3554d929e053c5deb7b7ae837628
4955 F20101118_AABFKZ lamar_j_Page_063.pro
51f5725e7d88e4be81d12c0022d4f1b8
d820900d563cbae845dd3cd3fa0c215468484c36
69222 F20101118_AABEIM lamar_j_Page_088.jpg
4efaf74d5891b8b5eced2c981aaff510
6ba0de9b46e6ae8dfe89a5ffca4205097eaff5d1
2284 F20101118_AABEHX lamar_j_Page_086.txt
e9b7ec6456166795c3bdb8c84fd949d7
f5a8f3e45256147ea2d8e87d2843ab4c5d256186
3216 F20101118_AABEJA lamar_j_Page_106.txt
4976a49bf62215d14a5dcc35a852daa3
17e27519a31f121d40248bded223ce9bd34f8169
53531 F20101118_AABFMD lamar_j_Page_130.pro
e315fa1403a80a9ed3e376a73a2e981e
9016949a660a99f9fa31a35fef4f52fd3fda61e0
75728 F20101118_AABFLP lamar_j_Page_100.pro
4971df92205767ea017b9fe4273650ca
49ec6ff7d13861e925064dc7361b73f5dfab9386
6931 F20101118_AABEIN lamar_j_Page_089thm.jpg
e5c57473db0baa1520697f1f1ceddff3
e67b723233be2891a34fef1cbe3e1008fe7a3e23
67774 F20101118_AABEHY lamar_j_Page_186.jpg
de2830de6e01f619f5f9255a29061fbc
eabe3c7cf4ea2bab48cad018e9869e95698634f8
1053954 F20101118_AABEJB lamar_j_Page_080.tif
9672fc16d0a66f7625d4d436814f49c2
2e8e2eee55d3cedb8089dd1fe7cd499b7784a6be
44079 F20101118_AABFME lamar_j_Page_131.pro
6c59d20e6852526249366bf4807bbd73
1d9b28ebb08f4786a2976f123d2d8eab74231c59
80200 F20101118_AABFLQ lamar_j_Page_102.pro
a652d5374351ecd0a120d8dd410a5740
34cdc2f46c9af82a2856f4333a02bc80921df72a
25856 F20101118_AABEIO lamar_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
01882e6d5f9d9188604b4833d48d1fed
1fa67f3e7066ec53765abcc277d2ec364cea57cb
15911 F20101118_AABEHZ lamar_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
197ac9a6d235ba00c9857f4e16556067
6d2f4b15758471eb945e2b460a9be9b210802c20
13879 F20101118_AABEJC lamar_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
65fff16a0a733307506989a217d3a90e
35fc8db994a15cda39314497f4521e1a700501ee
50619 F20101118_AABFMF lamar_j_Page_136.pro
a91df8118107c18bc5a5db3055c6ee3f
085d22cbccbded7d75ca3bc89745e496890ca1a8
68835 F20101118_AABFLR lamar_j_Page_103.pro
334cfb4235c470c8aa64e1b231633724
798f77da259808c5e2c18e953f52958dadfd7d00
4365 F20101118_AABEIP lamar_j_Page_174thm.jpg
58a7d7b83970fabc1fb09a1f37123748
711e35eeb5b13ebbd02afa2d792260160f77d67d
F20101118_AABEJD lamar_j_Page_065.tif
61cb34d4e76566a5d9cc8676f37a7bbb
2d9044ace3157e7d50ac28320b2e5288f263c018
50427 F20101118_AABFMG lamar_j_Page_138.pro
e91174005226b10485504d26f24e481b
f1853e58ec0c76e0a4093fe363b4ac4198711231
25271604 F20101118_AABEJE lamar_j_Page_179.tif
10a2c0e1c959423b91a33356fcdb02c1
5a8845430e1a9ee76a8b51df616738a2e06c8dd5
52086 F20101118_AABFMH lamar_j_Page_139.pro
58a9fa3dcb4e376952ad400c100227f0
d212d2fcc23e63be2cdb7c3ac3bafc7c96821977
80131 F20101118_AABFLS lamar_j_Page_104.pro
c2b8fd127a83372216da922b4493c873
6bf4322b7148992d2150896a7d1d291ccb6fce53
8423998 F20101118_AABEIQ lamar_j_Page_143.tif
bc97fd9f652cb8e60a0a346227300dec
9ceff2b0d2874b48f7e5437da6000e2011f61abe
78479 F20101118_AABEJF lamar_j_Page_054.jpg
8c6cb27d2b4b3e2ec9bd1be70fb654c7
b406a28df5509655fbb51a4263645c24dbd4803d
49971 F20101118_AABFMI lamar_j_Page_143.pro
118f1cfd46c1e1753ec1e958afb5e567
6e7430fd4f955ec90361fd973ba738524e585b90
78655 F20101118_AABFLT lamar_j_Page_106.pro
6e03591026e405425e185dec5e8841e5
b4b120238fb540a5e2ccde2a473de69b8a53db76
104582 F20101118_AABEIR lamar_j_Page_110.jpg
474707ac22ae6a5a9e5ca91c3ab8569b
37027d935933fc38c72e686e2198ee5934c78f52
2159 F20101118_AABEJG lamar_j_Page_139.txt
5bb461ca5fbf2298d9055ab6071987ac
db2a9a0b15d86e447d4fec721a3aa988c8ca25c8
47103 F20101118_AABFMJ lamar_j_Page_147.pro
185cda0019859eaeeb68b6c94dbe84ca
2ccc90e67e1f40640f658514896dca2072d12b7f
84875 F20101118_AABFLU lamar_j_Page_108.pro
6e5fe8e49ff68d1c1116dc619130a508
8076eb3eeac37a56ff919121d83218b714eb84e9
783147 F20101118_AABEIS lamar_j_Page_176.jp2
24c71d80b36e73d32a9d2505d74f6981
40044db0ef54411473d7efcac0f41b0857dca162
51823 F20101118_AABEJH lamar_j_Page_175.jpg
055612a3d677f6a527d7ea9e18840622
9678e8a2be19f3af01401db14e685ec7ad2d8f36
55689 F20101118_AABFMK lamar_j_Page_151.pro
9be5ec3ff5ae4b23b9c79480e4fcfebd
754085468ada898ee58ec836a2e76330832cc518
81908 F20101118_AABFLV lamar_j_Page_110.pro
7524fd9e1aef647b18765af08c7ccb03
7a9ec712529462d20efb1651e6d790b79507d729
F20101118_AABEIT lamar_j_Page_062.tif
c0bcdfed78892a30c2768df2f653527f
d6a9e1f51c8666943a76a41d156f11bd6e7e69a9
53389 F20101118_AABEJI lamar_j_Page_061.pro
5aead91275d0ae192bf01e1924b63cf9
b1c3cffe59628412cce74ab025ff0ab23c9d6935
114296 F20101118_AABFML lamar_j_Page_153.pro
51f86d9b22e3c089ee836ab1ea9fb2aa
611cecafe5b4a2ec247540f564f4670b5eb6acbf
24955 F20101118_AABFLW lamar_j_Page_115.pro
211935f0257fea0b43630e3cbdceff12
ce2f35a3f6ca206ecf86f418b964d259ce0e144f
49561 F20101118_AABEIU lamar_j_Page_170.jpg
156711772573c41d77ba39fa3daa6532
4080027cfbb37a732b34d0373626a08253c270ff
6850 F20101118_AABEJJ lamar_j_Page_128thm.jpg
666c1a0f0cf07484f4a6099489cb20e2
045faa29bda3fec30b608bd8946d5a553fa131ff
4165 F20101118_AABFNA lamar_j_Page_005.txt
b0691baf3657ec4c51263da0a53b3ea2
c06a95a9897a04d4bb27decb667176feb010843a
70718 F20101118_AABFMM lamar_j_Page_155.pro
827d3262dfbf0f28245a5fd01bd566f4
e66ac88b2c1e893bd4b391e16fb8d153f096bdc6
16556 F20101118_AABFLX lamar_j_Page_116.pro
2995592fbce3af7a032b1e1c7f833b89
9a55676adcafe0a730bf1a648cae7f1de2ac9b6d
11994 F20101118_AABEIV lamar_j_Page_135.pro
68d4ccea36171b0dfa48793f24b027d4
948a70fc26ef9672e9690564dabd4a0d0fa172df
15760 F20101118_AABEJK lamar_j_Page_154.QC.jpg
169d9b48137a716d0037648b05867a3b
fca0238b52676c4e97c325d0317fca98aa6168b1
2945 F20101118_AABFNB lamar_j_Page_008.txt
73a10e0e61b4ee52823cfb0ddd1e69bc
cb14bc34773df3223fc1b8fd4762f5d4ce225fe7
42659 F20101118_AABFMN lamar_j_Page_162.pro
f1d4394506f9926974ee9dcd595f10f6
09b9b3d5acd21ed4441a6d7499c2624786ef5b94
26583 F20101118_AABFLY lamar_j_Page_117.pro
7e9f7274451498e6d73b5683645891a7
55bd405852fd2a9c6ddba3d7e03610f246eec131
3240 F20101118_AABEJL lamar_j_Page_104.txt
804e82ad99d69ce9c5643f5d90bf31f1
7d06ec940e1e3a097014bf6afdffb8130db2e042
F20101118_AABEIW lamar_j_Page_158.tif
427c622f6dd1d8ddb0a406c4872abfe5
60f6586c78ba6bacba91a39997e39324eb8fe7b0
844 F20101118_AABFNC lamar_j_Page_009.txt
c72533423c4aa31ee80f3d5e2c258467
c94923803e4030e69f97a23a1f28bb26d1b06d96
24365 F20101118_AABFMO lamar_j_Page_163.pro
325675bfe2b3098f74dcc0f53dd52192
a68cf6b965b26af1fc67d28ebecf8485517f3034
56611 F20101118_AABFLZ lamar_j_Page_123.pro
893fec09f94ffa9c0bcebba15a6f7b84
1b44d731a8156c6b396351b7fe362756a90fa0b2
101360 F20101118_AABEKA lamar_j_Page_105.jpg
34f0864eb16afa909f2e5dbe15f84e4d
a2230a73abd879384bc7ee584bfc332289649ee0
524441 F20101118_AABEJM lamar_j_Page_156.jp2
94ba8ef258e0c83f987bebd00d0af4b8
6910b3c0e9d2cd7937dd927cec8bb9b525a9198f
57629 F20101118_AABEIX lamar_j_Page_073.jpg
adb8e32c7a8f5bca6a43da82e64cd438
73eb07c084396ed8d742c874a3342866c59b7fcc
1179 F20101118_AABFND lamar_j_Page_011.txt
c439f1fa16e16ef73a3f1bff87b1727a
6f9d1c2395fc7a84d6104b9fe693e0e85db6e18c
19631 F20101118_AABFMP lamar_j_Page_174.pro
cafc73f1844e35fd79cead6e1e07725c
c43a71b4b28be176202fd5de196acbb323dcbce2
39551 F20101118_AABEKB lamar_j_Page_161.pro
eab5bafb95890c21935a6c903beabd05
aab3caf173c037bb7dff364326f4bca2fab5bc2f
18433 F20101118_AABEJN lamar_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
7eca02f7d62229f8b2fe8f46d127a5a6
95345b08795d2a7c700ac1898c8faa0ae56feda0
5618 F20101118_AABEIY lamar_j_Page_165thm.jpg
55a47e7c15f057ade96be9400291b483
962d01b5ead8a30a195f5db958aeaa852f0360b0
2128 F20101118_AABFNE lamar_j_Page_014.txt
fefdc542c978936c4ccf76bf66c3583d
3d40fce6198e2698d910d79ce1c8836c6decb3b8
37417 F20101118_AABFMQ lamar_j_Page_175.pro
b150ebb7dbdb9229d9b97efe08fa3775
938e878c925ac693f0627a043841bd1718c4b86f
6983 F20101118_AABEKC lamar_j_Page_125thm.jpg
92a20f6f6ba5294f31e9034289d1c679
2ff5a32e27a40eeb0b8188bc57b5bc0b52aae043
4281 F20101118_AABEJO lamar_j_Page_185thm.jpg
69c8b72c73fc1d00167fbae49cfdd2d4
5f7504ef67bd0cbe3f48298b1939984e816579d2
6484 F20101118_AABEIZ lamar_j_Page_085thm.jpg
6d7589a7b38f9dafa8ed1bdd52fd195e
45ca99e81a567f4dde8cb4d1879b3735fb445a75
2092 F20101118_AABFNF lamar_j_Page_015.txt
585a8e77cba12f9bf1dc644e797e3531
289528a1970be0fc60cfda46481c8b13f0aaae86
35801 F20101118_AABFMR lamar_j_Page_176.pro
561ef303bfdee7b887b04c4cb12d53ff
507f25557d33fa959ae4d770a502981b2872f1f4
66410 F20101118_AABEKD lamar_j_Page_071.jpg
917edb9b3b61e5c74cd7ddc8815cde1b
45bf6aefeec007d1e53a5673128b812f5a987380
F20101118_AABEJP lamar_j_Page_015.tif
04d52e06ae6fa0d57aefee25e8a42888
b032d87b47b9ca6c6f5fb177180e48c1c4172913
2197 F20101118_AABFNG lamar_j_Page_017.txt
c08a3b5f208f1b8c58e989ce85073a6b
7e0d854ec36c4ba2408308ebf30e68562a991e91
30550 F20101118_AABFMS lamar_j_Page_177.pro
b976e0871b7d2ddf41ca10c77c2e72c3
37bbd733f0d2ba3fb420f88572dd7f01781f2150
26490 F20101118_AABEKE lamar_j_Page_172.pro
beadde2efbb88a03524d72accf77f91d
07f68411ca9825c45da96c91a248bdbf70721ead
1915 F20101118_AABEJQ lamar_j_Page_060.txt
3e8c063c6bebc1370a961227710eb89c
2f7cfe0d7080ff65ec32c646e4260e5625fb9c26
2406 F20101118_AABFNH lamar_j_Page_018.txt
33fbe4b84c6f93fe299a656858892024
0748405b7bc99aa2064b44466f3cf89743f44898
77746 F20101118_AABEKF lamar_j_Page_134.jpg
06d2c3a9029d2b3511fcf40bd4e8302b
1b9962a67df5e4b52a31cd265a837fdf314128b2
2267 F20101118_AABFNI lamar_j_Page_019.txt
21eb67c3019936d17513cafba7d8bf32
28240016429c0dbbce53fec2917414b6a7ebda82
34403 F20101118_AABFMT lamar_j_Page_179.pro
be00c10b69f4c4dcfe895a6d78d8eec2
4678bb39762f59531b50447d6598de2d313cdea4
F20101118_AABEKG lamar_j_Page_058.tif
b77afc07cde1c73c277bf5ca98751e71
d288e6a147611bab5236740ea3f4fb613f4ac2bb
6726 F20101118_AABEJR lamar_j_Page_058thm.jpg
3609582968b30708ead65a9a1218b7b3
ccb939b69a565da077a411bc01e9209107ad6393
2223 F20101118_AABFNJ lamar_j_Page_021.txt
d83b34c6d6cfd92d129e3290afdfa9c9
aa20d17810b8f264f0edf058eaf003659b5d4e04
37361 F20101118_AABFMU lamar_j_Page_180.pro
f81c713f076541edef0c57843b6c4e63
539d2248745e2da1b4bff3047401b173eee963e4
448360 F20101118_AABEKH lamar_j_Page_167.jp2
fcf5a48344c31f57e0b40d132c493bc6
fa487a860b74caeed0174500bc834859cfec821a
27292 F20101118_AABEJS lamar_j_Page_009.jpg
f418df9cd8e3160d3d73a3858677efca
4c0cc8b8bfe5add284aaed94fd2b8ee7e716f06e
2075 F20101118_AABFNK lamar_j_Page_024.txt
9f80e6b9f0e09379e2e918af1f3aaacd
f43433b8460790114cf6a68ad55e0546fb8f4ef5
12729 F20101118_AABFMV lamar_j_Page_184.pro
27e8a5294beaac5eecf1f1d88af50e07
bf39aca9801dd714a93385ecc53a3f89f900d110
120424 F20101118_AABEKI lamar_j_Page_125.jp2
60e4ce02e0cb79094f4f10436c8813f8
64c2f5aacb104db73a3cd784419b418a32cec64f
F20101118_AABEJT lamar_j_Page_033.tif
ebfd68789cd68d18c04b5be2a5f8648e
0ea38223ebd99b4da288e5b19f4394de9d92f420
2182 F20101118_AABFNL lamar_j_Page_025.txt
77e6d9ddfcc5a2e1934c4c357a2323de
1ecccc6594411927fde84b959a62f6f3f8fe08be
27329 F20101118_AABFMW lamar_j_Page_185.pro
66be34214a1c078a7a5920928111a146
7d8a71919d72213b5a1e4bf62e0cac98717f3f67
136445 F20101118_AABEKJ lamar_j_Page_132.jp2
e3d6e613e57841864f4711956ec00917
9a44aef2a09d05ab87858c49c8386af688c505d7
6460 F20101118_AABEJU lamar_j_Page_031thm.jpg
f58eab54c1915c83fa4b4bf0737ec4f0
be5ee6859cf2b6194cb087437f933c7ce75699f4
199 F20101118_AABFOA lamar_j_Page_063.txt
03265f740d63030fa756f4337a7fd660
75271362a10711dff42ae874f0a7fdced8436eaa
2068 F20101118_AABFNM lamar_j_Page_027.txt
af170307a4fbf73a2a3420e0876cf454
aaf4706ce5f9e8d580a003f08f5bd9ea0632c4de
38787 F20101118_AABFMX lamar_j_Page_187.pro
b39bdaeae4027c1daec33e624789a8ac
490294e7226c782f57621e8df64b13ebc1a63906
2270 F20101118_AABEKK lamar_j_Page_022.txt
6fe53e7d9241e00c5d993962f28ea3b4
8e6c30816755e0677892a1d2d571aa6b545d587f
120549 F20101118_AABEJV lamar_j_Page_035.jp2
5086a9e0a6fbe146b7a1f14c14666103
ee1481d8011e064e931f4fccef158b68452d9028
2338 F20101118_AABFOB lamar_j_Page_065.txt
0d91b9b980ca88d9d6f3f00d4cb54314
088b4e4d5f50a16e1269893dc36646d6f02e362f
1861 F20101118_AABFNN lamar_j_Page_030.txt
24eafb34c9f382fb125af81205d471bc
e8e7c523b17e7860c34c983e8698ad7cb4573981
39345 F20101118_AABFMY lamar_j_Page_190.pro
319ff8649f62acae1574359c3c0682b0
761fa057725fcd43e92a5f861cc50e900b1fe050
F20101118_AABEKL lamar_j_Page_101.tif
ab04bb24f0a54a9eda83e0eef522182d
0aa6208349ba266ce1232ab3099d20ca89d1fa44
20685 F20101118_AABEJW lamar_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
8f7be6d864a5c40cb41799780570663a
e8f94d9f6229962ddf6b9c3663217ff56682a066
2276 F20101118_AABFOC lamar_j_Page_066.txt
f12986a5d97be8ab484cb4e87e285045
c60ad4e49307ea11c83b019586b59e3f1537f604
1116 F20101118_AABFNO lamar_j_Page_032.txt
d9fc07bd1d826e203fa386a8ebf70a2e
9b115380947f9d7cf60fc8404267f6edb94e7158
93 F20101118_AABFMZ lamar_j_Page_002.txt
f98929e0c97cef430a4964b74d3fbded
3236e4c1a5ce847524563fbbb5e11f994b71ab08
76194 F20101118_AABEKM lamar_j_Page_061.jpg
77ad9d9974f7c3b3610962a3aa14b7bd
91aafd3edd088e6c09f76428a4cc2ac82d01d154
21986 F20101118_AABEJX lamar_j_Page_171.pro
ca469ba228cdb94f7f93d71b1476c921
4bb7cce30a4594722840d3815169be10b7d1574e
100387 F20101118_AABELA lamar_j_Page_074.jp2
1dda63abd16197d1a8cb011a27c63d34
dbd8c77d4e4d787a051b69bd7f43c0faae4e448d
2384 F20101118_AABFOD lamar_j_Page_067.txt
9fec89bbb8e5ec0746d95e114e4aaeab
103be8b6e1fdc3c18c7ea20f6b471089f6243bb2
1991 F20101118_AABFNP lamar_j_Page_034.txt
b15a25e7183d112d53a8b4856f3430c9
a49a76ba9a77107dc1f10365c061e2e7e8eeb8ee
F20101118_AABEKN lamar_j_Page_039.tif
97ddd8ccf27f3171503513bad5fa6e78
17ead851b010f04451b9fe9422562844c321fc40
14937 F20101118_AABEJY lamar_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
57afed0d78aaea71ddce542a5f4cf0cf
e697a247ec68ed7c32060347c169e605ef33fcf8
3085 F20101118_AABELB lamar_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
bd43cfd9d725b63c1bcd7348e54c4df5
31c2e14bb38ebed244a94c73a0efb7cc3a33e944
2396 F20101118_AABFOE lamar_j_Page_074.txt
d03338c030cc8f6a86231c5cec157caa
ee963d9c2597e7906174da1e1d8b4192fd9413e6
2285 F20101118_AABFNQ lamar_j_Page_039.txt
1f1624b9aff0280f2ff855293925e222
32277e5e83fcd49c6029e18d20cb8ed9ef68b6bd
1922 F20101118_AABEKO lamar_j_Page_149.txt
a46f61723b9972177dd5b62e096a8b6c
d0d7b44ba36282d04c362749b619f2badae0e063
50399 F20101118_AABEJZ lamar_j_Page_031.pro
f5ee267e22bd5abffb65ed0a33b4e873
c564c1e324d581e8cae6c234c00cc5a59d8be0ac
77755 F20101118_AABELC lamar_j_Page_016.jpg
93393a75967b4c71e57acec719c133bf
483e6a15cd2da8672f979580c73a51a47b042702
2153 F20101118_AABFOF lamar_j_Page_075.txt
d227cbb0a463e70ba47c1b59fc379119
cd033f0db5fb31b8119562d31db0863cb82bf941
2188 F20101118_AABFNR lamar_j_Page_041.txt
9756f65e3fd3e394541bffe99f1510b9
486a53fc3c1ff7d96e1954f9e34635f06f2c4ce4
24369 F20101118_AABEKP lamar_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
1ff7a7348b5e2cbfc4d77499c52523e5
1d444a01872fbf84d4e15cbc73b884da2f3a3c11
54679 F20101118_AABELD lamar_j_Page_048.pro
bb171645744e7a9af62b90a7997db05e
3a06cdc8f573393ffb5abef4395936a0a906871d
2271 F20101118_AABFOG lamar_j_Page_077.txt
b5fe7335179446e8eaa5a839b7e0e1ce
6dfddb8d8789219cda0601bbab31fb8141045d60
2155 F20101118_AABFNS lamar_j_Page_042.txt
c87fa55ce1fa3ad22611dbf188fa93da
776cedbdd1efe1becc06599938e7051368e32987
118572 F20101118_AABEKQ lamar_j_Page_016.jp2
1846f4f92b3a055443c50a6df3584fad
00905a361701c06f15b1e055c9a05922a5de6e9b
23762 F20101118_AABELE lamar_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
c05d71afac566735afbb209509c4328d
11e627715c04efe17dd6b00880ff2ad877c694e3
2449 F20101118_AABFOH lamar_j_Page_080.txt
7bdc604b15e46092319062d54c4f3344
5381a3d47d180dd135822becaa5953f8f4bae63a
2150 F20101118_AABFNT lamar_j_Page_044.txt
280490271206958e3ba50b03da4c6462
f37172b06fffedd29536f51d578a27ffcda97b9e
81229 F20101118_AABEKR lamar_j_Page_027.jpg
ba5ea1a47e47c7f6fd503be65f4640dd
f25b81e7c0403e48e96fb223c0f12308584f7477
7530 F20101118_AABELF lamar_j_Page_097thm.jpg
b2bec89ce0a3896d2b5bc911362e0abb
6fd9b6122bbc1f8accc8b43c12b9f7e1b02da02b
1792 F20101118_AABFOI lamar_j_Page_083.txt
0e79bc3cf611b19080b1680786460dbd
9e786996d63d494e3ea98d77b5cfa846404c8d2b
12264 F20101118_AABELG lamar_j_Page_183.QC.jpg
f240c2453a362f7c06789ccb1d88bba0
5b2daafde0243acd850eb47df50189ecd29c85af
2123 F20101118_AABFOJ lamar_j_Page_084.txt
bef480e26e9fce5ac08196e8b58bcd40
c277c7d31c26fcfb8d78b9d80feef2e11d337eab
2090 F20101118_AABFNU lamar_j_Page_045.txt
0d3ae5c1cf2cb3b81a708182dfac3090
6c5c1942b6bcc97486f779479737c38d0015bae2
5445 F20101118_AABEKS lamar_j_Page_160thm.jpg
4a81601df3c2d97eb2943e76aef27617
421fdea5fc92ccc8e8c901e6eb6a37038c517a05
54942 F20101118_AABELH lamar_j_Page_043.pro
c0fe21988ed0cc752672a702fadfd708
431e2578d6a924472f5f89a95705e31e2a2009a1
2127 F20101118_AABFOK lamar_j_Page_087.txt
237ab0dfccb4e54385d19048a94cf8f7
90ab786a7fce231251d322d784603579ca344190
2146 F20101118_AABFNV lamar_j_Page_048.txt
725bc36e085880b27dfb887340f56bc8
4e88f3141f782c217bed14084d5b7319b93287e4
6547 F20101118_AABEKT lamar_j_Page_075thm.jpg
f5321937f3f27db0e79e8a0c0535619a
a86b6c34e9c85cc52ca8a1d06faaf21e50de0a3a
25005 F20101118_AABELI lamar_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
e106f04d52e209883511e65e38d406e3
da56e257bd1c65f30cac41840f2ca0d1a1386c39
2564 F20101118_AABFOL lamar_j_Page_088.txt
3b498d0f057d0bd3ce3df89e974838ca
5acc9401f02c35589a24158e178579af2a1204f4
342 F20101118_AABFNW lamar_j_Page_050.txt
9f1933aef48799915dc8a147aea4861a
be3d7f11465719b7ee30ae548c4dd4627f104f2f
154496 F20101118_AABEKU lamar_j_Page_106.jp2
c6ecabf5220a47c66cb5e47539062585
3a61cb94b52eada9977c29a34260024a5c1b4228
2974 F20101118_AABELJ lamar_j_Page_151.txt
c33b61bf0c3f0a2c6a6380472cbad8c1
d2f62c0576a109154e8b962941d4273e37b4bbfb
1092 F20101118_AABFPA lamar_j_Page_117.txt
a6888e7bec43b9122e834d8c0b29359a
003b3978ab556dd3d0eb9c323666d327382b4d5b
2622 F20101118_AABFOM lamar_j_Page_093.txt
a5af6082613353f68284df3b1382839b
78934c93dfaac432f240d7516c3124408669bc04
917 F20101118_AABFNX lamar_j_Page_051.txt
42d5675a57a9c5924deceaa6c4e17d56
2261688d117e400c4ad9578de43286bdf8afcd0e
34442 F20101118_AABEKV lamar_j_Page_112.pro
36d3f99fe10e65dc6359bba37dd99097
10f1baf29221f3024e1925fa604d70474caaad66
25561 F20101118_AABELK lamar_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
0279549ef57819be6282fe4725c423f9
8edcfd16f6b6df8882a3da0274ef00daa0c5cf7b
509 F20101118_AABFPB lamar_j_Page_119.txt
b064e40fefca301566a4b3ce93bdfabf
c659677d1aa4b3f15f3dfbed6040696caa92a45c
2496 F20101118_AABFON lamar_j_Page_094.txt
2ae39ae8814108e8f7683ddd03bb97d5
9f178bbe39e5a3543ed2d4c4edecfadbf177883f
1237 F20101118_AABFNY lamar_j_Page_053.txt
03010fa9af9c3e7ac7218bb553646727
d72b3ee1c804129d26c51ce2dad67b040d5e8c92
52525 F20101118_AABEKW lamar_j_Page_015.pro
5246b84fab93f7f17b30572c5463ad72
3824ec538093f1df6bad6e26cbe2c2e34d390dff
20189 F20101118_AABELL lamar_j_Page_166.QC.jpg
67a558256f5242f0bcb32f8c2c980234
5a7738a91a6f04d2f5d7fcdc94b8f1a466cbcb1d
1325 F20101118_AABFPC lamar_j_Page_120.txt
08093089ef4934f996b7505bc657873a
b1fc4dcbf8dfc87840451b9f8b93ea4b6c45defa
F20101118_AABFOO lamar_j_Page_095.txt
8647674068c951f3975d8771b97d3d59
a044d44d8f6628b509a06328daa307a4285f30e4
2005 F20101118_AABFNZ lamar_j_Page_056.txt
947b1d803bacdfb50298ad5472b22e41
8e0e8a57654bc4f60822507e3f3e4b0cd398e10d
74120 F20101118_AABEKX lamar_j_Page_130.jpg
b763f2e9f7270c60f2430643cb28cd9f
b96d6714d518f166a205f316628ee83d58c209f2
64353 F20101118_AABEMA lamar_j_Page_166.jpg
df36a7a0bb40c44b70d417c03ff3938a
41994496ed84c5fbca8438b72ae673a772f3c81a
104941 F20101118_AABELM lamar_j_Page_104.jpg
5b1e6db04b78b292eb82347b8d181e7b
65796ce7651b6919c91deeca3a791cc57bb2c3fc
2167 F20101118_AABFPD lamar_j_Page_121.txt
0177d7ca51121af343907c95cf92e274
23470f289e660ce3205e0d005fa1b8ff0d3d401e
3173 F20101118_AABFOP lamar_j_Page_097.txt
b22520faa14fca7c2f3dac18815fa351
c4544dcfef3a07c7e0bd98be4d70f25ae3e052f1
F20101118_AABEKY lamar_j_Page_153.tif
ec7b7e8de49d806f24f6eed8dfdc55fe
6ce85ef36dbd15641c5310eea642980fa0b543e7
25544 F20101118_AABEMB lamar_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
50da7a2695e636f508934d05689b52d7
c675060e0d53f371c45a0592370e40a86e4f7fd5
809775 F20101118_AABELN lamar_j_Page_073.jp2
a06d6736cf1028ed7ff5b5e4e1f4f9fd
55d6b93bfd4e45d94b893f8095b5c847e22763b2
1039 F20101118_AABFPE lamar_j_Page_122.txt
f0bf4678332d3866c115de052a02c1f6
45f149a09f153a6a1dd77fbccf09f95e9cff6b09
2747 F20101118_AABFOQ lamar_j_Page_098.txt
edbaddf67ca8c656b169fea118b0104c
de4a91a08359c86099cd33eb6ef4f09ddea38c8f
981153 F20101118_AABEKZ lamar_j_Page_136.jp2
daea31fc35b6f7e3318b42f3c7ad57b6
059ea8fda4a35f317fbc47d09cd1e12113b764aa
66208 F20101118_AABEMC lamar_j_Page_029.pro
33c270e3dbdfd55a59f4abedceed0cec
346990f1bd3ec8b0d0b849acf61a27f77999fa34
425433 F20101118_AABELO lamar_j_Page_146.jp2
c5d8cdaaa13c7f5afa9e1162c69eedcb
622d48834f128266cad2a1c7fad6541e882f11e1
2225 F20101118_AABFPF lamar_j_Page_123.txt
686564f97e76cc8a6ef73f2005878d6a
07661fe7fa76bcb3741397ead57006e9c0191839
2708 F20101118_AABFOR lamar_j_Page_099.txt
24ce34bab8b29270bf9ec814679fcc74
d3ed5848c21643f5fdeb301662fea48540efa719
1367 F20101118_AABEMD lamar_j_Page_166.txt
cc532051ce2e5855785e62b3e15f3fb4
801faabd471e641c617fbed229b7c80a823f46ae
4550 F20101118_AABELP lamar_j_Page_143thm.jpg
57f0caf57223b0071be87b22fbf1259a
9463c747b43333fee1f4821cd899509d7699d928
2235 F20101118_AABFPG lamar_j_Page_125.txt
2375cfca3205dab7f38b5a418159bc2f
9bae6394d3930dd82862606cf0c1c8a7088b9ac9
2983 F20101118_AABFOS lamar_j_Page_101.txt
7a7d796ecf07cc1ca7bfdca0555c3b5e
278b9dc1aa969d461834707218ff69b4420a7aaa
25834 F20101118_AABEME lamar_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
dd1b9d7354b67195dcda810ed0882fd4
fe72db8ee0a39c653266237cc3b43b044f8b7d82
6151 F20101118_AABELQ lamar_j_Page_120thm.jpg
f21d860de9e3b58514ed3ff8ddb8fb15
a75599faa6fb36883999340098f113f7e881299f
2143 F20101118_AABFPH lamar_j_Page_126.txt
425494a2d8396fe9e7183baf15a76ead
6f0e8f5f94d1c6b0e9d950758400f0bd851679ef
3157 F20101118_AABFOT lamar_j_Page_105.txt
3a86a05dd691d839780a678f10368bda
0f6f56845352c5951ff046463d6a0684f7367128
74026 F20101118_AABEMF lamar_j_Page_078.jpg
95aeb2bb54c0f02ff2d4fcf4b43d8e33
efbfbbdd6f617c0a18f44699624488af968566f3
64952 F20101118_AABELR lamar_j_Page_049.jpg
76f076858dfed43fab82cf7733838677
dc1b61aced4c8f1c8c2dad5f1704d9ac4ad92309
2242 F20101118_AABFPI lamar_j_Page_127.txt
c194d7f7800bedb671347945ada9fbd6
38a076b4b2ff5741c3ba4c026b6c08bd2850c4e6
2847 F20101118_AABFOU lamar_j_Page_107.txt
e267b6a3205a707df92c290e312591bf
afff069ab1eef41b7247e144bb709c05d714e3da
993642 F20101118_AABEMG lamar_j_Page_157.jp2
3835dc47cd6232eb0162d07a7650f8eb
1b88d8c55870aab552ac82debbbbba439f8854b8
86558 F20101118_AABELS lamar_j_Page_111.jpg
dace3215d57f757aee7fb8be9e48203e
f0ac66aa09a3c16491efa43df1545b716eebb401
F20101118_AABFPJ lamar_j_Page_128.txt
626e26ac05be6f220380dbeae1f9f17c
322f0b8232fdd24f66d5f1d7013bb2781b4ef3b7
23443 F20101118_AABEMH lamar_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
aebfeebc5b0448f945e18cea762b917e
c074d176d49030acd00b0f76a770197baacc9096
2381 F20101118_AABFPK lamar_j_Page_129.txt
ccf921c0ed8636f7096f978928231339
1088792942bbb10ea587eb8e0a6c3de1931cb86f
2531 F20101118_AABFOV lamar_j_Page_111.txt
a40825245ba00bed1df2cacd8c52f9bd
5c27142e75f918993b3aef98b5a39e068d2eb63d
6586 F20101118_AABEMI lamar_j_Page_053thm.jpg
772f10c7ad4d376a3448bb665057be84
19d8f04d8f8bc4f9672ed252b0df4716fd44277f
7407 F20101118_AABELT lamar_j_Page_095thm.jpg
2fa7122cf3e148be56434e570dd51093
2f70ef01b875e3c242f116196822e15f2f15c833
1883 F20101118_AABFPL lamar_j_Page_131.txt
27ada17c919dd4f17708cd1922e3d90f
bbf2f50de6e622aae75d8908f2b0619341c79c40
1437 F20101118_AABFOW lamar_j_Page_112.txt
886a155a0dfdc3f6ed764c6ca18f0eef
4b83544cbb7e40a9da8076e2cf2f5c12ac44300b
86396 F20101118_AABEMJ lamar_j_Page_004.jpg
bd70fac6c1bf4fe38f259f7a2ec15a1e
4f6c4ea6ff25b9215b42b64f34d12157bb1d52eb
2154 F20101118_AABELU lamar_j_Page_043.txt
64fda1dd1beb67110fa691a5955cc7b1
455ec233fb8ba9a5d6c702a464f249c27189615e
1283 F20101118_AABFQA lamar_j_Page_170.txt
2ba4ee7ef9facb5d1b44f3b99469fe90
a665b495aff764ed57d887c2ac36cc5c7c2d5b38
2172 F20101118_AABFPM lamar_j_Page_133.txt
baa882a3abb6e49363049e62b8ad978d
ae919832640ff584bef4b4c9e650d433aa6fbfc6
2152 F20101118_AABFOX lamar_j_Page_113.txt
96ea235ac90c49ecf70dd90e93c9d459
f011ce11f4d36a9698b95d1edd83d20f3024cfd2
F20101118_AABEMK lamar_j_Page_081.tif
18e1a63630ae6126f0b4f56a9ca86515
af74018af4db19f630024b2523856874b5b0df0c
77735 F20101118_AABELV lamar_j_Page_118.jpg
af84c8f86ac6574a6a086302e95560f3
92916e9bd38d85354be5e2038de8d8e633e34254
911 F20101118_AABFQB lamar_j_Page_171.txt
5fda46165c779f776f76ecec6e961d87
0ad3493bdf8d9d86041ec99755e67a41c40b1949
2229 F20101118_AABFPN lamar_j_Page_134.txt
02897f3a338d5301a8e9e80dadd334ee
7adc89e844cc930e12e382e845ac9c8ed6202027
2124 F20101118_AABFOY lamar_j_Page_114.txt
f3fa0382f79a58eb24ba4e68ecfd3b37
2b888a174b796d7ed413175d858e50eefdddf3c7
18192 F20101118_AABEML lamar_j_Page_150.pro
a21942e8a4bd159c70dd32a4212ad945
88cc7a1567fb1eaf2e2838f38a50a415b0115557
31292 F20101118_AABELW lamar_j_Page_168.pro
7a823961bbd230572a7cfb21ea49e51f
8a758580aba7d2693525204c3264b95d3378cfbc
1020 F20101118_AABFQC lamar_j_Page_172.txt
f1797018bfa601eafd9261c391f9d850
25669923bdb39617adae686fcdde244c98eb3998
F20101118_AABFPO lamar_j_Page_138.txt
42e377fb6ba33ab877fd9b984386bad0
07ff18b0c2c3cf16e00c374dc2cf2912a7f78e3a
727 F20101118_AABFOZ lamar_j_Page_116.txt
e2942e58dc8a1aa4ec138b90fa880cd2
1d6783c9efa9c93bd583d99d721401d3a447f3dc
2177 F20101118_AABENA lamar_j_Page_037.txt
1d171c871ad18f7ca5758e47fa38df58
4b957282b3364d6e596c8dfc2649d5f2ca815678
19940 F20101118_AABEMM lamar_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
5c0db9ac43db224982d30b38624d4c13
b61f647aea721f0df45c3d0e71f7fb733b938e51
2116 F20101118_AABELX lamar_j_Page_036.txt
7723fe1e538f6a6d7b3195bd66a38d46
850be34a49baa9ac413f27c4cd32c9fc0e2147d0
763 F20101118_AABFQD lamar_j_Page_174.txt
d563d235e87e9dbca034d8b947e147c5
e10f704be16ad1cc6bb2dcee8af34feb1764520b
3617 F20101118_AABFPP lamar_j_Page_141.txt
d161a6480524031e8b8357c95f8a568b
b0728a73d940427bbbabd17bb476abcab84ba508
6578 F20101118_AABENB lamar_j_Page_065thm.jpg
2e19d7893da9afc76a0f00e84ee2f6e2
cb119982a9116543646d266418f40fe8ac279b9d
1033815 F20101118_AABEMN lamar_j_Page_173.jp2
4ba482ee92a593d3227661d94d48011e
89517f4940e86f5134c98d8783a7a40d2f074c72
25238 F20101118_AABELY lamar_j_Page_122.pro
20e3cbd0f45babcda6ebeae7c03bf803
0fcecff0b382cb838131e1fe57499448d45ef52f
1546 F20101118_AABFQE lamar_j_Page_176.txt
b9a286c6e652d21a0fa25d47dbcbb477
9b086e6b65d1ade74c1ec723ca5d2c8d8952802d
2812 F20101118_AABFPQ lamar_j_Page_143.txt
f204afe4fb0f4f5390b379db45e6cdbc
4b0ebc012c2108f238a89edde677151326286023
117407 F20101118_AABENC lamar_j_Page_038.jp2
c66c5b1fed6ffde5219edf837ca70058
88a09576d77c87b951e96b58be8e6361bfeb9574
41426 F20101118_AABEMO lamar_j_Page_189.pro
d40dc6689a71e79c5cbe490edd9213bc
722aab187adcba5650c06c985121e8207d3928be
138873 F20101118_AABELZ lamar_j_Page_103.jp2
9ee3fddb814842a987967a658bf3d950
fcf1cf684841442a0a2e28683ce47b04034193fd
1436 F20101118_AABFQF lamar_j_Page_177.txt
2645cfffaf0e7130c68211272f676ac0
0ee7d152a2b0428fb5f12c2312a07c48ad7d50f6
1345 F20101118_AABFPR lamar_j_Page_144.txt
1a9399fdfe17dd0b6fa5f33c7cfadb34
6a6583bef2b08ab46155baba393bed7747867df1
1377 F20101118_AABEND lamar_j_Page_023.txt
e79e84ff91471d745d81194a640cc135
b4b2679871c512e8da8a5a89cba05880cb21a7bd
80056 F20101118_AABEMP lamar_j_Page_127.jpg
4e47a9f115845f8c7676219833d54e94
88c8e7227f7c2184aa8fbbb51753fbecb42811f8
1770 F20101118_AABFQG lamar_j_Page_179.txt
b8cd4b80da4faf485bfbd219baa7cb7d
aaf2506c192e9306cbd3883bf78bb007836b469c
2783 F20101118_AABFPS lamar_j_Page_145.txt
598a3117cf2fdeb3157b12a5e2d2464d
e508ea1c7e9a14dd95eb300b87c8ef85d8ded24f
56590 F20101118_AABENE lamar_j_Page_021.pro
e67c3adc9b4d7afed6689a659040c25f
61239d69f6cc949b92d8bcfffafdc06a813e6a1c
138383 F20101118_AABEMQ lamar_j_Page_028.jp2
6265fa9b2c577d6ad3bf58e332286fb2
f5beddf44c69a085c6d4e24c056227c14fadcfee
1155 F20101118_AABFQH lamar_j_Page_185.txt
4a6396d5c8b893ec8ea19b531798a9cc
a9ed45c035c350a05dbec92cbe8b151e16803c91
5012 F20101118_AABFPT lamar_j_Page_153.txt
62631687300320190b3a410401c5406c
a1b4e445a7a3bfa926861eade51e2480b5c75d2e
1051956 F20101118_AABENF lamar_j_Page_008.jp2
312923e135af4511bc5e335a8abfc31b
0a65e6d90e2d2852be6dbada3ea8d317a2500a36
629102 F20101118_AABEMR lamar_j_Page_145.jp2
c2ff9ea466c546077caf55c4af602827
00f200a0f7c3d6a7b16c7236fd0d2a4e9176bf3e
1715 F20101118_AABFQI lamar_j_Page_186.txt
6e8fb4b6604a99ed901ffdbe8c53fdec
e50a58b544c113e7d30cd2c3e5a375b3ad3aa6c0
F20101118_AABFPU lamar_j_Page_155.txt
8e0a50727a98f70303535ea4621a8617
b4fd134147b151fcf02c1571d86b7218ffb1fba1
516 F20101118_AABENG lamar_j_Page_033.txt
316a869a8c413cf08f7e1f94d9b279d4
b9ce79e2a10efa7859c8f4bc9b516923cfb2bfc0
F20101118_AABEMS lamar_j_Page_072thm.jpg
764ebf221ca4cfb2e918de90eeb77baf
5e356764396e027d3d8541271279572d5a4576be
1622 F20101118_AABFQJ lamar_j_Page_187.txt
06ef4a8f3a38b8ef9a567d4ac6e836c3
3d838cb9263dd6a6af7e1eea4b26c7eebb7e8b26
826 F20101118_AABFPV lamar_j_Page_156.txt
f4d6957ddd152c486f7a5951566ba4ce
e235b257ac448f2db57ab2183fa01f7862f2d372
4622 F20101118_AABENH lamar_j_Page_112thm.jpg
90f30e91d58d27de0e5a391400f90af8
fc3490111c26e4cd0215c6c5cda0d0fb4181d5f5
5561 F20101118_AABEMT lamar_j_Page_181thm.jpg
ff5a746a4d8b23e6d9173c89a666d79c
1361260a29fb5a578755fe1dc5f4c8dd7f1c69bc
1618 F20101118_AABFQK lamar_j_Page_188.txt
6c3aa40dfd48d8dc8b4d85eff03f04a8
2a4bf84901117c4bb33e21b0eb21d8f730f1643f
F20101118_AABENI lamar_j_Page_083.tif
42bd35bf7ad92a7b1fd912eccf545e92
93d66376d5a4f9c57eddfbaedff63b5b315d0060
1695 F20101118_AABFQL lamar_j_Page_189.txt
34cff6882bc16013bd91884024627b49
885a6f4aa8310b0c5590b88b9d599a51351fcd44
309 F20101118_AABFPW lamar_j_Page_159.txt
c0c957933528a833e695fd20a6369ffc
c11c8e55802de7c5dc5749bb28ed84208d7a9d8d
F20101118_AABENJ lamar_j_Page_085.txt
3afb7297e5b3a51f5e1d81a8ef59bbd7
f11786162623a814d1d5b1789d037751fede9023
2222 F20101118_AABEMU lamar_j_Page_016.txt
fd33417ad9da939f9564ca49f6ea45b4
c0a29bc810eb46018b942f43e2c26832f845036e
1825 F20101118_AABFRA lamar_j_Page_063thm.jpg
3436095fc325365c027079a4f271619c
af0309564854e1c7467a842f43d02567ddc636aa
1601 F20101118_AABFQM lamar_j_Page_190.txt
054c536f41b0dd80121f3dc807e924b5
d2aa7268f3210e2cdcb4557a3de7d07df259aa0b
1131 F20101118_AABFPX lamar_j_Page_167.txt
e447da0ef01ca6af63dd9ddfd1def560
7c8d00687632f1f0d90dcef68e6eb77fa174bf69
70495 F20101118_AABENK lamar_j_Page_107.pro
d84b03648ced52d3acb529aac65677f8
82b4e4377c9f1628f245982c9ec254ad0c668161
712647 F20101118_AABEMV lamar_j_Page_177.jp2
c6cff7ed0811010220dbbfde3486365e
22c8f10ec3dbd30c82fa0b3fe12cb33202021fde
7291 F20101118_AABFRB lamar_j_Page_019thm.jpg
c201399be040e3e433d7c4dd21332cfb
66300a96eb555a4bb3610439b2f7fa6c058955b3
2506 F20101118_AABFQN lamar_j_Page_001thm.jpg
c823bfa193b64964f4669999c91112b2
8f1436e9ff31f38cfdee256c2b3325f60828fa67
1400 F20101118_AABFPY lamar_j_Page_168.txt
c96af558fc88b0b24ec0933702afad89
5900e75829f4792631d458f92cd87e765af762c2
76127 F20101118_AABENL lamar_j_Page_038.jpg
7ce903ee8ac95de63ce1ac6c17e148ed
63fadb86653931f0d398194601776a441ee3ce05
1224 F20101118_AABEMW lamar_j_Page_160.txt
5447442fb8584534c23a5054f696961a
6859a86b5764bdc8b15587b72b4e0fba2bbbf2b2
26286 F20101118_AABFRC lamar_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
86e742b3782bb57855ad0f9e6a5fe19a
25737ef50eee4481e8796e1ffef514a98802fc22
6943 F20101118_AABFQO lamar_j_Page_087thm.jpg
7ef6e462e98e500180cae5f038121e08
ee9d3fa857074792ee3bc10a657d18641bf02762
990 F20101118_AABFPZ lamar_j_Page_169.txt
c543b83c8e2914578ff411aa799d0dec
4dc18be25d9a1e760de324458686aeeccbbf5938
20933 F20101118_AABENM lamar_j_Page_183.pro
89fcdeb5fc496dce229956f70068cf91
cfaaf0bb62f73e341678b28f6f09c3805dded154
25451 F20101118_AABEMX lamar_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
835e6306d7e2ea34ecac90c768ff7999
3747147dc4266e921b4a6ad57489174759a25ee5
91991 F20101118_AABEOA lamar_j_Page_098.jpg
62a0f72ca7d010e23a37ec0a980b8e70
9922adc535937912413aa6d365d24600a21a3295
27043 F20101118_AABFRD lamar_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
1112046aa8d297adaf98386b88aa3caa
a24306ee8269016556d1b2b2fefbd53100eec87d
3966 F20101118_AABFQP lamar_j_Page_169thm.jpg
82f840073e64ad6451149813d88c9422
76daddd4439e1bb1332863b9ee1231faaac6b71f
F20101118_AABENN lamar_j_Page_061.txt
c9801b3206164d09811776c59b9888b1
887380f41139a7d331c76bcc06caa4b058ccb566
46463 F20101118_AABEMY lamar_j_Page_011.jpg
3b74c658831239b37092c57759323643
38b2c73f81a9675330a9394ffa7eecbf5da5a7ed
17284 F20101118_AABEOB lamar_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
c0447df7276b01ea4975799994acf481
c273febd54f9420584862d723e71836427c431ef
19899 F20101118_AABFRE lamar_j_Page_173.QC.jpg
b12d93d54fa1bead62c7ab9811fcd17a
d6f585740ebe34accc4272a3d0460b0a3ed3dcba
7470 F20101118_AABFQQ lamar_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
1718119518a344cef14630c2b414e438
e44b8c8b231f976be31d58f3a3cb5489d0925342
6995 F20101118_AABENO lamar_j_Page_025thm.jpg
aa5ba4dcfb6d4991f3ee997f7857f67e
54f62cb57e1eaeb9e4f77329281e2086aeb64612
477 F20101118_AABEMZ lamar_j_Page_135.txt
a476b41a6aead26a0028291d575da97f
9fd2a8046f4fd485d9296d47dc44e29e6459a518
130005 F20101118_AABEOC lamar_j_Page_109.jp2
aaf81e8c32aa5bbdc5174c69133e1686
23cb614f2757c7a32f6992bc8ab751aaee9fa3ce
19378 F20101118_AABFRF lamar_j_Page_153.QC.jpg
4cb45200d8713668e38dfa3d54ca6da4
93e75ae8a840bdd8be49a8baabfcb98a3ce3e5c9
23906 F20101118_AABFQR lamar_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
b5046f4bb2c6ddc5374caabd910f49cd
6f9c0938b179ae58e63b6058d0abd2bf6da8fdc4
75776 F20101118_AABENP lamar_j_Page_014.jpg
0a03ead1a04e896642d4ac54c799b8b3
9c6580ce6313c3498b0e74415f556bcee8a23c71
3241 F20101118_AABEOD lamar_j_Page_055.txt
cc6db2869ec13db4d690dd3ed7ac9a10
6ea5436e2bd39a5fe74abadd7092360aeb44cdc0
5695 F20101118_AABFRG lamar_j_Page_162thm.jpg
05848f7c1895cb801e9b66cb3e0094b2
ca35ef5d92868d0556256884c17a39497347a8fe
4492 F20101118_AABFQS lamar_j_Page_082thm.jpg
4db294d55b098fddeb470a08164996d5
e1a3a0e9152ab5d88c98ba23be0aba8c997c3b09
1451 F20101118_AABENQ lamar_j_Page_072.txt
828b7cf240dbced93a5a33ee7bc68ada
5f637cbbc5d47c5d371ef4f0a7efb255749bae59
1448 F20101118_AABEOE lamar_j_Page_052.txt
7a46b1a02349f9ef6ef9622e39869b91
3d5e8313da2affe9b551390e4cc2fb8bf134f81a
3848 F20101118_AABFRH lamar_j_Page_183thm.jpg
9f55c3cf980d1881b34ebe4c63ab9669
89cfd4133ad26c387dd3a9f4bccb6f553c0c88f4
25194 F20101118_AABFQT lamar_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
58a68dac9af39f1182f620ce3950ea0c
1012915cfd7515bcbfff04a59dc8178567075163
100419 F20101118_AABENR lamar_j_Page_140.pro
d3a05e8d660cfa350dabaa860434158d
757c57339d7dff9feee8ac808ca7ef76606e6700
2216 F20101118_AABEOF lamar_j_Page_047.txt
f31cc9f0a2ff9028d77ab03e191eaaab
07b7e4cf0ea5fd73eb0724568d20754e38689fdd
25244 F20101118_AABFRI lamar_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
c9e462f775283183fb0ad1100139f6cb
01bcb2d81e086bb299e59924b45c9e5e78f72329
6444 F20101118_AABFQU lamar_j_Page_050thm.jpg
82feca55ec7de300a5b76247a8dbe232
2fcf4a00f90bf7d60bc179edbce03d5ab1a888e3
114500 F20101118_AABENS lamar_j_Page_130.jp2
448eb3907bd1ca7baf9bcd6c5fbda10b
4f232045991c3b4d2a3287770ef446641a7684e6
16513 F20101118_AABEOG lamar_j_Page_152.jpg
8d628dc7649cf4b104166e927983d678
d1dd7623e1f8c5ee23cb308c6e8a78d12eaac4b5
6522 F20101118_AABFRJ lamar_j_Page_051thm.jpg
60c2cddb6dc3f4bab8e484e05d7bca9d
94af96a24a5efd8f3fb76e2b0eb540f79847308c
24771 F20101118_AABFQV lamar_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
a9422b5994c4bfc2516e51ffbc5c7fe7
c4486cfa446b73193841cebd77ee97779ae2190d
26682 F20101118_AABENT lamar_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
06f4229b39e54e8cd093921b76aaaec3
e08c28b52c3776966511effdd2b1c96671871cd8
510428 F20101118_AABEOH lamar_j_Page_149.jp2
614955c31ea85de3b936d2f43c94c5c1
0e2ba2c8a50687a4d6d1833aa088559f6c1ae37b
28590 F20101118_AABFRK lamar_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
2a0b28d149f0023569ad670dd9ca7679
15b5264cddeaad0762d32995819e64ccc7c88431
7104 F20101118_AABFQW lamar_j_Page_043thm.jpg
eb06bb32bf6051493b666a1c65dc6b12
31c437ca89472c73dbd2240977005fb161957b50
34452 F20101118_AABEOI lamar_j_Page_049.pro
311bc8fb33d3bf2e574554a7fe9d593b
7a47ef11e6056b970c0efa38391d5f5686edb25e
732505 F20101118_AABENU lamar_j_Page_160.jp2
706bd5c198ec0bc8eab9689733bbe440
4470b1c78d2938042858c6458bfc12f7ffb2c289
6788 F20101118_AABFRL lamar_j_Page_055thm.jpg
10a68a80f7dd7ff29a39156dd1f21bf3
5e1ed62b5ed296a0b5a061989c6bfbe18069db76
23668 F20101118_AABEOJ lamar_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
5f3b0b3a0ccf7e7c07be8cb7f440ba0f
42f2811178f05264bae18e0c406f80060638f2eb
2439 F20101118_AABFSA lamar_j_Page_135thm.jpg
9f0b792e3a62e4c5da7063ad2454b03d
ce8a5ec732341364381abf238fd986b04987c260
5176 F20101118_AABFRM lamar_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
caa35b7884a1858347b5b4e6ae35063c
d5e218ffb0fbbb6dfccc0a986bbb702198f76829
6189 F20101118_AABFQX lamar_j_Page_049thm.jpg
b2ff05899a540194e93300fc10336637
b21a8b4dd39f397c79beb3cacc23fc93023e2524
26021 F20101118_AABEOK lamar_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
98cdf847cf91b6107d5101ce9cda0d50
f3beef200d8b70ea97371388926b980772247989
F20101118_AABENV lamar_j_Page_104.tif
3616e93646ae41ac5fa026706472dfb8
c10a30c31e2702a8179bc1c6e3e6b39aaa37b2ba
5542 F20101118_AABFSB lamar_j_Page_188thm.jpg
6baa1cbb666d79c36dd7cee44a301d31
708d9b1957add2fad11e340ec8180429c1c2572c
6966 F20101118_AABFRN lamar_j_Page_069thm.jpg
a46dd29cf9c18152168663344c949260
1eeac71c418bebe826839045c9eeaec39e73c925
21504 F20101118_AABFQY lamar_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
270ed3f0181ee369cadb6050fdb62a40
caf95ecfc70abe8638c82324de9907d905a2da1e
5657 F20101118_AABEOL lamar_j_Page_177thm.jpg
f48662f20c95aff6e301375890057494
5872fecaad0ea7dc4d9a5be6229ddb2ac923ba93
31104 F20101118_AABENW lamar_j_Page_073.pro
080c84084ed696c87ab9c770ea0ca394
cf02369d2fd539b9cca7c03c62b41b7c4d4f240f
4238 F20101118_AABFSC lamar_j_Page_137thm.jpg
24a279e0e82fdf83f2404bfa38d4a849
f3a6d90e4f8dbf09d1180ec5228fa65622208081
6839 F20101118_AABFRO lamar_j_Page_126thm.jpg
eaee8b2b014e3e2e17e93f4b4f7f405a
9dc2ba7a22737453a9bde3e32e40b94e1dcfff65
3126 F20101118_AABFQZ lamar_j_Page_006thm.jpg
4044e82732a7c923b72762310275837c
7fd8a258435ef7078d7c84e7ddc5a57d1974443f
5055 F20101118_AABEPA lamar_j_Page_175thm.jpg
7333ee6683f83fb90f63ed66d0cd95b7
3a683b4f51060f4416b96d5cd1286875cfb9001c
116396 F20101118_AABEOM lamar_j_Page_017.jp2
916a9c3d6bb257d97e3efb7b2b5b0fd3
0b160b82afdf70ab6b3b6dc667e6837572e95a87
40116 F20101118_AABENX lamar_j_Page_172.jpg
0736802ecebf38f940b4fb25274bc7b9
5e54d0200fd16c8fa8f26764be0cd897ef21d7c7
5061 F20101118_AABFSD lamar_j_Page_116thm.jpg
071636dad53e7d320234aa20956fbc95
3ad4a9eead10182f49e90b78a328c8f94213f3fe
7041 F20101118_AABFRP lamar_j_Page_028thm.jpg
b22b3a863fe51a721ed60f7f2df94b6a
9811912908990fefcc088af6942d39db8f2b03a6
F20101118_AABEPB lamar_j_Page_108.tif
b68bea0e3b5c993e998a988a47b61ea1
6863ce444dfb7214cd954ab356b800e479b87453
1051986 F20101118_AABEON lamar_j_Page_186.jp2
7c763805b039a293b345e28c41d90719
69a362145e2383a9a9321845ba775e61d67427cd
390 F20101118_AABENY lamar_j_Page_152.txt
a1bac876bb90ae421d723435c734bbe0
1553cb7f77b0900e2f44c150023c043f716184e8
22696 F20101118_AABFSE lamar_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
85a9839cab9212de2e5ef0459f3a99fe
931a8f2e2c6cdb72c1ff489a8639516d470a8c49
26656 F20101118_AABFRQ lamar_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
d75db9495facfa749d2853d367cc318d
455bf4fd3ae279aff5d9fdfc365839f77a162ca7
22963 F20101118_AABEPC lamar_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
33e70dc02c3d3dba991a5f961c0ae994
f0d46564f5f0d81a88d25630be194048a4f9dc4b
39237 F20101118_AABEOO lamar_j_Page_169.jpg
f631d5b1e3d5bd15bbc4a86ebc232fbd
503f7dc02a480ddba70e6e605c04c5d2b9736437
3665 F20101118_AABENZ lamar_j_Page_145thm.jpg
252e26c99a2c676b7c400ccbbd141313
6bfac05b6efc6c670c170281e2aa67e2b9904f08
7075 F20101118_AABFSF lamar_j_Page_035thm.jpg
de71e03f1af7f7e9901a2d0e27adf7da
1f1abf8f7219657cc7015f467237641464423763
6869 F20101118_AABFRR lamar_j_Page_038thm.jpg
674be5e1beaee65b29e9d938516fc9ae
eacce06743975e3c973ce0cd8f0ac4b85afd9f2c
F20101118_AABEPD lamar_j_Page_018.tif
ab18da17c960d8818d137484953a17b2
5e7aeee67cbef7d58fb8a0d95d01305b9d078cad
58571 F20101118_AABEOP lamar_j_Page_168.jpg
29e5228d1bd906f3e2edf58c6ad30239
2cc56888bb191173ef35d8e54048095d5907a64e
F20101118_AABFSG lamar_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
c43aab03f97aaba0299dbd95ea9bbdda
d2b1f7af14f2f9943a5a69202f6c530fcaf9f2f6
6346 F20101118_AABFRS lamar_j_Page_074thm.jpg
d56bd430d7cb017c91d82eb0aaa56cca
d13b60c0d1b41ee586838e12d7c90afa08521b99
2207 F20101118_AABEPE lamar_j_Page_096.txt
f2e6f0c449f54a129d281105ec7b800c
3dfa30bb762f5c5a3eae12c51944b7d8ad2052e1
F20101118_AABEOQ lamar_j_Page_051.tif
1722e6c5073919689066047950a9568d
5fbe80879942db0743ac3639e96490d123b34aa5
F20101118_AABFSH lamar_j_Page_052thm.jpg
3ffece29610205fe2121450c7df0b639
945939f5a1eef693545772614d8c02db185924ad
25364 F20101118_AABFRT lamar_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
f569ecb688742a32b0e6d8dd90f3feb5
0da8c6e2f2682d2a0cbc7fcba209eb19e913bb73
F20101118_AABEPF lamar_j_Page_028.tif
b10585185237072b81faee343d727841
190f2d13828c8e6bdee67fd63ade30162dec8a11
5625 F20101118_AABEOR lamar_j_Page_007thm.jpg
daa3690c3528e061d722b69a7c2093c8
2f63ff1bb31974524075f17927eb113a6846bd9b
6784 F20101118_AABFSI lamar_j_Page_113thm.jpg
3fe49ef960874628146f4be3ee591b94
26e0f7477a37599cefe00b2faa53900d1fdb7bbe
19454 F20101118_AABFRU lamar_j_Page_162.QC.jpg
7de3ad11b9c7aebe36ab8521cdfd4ae9
84c79601f0628141427543722e102c0eda073f4a
4373 F20101118_AABEPG lamar_j_Page_141thm.jpg
23a2c66d0465e063ecef9a841fdcb751
fa8520fb1b0212eb1fc744668c581cd0ff2819f7
76693 F20101118_AABEOS lamar_j_Page_087.jpg
894493af99aa5c92a9c673676aae26d1
710a0d4ec90c88680301fbefc63995fdd3ef6159
5752 F20101118_AABFSJ lamar_j_Page_096thm.jpg
04518f39a364ab02a6f5c91b075ccdfb
08bcf8aa0d6b4a16b1124d3c700e0bed24cdc4e2
F20101118_AABFRV lamar_j_Page_124thm.jpg
bd65bfec6be5ec53cfa42a8adea09f46
ce33449346ba3bfbce7a8165e1548dd0ddea1ca7
4838 F20101118_AABEPH lamar_j_Page_154.txt
cf8176a4465910b236a6b4f9cd6b42ab
b0055c140fe109a023cdc6df2f8e9c437aae8171
24729 F20101118_AABEOT lamar_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
50b21930a9341853e3b7929b1a72b696
98981891ac2be7244f017cccf7eeb3fcfe3a48e0
7117 F20101118_AABFSK lamar_j_Page_027thm.jpg
f431c7f81e2e54ef548637c24d37ce3d
4bdef97d923bb76b49ae38b8ee07ea114da12e7b
14339 F20101118_AABFRW lamar_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
0da8d73e1a6200b3f61aa3028680b794
00ee7b7f48eb296471b32158b1d561370af6e85c
620791 F20101118_AABEPI lamar_j_Page_170.jp2
7ecd93a17c1700bbbe22182ae274b1a2
2678b90db7da7e373f891d835172166939cc18df
5706 F20101118_AABEOU lamar_j_Page_178thm.jpg
e5f9df3878d218eac31a8ae322d60f61
604dddc0b971473753cabdfa5c73df5b1e4b989b
10068 F20101118_AABFSL lamar_j_Page_184.QC.jpg
89ac85f40ec37373d94a39d607b92713
6d8dad674612d5684d3eaf3921eee5526e2e19d7
5981 F20101118_AABFRX lamar_j_Page_166thm.jpg
c53172ddc87f973c740ed3f855636d0e
600f70bf26cef8a0912b7e5e99229ad827b8d2b3
7048 F20101118_AABEPJ lamar_j_Page_062thm.jpg
1476d65c2fdadd509a209d8ba4543d07
1563d66fcc1ba5fad5de293ec68ac684e8a8b2db
57528 F20101118_AABEOV lamar_j_Page_083.jpg
c7765299acc5f9f4daaccb2ffe154084
313a56c83dc991911ad7320a83886f7d881e9d48
6228 F20101118_AABFTA lamar_j_Page_024thm.jpg
58649be59cb72e785bc38c1107659566
cde01856cd8b241c1ad9885dc1aee3ece3379187
7283 F20101118_AABFSM lamar_j_Page_012thm.jpg
fa6d212adc3b6295a7ae439fdbeeb47c
27394e9852d778428523458959b0166f1099bdd3
24429 F20101118_AABEPK lamar_j_Page_167.pro
ff1ab76662253c3a90a9a79f8f3a5cdd
825a6884a5572f45b8b85ffca0e82742a852aa24
6775 F20101118_AABFTB lamar_j_Page_078thm.jpg
b5679ac9579fc055ad13834fb24a94e0
8bad8776dd5fe3e15aa69e36f444890d149ba480
7135 F20101118_AABFSN lamar_j_Page_041thm.jpg
740424c6b3de841174528a019119678d
cee9e3388ac3e90bc948a6ddbd8d132cdbde1238
4771 F20101118_AABFRY lamar_j_Page_170thm.jpg
fb22f44b54b7081c23db7917ccec0212
dee55543af11f39e30fa731c76694cd5b73b4f3f
117005 F20101118_AABEPL lamar_j_Page_048.jp2
706a53e3e4c5129ac9dc5eb439f52545
ca6ada974892c7008dce26b954e98b9ed6ed24d0
F20101118_AABEOW lamar_j_Page_030.tif
42d0331462fcd612ae15ef08644718d4
55775020b59034f65e33bb8f898db514b769f35e
29501 F20101118_AABFTC lamar_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
e1cf477dbdeb819f09b81becc400d3a3
6c40700c5b9c9a48aa47888db5da83de024f5c11
22679 F20101118_AABFSO lamar_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
7e48580f2c93aad04f3acc631604b292
ee6dbbf8377209f17768cf0b72b61ec18fd797f0
25605 F20101118_AABFRZ lamar_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
b4dee38b255df810e2ce7641b0f7c999
837fa317f275106c30124c44995e83d5fd60066a
10492 F20101118_AABEPM lamar_j_Page_149.QC.jpg
4c160146dd873d4277478eaf0a7b179d
9a34a28c43a61d83f256a7aeefe9098c2253144c
7029 F20101118_AABEOX lamar_j_Page_121thm.jpg
e5396c12cee90bfd55234f0f7c387b7f
0e3c154d5c67cf677cb91cda8a099d93e3c7dc8a
16921 F20101118_AABEQA lamar_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
77ac9612f3ac9d597b7c0c2b7b45c8a8
11c510dac725e6baec52339f002e8949a7ada193
6992 F20101118_AABFTD lamar_j_Page_034thm.jpg
d17561df42ee41f878c82387ebec62e3
1060eb8dca4dc55471d367ec085957376c073065
6665 F20101118_AABFSP lamar_j_Page_086thm.jpg
22ac55e2fb401602ee52c8f10df7316a
4f69024abb9a3104b42df831256824519c907257
74409 F20101118_AABEPN lamar_j_Page_062.jpg
30a817092856988405c146b0143e00aa
18d2b79cb3526fdec09a392d1875b44c6a5eca57
87589 F20101118_AABEOY lamar_j_Page_190.jp2
77ff99986395025b87ff228deea65db9
43dac299471f2c0dc32846b4828f48f15ef725dd
F20101118_AABEQB lamar_j_Page_090.tif
c0d2ba5213aa7cd8ebf4a03efae49b50
d0310dd062fd2ba3fb0779636638cfbde0c6344f
6794 F20101118_AABFTE lamar_j_Page_150.QC.jpg
3f688f654964b68b6457b53ce9941699
e35a886671e854b4a15e4f4d757640183f1b1a7c
23980 F20101118_AABFSQ lamar_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
11f71289bce983bc517dd173f8944672
49f3ac8893317ae977b00719d3866fd15c303490
F20101118_AABEPO lamar_j_Page_112.tif
a109d4389a22faa6120a6253ef9f8121
654eb3e1e96c8e07427ae2ffb952e87360cae387
58061 F20101118_AABEOZ lamar_j_Page_178.jpg
4b67bc8406b61c1856f526572a69f1c6
d552d3defced114b2a1ea74f8827a677454e2ee5
19745 F20101118_AABEQC lamar_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
a2e25fce0d9ad24917fc5559670bc34f
f06abacd9e1e1cfe1850847a24792a89072fabf8
24118 F20101118_AABFTF lamar_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
a460dd728d56a00b604f4cdf67a96c63
264144beec13cfdc1e6a5aeaa1641c977e91496b
17790 F20101118_AABFSR lamar_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
c03c0680eb1f951ac9eeebadf30fcdc1
078dd7d9e9af8460b6dd24e2b056dc4d3efa1e4a
607387 F20101118_AABEPP lamar_j_Page_163.jp2
dee40bfbe0114a9ccc877d9271991ee1
e63d4da9a2bf5fc72ec88daec8a6312bec9e0dec
F20101118_AABEQD lamar_j_Page_148.tif
7a869125624cd511aa8b4164c2e24294
7257766fda8b1cc2bf756fc2442ac2c388b97d84
6562 F20101118_AABFTG lamar_j_Page_040thm.jpg
9fccf727e944d7d6b045bff2e3a46c68
c7a9e10e837d44e43ed2bb51ecd58aab3db9832b
6537 F20101118_AABFSS lamar_j_Page_047thm.jpg
d26c6b5bad2bfaae135d75fa4dc64675
676c33801d68d83d987cdb860f4a4794bfda4ae9
F20101118_AABEPQ lamar_j_Page_006.tif
82aeb501735aa4cd5105e2570bdd715d
020a4c11fc470914dfd2089f66f38c768e9b415a
8653006 F20101118_AABEQE lamar_j.pdf
de66a82112a03fa372576ec0a95a830d
22198f3efd01bd0c0d5edd7c90a26311fe20a6bf
18744 F20101118_AABFTH lamar_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
d720f9fdbc66f38b0c34a32a47b62219
1bbfaaf88aea593170f8cce7400d1610820ee54f
6969 F20101118_AABFST lamar_j_Page_044thm.jpg
1d6892fb5026295da99fe82fe0a369a7
993c7eaf49ca2d1cbba6c33f0ffce16eafc53908
23194 F20101118_AABEPR lamar_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
bee2d8f38cf83f7d26cbd8feb7a0ad37
9e81189e20b134397b91a24cc0aaecfa1cb8f22a
74750 F20101118_AABEQF lamar_j_Page_096.jpg
c44fb059fa9626bfca6226efe68c753a
29a05f24c72b272b2882b180a5728ed613c94157
10310 F20101118_AABFTI lamar_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
418617cf834f5ecde85b0744219f6aa8
1a5cee89b64d7ae4c85b36e6bcd84f0da9a8ce1c
7107 F20101118_AABFSU lamar_j_Page_054thm.jpg
535421e38e9ca5034aca7ea97f8d6f00
ea19d79f0df66e92ec29351017a4ad1e1c07df7b
F20101118_AABEPS lamar_j_Page_045.tif
fd4ac3535868903af448376cfa8ebefc
c4988009c2056da505972b213db6df474de3af6a
1678 F20101118_AABEQG lamar_j_Page_164.txt
44003c936a28b98d807ad4cdaf806005
a0632f62abac8759e891969238f5b9175e619440
12116 F20101118_AABFTJ lamar_j_Page_172.QC.jpg
0ab28f9134002685cace10fd1c487dd7
10558453f662326031dec208c75ed7954108bf6e
18674 F20101118_AABFSV lamar_j_Page_165.QC.jpg
179e672c9b0ea8671af0b1962b0d939e
c2d074e58adc5eeaee0107215f0d879b4ea9cc58
49871 F20101118_AABEPT lamar_j_Page_034.pro
821ba9c70127331b9ae8e42082b30bb1
6efa3ac66a93798962a04eea34c849497d58687d
24879 F20101118_AABEQH lamar_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
6720f7e36dfc3cc19a1d28ecab264b37
534957909044909a0eea1244744891f2544fda25
11851 F20101118_AABFTK lamar_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
3897d25cefa4fb80e8d1cba1d86006b8
53e2169313e79e18e1a42ce364fdc897f9f7c3c6
21060 F20101118_AABFSW lamar_j_Page_157.QC.jpg
a9463e725972905ff3872761283278fa
4273ea36c5547806a56e685325f2478099049fa4
52500 F20101118_AABEPU lamar_j_Page_062.pro
2b99c0cb5537bfa63b0887fce8e98b81
c2ae0e88176eece4e9f80127dca96199f3c0dda7
F20101118_AABEQI lamar_j_Page_156.tif
a8677137b244199783c030ddd3264d14
ecf743dc3c5dae7b2d59c5734b882ef16d802234
6312 F20101118_AABFTL lamar_j_Page_186thm.jpg
23f77cb613223f98a1ee77c11d891b22
302af22dfab3e8d2aabafdbb73f809809af0ac50
6736 F20101118_AABFSX lamar_j_Page_014thm.jpg
a71298deb30b61b2bf476838be587f03
647b1bb59682a074f33f97e932b48f20863cab43
1051973 F20101118_AABEPV lamar_j_Page_117.jp2
8cee55b21430bbb984fd4b401762cf1a
3c40afc2df2b97c32f57bf4a30994ec94b5eb820
5696 F20101118_AABEQJ lamar_j_Page_004thm.jpg
31d711604036f66b35e86690c6f5486a
a5be38f2f455202bb4f28adba6d112af24818db2
22607 F20101118_AABFUA lamar_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
c9a2f7417ce429002ec1c0761d71663f
d53865ddae352ca9324caaed63015e980ee78562
5539 F20101118_AABFTM lamar_j_Page_083thm.jpg
d506b9a04300153db831e9f2bec466e3
37e14f77bf875402c18485cadc6f887d6e50dc78
6033 F20101118_AABFSY lamar_j_Page_079thm.jpg
8c30f5d92575617f52d57b70540445d0
1167ca740dffc731bf13e1087d351672e2a8603d
F20101118_AABEPW lamar_j_Page_115.tif
3f689375df2c6f9b3d4370aca0b8aaad
71b1c1d7c7dd75fcbc1824ccd85a93b54a9ac69a
7079 F20101118_AABEQK lamar_j_Page_134thm.jpg
2c249b2cd3f8450b4a0106eb310dc595
476cb4a3f5db632c595d9270bd79563f9b0389a3
5216 F20101118_AABFUB lamar_j_Page_153thm.jpg
1cc20ba30f2f94d08dbd7764f4324b8a
d27715872daa118c58380fc9e410221fecc27020
6412 F20101118_AABFTN lamar_j_Page_010thm.jpg
7d020065d83005a7e4af5e068c28d0fe
ae40db0d04319fa121ceffc4bd6dcced561d5761
19069 F20101118_AABEQL lamar_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
8f0b3cfd884e4c5763ce3260a3353890
f1f7f42745cbb7fc4061256b7ead94d90ba8aba5
24402 F20101118_AABFUC lamar_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
a3cc95e89463a5e561cd2461abbfa9f9
18addad90513903cdf7a2595a1d1cfe2d11ab3d2
25674 F20101118_AABFTO lamar_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
9e200eefcd3bf6c07fa718f2b72c3c50
8c108deb48757cdd7fe8f5a2967d566a3cfdaabd
4302 F20101118_AABFSZ lamar_j_Page_154thm.jpg
79830997fa21f2f9f6d52dfdfa6de290
56ac4926af8144123caeab9a79c75f7dd5e2a6b4
75849 F20101118_AABEPX lamar_j_Page_047.jpg
a6a6866d7a67d1e95fee4b8cb4014dbb
ca32c33633f339f29a1fb691e393c094bb95fa73
22901 F20101118_AABERA lamar_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
f0671a6751f185cab879b9108745432d
45fdc78afdb00a9d048ac870ca4da70432a76769
40680 F20101118_AABEQM lamar_j_Page_186.pro
0a5ca6e855efccc3fa67b88d1ac0412e
d89e4a63841063463eefab51ec88bc3d91b7bd18
23811 F20101118_AABFUD lamar_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
4e131130e39a10296764a1c492630f28
755004e52fcb07969f9524beecd733419063fa34
7781 F20101118_AABFTP lamar_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
6999bf7585c5fb5be3f1fa1061c48bcf
09f4522f8b8321162b09a052d593181f60b0ec5a
4692 F20101118_AABEPY lamar_j_Page_163thm.jpg
8a5048039d42cb2af01dca0fad5ca5ec
b9a9d9dda3395e4f997aa8c0ba39cf83140603fe
53806 F20101118_AABERB lamar_j_Page_086.pro
524a7ae80db52e8a48d21a574921fc42
5721c234919c90bb527042d10e7cb123939fcb8d
24933 F20101118_AABEQN lamar_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
79da35a6b30ad6111e44e61b03a5cf28
8b49ef58dccb9679c77c1cf94f41cd44f781c72c
6813 F20101118_AABFUE lamar_j_Page_061thm.jpg
8752f7d4dc964e97c185719611bcadca
b0bf4a4c84ab42ccce34e4a576e7cad54a8e8740
6526 F20101118_AABFTQ lamar_j_Page_077thm.jpg
0c7c6f0317622a5deb19858416de9cfc
373cca68ab6a0c7db58aef0ba83bbcd24d2ca664
54207 F20101118_AABEPZ lamar_j_Page_114.pro
b2cac345eb69190e0ff58ec37d8cf48d
e98079f679e535392ab99dd6495931db83bf4247
89435 F20101118_AABERC lamar_j_Page_132.jpg
5562d1b49255da35ac3ef69ce4b34666
d79c45617f662cceeafc2a170e5f10510a8029f7
F20101118_AABEQO lamar_j_Page_097.tif
3aa18d7d7cd1876d470648f0129866bc
d8227789cf69ebf2d046c806e100c7538fa99760
13189 F20101118_AABFUF lamar_j_Page_174.QC.jpg
8993ed76ff512ea253e5392e64cd2439
263859a42b1a9720bbd704d2e311120a713ffa94
27460 F20101118_AABFTR lamar_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
464a006483748b4fa70c2a544b3cd01b
e4faeab6e5499c0477217345a735e5e33d354cc9
22286 F20101118_AABERD lamar_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
8729bc4fd2ea6f752b0f0a5147703eec
42cca26f2e352a1678a6c6ed68da6a7b2c24d7c4
22663 F20101118_AABEQP lamar_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
4fd26630133c8ece59dd9b10a28f0f07
f69c21ff068d82d772d0df061d49af80e8d84ea4
25691 F20101118_AABFUG lamar_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
b6bc5c103d5dc0fda91005e6f01e6d2b
47376fa171a26972d1aece3ddc7d4e4e870226ba
7132 F20101118_AABFTS lamar_j_Page_066thm.jpg
28df3708687eef4ab95e4702f9a8a8c4
c966a5b5a07f38bcd0440a35601bb048a3793be1
1828 F20101118_AABERE lamar_j_Page_161.txt
341db0664b3d327b4c80c96f085ea2ea
f5c9de6e45685bd56a23e3f2d5815bfd5d8fa5a7
111478 F20101118_AABEQQ lamar_j_Page_056.jp2
3f28088fedbdff88a385360d59fab9f0
81b4e6ae9a2e9e113d15083c7fe9ea59b340563c
24349 F20101118_AABFUH lamar_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
e69df2f976c8472ed694800e889f3f6a
5df0a289420ad8cf4eeb9558736dfcb2ceb1fbe4
6575 F20101118_AABFTT lamar_j_Page_060thm.jpg
4ff3607e740c474c5bbaac03c426c2ee
e115c633083ab097b7bd0a47276f861cc837d720
6865 F20101118_AABERF lamar_j_Page_048thm.jpg
c190291298e42118dbe3cc620f129d12
110243c9d8d0431b6f8c51e115df2d199174e5f9
24522 F20101118_AABEQR lamar_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
ab661fa8fe415470360e8179c1ad009a
14807d50568e223bce16899483cc940c2a41f947
26440 F20101118_AABFUI lamar_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
835a714f6d086c8afdf4b59e08a8faa6
8a3f20c1a85cd05da29d8f4469ff77a59b7ee000
5892 F20101118_AABFTU lamar_j_Page_173thm.jpg
67a5f9d597ece137772c29428338c45c
bdf4592dd5e8ef443336b6006df1385ee362b971
29912 F20101118_AABERG lamar_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
c82630f39a6a18ca5afc007b9a2d9e82
44dbe7e55b355d4d0b58e3782eb2f25aac562cdb
F20101118_AABEQS lamar_j_Page_009.tif
fce88d9dd955d1e1ef975a7a95f1289d
e30702ce8c12f0e5dcce89e6f463cac6c7cb91d7
5540 F20101118_AABFUJ lamar_j_Page_008thm.jpg
fd46bed3d7471e0ab68cf803e27758f6
7a8fe369a5518d7886c186dec5ca085fe62012ff
25230 F20101118_AABFTV lamar_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
d85ec0eee9d083630c1c965b98e33022
15a35da015dce00e450fe846786bd61a530bfb24
54604 F20101118_AABERH lamar_j_Page_133.pro
df6f2443fb064371eb34a1c5fa4134eb
47961e702e65d3ca8f0ed97edc5788f2e642b675
72203 F20101118_AABEQT lamar_j_Page_034.jpg
23eb347b3e4b9114657fe0853e452703
98d184489ab98d5123d063df5f9f8117046d7d3f
5891 F20101118_AABFUK lamar_j_Page_189thm.jpg
ea4efab335be205fd8d8b21f5280c522
92602a9f294001ba24b8fc626fbc8257c677f77e
6699 F20101118_AABFTW lamar_j_Page_020thm.jpg
81487fc40648b36683fb6e2c2f7b3431
a0f35910050417e7f389ab5314766f8d7cd52181
23078 F20101118_AABERI lamar_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
04a4acdeac8e15ced520aa79f1662a2d
0a0938d553e544aad740b4b9ad4a9ae780bb6063
8229 F20101118_AABEQU lamar_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
a991551b355cf3d406610317796b9211
279d36330a06a84d0fd55b255a923e53ada523f6
22678 F20101118_AABFUL lamar_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
d3097f7ec322afbe21e2d2834fd804f8
42c98bcbc39429afadc8a2ed306b052fb522bceb
1327 F20101118_AABFTX lamar_j_Page_002thm.jpg
e7ac053177f0ddeafe602ba9d00c3631
b37d8697ef919ab7bac6b4b7436483d733e2b3f6
F20101118_AABERJ lamar_j_Page_024.tif
d019967dbe0d55e2ee434a74986364ad
3691b098d2be1d669d25815ec71943fe6d78b800
118972 F20101118_AABEQV lamar_j_Page_058.jp2
ba19253fd9871a75d4305d8d2163bd74
f4eab665715b2d12a76c186b6367551181be7166
281961 F20101118_AABFVA UFE0021486_00001.xml FULL
045bc0d1dad51f870d56da15ce42e8b2
f0d7eb7484b9bc2f9bb41046472b5bfc6d395c16
3722 F20101118_AABFUM lamar_j_Page_167thm.jpg
02fa77d9bc3d0ffa43c3e7c96b1d0730
9c43f6658fc5825aad1b22bd26b9bca2d405c24e
6978 F20101118_AABFTY lamar_j_Page_036thm.jpg
21c69bb1691df2e8179ce73d06c4b1d5
63d1f2de7839c76532b724a88272372ad173830a
5377 F20101118_AABERK lamar_j_Page_002.jp2
9943face22b61c2522d32ea5722c786f
70e42ecb487e4a3ceb0903e3455509b8716f8e96
71359 F20101118_AABEQW lamar_j_Page_142.jpg
460765556cb5e1f8104fc623028b7b24
0a9097f2bfdb99168c95b9b935ebff6e301e3a1a
6130 F20101118_AABFVB lamar_j_Page_003thm.jpg
eb070e1be4ac4aaceea1cf0faf305c85
63b87ca503cbe00777d31def0305a60f4c27bd60
2594 F20101118_AABFUN lamar_j_Page_009thm.jpg
7f2dfc73d677039e070bc74669a33eca
ff99ea1268f6e31a3928a78d5a886a784434e8c0
25886 F20101118_AABFTZ lamar_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
ad0e78f42b44e2456d43482db319de04
9a3752077b214b62aaa54b9defc0de4894892f2a
17045 F20101118_AABERL lamar_j_Page_160.QC.jpg
21c9461d3d89a88e7c02fafbc952d3ee
37d6295bccb1c23d407fc1310d0dbd4a36710680
1815 F20101118_AABEQX lamar_j_Page_162.txt
695871d395539d9be5253caf8abf2741
89180f236d6de88109cfcb84d4a4abdf625e7497
26950 F20101118_AABFVC lamar_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
1730ae8ed5c2043849bdae6bb2d8307a
15a40c661140e3a3eaf65f2ba492c6164e62767e
6572 F20101118_AABFUO lamar_j_Page_056thm.jpg
1a4fdb462b17adc20caaef86faf94a98
9f745a0792bad170bfaf5ae277e9178273073978
52112 F20101118_AABESA lamar_j_Page_079.pro
829dbce292602fd87f791e0b8926da9a
751b858ee3753aff57012daee8e1d3e62d037ff8
31199 F20101118_AABERM lamar_j_Page_144.pro
5e3651619ad1c8949147658e7cf37bed
3efebab6ab8b00ddfee35394c815cd48e724ffe6
7833 F20101118_AABFVD lamar_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
30df54d53f71719b1340739b70b7880b
5ef3b74202cab1ce16345093f11aa51a4997517e
4856 F20101118_AABFUP lamar_j_Page_119thm.jpg
0d7014f1fc2d0c44ea68b7cba12d568f
4b0492af9d37a08b4b1c759776c5a12faa215f7f
3937 F20101118_AABESB lamar_j_Page_155thm.jpg
3a48dd4416054fb352812cc16c6111b8
669e6b96f4d00c4f805920254b2a62fdbc98c2ee
54265 F20101118_AABERN lamar_j_Page_139.jpg
b47f96185f36e6ae5a1516bb59acd82b
12dfb8fbd3a856e4391f395a3a623d189aa9c3b7
F20101118_AABEQY lamar_j_Page_070.tif
9590b34b6afc67993b6043467212bbae
91c651bbf480d6f3e87c5457996aadd8fb2d4c78
26046 F20101118_AABFVE lamar_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
3439b38198b2092e2a849a7bedc145b3
b73858048e19e9ee9fbd74c96548bd64dc8d2b09
7399 F20101118_AABFUQ lamar_j_Page_102thm.jpg
9d225839867fc64b277eed71e973a317
120d2bd9b123575e0af68ee48c0601ed3190f922
138737 F20101118_AABESC lamar_j_Page_098.jp2
596dee7073698c42b03bf7d41493940f
8c6f3ab0c553e9bdc7cda0a4850ba7abd6126ced
F20101118_AABERO lamar_j_Page_029.tif
a9b6912de3f8999c684718e7c4fe47cf
e2c4e2767fb625f9f8419956aa59ecd4d39417ff
F20101118_AABEQZ lamar_j_Page_113.tif
16127d27b291c278f57336cae1ee038c
3bb5ba3e73eef98174a6e17c01c0e311eabe2ecb
4943 F20101118_AABFVF lamar_j_Page_023thm.jpg
7872b2482ffe4160259fbe64aa770324
fcfed57ed707d5989a21a7e90dd53e14562d2ef5
14687 F20101118_AABFUR lamar_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
147e174c522464440251f6ea8c2616af
bd7da6ae7de6739d63e9d332a2e892dfede4b78f
2361 F20101118_AABESD lamar_j_Page_090.txt
87bd060689f368674621bbfa735c50a0
5690c4e903484534faa02e74b5afb1e98909efbc
6980 F20101118_AABERP lamar_j_Page_090thm.jpg
4af27f0625e8a5998003ec287437fbde
f45c4287f657c20072fd74eeaf8dc831bcdc9747
25922 F20101118_AABFVG lamar_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
6e9b8995627ca45fa590efce0aa43328
2966a0de955cb7e6ca1176392a63de8bf1332233
17819 F20101118_AABFUS lamar_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
f66d999e1d99b5f17491806369aeb438
8218c10ebbb4df19149e018f845491b392e014f8
68369 F20101118_AABESE lamar_j_Page_157.jpg
b90eeeec4423bc91e88cdd98c8c41740
7920075880cc692e344f0afcad03c921b71f2ae8
4509 F20101118_AABERQ lamar_j_Page_136thm.jpg
1fc2871ea48ccb4a7882b31fe8930e32
a9bbf05723683cffa6f9b2c36949048132e8def0
25808 F20101118_AABFVH lamar_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
973029ba916ed9fcff94e1f01891ec89
6e9211ce676e62b0accaf7fce77f99776904fd2f
6539 F20101118_AABFUT lamar_j_Page_033thm.jpg
1d8d9acadc9723a1a58932e24ddebf0c
b5e9d0dc35396b2f945ca052db2a04af9c5155cd
F20101118_AABESF lamar_j_Page_021.tif
de4b57cc9b5f5dfb7eb06758542d3b69
e0443ac11751acfecb5c1728e0cdb793cbb1456c
68457 F20101118_AABERR lamar_j_Page_098.pro
075d5f756e1865c15478a5c68d479999
c23d1b0c73f75d557c8a2e616414e71fc09d6f68
F20101118_AABFVI lamar_j_Page_042thm.jpg
e6da08178d174115fa16127d4013768a
edaa2f21dd5b1150945ab9985059bfb1b50f927e
7234 F20101118_AABFUU lamar_j_Page_110thm.jpg
4189bbc90195e43f40df29dbd899dd63
a4d441a34006a4aa2d75ff573e0865826130e70f
256150 F20101118_AABESG lamar_j_Page_150.jp2
86c47c8fe989c0f07e0da261804ebcf5
36472d6a2d525a1a9cde63eeac3e0215619cdb39
103827 F20101118_AABERS lamar_j_Page_154.pro
18158bdca60f5ba5282b6b93a36dcfc9
9ac64ab0c876e4a298b0e663a0832f8c622526c2
24964 F20101118_AABFVJ lamar_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
83c7db8880b7bb6be4f6f612092417c8
8886b42e6b651513b82bd86a982e15d5293009d4
4484 F20101118_AABFUV lamar_j_Page_156thm.jpg
df58dc7278526752bd283456208276f8
aa0125a8ade9330a1c7bc7d03d51a6096bf5a261
2494 F20101118_AABESH lamar_j_Page_180.txt
a7894365c450d70cb559fcc5195c1599
9df33324b446ab2ab626258baec5acc20beb1808
7140 F20101118_AABERT lamar_j_Page_099thm.jpg
316b8759df3c536da34e5a28df53f1c3
a399c0780c6b355090b3720fa903b3d3a1f535b3
25721 F20101118_AABFVK lamar_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
c0694f94a68672d1f38e141355d56e13
1ded8df585d6894dc7a5bedf26328ba3e88486e3
19846 F20101118_AABFUW lamar_j_Page_181.QC.jpg
602fbc1c5ccd62c73681d7cbafff1165
7355c1ae8740a014424e118dfcf8bdd91226dc90
3304 F20101118_AABESI lamar_j_Page_012.txt
20e27dc0130b057d78364637c89049c5
0cbbfe6afe5161397e1a2846a1c1d7ec3f4ccb51
112973 F20101118_AABERU lamar_j_Page_047.jp2
7874a9456e86cb2b26fdf8dc7405a293
73bbd9ac1e03af325eaedf4055d816414b8d6d30
21515 F20101118_AABFVL lamar_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
b122c1f31d27620509ae5313678fe986
a3849dbbe7b7c9f484e84ac7b16659c8e771d2bf
18851 F20101118_AABFUX lamar_j_Page_161.QC.jpg
9b63aaf0c1173bb4634e9b1191506af1
9830692e5eb1c96ba9a02b6c811bc55741748f71
2104 F20101118_AABESJ lamar_j_Page_010.txt
455c74229aba3a20a2e057cdb5433432
dd114ad5c386a6114dab39af4ad9e07fad3d0a7d
F20101118_AABERV lamar_j_Page_023.tif
bdda3d2309048f4f58dbeda477dbad53
024bd9cdfa36b0fbb0f72dfd29e2ebef7632902b
4320 F20101118_AABFWA lamar_j_Page_142thm.jpg
8914f66b44a1de251cada9d02f017c80
ef93b7f5d9ed4b20419498d083ce298dd0f7d7d6
6223 F20101118_AABFVM lamar_j_Page_071thm.jpg
343c9765a9386d1023f7764aa8cb46f1
0ce76e30ef0ff3aa86ec0249974a714638727e79
7482 F20101118_AABFUY lamar_j_Page_105thm.jpg
ec5d85dee3ce810da536ca0d1c524e89
9113fce65f0320f3b642aa59ac9487148fffb8b6
2590 F20101118_AABESK lamar_j_Page_136.txt
12e497ea5792db449fb98878705b0d3d
6ec5bf66f828cdd97c43816d3edae3971df805d8
60585 F20101118_AABERW lamar_j_Page_154.jpg
fc05b9561a036c466b5334063efe72e6
e1ebbd5e964633a312f0825a9cabfd1f0043dbb0
3217 F20101118_AABFWB lamar_j_Page_144thm.jpg
ae599e852d37c5b267f5b84b244fd8db
46924fc8b2c96fd2ecb6d161c59c12d91c53ba46
21650 F20101118_AABFVN lamar_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
d9b65e61f808949cffc59c433795d768
ac1be0714e6e30f4ea6e5c6a549a0f8bb4f8c6de
20415 F20101118_AABFUZ lamar_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
6a4780f4bc6db106b64841edde0397ff
4fd641a106cac6a2bf631d5d76680ac0d8266e19
4871 F20101118_AABESL lamar_j_Page_158thm.jpg
440891a20b803e398c542661bc3dba80
e34347382fc52a6401118cb50f8153666d4a021e
2710 F20101118_AABERX lamar_j_Page_028.txt
104d087db2ffe9e9ae418d51e9035a24
69113e960cad889c250d94f14dd978799937e6a1
11722 F20101118_AABFWC lamar_j_Page_151.QC.jpg
2bebfef832bbb27fc821e411a1bd42c5
4285a43d8315e2779abd0a54aad2791f9dc8ca30
5526 F20101118_AABFVO lamar_j_Page_084thm.jpg
6754d8cc4efc65ebcdcc891ea30c674a
716cc7f243e48caec9f9f8f85c63dec548e32c40
25814 F20101118_AABESM lamar_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
5bf67d7c3846913784d408ba519defa2
3f2cae57cec25395a0a31249bbbd79cf8fc56810
53405 F20101118_AABERY lamar_j_Page_165.jpg
b005efaf210572584ef93d545b698eea
f9866cc75c06655f05673b638b7b3e5b0af8971f
F20101118_AABETA lamar_j_Page_016.tif
fe564092f5ce13c5972e3c2a5943cda4
d8fb6a2f1f3813d7a87becd4d42dc52c24819f1c
5027 F20101118_AABFWD lamar_j_Page_152.QC.jpg
6dee329b7aebda1222b969705000adca
058f0895f8c7726231bdf9b2cb51363725ac8a85
6206 F20101118_AABFVP lamar_j_Page_088thm.jpg
f57388f17df3ff96e4458de7abe375a7
11f2e41ccea1a1afd8aa71a9c596e1264c2eab85
29580 F20101118_AABESN lamar_j_Page_170.pro
36f15069044ae5192db7bab65e33954f
fccffc8c7a9b41d0d6640dcda1bb9c892d174f6f
F20101118_AABETB lamar_j_Page_025.tif
666d48bbda203a7061b5349429d45b06
26bea27625467c7ac228b17122bbc657466b0cd5
12606 F20101118_AABFWE lamar_j_Page_155.QC.jpg
33d4a18ce7eef40b78fcbb16e7234b82
5611b1b7ef25bb7fa45ea85388d989e3acfaeec5
6486 F20101118_AABFVQ lamar_j_Page_093thm.jpg
51722d161cde11a017dee4697962422f
80ddb6825aa2a588d75a86c72e1b982c5a47f55c
24344 F20101118_AABESO lamar_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
2b175370ebbc6df5c01b143505264df3
a710c0138405acda0e0fd127086996d5daddbb19
3982 F20101118_AABERZ lamar_j_Page_138thm.jpg
884cbe2cdf6d861fedf0e4695ab82f46
2cce1f32522c4ea9c9f1502374968b6424eca659
F20101118_AABETC lamar_j_Page_087.tif
43712fb6ac1674ad4dc798b3d12873c7
3f13048589d381c96a7190b6f29fd05759fd1006
5513 F20101118_AABFWF lamar_j_Page_157thm.jpg
0bbc8efa303c89bb425fb30bc838e52d
793a476546168f9c84e6056a8fe954a2e638bc84
5571 F20101118_AABFVR lamar_j_Page_094thm.jpg
39f51f63bb836d9ff9b05c7fb95a239b
5b99f12e857237563163f92e7f489c21c72cf47a
1725 F20101118_AABESP lamar_j_Page_146.txt
36a6c16ce7f29b023cf998d3bd1e43ef
4cd23493d531b477babdf23b41d1483cd371f0dc
880559 F20101118_AABETD lamar_j_Page_143.jp2
b7c903ebcc186a4b0820e5c343d68922
0df14dcfb963872f855cf7f4e65aa4ad48c364bd
16455 F20101118_AABFWG lamar_j_Page_170.QC.jpg
903d129c451c18ab65be67e680918ae1
866d22687dd76799eab1ea6f5975ebcd114edf0e
7017 F20101118_AABFVS lamar_j_Page_098thm.jpg
8cf97fc24a5ef7234fe1f27d4ac61d89
97ff5d3496898bdab0605a48b568a2f9c6759910
99456 F20101118_AABESQ lamar_j_Page_003.jp2
4176a43fa2c5f58fa486f52bed1dcbd4
dd0ff9bb079f30dc3fea851e3966bf5c28b67c24
2212 F20101118_AABETE lamar_j_Page_118.txt
a633b0b033820049678ed0ec481af817
39efa0e161a37ee2f58c2384da9119dc2dcc6795
16900 F20101118_AABFWH lamar_j_Page_177.QC.jpg
2f1ac87681b52310a7a9c302089680bb
a8fe59377ed85592e08ed940ca2f77ac1b40e4ad
6793 F20101118_AABFVT lamar_j_Page_103thm.jpg
66218afe877b16cb4356788041b52f84
32ea11e7dd2833ffd6dea2bb9e2c82ee6dd20e44
165827 F20101118_AABETF lamar_j_Page_108.jp2
39f6e92cd1beaae88ab79f21d42f4517
0b2dddc5ad2bfafdfa0d1459bfcba5754d60fd5e
6804 F20101118_AABESR lamar_j_Page_018thm.jpg
ce5c25f3983a6b1d1c3cb90e11068e74
bc9662f9bb836147cc580e83823b95cfa1c7aa5e
18613 F20101118_AABFWI lamar_j_Page_178.QC.jpg
5d79687442276ab553a46c5f81aefe62
4a7817ea2b1fb651b04a466e235570f96c5d5368
6981 F20101118_AABFVU lamar_j_Page_114thm.jpg
d5f8885609bbce14a8a6a581cdbb4168
1e668659d4f05ccc2165a2a67aab7b9df8012f62
43597 F20101118_AABETG lamar_j_Page_156.jpg
0c826c422025ef46c17382de1f542f08
515c7fb5aae6f8893412382556f086313d84b403
F20101118_AABESS lamar_j_Page_074.tif
0cc928a315632e05476cc2223ba8aa01
f8e4f820832b685408d952b026d0a84b30046e2a
5492 F20101118_AABFWJ lamar_j_Page_180thm.jpg
a3505820d93200a66d8fb2b3c67b18d3
06ff4c267c25b87a710eae00f90f5913efdaba89
17728 F20101118_AABFVV lamar_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
71bf518c733c50259e8cb89256d149d4
fc5d40b8fed6a9de2a840c215ef730e0fc4a31ab
120774 F20101118_AABETH lamar_j_Page_037.jp2
2866873728e957a93927f4c8847b4a6b
2b080b3bacd456c06735c9cf044d26c47966f7e6
45039 F20101118_AABEST lamar_j_Page_030.pro
3c5a67a0302670ccb7d588a4b979c6f7
5b04f0ed9275ddd6bd4d6789dea0d6b106397d99
15271 F20101118_AABFWK lamar_j_Page_185.QC.jpg
cc58144e6ece62c6a728a94ce14e6236
2dec87d900f7889f2934f2c529ed39035476316c
25751 F20101118_AABFVW lamar_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
6b717ab6e23824e20c691c7c7f7fceb9
38b9880d3c8ec4e828bd1da9263507f955c4c20f
26615 F20101118_AABETI lamar_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
ef5dc8bbf247d7c53322452ff8844dbb
c03efbed2bf9936d102cc13238a89c9a6cf74d16
29674 F20101118_AABESU lamar_j_Page_165.pro
38213a9a36015d8e9d0cc31ecb8c0469
4c65886d85c7930c3350548b936ed3bde40afa81
5747 F20101118_AABFWL lamar_j_Page_187thm.jpg
d399d932b7a66b7aa22a6333bf4c6280
19224d405e241b21e8f966d5441dbdc692a14bb9
26525 F20101118_AABFVX lamar_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
a1fbc6943105241a47feef2f8123f838
f3f917fddbe6b7b6204036bb93ba65e7758860ec
15313 F20101118_AABETJ lamar_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
3f3ff16a12fd33ee92fdb8473da4b8a2
7e9f87413c5d8c6e639886bb7a845b838cd6772a
151905 F20101118_AABESV lamar_j_Page_100.jp2
f5f553fd7cea244a75bb88676088155a
979930d099d979f1d09719a798bc512500407899
20789 F20101118_AABFWM lamar_j_Page_189.QC.jpg
86437cbcf112145f34d3a2153dffef89
64041dd20edfbccdd86f6a62988e4846f25adecb
27655 F20101118_AABFVY lamar_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
8c7fb603859b4b6f3cafa3314ce3ccad
f88b8a1bd82a309973b81f5881d360390214077e
3396 F20101118_AABETK lamar_j_Page_184thm.jpg
1eabac317aa36cffc8019296eba10b62
d4dc44a5790c003905d9f1cc026e5b6cbef19fc4
4033 F20101118_AABESW lamar_j_Page_004.txt
8263eb59818ad6de75adfb3b79d74421
b318a1fd2763e6f2fbab69edb95ca9f58a106037
19221 F20101118_AABFWN lamar_j_Page_190.QC.jpg
1c5650363259efb49466766a2ac15609
81af433399e4799aa736d57139ada42b1d15dbf9
4903 F20101118_AABFVZ lamar_j_Page_140thm.jpg
398ddac15e0450d4f16bc87a917f7221
1f6ba8685b47017509f45ce077d09142ff2df8d4
F20101118_AABETL lamar_j_Page_149.tif
bf826b41b79481e70ffdebfdf72cc73b
b49df986f2bcd4e1106702258b6ba373d8a68f72
25219 F20101118_AABESX lamar_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
93b7acd63b3241ffe43877527e978a5b
ef653cca14951c1783707ef45ff2502d41c0f07f
5402 F20101118_AABFWO lamar_j_Page_190thm.jpg
f92b5d00fd32ff011a85beeebae23a8c
cfc516f591bd71d998f14477bb5c0cb57a837230
2785 F20101118_AABEUA lamar_j_Page_103.txt
749ff44d371cc5c5aff86497827509d6
16b8bb52759a5f38a0e915e1e46c99e619d3fe0b
55616 F20101118_AABETM lamar_j_Page_037.pro
f532862d4882891fdf7e3ac8227a2c4c
dffdf3767379287f58ae10d78ad2f065bf01c7bd
6615 F20101118_AABESY lamar_j_Page_005thm.jpg
77f63f148419d2c038b01e8c7e1e12eb
d91738b238a0c6d380523040f5c035991123617d
1305 F20101118_AABEUB lamar_j_Page_165.txt
0368b9aa18b58c140205c45503733d29
5d7068f13619c94346fd66ee10d26c13afce8f23
1051967 F20101118_AABETN lamar_j_Page_116.jp2
f4e941fd6f09284b3005afc32b4b4c9e
e6dd89b15b1bbcc43240d835b0ec50f77047cfb9
1051902 F20101118_AABESZ lamar_j_Page_050.jp2
f2429b044c579a3184665f3ebe334426
27056b661fef27ae5da2a59c398c7875291883b0
9361 F20101118_AABEUC lamar_j_Page_159.QC.jpg
9d743c38210967e924666d7a562a71d0
e6c9b33745868db22aacfcb980754bd60476e91d
24836 F20101118_AABETO lamar_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
80072f6431bb3ab62233a601208d73cf
72e43939c13034cf27daf2a4afeb35241b53859f
31848 F20101118_AABEUD lamar_j_Page_146.pro
85b300fead7f2c16b9572f34e2962a57
1ebaa95449d738602cd3342164a10393e8624413
10903 F20101118_AABETP lamar_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
2ec8af0b9b1ed03075be818f6d331270
316fb344e561c6ea56154a2818cae8f30f3beee1
21506 F20101118_AABEUE lamar_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
e3f9573ca015b9022a906dc57836db1a
d847ece9837fc4b7d5261831bd10ad11917f1ef7
6979 F20101118_AABETQ lamar_j_Page_017thm.jpg
2e616cda96fcd4814dacab06802237e2
c66b729051f14f851ac5eb65a3be76280d36fb38
2248 F20101118_AABEUF lamar_j_Page_069.txt
20f2a2a23045f69f0ba321c9e31873c7
8322b017e6ff19dbab641dbb87ef5cedaf5dd092
7230 F20101118_AABETR lamar_j_Page_123thm.jpg
868615c8d0a3300d370252da26b4babd
2ebfac32730abe247070c7f4adea343e5f13d41e
26284 F20101118_AABFAA lamar_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
9f52955be3392c1f3bb456846796b703
385b3c5d216d037514ca565514daa1d49592b1e9
3901 F20101118_AABEUG lamar_j_Page_171thm.jpg
64b27153eb7eaa7669a2e9939d8a10f6
984ca35091aa50b22fb7036db3edc3ac310e72df
115677 F20101118_AABETS lamar_j_Page_128.jp2
a0dcc042a4592a30611618e97d7eb95a
c57a92826937bbec6ab145ac5794fe2d4430a401
2636 F20101118_AABFAB lamar_j_Page_132.txt
20c6d8531a95f916e2c170bcf8401281
54aa4e188bc8dba14f50cc8741328c1199e0965d
62486 F20101118_AABEUH lamar_j_Page_164.jpg
32ae30d9033a6e37cdec1af228733ef2
f1a4af88d91f3be484a708d275db22fbef68fe53
6989 F20101118_AABETT lamar_j_Page_013thm.jpg
ffbca71df6e64b2bcda8cde832a6e463
19910f24f1ba8003596d2713f58a530ea1a7e75e
11498 F20101118_AABFAC lamar_j_Page_167.QC.jpg
bfa61eb2dc3ba7d4dc99aec449c790b0
26cd924ee3c79489f4160ce9f4de2681d1c51040
F20101118_AABEUI lamar_j_Page_019.tif
016efc36760de3ed79093d6add015ec2
ccf9c1f77d2be7f23e580389faa0aaef55c43bca
328669 F20101118_AABETU lamar_j_Page_184.jp2
b07192bbc9586df572f50f8ccf5062d3
d2bfbd2b64275ffe298388a7c3b0158b721d06c4
57277 F20101118_AABFAD lamar_j_Page_084.jpg
b6ffb81419a7878a766f4ba9ee8122a2
950bd8ac4a988ab44bfb4d2d79b10294ebbea95f
2739 F20101118_AABEUJ lamar_j_Page_007.txt
ab72843573851369c76292bad2a61c06
98a3e65a302e687858c9cd416a7d581c8625bb65
5760 F20101118_AABETV lamar_j_Page_179thm.jpg
aa25ad18be320a036b738a6a0dc5e076
2436423dc70bbd094c59cd00bf5833a8a45dbd56
75669 F20101118_AABFAE lamar_j_Page_081.jpg
9f11b75342f07e502b06898707a46059
02ed37e4bbc84ab7ede240c301e0162607da7e1a
26424 F20101118_AABEUK lamar_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
c4375ed3ce90ecdcc0385a27aae54131
b8a55733f313b6e05d042bb121d654fe95767385
F20101118_AABETW lamar_j_Page_050.tif
d09daae6f3bc721577b528e418f82307
05afc08c644d5a3cf5c0b0cc95cbe9d3ed253872
785451 F20101118_AABFAF lamar_j_Page_072.jp2
28d3b8d8a15688c6519632169ca425ab
a25c92288c943741d071932c328d5cb97e501035
F20101118_AABEUL lamar_j_Page_175.tif
deef0521e42934bdc8311c26f2e5140b
de2e514fd79b064bc2dc4b6aaa0e8489731f6911
91399 F20101118_AABETX lamar_j_Page_103.jpg
cc100369d9e120383a081092240bb4cc
d973cf91e2ad9bbbb74d8dba6c700c5c9f1b61aa
28962 F20101118_AABFAG lamar_j_Page_135.jp2
b22ea3a6e7d11e03654e1db1371aa8fb
5c93f3bbcea4b2abcf9bd64ad9608641d522f5d4
7055 F20101118_AABEUM lamar_j_Page_129thm.jpg
a4c3fe5755a3f6c5686cdd8036115d51
18493608bd2b6bbe4000c60ce8064193317083c1
2080 F20101118_AABETY lamar_j_Page_078.txt
1d8fde76969a5592eb4963cfbaa90a31
2ea0193e8c6320061817e2125250048772b1b487
118011 F20101118_AABEVA lamar_j_Page_042.jp2
b9f0fb72ef42a762ab5bb3abc2b854b3
5cfc0d1c2f86d765b1b5e4bd7819addc178dd043
30518 F20101118_AABEUN lamar_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
5461b200072e05e9888885ca559a494b
7ff106215bfab3d2e5dcc280579ea8c80253dff9
F20101118_AABETZ lamar_j_Page_041.tif
d3689052ca58751149ccbd111727b47f
e457ba3b6606202f57e0c8d96b094d23ab741b6e
68072 F20101118_AABFAH lamar_j_Page_007.pro
d034f16876dae0612ee03b4b374c028b
89a1847ac9fb2419d8cc5174355306831f643413
77213 F20101118_AABEVB lamar_j_Page_133.jpg
0aa80fc5dce08db4067fa54ac188e815
1244b6693b1302c3fb7531343e9c250ff646d96e
1051979 F20101118_AABEUO lamar_j_Page_153.jp2
66f5f7a41608f67c43ca6c9314c24a36
7e7d3103b1a2775aa9fb2c436c6416a58d736f1e
29484 F20101118_AABFAI lamar_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
dcbdcbb8d660a25ec7bd870ad394e9db
5a586fdb2c197fffe79f6ca6a17bf2eea1f75389
125555 F20101118_AABEVC lamar_j_Page_018.jp2
ac65d5202b89d6c9e730b9ab03a30016
ae4fed9d521ebededf3f2e407634bfdb64dfa287
5562 F20101118_AABEUP lamar_j_Page_182thm.jpg
cff94ca36962c702e7f764323b168cdb
6a4715b6d7bdb6bfdac22dc01e9ea66e274353ff
7129 F20101118_AABFAJ lamar_j_Page_127thm.jpg
a71bd03c2d09ef994ac71e424c35e1a2
88af5217e27ce6d7c315348007a088391998e29a
111198 F20101118_AABEVD lamar_j_Page_078.jp2
3b621810c8237c214e9638606a554076
c93be8a77dc6db5c484a057a440de24ac24c2c7d
9150 F20101118_AABEUQ lamar_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
2add92db73563df0dbb957fa1a33fed1
415c8932785ce041dc9be30a1b5fda1b79240643
32643 F20101118_AABFAK lamar_j_Page_120.pro
1547c7577eeb4c0a37ec27b164ae53af
8c6f3ab60ead52baa3f1b57c65d891a29094bc23
15976 F20101118_AABEVE lamar_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
966417f68a929550b00e05653f3499ac
4d035f5c32fc017f8172932e46cb8de69640995d
2456 F20101118_AABEUR lamar_j_Page_089.txt
908d3f201c778b80b5d39f3ebcc12127
2e41787785ac13e3d1b1a4cf7978944b4d6b676d
90306 F20101118_AABFBA lamar_j_Page_029.jpg
344117c0b6b64b41b3c16c3d0b51b126
2d0f08dd383344102b87c3da9e07f932e954dbe1
217787 F20101118_AABFAL UFE0021486_00001.mets
bd661c51ffedd3142ee55655458e42f5
62721f069cb78a744d95d32a538d48a2c98abce5
F20101118_AABEVF lamar_j_Page_095.tif
fef83f45f6f5e406668d976314037207
18dcbae96970228b7c7dd3ed9f7159bf82bbab06
37584 F20101118_AABEUS lamar_j_Page_149.pro
9ab32b06fa98c8d079f073a93cf4ea3a
230d7d930d7d60d9c02ac8d3924839f179316362
93628 F20101118_AABFBB lamar_j_Page_030.jpg
be8e47fd31dd92fd48f027970f963b16
9d47393a970062f0ee6e1b0cafe8cadfd2d2c198
1856 F20101118_AABEVG lamar_j_Page_175.txt
6662b611a841b709cf8ec46ba0b85ed5
2372f6e3ba2f09040eaf81a5bbbcb3963a61ebe8
7112 F20101118_AABEUT lamar_j_Page_037thm.jpg
c6c04d71a2be6e58db44a8acf919d1eb
76072f3802ba1416a8b3588c9939170935753c38
62449 F20101118_AABFBC lamar_j_Page_032.jpg
36ec88464758b4707c7b06847bb23e4a
b13edb3d7b5658ac88b11988f49bd0cd07637959
26109 F20101118_AABEVH lamar_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
0d266a08445cf971a5be1a1104b7dbfa
58f26aefbac5eec4b093a7fcea8626a66c8a494a
7499 F20101118_AABEUU lamar_j_Page_104thm.jpg
cf949434239e9084f49eeb648bd4bd83
4110c489c6531198e609f25a7d95ffcc51f85a14
63080 F20101118_AABFBD lamar_j_Page_033.jpg
fbd5fe11fb6fb93e307db00c288efc95
f173d092c6f491831a77685209cb7c9cd71e212f
9899 F20101118_AABFAO lamar_j_Page_002.jpg
3c27960e2e286c237ab33f2d6535acb8
15284d68d41afe57507b6dc139618c023037e994
F20101118_AABEVI lamar_j_Page_165.tif
14e031ff24bb9eed9721984a57dc2edc
396d69b9787711c2e5c49788fd7d2082739972a3
24598 F20101118_AABEUV lamar_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
26e1b8edc9fbfb589cd3fe1b600cb927
b1cb14524b6f93e803bc466ee43ae20319d44589
79194 F20101118_AABFBE lamar_j_Page_041.jpg
8a6b4291a8ef44a5e74df69bfcc996df
196171b6cb26d38a5dfbcc7de31822adf9e2656a
68946 F20101118_AABFAP lamar_j_Page_003.jpg
88a9d76eade5b559e1a2f9fd1ad5d965
9be5bc49a19559fa4a96eedbfe0b540ac141564c
F20101118_AABEVJ lamar_j_Page_073.tif
398f2cea93d722427b4e0900f53e6d37
09947b5e1608240bfea09d8822472a9154754ec9
18477 F20101118_AABEUW lamar_j_Page_168.QC.jpg
d29a78f8458df87f68df2a57fef28f07
5b47de90ca27f2c2443c1ec90d99118a27e3d688
77350 F20101118_AABFBF lamar_j_Page_043.jpg
fbc2b15ee149e7d44e9ed799d26ae665
bea036cbe2774336da60f0ef18da8cbbae9cb408
111704 F20101118_AABFAQ lamar_j_Page_005.jpg
88629e2d88661dd03c85ef34edec35d5
9eb7a3ea7c974765dcb6748dddf7fef56b3266f0
56021 F20101118_AABEVK lamar_j_Page_092.pro
7f5ef10185c74bc17da520870ae85ae6
ba393cf790446fb08b697a5cc25940d7b67b2b90
6890 F20101118_AABEUX lamar_j_Page_081thm.jpg
8916d7b71fd55767dfe03303d302f75b
a4d08dcc0fd33eaa10fa3af265159e7501be9687
77785 F20101118_AABFBG lamar_j_Page_044.jpg
4cedd03e1b1e2c62f12b09a6dd7e540b
a6758629d51a32116669cbfae650c548456e599b
34046 F20101118_AABFAR lamar_j_Page_006.jpg
0a5f0593316eb80e4564dbae6066da56
420579413ba08f33bcaaa9dc3a45d31386335f6d
F20101118_AABEVL lamar_j_Page_072.tif
efca137f98f428e49036ee377dc63621
51239f0450be98e8b53ff48e7029306b8c561f7d
24640 F20101118_AABEUY lamar_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
f1a080404616f71a2e535109df60fa97
403dbe79748d214f72fa913d879e81d603d0edce
36445 F20101118_AABFBH lamar_j_Page_046.jpg
c137a5c67dd1db7db4d6a7e04452c89d
92f72c9cb40e9e4ab5f517068bfa97f76e4774f4
116781 F20101118_AABEWA lamar_j_Page_118.jp2
31a706d5f4a3409e2dbb98059881af1e
24dc6884c924d6776ebad6d2988eef84109fa0fd
78425 F20101118_AABFAS lamar_j_Page_007.jpg
a67acbf844081367b80551c5e1caaeb3
f527969b62b69da40bc233e02d4bf53b3a10f22b
F20101118_AABEVM lamar_j_Page_003.tif
269c260f3820bb242762f39ed10c6abc
0e46d4e076eddf87957386e23b24621f9aab4457
1058 F20101118_AABEUZ lamar_j_Page_158.txt
7c34b27aa26668a631a67164e10af43d
8e0e396099c77c311d5c60cbab0ccb9b1d2fc65d
25281 F20101118_AABEWB lamar_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
e8c089a3d9c2040a737cd83459651567
02d02cabc214a5981efdaa1727741c8b5b847497
74459 F20101118_AABFAT lamar_j_Page_015.jpg
4fd9ab0294ddc04a7555937a0b872d66
9c41ea6eb926226939136f6f2efd3328475dc07a
F20101118_AABEVN lamar_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
20d3cf104c8364c96ade144840d49fbd
e9d802c012da8f923724167a2dda5065f80850fc
74118 F20101118_AABFBI lamar_j_Page_051.jpg
4a5a6e2e09154f3fdded33c7365cdedc
1822840e70591b107ac52cdf69e67594538b0d50
1007 F20101118_AABEWC lamar_j_Page_182.txt
eefcc288e971c3a5b5b4db50c20e22a3
c26089c4ee933b615323403f1ef6e5f7ab8084ef
74886 F20101118_AABFAU lamar_j_Page_017.jpg
95993a8ab175310028a478c8cfaa04bb
4755dcf7df08604d61effd400d07a7ae5342a44d
61650 F20101118_AABEVO lamar_j_Page_079.jpg
aed74e09b7a154fff2df7b09b9a7dc0f
c855f0631d6911c8e41f438ed028bf9797d89719
74646 F20101118_AABFBJ lamar_j_Page_053.jpg
d58ed0fa165d9bf3e60160eec3f0d413
9e496aa682d9da83395bcfbfada0b26162a54326
15567 F20101118_AABEWD lamar_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
adfe6de9b194e1e8ef9d9a324a6ba86d
3f56042f25dfa738f44e38da820cf82b7e449f71
80936 F20101118_AABFAV lamar_j_Page_021.jpg
0edb026576c642d455c94269ef3f5b68
8cd2698b9c619743895271c60dd627f3499bf0e1
F20101118_AABEVP lamar_j_Page_151.tif
0663970857f6d7bf0ea5921c1a236fa3
a1e1d475a3437b36ffc7269fcef53e70e8272fb9
77385 F20101118_AABFBK lamar_j_Page_058.jpg
08a1ce0de37b83474f18dfaf5fd449c3
8c61eeb9556d007a8f0d1d6ff0966143a9a62ba6
F20101118_AABEWE lamar_j_Page_093.tif
b71dda939e5be2090c56da6779f92fd7
1954b61b1a37a6d7b52413b402af3d65e2472818
51105 F20101118_AABFAW lamar_j_Page_023.jpg
3a1f9eefde25e485d57ca4b3b7922e6d
5315aa6e189d7b99105c3fd78c28a4e6bf8f74e2
5890 F20101118_AABEVQ lamar_j_Page_076thm.jpg
dafd2a420060c66534265db56fcc372d
36e4fde691dfa3de3a02b4d36156d329bbfd6621
69643 F20101118_AABFCA lamar_j_Page_091.jpg
877932ace374892bda945d50eed33a63
4386f9e0b107d7ce20ec0c9d054a8b424434464d
64137 F20101118_AABFBL lamar_j_Page_059.jpg
ac9085b2bd312948993b9af0f071a922
a5be504c3114139e669ebd05c7b3e0018591f403
F20101118_AABEWF lamar_j_Page_105.tif
8fc5bab90672a2827a1b851e8082b231
2ff580dd413d62a8ecb627a0319b137d79089073
70508 F20101118_AABFAX lamar_j_Page_024.jpg
ef13b3bcb9e956597f2ac3b3e419967e
6361765092fe126e2a3b817241d37f5ffb2c0b4f
986 F20101118_AABEVR lamar_j_Page_150.txt
8e21481e98d8d99ffb2dc0c55ba2544e
021a31e98a23ade5c70e6693bf16d99499629e71
68825 F20101118_AABFCB lamar_j_Page_093.jpg
2433303a4ea965b760d01f1f4437621f
c97f99a893b6dea6d2fd0b0fbd0501d6a7fd85d2
78191 F20101118_AABFBM lamar_j_Page_060.jpg
5d0ad3abe5c0d71c44dc3ea9cea08a28
7f988d6e933c4de9c0394de6316a27249b1d3fe3
4963 F20101118_AABEWG lamar_j_Page_115thm.jpg
bec83232ab40044a403d057be440bac7
e5166496937c3141b8e3bc2e0281d2df1b590838
78687 F20101118_AABFAY lamar_j_Page_025.jpg
da70c287186c6afcaa56ddedde85ce19
e789285b3f12971fc2d0349b6adffb489139059f
1051916 F20101118_AABEVS lamar_j_Page_141.jp2
a02ba65996be95d89ee6097b0e9f3239
56d7536879441db06d5c54472e79971e54122423
63850 F20101118_AABFCC lamar_j_Page_094.jpg
da57d074bb0e9f1f71b3a5d5ceb3ee04
e26ef8b14f265cf3a5a2ac825c4bb0bc85c32caa
14827 F20101118_AABFBN lamar_j_Page_063.jpg
27d70afebffe793868ea0c2db2061151
fec0f3844e1ad0ce625cb363c8affc5044540292
8199 F20101118_AABEWH lamar_j_Page_152.pro
071cd37705998a90c727c7d95093ca96
a70828c613beecec2b249621733d306e310296d3
82586 F20101118_AABFAZ lamar_j_Page_026.jpg
253f62cef89f1df448e419ee526d2e70
3f4a42cbbb239e7a43ecfcbe44b687604625bdb9
2557 F20101118_AABEVT lamar_j_Page_059.txt
7b42498bf348fa72ebd55a303d1ad5b3
187b16d3ee4585df75df094529819bbc0800b8fc
85304 F20101118_AABFCD lamar_j_Page_095.jpg
6957a225c6d6f0097e3b101349f9cc82
3b0baf3066f9c1484fcd4f67e64885beeeec3cc9
79712 F20101118_AABFBO lamar_j_Page_064.jpg
09679d5e7fefd5b1018664678627d0ca
7a420ddf4550471261385a9393ce238de11ac70f
105780 F20101118_AABEWI lamar_j_Page_010.jp2
19f9c388622ee09fd9f388e2f841ce13
511cf35d5a89814eda47f1d1c4f0b78ae5acb7a9
F20101118_AABEVU lamar_j_Page_119.tif
7cd1474b0c23d5f4233981073c6d82f9
c91a294839af333540bb3c4d67a904b6cbe92477
97222 F20101118_AABFCE lamar_j_Page_101.jpg
0d539ff49909d089c3fce5ab9c0b20e2
2924792366259a14b9a26c7adf8960518ebd6619
77534 F20101118_AABFBP lamar_j_Page_067.jpg
3cb13e6e549b96640a46af688b78d7ea
952c3755a6d1c8871d59d52ab8d320ae8d4b650b
F20101118_AABEWJ lamar_j_Page_078.tif
aa3c7e6bd80aec51c8d37350f70e8846
88bc0c650b81d92fdf8e0d196da6f13e8b5b101d
16207 F20101118_AABEVV lamar_j_Page_175.QC.jpg
0b0bfaa1cd5f441c40454a6bb386c8ec
d00085a31c2b5b65984f29a864fa70b56412cb36
104769 F20101118_AABFCF lamar_j_Page_102.jpg
19497555554c9de280ef19097a19243f
e32292432d2f0c6243141543fff7d2093c53e6e4
77505 F20101118_AABFBQ lamar_j_Page_068.jpg
2512b0418af8a4da19a8c541d197f37f
bbc85052b0b03652033cae10a9dafbe012432d99
22509 F20101118_AABEWK lamar_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
127eccdd0a6f9b8751c7aa83f3d9b4a5
9cd97a0b339b141d9dd8729d0770bf975496de92
151870 F20101118_AABEVW lamar_j_Page_152.jp2
0b0cc15e67189948ac6925c193570700
652b64a1c51f19c6ac597ad3afdfb770f721fe38
92859 F20101118_AABFCG lamar_j_Page_107.jpg
01bdce8539c6236b27f9b1be5f1ea810
5265e8ea31849d5af7483a86d8e10885f2fa0e50
79407 F20101118_AABFBR lamar_j_Page_069.jpg
98bedc275454e8dd7fc9d190b2b1cf18
447e75181e957e72a6fd7f2aae3d419ab799eb90
54475 F20101118_AABEWL lamar_j_Page_070.pro
34592cafa5d175c1bbee7d4e3961848c
ab4273b254e81c315755c44d0890a01352035821
18284 F20101118_AABEVX lamar_j_Page_180.QC.jpg
a994a1f078b43832b04cf7617077c2f8
260f42f301dbeac3563040f8480ebcd0650c006c
110989 F20101118_AABFCH lamar_j_Page_108.jpg
52a7f3dca1390c7bc085303d81dfe728
583764ae6b78e56d491d527283132a48344766d3
76686 F20101118_AABFBS lamar_j_Page_070.jpg
416806a021139637f0ad61d2ec243b2b
014a1d05a09ccef11c7e6e0711aedb7cd07ed67f
22468 F20101118_AABEXA lamar_j_Page_164.QC.jpg
e16f967cadd9f0b04a1ec3b5add02068
c30040f6ed6c1b393329f094ce5be7369ac8327c
1954 F20101118_AABEWM lamar_j_Page_152thm.jpg
afbc0644235d62bb60cc3da6aec99f69
86c34256908ea8160ac054af92eb4a2ef274c604
F20101118_AABEVY lamar_j_Page_164.pro
29c25e939298ba3b632d74c3c480aed4
bc3c645eb0bd1c3a3496901158e593cc950afdda
86538 F20101118_AABFCI lamar_j_Page_109.jpg
2f50481a965f58ec1e8ebb7981de8d5a
8a81089f6217fbe9212ccd92f89b7b8098011378
56430 F20101118_AABFBT lamar_j_Page_072.jpg
33ca913394844424b03aa34b1f2772fd
74d53c02fece7a91e1ccbe8c00794ee1a5de397f
11764 F20101118_AABEXB lamar_j_Page_033.pro
de396c2dadae9d32d01ab1aae60941f9
5ff2b3fab412858ad9904dedb84454e88207b699
2549 F20101118_AABEWN lamar_j_Page_148thm.jpg
96853630bc425e21f6c02ab325f269f6
edebbe18ca02ac7eb4890ec3f18047da7d4035b8
18164 F20101118_AABEVZ lamar_j_Page_176.QC.jpg
0a87fde2f2ea22f9c47e5a2a913ff611
7ace8b343a823af2ba6f2ffb2aa3c03bfd9344d1
69231 F20101118_AABFBU lamar_j_Page_074.jpg
f726a63e6d90ae7ccb55173b20e487f2
31fbe3825f81ba1f12f61bea307b3e992a0291c2
F20101118_AABEXC lamar_j_Page_062.txt
be950528d619f356a895cea848e8c726
6fc5daf4622f6ec86a118b710776c9ad5e31a21d
15802 F20101118_AABEWO lamar_j_Page_163.QC.jpg
97cc2cdb7ab426e67367a362f612a0e4
acecb7fdac62dc90ebd42af4987c50d4183f61bd
74387 F20101118_AABFCJ lamar_j_Page_113.jpg
e4d28823145ccb8cdb071d8ac1ca7292
b6d88b79d610083cb918a10d33c79e9783c0e8a7
74670 F20101118_AABFBV lamar_j_Page_075.jpg
25932777af102734f33c12f449a07554
c1895467b8b18837523c323a972b737e8de59bbd
1051985 F20101118_AABEXD lamar_j_Page_032.jp2
28ff9e0f57e4381eb1daf5e293b669aa
f4456e383b947347f6b80c0185b0807fef32ebf3
2126 F20101118_AABEWP lamar_j_Page_081.txt
b13c4a0d2d772a2ef5a0e047c2ae5f53
4b5e8c82e3359b548e7fbf80cb71fb7dcd9b6545
77974 F20101118_AABFCK lamar_j_Page_114.jpg
cece51f585b81d79c47d90e114437205
f995d36e07fe70271fd09254b7a9990036c73010
71005 F20101118_AABFBW lamar_j_Page_077.jpg
02bdd8291dd8598869dffffcf5e2648e
7ef8930fa2b40300a9c185caeac900968af2b451
107002 F20101118_AABEXE lamar_j_Page_092.jp2
e0e8530ac4cc4c0f0eacd1b589fccdf2
80b060c7f0b925406948b1d707efec5eb08c0cc1
F20101118_AABEWQ lamar_j_Page_166.tif
96285eed39ec9feef249552289a8ff49
5a30326183bbf8d11d816d154009dd2bd5ed9258
24444 F20101118_AABFDA lamar_j_Page_148.jpg
e9deb4de2904b98172edca81f400a868
89ec413243f584c8919188a26cba2fbfc487ef2b
53535 F20101118_AABFCL lamar_j_Page_115.jpg
a71858c3b149be9133741433bd723fc3
175e69f79ab10886b8c160b5369756770a008337
68889 F20101118_AABFBX lamar_j_Page_080.jpg
4baff9a6fb160f9254485da999f677d6
34e2277651ac888cb5920af6d526724926d02e79
15136 F20101118_AABEXF lamar_j_Page_158.QC.jpg
a3c990413e5b8b3f7549d22ee4ef76ef
24acaa3d0cb61d4ca087ff405288ec35bd6ca61e
22539 F20101118_AABEWR lamar_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
30087157ab9631628beb8199e63c5c4d
e9b2e784fdaea3c57ad3f91fe7be62d6fd2e8c75
34118 F20101118_AABFDB lamar_j_Page_149.jpg
5c58e35832e7b0d37010f0e50b5c1e47
0816bc9bbfe33e1822cd30a7be2799f87b54199e
56018 F20101118_AABFCM lamar_j_Page_116.jpg
d002e72c9fd5451b8bc31413a61ff2d5
b586360a6d37f583cc0177ec3bed077cb8b97eb9
47021 F20101118_AABFBY lamar_j_Page_082.jpg
95369f4d6a8ac59d3c2b74deb2397172
58642430813d9c07d863007074f2bf2a0d8bc5de
38944 F20101118_AABEXG lamar_j_Page_147.jpg
a1d0c01326a498f8e9a8b1dab45f3867
5c0aa208a310ca2c3bb513a543c7053897376a6e
F20101118_AABEWS lamar_j_Page_163.tif
85ba260754eb201c297cd90179c2eaf1
22826242ad73fe0c77acc06176885d7f6ad1fe5c
21985 F20101118_AABFDC lamar_j_Page_150.jpg
d3c335c1c495d35026bef928208cc180
950a883d44e1182529d4506b8896cfa322484821
60832 F20101118_AABFCN lamar_j_Page_117.jpg
77f21a96c8bab262155c1a53528f1725
c8cd6761608325a442649b54968a7434c5e8e242
76088 F20101118_AABFBZ lamar_j_Page_086.jpg
3ae5f4103ef34964e934732992471290
cdb6a9d265e40373e07c0b3c5e448596fae4e2c7
78607 F20101118_AABEXH lamar_j_Page_037.jpg
a57f12ae9b23c1bbe55ac74e1bbefb01
f1293309576bdd8c84e24a887c1a0b20a1b31b43
74221 F20101118_AABEWT lamar_j_Page_031.jpg
33e2166999386794f65fa85500042b9a
d576595d8b392e050e6a3d5c3103e8bab00d6bae
55724 F20101118_AABEAA lamar_j_Page_090.pro
0ef02dbea542a1964b0d64860791caf0
ec0bc858a9bb9fa4d3cab9a7082c5febcdecd855
39416 F20101118_AABFDD lamar_j_Page_151.jpg
ca0158dee13477ac1f3dedfa9863dd11
de7e61b0a2da586a8ac48fde1e6ef6e897c6844d
45422 F20101118_AABFCO lamar_j_Page_119.jpg
503e7e744daa6470467d601c77c75b50
8468163b210e2594317e6061ea4635a96a19c029
3979 F20101118_AABEXI lamar_j_Page_172thm.jpg
0b599d13344a29c9b5a4b8326919658e
b6ebc97e99315e3eecccd0979e4738980a3c7443
2019 F20101118_AABEWU lamar_j_Page_124.txt
9cbb079bf39cedad530046141974b96e
ca034d46322d337fe408f2fa6b06ef5062ff3c7a
121256 F20101118_AABEAB lamar_j_Page_127.jp2
1d394d7d3deb37caa5e41afa902aef6d
00f5d670bcce4a665f33fe9e7b271d9b0ccc318d
46166 F20101118_AABFDE lamar_j_Page_155.jpg
3a7ea7c15be8ce1da7f41af969081c01
b1d66d08160ac384709436d6512812ee5cd64b28
67503 F20101118_AABFCP lamar_j_Page_120.jpg
f8e5e9876352d91d41ffe4a5b1e905fc
c654bbed151f01130a2319c852182990383a0a4f
7127 F20101118_AABEXJ lamar_j_Page_101thm.jpg
288995de9a2b2efd454563ee0bf02ff3
cf4b5e3df08bca5287d0db9bcddf99c616e65f80
311274 F20101118_AABEWV lamar_j_Page_148.jp2
3badc46000ca1146bfc9a4e35f6af54d
35f19eec7e56c4a5aecbddd96b28a15ed9d3779b
2254 F20101118_AABEAC lamar_j_Page_070.txt
eff8b174a664195a7857b0d8cbc4f496
f49c4ca23d312b06da79d8741cfd4605927c720d
26831 F20101118_AABFDF lamar_j_Page_159.jpg
22072fc55a42ba55754bbddb7c51b1a1
0ab9ebdf178dd1b3b15967e656d52d0ec4eab365
74328 F20101118_AABFCQ lamar_j_Page_124.jpg
9d0a7b9e76216f366801ea70dd60b777
79345af2c6294155481b614b685b118a0c9eb2cf
5463 F20101118_AABEXK lamar_j_Page_161thm.jpg
96d6bc93e3e8217588a9da46ef64701f
0caabd6916d3220331a0743bd56609cd1dafce10
748551 F20101118_AABEWW lamar_j_Page_182.jp2
71eade06045f3a9b606b73e37dcb62ad
aa4ac6730166b8e30ab6535d086a9b95be98e406
F20101118_AABEAD lamar_j_Page_047.tif
ed1b32b58b26933b57aa9b6503221a44
5622a5c31a2023a2c4271a059f177b7c3ebdcc3a
55397 F20101118_AABFDG lamar_j_Page_161.jpg
90057acb35eb6707284e501664b810e1
2e4adfabf3241c215bd5c64120d1f3ff60e5a48d
80292 F20101118_AABFCR lamar_j_Page_125.jpg
0691a341c53ad6c6bd41ce3802081974
2f8278c1db46932707f33e498056919c5dc6f423
73648 F20101118_AABEXL lamar_j_Page_040.jpg
29e9ffd247b4c1bc74e7081e4f3b7eff
d50aab8f734403e7e8b8e585c9516a9b88fc1703
82870 F20101118_AABEWX lamar_j_Page_089.jpg
f9603a2cb2a6b5a1443b5cc8a61b5cea
f1166c0e00bbff1298633cd23aed4981468d9441
2149 F20101118_AABEAE lamar_j_Page_038.txt
63532fa508ede8c52c513d17b8c109bf
a88a631c1e5e8708848b0d5e1b70ec315b3f3dda
61472 F20101118_AABFDH lamar_j_Page_162.jpg
8b0c96d19c88458e346e2299c92bab50
09a9dd5cdd5c5c5ada102a58878010471e91f9f6
77077 F20101118_AABFCS lamar_j_Page_126.jpg
f3425115f076646d8af54fdb627a9d1d
1e7bfcb7e5657a7fe8f6b905a7e1405ff9142a5b
35296 F20101118_AABEXM lamar_j_Page_166.pro
3b8482c9e11fffa0334c7be62246bf06
3633615df67338c6202b5e9203ac67fa2834fb21
24499 F20101118_AABEWY lamar_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
00b6158340ab6b2f0387e81017125948
a306a9c846b3441cf6a0f61badf1cbd732604b02
F20101118_AABEAF lamar_j_Page_004.tif
1bc3da7357923f735649d20b63ba73c5
879abdd0cdc7a5826b20afd2ed8afc5358e26fdf
32818 F20101118_AABEYA lamar_j_Page_184.jpg
21b1ad2f9e93dfbf9e254557f60fd207
7820d2cb0d059e305b4f8a34dae6d0a9a3adb79f
38506 F20101118_AABFDI lamar_j_Page_171.jpg
b6d319ffa0741059833774757ff1d6a2
764aa6ba2cdf5ab203a70207161e781e959180d6
75834 F20101118_AABFCT lamar_j_Page_128.jpg
d49637f8199cbcb92bd959891114dd0c
34d31689683ced062139e4a3dd4e0428c643c41d
24781 F20101118_AABEXN lamar_j_Page_182.pro
a18a6e7e804a052cb6029a2bf1acb954
3da602029961cb897114a4bf1b938c95b6dd230c
57640 F20101118_AABEWZ lamar_j_Page_173.pro
c56886c474c09798a0932452145017d1
6a1803c7bde03b1894aedeb3cdcf17a9a7cb900e
2302 F20101118_AABEAG lamar_j_Page_064.txt
d05f8e2ef8c4b7d44c81800fb6d39ba6
4320d609ffc68085262935fb58830ad3698382bc
3064 F20101118_AABEYB lamar_j_Page_100.txt
cee29c1dfd7e2c534c0a8492599e1e6d
3fc135cfaf8deb7cb4177ab3c268cfb93c485c7f
66369 F20101118_AABFDJ lamar_j_Page_173.jpg
10566935c66c5cef72af7be4166bba31
1ba417238f2ee8fc3b8d72639e285361f8d1eda3
71936 F20101118_AABFCU lamar_j_Page_131.jpg
d83f59e70851dfe453176ad7de7c304c
4ca95a41c6685c451973297085eb0a25208a4191
F20101118_AABEAH lamar_j_Page_032.tif
c7e22e650799fb7733ffcaf79a9df6b0
123566540a0b2ff62f94014892e84c0614b487c0
66577 F20101118_AABEYC lamar_j_Page_181.jpg
7f6cee0dc3f8bde46f57bf9a967813e3
3d6e31848ba7b3e6c3fe9494708965001b0349d5
22914 F20101118_AABEXO lamar_j_Page_135.jpg
31642a7c819623be07c1e3af22a92a4d
771e82573cca226c0d146f3a482d63ea4358a225
58089 F20101118_AABFCV lamar_j_Page_136.jpg
8bd71659e84806ee474cf09d3514389e
f4bb40b082d2fcb9e3f34d45504d0d934579bab8
908726 F20101118_AABEYD lamar_j_Page_138.jp2
b5eecc6520b9659f822b3e45678e2fd1
62f7d73d89a7a7943c7501d88449796e917d0a4a
2657 F20101118_AABEXP lamar_j_Page_109.txt
2113aa3fdeb7f270eb7dcb6b82d86269
ebcb6a0270fc80d2a7179aef8e2b7fb4d573e53e
38331 F20101118_AABFDK lamar_j_Page_174.jpg
2824d504ba5826013b5066b77fff4e29
c8bb28ee13904d6f411c23e5d9d39b4bd58ed78a
56330 F20101118_AABFCW lamar_j_Page_137.jpg
e24dd5687a13a2fbc2b655bef6e07cba
a89ea7163560a09c3d6d74a5ac6a774fb804fbca
71291 F20101118_AABEAI lamar_j_Page_085.jpg
a59bff5dc54fd1314f2c1ca8a448fd91
3af08cabef2fb142d31942dc6d219108fb07d82e
F20101118_AABEYE lamar_j_Page_037.tif
c1428a4404a035f581ac1a748edfa0fc
f6dd83f97b3090f9f7658bedf1cec22ad2ab074c
84661 F20101118_AABEXQ lamar_j_Page_084.jp2
7a94c2d322307831ad98d738aade02af
aba05af0cffc23f23049ab2bee34ddd449b40254
73722 F20101118_AABFEA lamar_j_Page_023.jp2
bb129d98ce1f45706b111bbf89325947
80e0ed55a03625f40f0149be6c17dc9a84089a82
55812 F20101118_AABFDL lamar_j_Page_176.jpg
dc2e4976a0a7eb8545616a877aa05802
438fc792506022c8bfe2eb31d0b05210d39957c5
69845 F20101118_AABFCX lamar_j_Page_141.jpg
a7d03ace2b38e802a48583ee47a4155d
e2391f5c0d0fd3a26d1f9a48cbb542ed86314886
60486 F20101118_AABEAJ lamar_j_Page_179.jpg
bce9201d560b9598076bce699a5df043
fc2eb5b04cbde04309eed28293637e83663b27d5
6958 F20101118_AABEYF lamar_j_Page_045thm.jpg
dd1f8e0af97d40050f2e0ee5c2b5f3dc
c47538e84230b12e881ac254be303525e9e94e7c
22990 F20101118_AABEXR lamar_j_Page_148.pro
268f4632bbdc704dfc9c48de62bdf8ef
13b46d629aa3b6a5f9d60e6f118a097930415bcd
104223 F20101118_AABFEB lamar_j_Page_024.jp2
f86ae6ce3929395894e6f9180bd8dde3
b77f40fc814575c8b1da9a9bfe501128ac798b88
50345 F20101118_AABFDM lamar_j_Page_177.jpg
d9812cc48b4634d70c3468b40c84c2b1
51fe602f74165afaf220ec214582255abb7e71c6
34303 F20101118_AABFCY lamar_j_Page_144.jpg
f223e603cc7cc7165b83f42ec0615af8
2a2fc8a2bd25642c7dbe1ae75746b41449e8d26b
20522 F20101118_AABEAK lamar_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
de0378334b96b866e8bb130ebd09d9ed
4ffdff7bd0616b56d2c84bcb4104227a949ee2a0
19303 F20101118_AABEYG lamar_j_Page_188.QC.jpg
f60cb87a4cc096025c483ee2998ca23a
7ef790397d8503d627cb2d48d8956f88631660bc
25879 F20101118_AABEXS lamar_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
41baf6334c7a5fa4d9a4190b4714acd0
15815b2a2fe3a22d9203d8263308c9faf63b52de
117464 F20101118_AABFEC lamar_j_Page_025.jp2
1e73055636e3375b22a1decfffe8e714
cdaab4bcff1ad6405cdd001c036bd834e06e32a2
45730 F20101118_AABFDN lamar_j_Page_185.jpg
114d8792856bbc8a6afdf5cf2606f717
67ee46e0882eebbab7d3ef0fed9e570967078387
40646 F20101118_AABFCZ lamar_j_Page_145.jpg
46e1f0f7702788290a4d542660f82c5e
36af134803c8e2b796b9847037aa76424b02a0cb
53379 F20101118_AABEBA lamar_j_Page_047.pro
67bc98221e53300eed73b9f85ecf8b4d
7e2e4ffee817f45c9b6f6cb5dd068130ec466cba
52808 F20101118_AABEAL lamar_j_Page_137.pro
e15a06337d0fcf3b22c9a915ce9d975b
199f5cc560df8752d43dde54cf0f722ac3ed57eb
77342 F20101118_AABEYH lamar_j_Page_121.jpg
22dec50ee4645f4427b4d6a92e8cc7fb
6c2f59a4ddf10f66340fe7d14ad45af4aefeebd2
79783 F20101118_AABEXT lamar_j_Page_012.pro
38ce30dc6c20d4646b3958967e50afb1
f00067c86b540c92562f8c560be2c023306711b5
1051971 F20101118_AABFED lamar_j_Page_026.jp2
95a1df844d179e5657800b142ce6f5d7
e633d6384d029752d95892dcb1250107698d049a
60029 F20101118_AABFDO lamar_j_Page_187.jpg
47db585b077c9370f1fe7d10302c526e
ad5d8c68f3b843ba97441f709e17b6482851fb41
F20101118_AABEAM lamar_j_Page_027.tif
6eca4ec6ed09356a627ba59932fea885
230b38eff044d33ac440393d07f9369ff0036ce0
52973 F20101118_AABEYI lamar_j_Page_045.pro
d7b3085ee5656266ab28ab6ab847bd24
0486b7548c46ee554792c22e000df38bd1a0cc63
56404 F20101118_AABEXU lamar_j_Page_118.pro
8d4691c331838a99158e7bb0e7402002
4b5a5a3f3056093c24d5e18edf857f058bba2bff
16402 F20101118_AABEBB lamar_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
8c7b140492536e3f7be5407fd43e2533
c33355a0524e53dabaac87d52b67dc10c4834d5c
1051980 F20101118_AABFEE lamar_j_Page_027.jp2
3c4b4179366a7b436ec551bde6652eff
090e7f5befbce9707f27ca8bfedb06ba3f9f6a02
58507 F20101118_AABFDP lamar_j_Page_188.jpg
fe02a7f03240ecd1ac0ca8df759e8f2c
4f2f076cbfc972be3cedffd334f04b6c2dda83ec
F20101118_AABEAN lamar_j_Page_161.tif
a3ac94d0eb02e8ce04c77a35f0b8ac13
4c190743e09a269f239320227cfdabbecfe0d8db
63177 F20101118_AABEYJ lamar_j_Page_189.jpg
c3ce51748d94908dae6042ebcb3a5067
6726a8db142ba2d14c12dc84c5aea2ddf6e0ae38
7060 F20101118_AABEXV lamar_j_Page_068thm.jpg
5ce9fef0bee5bcbc0ec4af20b40c760e
d3fc557197da70e9e9411923e53ded7d0478e929
F20101118_AABEBC lamar_j_Page_060.jp2
8a16f1159cfbf50bf8b06c4bb145de78
5340bcb5ff345bcf00a5bc6c1e369fd6cb55f22d
135209 F20101118_AABFEF lamar_j_Page_029.jp2
2ca0bb66dfcd2412247ef490e1e92a77
45699f362c049f57a109865c4613884fe2c5ba64
60533 F20101118_AABFDQ lamar_j_Page_190.jpg
8cee65f7909d3358fd28f7c0396a2a25
9753fd889cf79dc19dc8783bd734122d733acc49
56893 F20101118_AABEAO lamar_j_Page_122.jpg
5c1602a0f972304c0ae94e9d6c5857b4
205e6027469ab340e5884a7c4b873baf9442383a
6939 F20101118_AABEYK lamar_j_Page_057thm.jpg
54757f186cc25591cce3b341040a641d
550463d7ffdeb4f96ac17ea91b0959565928dd35
38682 F20101118_AABEXW lamar_j_Page_188.pro
d0686845ea0e9770b21156f7f7932e26
cd3843c0814646aba67a47037b1813c4932233c3
22703 F20101118_AABEBD lamar_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
21a72940ea639c4233cf1904aeeeeaa6
d54a1712c70272f1eab8cac1beb3ddeab95bdaee
108254 F20101118_AABFEG lamar_j_Page_031.jp2
2bb10ea91d5bcaae0787149ffd872b86
b55747dda485184e2cc602941e2339caadc2e839
29080 F20101118_AABFDR lamar_j_Page_001.jp2
bbe7d88fd788aa1843c9a978e17762cb
1dee06a702fb8598d6dcb4d4249785e4906fc7b6
46241 F20101118_AABEAP lamar_j_Page_158.jpg
6290bef474209ae2c9afcd89ef4f3ecf
eb4bcf0cb23b710e96aa8a03b5606889544cb854
F20101118_AABEZA lamar_j_Page_135.tif
1bba622cdd6128d18cfe16eb11e18a88
ec3248b64f492b62a5247d9ab0bf1e6fd6a90375
24888 F20101118_AABEYL lamar_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
1af561d7a018b0fe7397b0cb21eb1fca
8146874c9c00447891879e5ea9b9da1c2e8733a6
14055 F20101118_AABEXX lamar_j_Page_063.jp2
3454d5561f677d85e9dae58ea71c57c7
b426dd3fffa5fb358cf9d79df178d30e6071908b
65654 F20101118_AABEBE lamar_j_Page_076.jpg
6d07b57225f20fde46e31c5b912694bb
86ee81cf52cd37bc6857fda011b448ba62aac975
107948 F20101118_AABFEH lamar_j_Page_034.jp2
a055ad2846bc6a9c5e441a9205594aca
64398b42d0b53fcf43f513ff2adde774883f9f78
1051966 F20101118_AABFDS lamar_j_Page_004.jp2
88ee81c9c602e33546edddbe83c6f2fb
c9f3aa7c0cbcb69eedfec6a396939996af9d2bd7
28281 F20101118_AABEAQ lamar_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
29fe6fe48de45d81de65eb47d24cec24
6ea7d92e74d62a93b93e68b5d94dd2fbcaa67075
F20101118_AABEYM lamar_j_Page_171.tif
44af849f615d9ccb1bd57f29066e510f
300fb30bde5ebcba30b08db739365fe0829e04ec
53465 F20101118_AABEXY lamar_j_Page_075.pro
6dcf20310e600ea3f4fe9438bd70c4f2
fda26c416a3bacfec148f169cc40b9a4495c1136
73950 F20101118_AABEBF lamar_j_Page_045.jpg
7d5be9a8e7ef70181e86f767208c74de
c932a15be6906496b75eb07cf6296e8a211c38a6
116566 F20101118_AABFEI lamar_j_Page_036.jp2
054c5fb5af793e0284e76efee83b28b6
dfcd0d44d86fde6249db6f506dc5bb32403ef1bc
1051922 F20101118_AABFDT lamar_j_Page_005.jp2
a2c20aaeb4fba8c01627ae80ae6c0026
6bac7adb6b6f50f0d697b192fba705c41be46cf5
F20101118_AABEAR lamar_j_Page_096.tif
42cb82b2a5cef409cc0f877cb573651f
bbdb6c06b2487ebcfd84a246b76aa3aa3037c188
83482 F20101118_AABEZB lamar_j_Page_129.jpg
19c74c34000e6aa328b6ad5e0edf54c6
06f7b96d544b5a85d45a8ed6a80c6654931e4ff6
1858 F20101118_AABEYN lamar_j_Page_003.txt
7ca06aa9faba4833b87bca565b252f6c
d811af35995b4795bddcb704175406bd805d89d0
90125 F20101118_AABEXZ lamar_j_Page_028.jpg
8d5441af119feae658e3cb82652bae9b
601e509643ece6bb250f9521c4d248b237fd8142
125532 F20101118_AABEBG lamar_j_Page_019.jp2
9ca6c477f2fc44de2617e2393f11e5ae
0ad6da4567ca19db0efa6f00a064e94435505927
113055 F20101118_AABFEJ lamar_j_Page_040.jp2
2bc6ebf9b8fe7054f685558fa301b42b
9ae5970c94d350a5e08198aa22eef2d4d75fa7ab
818510 F20101118_AABFDU lamar_j_Page_006.jp2
879897069dc957fd3f20f299e81ea597
9ed3139ea0e37dc98f5b41e348d262ee9c5cd050
19036 F20101118_AABEAS lamar_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
b873e81867b1ab006e8e636a5e8b4c7f
371f30e18c56aa4eabae22e4a9dc2373318a53fa
F20101118_AABEZC lamar_j_Page_022.tif
5c0757a3503a4b2ec35fa4f4a9851d72
f1a7770bc762291ed522d8d37387dd531e0a1fdb
F20101118_AABEYO lamar_j_Page_077.tif
b6f284a2a57e5efaba5cba93fc307e14
3f92797d4dc9b40cc12a7c9a8a2596509663b366
120005 F20101118_AABEBH lamar_j_Page_013.jp2
86472f5421a6486e2b3b2dddc9cc74b4
4412209218227a44bf9396d77416cf655c1f47b2
121803 F20101118_AABFEK lamar_j_Page_041.jp2
5cb8eb700afc9c93df42ed4bc7774d7d
9e99ff46ceffd4512f87a44332f16a37e6a6314c
606821 F20101118_AABFDV lamar_j_Page_009.jp2
cf47c2bc949eb4546f6c0b59d4a5d712
93d6aecc6739610175fbd0d69672dcbe1a618e28
22039 F20101118_AABEAT lamar_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
502e7a5ce2f3818848288b4b3312b7c0
39d13cf80c78cee204a8139a9dcabfcf220b30a4
F20101118_AABEZD lamar_j_Page_046.tif
d2aaf301230dd8e84e3f55d60362c9fb
b7af2681c0fb63a282c2505b9e794c1edd8baeba
940 F20101118_AABEYP lamar_j_Page_163.txt
759db7676a695d4137ddb975b04b35b3
3c70abafb201446e86b23f8d81286f7cf5515fa7
3627 F20101118_AABEBI lamar_j_Page_147thm.jpg
02623fda88bed0b52c26e2dc89eac308
085bc80746eb7d98262bb27a374aef8ad4eeede9
160740 F20101118_AABFDW lamar_j_Page_012.jp2
fca0055bd015cd78a5780f9da876f22b
1931725732095ccbd2cec8318d06a6378bf6d3d8
53928 F20101118_AABEAU lamar_j_Page_128.pro
460bfd6d0864b0b20b2743142413c0f9
9102e0ab304e6767dcf33746d041c2323951a205
F20101118_AABEZE lamar_j_Page_042.tif
81f88e483a9f52111eea6b8da7fbe980
0bd6155b6092de110ed6ca30f53274b962bd2201
113007 F20101118_AABEYQ lamar_j_Page_015.jp2
0a4b0d40fa50963e190872f31a50da52
1c1c68faa711784aef464063726c060907ba9dde
103924 F20101118_AABFFA lamar_j_Page_085.jp2
c006818b6cac7740a0e142affc9ebb40
436becf101e46ac56f9b1ba6b0026b9ea52f565f
118482 F20101118_AABFEL lamar_j_Page_043.jp2
0ecd5d7fc50e408e22d385c471188a3e
f4a0afefcc3e20a6d7dfa766d18dbfc1bb6aea37
115206 F20101118_AABFDX lamar_j_Page_014.jp2
add2a5f51dde8cf61f459095da4cd1af
3d330b6026a16f9b6ce994863be29f33b3caa443
2157 F20101118_AABEAV lamar_j_Page_130.txt
8c338ebec99b77bd7f93f3cd959af027
0af306e9e813ec59236524dec1cad8cd9ee116ee
969833 F20101118_AABEZF lamar_j_Page_049.jp2
fb68fc7f330f7da4e90073d9921e93cd
49630bfbcf756a6672970957eca9e416f62c039a
2734 F20101118_AABEYR lamar_j_Page_079.txt
f2146fb0b98235495205d5e94bf79ad3
0dbf64113137fb0802f0508c74cf476f06cc7ea9
6499 F20101118_AABEBJ lamar_j_Page_091thm.jpg
7c881414277b679b8824f64c739bbaa9
aab9fb1e25f1a6d8c57f0cc7c84b084398000816
102759 F20101118_AABFFB lamar_j_Page_088.jp2
d1dd59053da10f9c9ada1bea568fa5e5
96582351c44b7710e58b2910c005522629f25b06
49424 F20101118_AABFEM lamar_j_Page_046.jp2
c134ddd333ed459b5df1bac728488458
b37d1b96b3789ba61e587f73bbe6f26b981c2eb5
120591 F20101118_AABFDY lamar_j_Page_021.jp2
e2aaaabe93a9a2b7acc4359673926c28
d55d5e2fa1987d1c8b571e31a907befcc58656b8
81083 F20101118_AABEAW lamar_j_Page_039.jpg
ce70a4e6ddc1a842223f5574a880e374
4a21df33bee1ac08225d43c85380c201a3ef0078
128429 F20101118_AABEZG lamar_j_Page_111.jp2
3e3674ac6ccf4004ebe164be02f0ad3b
2d3ce0aeb1a229bb91532015278597635d170e8f
78110 F20101118_AABEYS lamar_j_Page_042.jpg
5b4590e2391e98ac752e6bf7b9a01ef1
96dd1b4dd7b7c3773de693eb1d182b7e965c0449
5716 F20101118_AABEBK lamar_j_Page_073thm.jpg
c309e23fb63e3cfc2ebf3a78d64529bc
300bf8b204c7cbbdb062ba5dbdfe0c80ee89250e
124767 F20101118_AABFFC lamar_j_Page_089.jp2
3bf0a0d73b89c908f621c7ebb959c8ba
28e1accc2f9ea766f38f11016021ba1c5c8c00da
1051925 F20101118_AABFEN lamar_j_Page_053.jp2
70555ebdc96cbf10423f51a4f31c6f6a
ce2a6bba12ad83f2568bd642e971eccc9fccc509
117712 F20101118_AABFDZ lamar_j_Page_022.jp2
5a2816732895f7148a15afb284dce2ac
c5d0cc6905c351f78662bacbe0fade73f89d1e14
2129 F20101118_AABEAX lamar_j_Page_058.txt
305fa051dda568e32c4a42313e553e1a
0386807d699656ec0c186780bde6b16335c6ff6a
65206 F20101118_AABEZH lamar_j_Page_052.jpg
f8cbab641c387b3fa649794fa5306afb
6eb94782f6b3b8c375e7624831fca52a3654256a
101336 F20101118_AABEYT lamar_j_Page_100.jpg
4b505cab87591301385e5b8efe2525b3
bc7fbb82e531e02f1bb0a0e641e840996a15da22
F20101118_AABECA lamar_j_Page_190.tif
199f2753b4f1cb4f54bf0ef009ee8d64
680266ada654dd1ef8e65daa47274d623a7c8964
6780 F20101118_AABEBL lamar_j_Page_130thm.jpg
5617346c4c15fa10978220dae4ee82cd
d741da584c94e522980dd492b02e884fe1551dff
111388 F20101118_AABFFD lamar_j_Page_090.jp2
89d6b20324e731afc3d7640a3ad376a7
a841a3fec321842ae66996ffd3b2b614748c81bd
115228 F20101118_AABFEO lamar_j_Page_054.jp2
e868bae3c2c014988a0e0e2e40295f3a
634cee8dafc9ac2a21c8c4a430a3a922dc9dbe53
1051933 F20101118_AABEAY lamar_j_Page_055.jp2
5b78df16a50818d41980132cb2351ff8
29127fce2a9df2b5f42e17bca53d07fec0879124
130662 F20101118_AABEZI lamar_j_Page_095.jp2
e79e4a9500b7609a321d17cfe6671551
9ead3708e02f77113bffbbea393505a302be90b6
17852 F20101118_AABEYU lamar_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
42b452fd97f947dd3462bc6daccd95f6
a2d29337af6305c74e7da41497219cf40ec09461
3577 F20101118_AABECB lamar_j_Page_046thm.jpg
67bef50a2314e90b28c6cd2b072cea55
e2c9ebc4cfac5d4f4986f88ff58a8746531075fc
18436 F20101118_AABEBM lamar_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
8797f122c31dd4d7930c1915af549de2
c264e18f3fb43ba74d3993e5b4eb02c80d6ccc2b
101310 F20101118_AABFFE lamar_j_Page_091.jp2
b8344bf2fba629d0ccf26aecc677a987
2c6c02ae791e4f064c54ba910d6d4fb9a641fd8f
118506 F20101118_AABFEP lamar_j_Page_057.jp2
a3f850914465198c9663ce39acc47d62
fccb98c4e7e178eac01b8073c7b5afa9b23ec93e
12237 F20101118_AABEAZ lamar_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
1cf55bc7a6f05a10459979e7d662f2a0
2c04397ee9ffd22ae8df9d13d0eca97ba417c80e
53871 F20101118_AABEZJ lamar_j_Page_081.pro
5a0b3bdcf8d63fa985959424672f0ba7
210b1d7187e4104a095f6d8664409c36fd59e4f3
28290 F20101118_AABEYV lamar_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
9009136c977feb63a8e405a490420ffd
ac8e0834e1259af38c90e46a2a5f0b8a2bdd6525
3342 F20101118_AABECC lamar_j_Page_110.txt
624d75324b58d128fa684ae86dd00aff
2154168dca7224ae715139211b9221158b9d76ac
2050 F20101118_AABEBN lamar_j_Page_031.txt
26fe14e465ad534a010b26b9d7531ef9
2502cb1a5e40db068ceec75c8249c100f064e007
96837 F20101118_AABFFF lamar_j_Page_093.jp2
7f0a67adf593877617c972dd990701a7
12f2242ffae6ef74c51812ee1cb862e295427070
F20101118_AABFEQ lamar_j_Page_059.jp2
5e042730aa236f8e57b3b06e43cad41c
3af5668c45e7bdceca807aae0c95c7b146a869a9
924654 F20101118_AABEZK lamar_j_Page_178.jp2
41552634725c0af7b8eaedfdd000c0fd
40d9de09205f6df81c9d4463219e81cca8048565
F20101118_AABEYW lamar_j_Page_103.tif
000c30016c565771ad69eb1c0fed5954
f740fefeea2b48355c4bf08b65baddb38aa60b3b
30177 F20101118_AABECD lamar_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
1e0137a163e91f882163350ba22e258b
f2132693c2ade26a71fae1db3f33ba316d537eea
52183 F20101118_AABEBO lamar_j_Page_068.pro
d2a24c422c3d956ba7ec2304c02bb73d
32dc9ffaf508431052270d1ccb22dbc6f97d034c
94453 F20101118_AABFFG lamar_j_Page_094.jp2
fde1680a26d8d69f449bf2b309fa9bf2
54fe7d0396d28aecad6baf1e23fb45937b63c06f
113584 F20101118_AABFER lamar_j_Page_061.jp2
781ca4d628a716d79336cb69f1d11b3a
62fbf0d666f5c5ae1dda27ea5c3efb9171c90924
912576 F20101118_AABEZL lamar_j_Page_071.jp2
b1ef34dbd841bced111376709cb9d84e
7def026a49955338c4e0e20920c00ce9bff4b9f8
3349 F20101118_AABEYX lamar_j_Page_149thm.jpg
094c5aa4b988887b5171ad77b02cb57e
80872f4e2d83fc9fcccdeedadd517933cee8f9fa
F20101118_AABECE lamar_j_Page_177.tif
a595168137f835a694336157ad2a447f
c9f9a4b223363e7ca841a0d47f7201bd081f3b28
2457 F20101118_AABEBP lamar_j_Page_157.txt
57d7f99aa41bf3286e2cecb3da5e8dc4
d89bd3c766b8d93cb3331db53f3f481dc9f00214
108933 F20101118_AABFFH lamar_j_Page_096.jp2
f4bb2dc06e5af527accb18a639f77d5b
c10273b3cb9c8761b83e8ecd360ce10fc373d782
112533 F20101118_AABFES lamar_j_Page_062.jp2
c23c7789531e741ad4b8ee8c4dbba147
98e8e8877489833ab1893b20e5fc0022b2964ed9
6785 F20101118_AABEZM lamar_j_Page_070thm.jpg
82f9a31b7d712dad5f1f5bb16ff6be79
84d2fff1beb35ef5ff4c1764f5745dfada428904
57633 F20101118_AABEYY lamar_j_Page_066.pro
5b528e46dd1d19cc8dc3bcfede1a62e0
da40c79771a3667e49e459f15a1ef9f1036fce66
74990 F20101118_AABECF lamar_j_Page_020.jpg
a49e7863d7748f305b77e2dd5786d53e
c89ffe2db290bc18431b03b9e7b106a0a633d933
25478 F20101118_AABEBQ lamar_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
4b0e59ebaaec502de7234b1555b36549
bd1044542870308ec1e106a6f22123025431d89b
157028 F20101118_AABFFI lamar_j_Page_097.jp2
06eefd8490d92b2a112b4048f7ee2306
b172f4cfc21546caadb2be77c83f7dd26bb742eb
122350 F20101118_AABFET lamar_j_Page_064.jp2
d9d5db9b1c257c04dd12343707148937
44811fc282838e4ae7faf76ae6de7c6283429490
74017 F20101118_AABEZN lamar_j_Page_065.jpg
2a64063e2fd43694decced93a3ef89b9
60188b92bf78ae4c8952ef1b07ed72e56f1a4bcd
F20101118_AABEYZ lamar_j_Page_107.tif
09a650a0e85fccdf49ed25f845faf364
56fa47323d700968e3acde2371abf3c6a5f3af2d
F20101118_AABECG lamar_j_Page_181.tif
83d979e9080d63f1a6021d0074cf709f
139c4fd0239b7c4943f96a2fa11de472ebae9957
21280 F20101118_AABEBR lamar_j_Page_169.pro
cf0f75122bf926adadf4eef28af9f186
ec7717786042a49042af227840d906cfcbb683df
148828 F20101118_AABFFJ lamar_j_Page_101.jp2
cdf15a22688b261bdde6436e63178185
650e9d822ef624e81f936dbfed51aa909bcb57e7
119741 F20101118_AABFEU lamar_j_Page_069.jp2
231237758ffda15712643d0133fd5561
5c5f55e5939ff0273446c884ce01da20172b9543
52421 F20101118_AABEZO lamar_j_Page_040.pro
e6619a949dc076d8bd76c6cb892e553e
47526c3b1d1a702af22f28130e2fdcb6bedd12cb
5908 F20101118_AABECH lamar_j_Page_032thm.jpg
b4bdf53497eac0b99401864176f7f901
4c9847ec895014789a73a5342f2c930a1db3709a
75801 F20101118_AABEBS lamar_j_Page_090.jpg
9292e95933a6f1c3a055c29c6037e615
403d2c09005a64f722571b41ecab163b7c9c2be8
154639 F20101118_AABFFK lamar_j_Page_105.jp2
35f4ef5437e508564654dae93002593b
d4bb04c8b339518e3bb7ff066538f37940339563
113565 F20101118_AABFEV lamar_j_Page_070.jp2
92d229efcc0ccca65cbbdf6013af1c61
281fa115fd90572d7f8ff6d6c8ff909047a8d715
81312 F20101118_AABEZP lamar_j_Page_123.jpg
92984d5cfabae11e8734d1038ed6d039
2b84951323241020d4f18dae61a1afbe30eeea04
21508 F20101118_AABECI lamar_j_Page_046.pro
0740abfb5c302075bd3b5ab77790c161
c6c1f36a82c5194dd3e79fc6d3a7fa0e86c72e78
1051896 F20101118_AABEBT lamar_j_Page_020.jp2
b101d569b87ee93ef5d5e6731a13a49d
19db5b83a77d936b938a28519a4ca70f7b37fd2a
73682 F20101118_AABFFL lamar_j_Page_112.jp2
849824132434847e73997e45d6f9c0a0
1fde70377209da257d1a31d2f68bd8be00e90709
112984 F20101118_AABFEW lamar_j_Page_075.jp2
4dd2069334f3c39941b8ff55241714ae
27303268c9bfe53bf5240531b210ed75cf785ee3
55152 F20101118_AABEZQ lamar_j_Page_088.pro
3fd6997ff51f47955e30ec255d791fb5
cf898ccc42d0c70d8da7049cfd17b1c85c2d2b4a
54045 F20101118_AABECJ lamar_j_Page_058.pro
436c4614f290012796fed1bb7d048e81
62061dfe58ad752dbaa0570335712e780840ee2d
52293 F20101118_AABEBU lamar_j_Page_077.pro
8848431b3d89dbff2a037b58234a765a
be5e3a13e68ee6ce5f0d3f0e6fe9b55b345623eb
592765 F20101118_AABFGA lamar_j_Page_147.jp2
e18a9ee957f6a407416cb927da190662
9ed353fc80a39ba3f58dba60738f905f12abb4bd
103394 F20101118_AABFEX lamar_j_Page_077.jp2
3ad730fbd5f8e562264cd4429374d9a8
722dc09bfe0f596186001e8cab3a618812f66030
3903 F20101118_AABEZR lamar_j_Page_140.txt
e92c716de330141ecd8ad0b51ddf0250
bb601610b1ddfe0e7ebcb3c1d07b55a25618daa4
912 F20101118_AABEBV lamar_j_Page_002.pro
6455378d47bf4bbd0cf89fa781f9e732
c701cd5a1d6ec15e77459556a7a3e3beb0a19c8e
615014 F20101118_AABFGB lamar_j_Page_151.jp2
f220fbee8d3c10537d5e0bf446991374
5e56b1282771d9229a44de38f7edda39ba873334
111077 F20101118_AABFFM lamar_j_Page_113.jp2
7f7b6e93ada80477c3143da112e0de98
9e5aeaf4b1178a7d01758f8dfc7081374ed01710
101355 F20101118_AABFEY lamar_j_Page_080.jp2
532dc9f7989929c0c1361770110ba388
85f78f3b15617066c42e858db22943c60e11a376
F20101118_AABEZS lamar_j_Page_127.tif
97f7fb24136fec237a0889721b6c252d
56d380a7fb42481fca88680638ec6e485bab7f67
7115 F20101118_AABECK lamar_j_Page_133thm.jpg
5c631f3435769ac5b5c3ec56db63a3ce
9dad638e3ef404b3fc5c45678387cb1f222902a6
1035664 F20101118_AABEBW lamar_j_Page_131.jp2
4d94137683c40b4048375d9485baf6e1
7930db7f0df56b3f3f7847cfb93acfb0c7ef1986
593846 F20101118_AABFGC lamar_j_Page_158.jp2
eb0870db8b66dc715612b35eab7b3fe5
326da71cc4db52eae332c96c0ee00c68681e2597
117764 F20101118_AABFFN lamar_j_Page_114.jp2
7d19e3bbe95c5e37f96403831db749cb
da8549a9e2b2d4cfaf19039380aaadacfd7935c7
766276 F20101118_AABFEZ lamar_j_Page_083.jp2
8f785f69c8825e6f51ac7a2a62941fef
59bb00bbeac9d865cecd9c4c0ab9e05a8ed5c527
62526 F20101118_AABEZT lamar_j_Page_111.pro
ec309386e7b1c08e0286448ea473021c
b3490bee4616e68423046e8b5e35b9461a6e52e6
88048 F20101118_AABEDA lamar_j_Page_142.pro
a79814e62ce56f9bc762f714eff5d413
617dc54a06322dc1c66787ff05aab7a9c274a084
24054 F20101118_AABECL lamar_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
ca46f8dd1a86482596538e1753f38d37
356a9d4f0a5136ff944663b1a36efaa6cd77dbd1
117067 F20101118_AABEBX lamar_j_Page_068.jp2
15285e117970237be01763b1cd1ff190
51eaf1356b8b04ac9861e21850143d0a1f3667cf
788200 F20101118_AABFGD lamar_j_Page_161.jp2
139195aea7af5d344ea58f12b84be20b
7159572b542d68bc670c340c4c989a4627f060b0
924650 F20101118_AABFFO lamar_j_Page_119.jp2
b16acbdea960a89e76769b4bc482cd9e
ef240baf9ecbc8a1cb7f3de0fd90abe0e657d6cf
F20101118_AABEZU lamar_j_Page_134.tif
e96abfde0b20305235f86bbb0960139b
0d1b7592f9feb14fe9ff887e83767bda0fe14a32
F20101118_AABEDB lamar_j_Page_147.tif
eb16a9ccdfe1224cfc85e94d6b2375b5
ff9a0c66b181234e241ea74d5c6170b4df1bbcfa
5523 F20101118_AABECM lamar_j_Page_176thm.jpg
5d343e7c6495c493ae7ee103d4c58456
b112c561f542679c6f4bcabfd63d416ea1ad176c
113348 F20101118_AABDXG lamar_j_Page_045.jp2
fb0c13a44d492ccdf35947ad722ad5a3
4d61d79a2abfc126a9c0d9006bc6f4c760cf6c91
6574 F20101118_AABEBY lamar_j_Page_015thm.jpg
84418484456d16b65ca20fcfd23db3c0
d03bd1ea99d641260630c8da752c4246c997a013
824792 F20101118_AABFGE lamar_j_Page_164.jp2
59ff3b77fcb884b74b02ac4799e9220d
9394fe79fb4df74fd7a644c0cd2b7336e9d76d17
F20101118_AABFFP lamar_j_Page_120.jp2
432fa4c985599a5fcf6a96227be07ce6
61d5aab99df2abf369a94ec03284f48dec5f702e
17117 F20101118_AABEZV lamar_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
ee27727ce8dc1d34310073cf87d6f416
2489cc4cd896df93912a4f0b06925024dbd8b740
F20101118_AABEDC lamar_j_Page_178.tif
dc3e9ebc4bce4946647140b4b4a51f9e
33abe0528fd6f56fdee0d0215d06b3b29ca2fec2
F20101118_AABECN lamar_j_Page_088.tif
a0933bd4fb278b907d2a5f1c1495a22e
ec1134265db676bf10a41b6f35d14cde7cfc48e6
51144 F20101118_AABDXH lamar_j_Page_076.pro
b0cdc7044e9f2411c60cf6981b5bdf6d
81710bbaf818544a4ebb93ee0739a9e669550ec8
82616 F20101118_AABEBZ lamar_j_Page_018.jpg
3ea27b381a97ed1ab20e24764bb0f86d
d1568170b361c207be07326c1021342020ee30dd
719394 F20101118_AABFGF lamar_j_Page_165.jp2
e3091012e40222c373afdeffc8b80d3f
5ff2a241894095cd0dba315d05b50ecc98b592f9
115189 F20101118_AABFFQ lamar_j_Page_121.jp2
bfabad0354fa309f9d43700a4ec535df
8c19d346e9c1cd4517865b6325645094c14bef99
1028 F20101118_AABEZW lamar_j_Page_115.txt
d14ce8c88d3acb758d74b1e624ef6dc5
dca48a7df9ad0fb4d08452ba6f4ea45684d391a4
26191 F20101118_AABEDD lamar_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
8b1f8164bd77a992d5f4e461ad36bd18
435e7349b79ba6f5aff178a714bd99cdcfbcc096
568 F20101118_AABECO lamar_j_Page_001.txt
15c81413c141e47112e1cce0e60dca76
dd92d263c903162720b5b94f691fe3c420d6c794
7077 F20101118_AABDXI lamar_j_Page_030thm.jpg
0a301dc367cba6b547a40aa0224793b6
433057b461e16b9682c6bea307c59163206658f7
912986 F20101118_AABFGG lamar_j_Page_166.jp2
5527db9fc20424ce241f5dbf948a9c96
e3642d0d3101f0259db7e09059b6978d7bcaa2ad
120925 F20101118_AABFFR lamar_j_Page_123.jp2
1f1aa2d6fbc4ef62ea267675849d6346
7559998bc4ea374bde98c111cb17bd8c83ad934d
20102 F20101118_AABEZX lamar_j_Page_187.QC.jpg
4fdf9a8addadec9a2f188129a7dd9a4b
a3dc9b63137aba2f2882b578a1f43d91a1c0a208
F20101118_AABEDE lamar_j_Page_140.tif
1b16af8c8cf4bcd97ebdf1057e6590b9
977c23773d7227a206db0bd05413850cf841bf9b
F20101118_AABECP lamar_j_Page_010.tif
feab79c168bdace3f70439bcafb5c61d
7b7425b1d48322c6158c07420243c9fe489afad2
17363 F20101118_AABDXJ lamar_j_Page_182.QC.jpg
3a6153ad9a598f35f718aab33fe1c3e4
2f59a04cf0722400b362901ee6d231497d2f1232
803284 F20101118_AABFGH lamar_j_Page_168.jp2
4343fa9739f9723c07f9e09dcaa3d5a7
0e7da1b3661a8bde7445540268b847b4eff01e91
109139 F20101118_AABFFS lamar_j_Page_124.jp2
ce8fbe9c07cd17cb6f9eef72a44d18f9
29d22a8750282e4f4e37a4747c3e32f49811a70b
25116 F20101118_AABEZY lamar_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
3e9ae3f90bd64496a6dbfb7e3365f7b3
b4672db53a4d5aeecd69728188fe0267cac85ae8
54449 F20101118_AABEDF lamar_j_Page_054.pro
911cf73333b73a5a317be406e4637cc8
461fea07311874ac8e968965c3361d99594dc1fd
35590 F20101118_AABECQ lamar_j_Page_167.jpg
9d037dd336d547baada1f7f5fde5179d
1083e0d7f9a029d6179270e561d84804d047af21
6098 F20101118_AABDXK lamar_j_Page_164thm.jpg
2ccbfcd91a9ae7f1c5ca2e1321927ed2
35b86f4fa8ed0c757e3c958259180a0f838a673f
467240 F20101118_AABFGI lamar_j_Page_169.jp2
28a9da6f026063c1fe793f33d7ddfbd4
b40a0e0cf6efb36a05fb2ce99010ccf2dbc11e16
115487 F20101118_AABFFT lamar_j_Page_126.jp2
78f61330a3e30f895c18f0ecfa567a22
6286ef5126467b5db7a1a89b28b53603379e54e0
78463 F20101118_AABEZZ lamar_j_Page_013.jpg
b909b40d9c7978586dc5d6af36d1695f
dfdcdc546dfbad3e55682dd47040abc0267f0240
F20101118_AABEDG lamar_j_Page_048.tif
c7a14cfac8d209fd8fc2ea8b58df21c5
556df63be19f8580cb721cccc3a9f9310c4867c2
73966 F20101118_AABDYA lamar_j_Page_101.pro
51750238c51751f6fd5490814082dddd
9a4f8c3e43e4b5cdc8234da9fa7b079242ff21da
1051974 F20101118_AABECR lamar_j_Page_051.jp2
ff06c37f441944078232d0812a7412d1
6d62800bd270bfb2a27f3172864eda7810833552
246717 F20101118_AABDXL lamar_j_Page_159.jp2
a68562fe5707bb7b2dddc0bdc98c7db8
c438c7f02e798fb544ba20fdecf01a1210b7bfb8
513324 F20101118_AABFGJ lamar_j_Page_172.jp2
4f174b79b823c0e3695020a2a2ce8bd6
44c585201bb31502302a6afe5582e8e770d3bca9
118090 F20101118_AABFFU lamar_j_Page_134.jp2
35212e854766224eb828f43d37533727
902c2cad36fc0721d699bdd6ff573d8a7e8772ef
32290 F20101118_AABEDH lamar_j_Page_072.pro
84df100a9a6e5501bbdb82fba6ed0775
2c44166cd05a5ea96e7a1d8e85ab0eab3256a5da
91313 F20101118_AABECS lamar_j_Page_099.jpg
867ec4d3f04df2f12ee2f3264e6e69f3
85b16e6b57c6bd82acecb872b4604a08fc1a21df
F20101118_AABDXM lamar_j_Page_064.tif
6332ce705a61e6b5303971b844316e19
adedb3b42d0bafc15b410a6e8fd76760e1ee303a
509224 F20101118_AABFGK lamar_j_Page_174.jp2
af739e12d82c540b19e00b4f38d4f7c0
88c4e0296215aa4d62e236694c5a81e78f3bcd86
941339 F20101118_AABFFV lamar_j_Page_137.jp2
3b7bf23fcb1fef7f624ddda72460e8a9
8f7d63b314e0a60fa5df31a40eda45ba325ac749
89111 F20101118_AABEDI lamar_j_Page_079.jp2
ab275c2327bae53eb5b955991e93374a
c5163793f2c31e128f99cb8411d37733048d12df
5472 F20101118_AABDYB lamar_j_Page_168thm.jpg
c87120b72eb83d9a5ac1c6622e32cd20
7e23151b5d8e3479945e90eda170ab23331d43c1
F20101118_AABECT lamar_j_Page_188.tif
eca184d02e3e6e414bb1f27c6bf9483a
522bc89273ba21e214d7fbcfa2679e2e0cd27aa0
39388 F20101118_AABDXN lamar_j_Page_071.pro
44998d8a9671205823983c2ac41cf1d1
bba05b014fae87df7b485d529a1388c19572044b
788855 F20101118_AABFGL lamar_j_Page_180.jp2
4e058e1e3e91eb77ee0486f2b7389308
0fd3ee92dac2a5aa5296947a9f48e545473899ea
916270 F20101118_AABFFW lamar_j_Page_139.jp2
9c5f3ccc430e6a20318d106700b7f088
97ab55894b897bbf3690f842c4a560f3893e389a
26220 F20101118_AABEDJ lamar_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
d9f3d5b787d9c62d6291973e75ece731
454ee036b582ab610b8727e0a51951ae5a32d819
76354 F20101118_AABDYC lamar_j_Page_048.jpg
c3812c056f79646ab43a2d536d7c9a73
0a49d31bc01590bdbab5a60f968d3856cc73dd70
7163 F20101118_AABECU lamar_j_Page_107thm.jpg
27d303d5a9f6cfd82c5f6f54377dfa77
8ec932aca0ac9c6e08d8518a66ba94fed1116bb5
58124 F20101118_AABDXO lamar_j_Page_039.pro
72562dd4b50d3c0951c8f17873d75388
1d93dbacd7050f5478525322aeccd3cb43c359df
F20101118_AABFHA lamar_j_Page_031.tif
b2af7f273286adce1763fedbaeb56c8d
ea5d9a4885bde2a27c71c74c893bb94af814e070
427374 F20101118_AABFGM lamar_j_Page_183.jp2
44095047c219f26bc9fa3190b17e0152
4af675f0ffbd2e4e5f3cb2321dffcfa36e4b5a9d
1051953 F20101118_AABFFX lamar_j_Page_140.jp2
2c35421b5194288a100fdef8b333a012
539f9b0502c23b6e5bec0f775106a55c2f044ef1
54559 F20101118_AABEDK lamar_j_Page_126.pro
3ae53a371a1ae451608f21495f006aeb
f009a86025a10e6a9efd2aef30d979d48c8b315f
46680 F20101118_AABDYD lamar_j_Page_178.pro
6e4682f128b28a67c721eb16523ba1cd
a79f8c9995ac37b389a682e05309262249f3c1f8
116613 F20101118_AABECV lamar_j_Page_133.jp2
bdac3f42a6cba4eb39bb1abb244b6246
93e9f0ab64904b0864ff6f06e05b81b5ec0d9882
25458 F20101118_AABDXP lamar_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
8b62981352364cadf841894f97a8efaa
3c37ec5062b88e533684fa6acab4313fb68f22c4
F20101118_AABFHB lamar_j_Page_034.tif
58587074a09609c81058f92dbf089012
2c295b28f74fad2a8198ff7000026c6068a2afff
1051983 F20101118_AABFFY lamar_j_Page_142.jp2
8f261f103da27a225708e66f1434b28b
00da5fd351bf35a5f065515775d9212b7644de94
56847 F20101118_AABDYE lamar_j_Page_180.jpg
6f35ec9da931957b94b8849dc4386f9f
8425368c9e78a16911966fc559e844235b4500b6
57364 F20101118_AABECW lamar_j_Page_157.pro
16962635821dcabf7d9267645b54d524
6316b104c478c7938340a5d31d2db2b56f8637d1
94874 F20101118_AABDXQ lamar_j_Page_076.jp2
4722d84525eab27025ea76b42901a13e
828846d36fcf3dcd69c8da620528fa47c67b819f
F20101118_AABFHC lamar_j_Page_036.tif
b44aaf0e4c5b72ccd8715c43264b67d8
c35ae9051b0a2130015b7ec3babf65bb5b9026b3
62430 F20101118_AABFGN lamar_j_Page_185.jp2
966131c569e67acc1f988172ad14de0a
3fe1de7ac1925c74c8353486a5f918af9e5bd563
501087 F20101118_AABFFZ lamar_j_Page_144.jp2
0f4d053a0fdf169db7881e4e197c9016
11f086d328af76d2cbb02011ed95a132f0cf3188
2378 F20101118_AABEDL lamar_j_Page_091.txt
76b56a6e85e0c1417b7677f649268809
d1d783a3a88989355627e867b21452abe1c54bbd
F20101118_AABDYF lamar_j_Page_082.tif
1c194a0c484eb61001ecc13022033071
5037383289f93c7f73b0eb6ffbb188ea0aa36f6c
867138 F20101118_AABECX lamar_j_Page_162.jp2
2dcd6a8c7df3059011cbce5dd65c8dbe
0484f7f9c87ebf350367627c821f26c90c2d32d6
21315 F20101118_AABDXR lamar_j_Page_186.QC.jpg
daea373ddbc405eb91875fabf55f9ee9
c85176507772304740a7f46460199b6a092a402c
52639 F20101118_AABEEA lamar_j_Page_080.pro
8886acb127a6478432fbde1a7bc687bc
351bb65406988ad566cae2699a8ea03c68cb23dc
F20101118_AABFHD lamar_j_Page_038.tif
c454332a454966551587ed0f1ea04801
3e207dbf3fc8ff036dd4171da574936c170d8786
91386 F20101118_AABFGO lamar_j_Page_187.jp2
51c7bf12fdd64dce1213a4b1c4ebba4f
71ad9d84ab9141bea7bf7473bf8c43cffa103fa7
123446 F20101118_AABEDM lamar_j_Page_066.jp2
4960989351e67ea5d1694c7756b1a34a
4d27f1801105c976dd58a150f3f2ed4145b96911
12447 F20101118_AABDYG lamar_j_Page_171.QC.jpg
137da99c235eab65bf07edcac5c3ed15
17f7ba2e88bda78218444ecf4fe7b363742be68f
28853 F20101118_AABECY lamar_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
d212642401e9636aa1657f348a569b3a
1bade0b7532c391b219b8c67517887867ed88122
2137 F20101118_AABDXS lamar_j_Page_057.txt
ec3dd4ab5207aec974d124266a6d614f
ccb2081e843611c472bf239315a82c92f16d9d50
75321 F20101118_AABEEB lamar_j_Page_008.jpg
2892312d0e07151802cb0f5b2e676d4d
c079e7eea4139fc5e9b84651cb67a23aa503fa2e
F20101118_AABFHE lamar_j_Page_043.tif
d239d50968c608e213bc89bca8406b1f
cf9e41a84099dfb5ed2b4ec8ca8aa9dcfa3a93d4
90976 F20101118_AABFGP lamar_j_Page_188.jp2
f3867e4fa69549558201f051774cce70
dcb244fb9f21fb33b2e3941935fd4a0249f3e411
3451 F20101118_AABEDN lamar_j_Page_108.txt
b3b942b843bba326fd72ad8b1089d04f
4596b0c3282b1fce3a7098f61c64f3670476e06e
2066 F20101118_AABDYH lamar_j_Page_068.txt
a5e08fa67358c9ba5cd2aa5220d5717b
295eec29db31967224c581b9030111ae8a92db12
73861 F20101118_AABECZ lamar_j_Page_010.jpg
d0ff4c684f84b8b50dd5b7a0864fcc1e
82f9f21b0e1b41cbbb2b1d8af7b9668583ea9d8f
3262 F20101118_AABDXT lamar_j_Page_102.txt
15c5d4d12000d2ae1947ecdfe203266d
b60cd95517ea01c5ef4812f446c9be5355be35a0
F20101118_AABEEC lamar_j_Page_075.tif
a6bee491273dfdf764c103691a67e49d
58f074b183e8b47f12d343169bed97e91e4678ae
F20101118_AABFHF lamar_j_Page_049.tif
7fcff490747679149167e37769910757
dcfe81b71d173eb863994a4a2695f606383838cc
95589 F20101118_AABFGQ lamar_j_Page_189.jp2
8a6b8d8a6f064b941ffc24decd3c7284
9920685bcbbab25f7ee8e37c798bd22027e3aa86
114382 F20101118_AABEDO lamar_j_Page_081.jp2
7f26db990b7533414de0fa75449d41d0
085c0fe0840d4ff81e7da2f8ab95328353d47b18
F20101118_AABDYI lamar_j_Page_150thm.jpg
80db781d3b4a0604871faadbc5c03b97
c3481918bc0f7a637abafca38f00030d0f1f719e
78066 F20101118_AABDXU lamar_j_Page_105.pro
89e068faa691e07ff3e815db32736268
96faf7fcb41ca012f18798b2c24f3021aeac3e8e
30037 F20101118_AABEED lamar_j_Page_146.jpg
f4435e4491e63648f23038391455ee30
49684b5781fc0cd7bda47a7474fa89f735737ccf
F20101118_AABFHG lamar_j_Page_053.tif
ec833f31f5d116749c2fd0f5210a053b
0be881d942c65ee62988392c6cb542d9c71902a2
F20101118_AABFGR lamar_j_Page_001.tif
b9460f92bab42b25e4c6fb67af84fb3c
e2c1bb1d1eda536e18516104368f2ee9e155b7dd
159407 F20101118_AABEDP lamar_j_Page_104.jp2
9e2444c70076bfb83f05a2a59a0613a9
f40a273c448051aea607f90ac5110620d8e17ac6
1777 F20101118_AABDYJ lamar_j_Page_181.txt
6519fd4402ceb0b5f9292d3abcf88873
ab134943b8d1e840823ecfbe317ee77bc5e92453
2121 F20101118_AABDXV lamar_j_Page_040.txt
73796a906801699547a65fe360b7322e
72069c1b0698b3bba986159652a164e9d1e33ffb
F20101118_AABEEE lamar_j_Page_079.tif
1bcc568dace3a9ac780217e8c45e629e
a612ce7b4f3411bb50df4e1f114ca370c1be2dc6
F20101118_AABFHH lamar_j_Page_054.tif
f1cf041b6eddbaa5c127604ecea9bca3
739eef846035ec618fd9e51d1de1c64218e3ff5a
F20101118_AABFGS lamar_j_Page_002.tif
9e5c0cc35369806e9137fd292731341c
81fe54c35e3b46e1cc7430dc3dc517925d58782b
F20101118_AABEDQ lamar_j_Page_017.tif
07b51ae4a59723d51eeecbb11a5a6724
4c69f06a0b00574af8c03fa43f6943d5e3c82a1d
48103 F20101118_AABDYK lamar_j_Page_060.pro
b1e253349ae79a8cd4464c16eea19066
3d50c163abf4011f78071e71fb0020510e0e1944
22075 F20101118_AABDXW lamar_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
8e78e88f30fbfd31346a6e63f865d8a7
0b4493063f329b74d4d722738b1cbf60c12f1cd2
F20101118_AABEEF lamar_j_Page_063.tif
f2568e33c05fc7644f4d77a26ae37eba
55027ba2618868f2b469e82eed2166ae5bcaa80a
F20101118_AABFHI lamar_j_Page_055.tif
4495fe5c1a079f476b374c877805a250
f4d962bc1579e81ab0e413b3dec39ba58ecfb0ee
F20101118_AABFGT lamar_j_Page_005.tif
14fddf5dbb8d819093bbcc549aa40578
f85a73a292a077f62eea5c7ee7457f4a30eaf63f
6814 F20101118_AABDZA lamar_j_Page_118thm.jpg
1a134c0b1e7b1cc4d3d672ba85e25afe
27527d55d23b468f79e2d1f62368cb7bcd09d4c7
F20101118_AABEDR lamar_j_Page_100.tif
e0cdcbd14235d84eb4c6810840f46380
86379181d2a6f062fc92256b442b2c64235e1063
54198 F20101118_AABDYL lamar_j_Page_182.jpg
38d7658e963a7d057619a7e94d2d6e31
282c3df8ab342fe6000c23c43bf78814e57fa28c
7172 F20101118_AABDXX lamar_j_Page_029thm.jpg
4e56f2b60b1056a24b0a32116c06a71b
ac0e594f7717483f2543671658387293662f0ae7
F20101118_AABEEG lamar_j_Page_154.tif
8a6f7d4732918a7da1fe944ee44c0ddc
8eb614508e12ef33a3d9dd2a45200852a91c536d
F20101118_AABFHJ lamar_j_Page_056.tif
ba77a4263d4e30245892c8e784b04c8d
08b67236e386e492ad1225f2892fc73d8d2bf9a3
F20101118_AABFGU lamar_j_Page_007.tif
7da7590950d955a8990887f0a0668963
a352885197c6777af79d51c7630cbbb0fe6a8f5e
50582 F20101118_AABEDS lamar_j_Page_056.pro
8f0b369e67d88b810295e5ed33403cae
a1cea79412bfc14abcaf0b75b064c9d92cbd0b22
2693 F20101118_AABDYM lamar_j_Page_029.txt
bfcbbe4f74199b07ca95081d0594f937
f2b200d8973c483e10432eceb9a3ded4c1b87173
40202 F20101118_AABDXY lamar_j_Page_082.pro
9ab5a29383ae5d24dac60ee50e6e6823
067780330707765d2e01b7d502e022787fec9b1a
6325 F20101118_AABEEH lamar_j_Page_080thm.jpg
bb370b895c7c38be37ee5cd51afdd349
fb3d4edc668e6cdcd2af7af94ad6e6c5cf4023ec
106094 F20101118_AABDZB lamar_j_Page_012.jpg
41af4b79e12d80a3722c31b55decfd42
cedcba17f80f1a5470dda87c5c98f9ef3c0e2a79
F20101118_AABFHK lamar_j_Page_057.tif
bea99b5f173827f1d4f6bef46f3cfe65
d960ae427a25c1d50962a16dc9fd967c87d5a256
F20101118_AABFGV lamar_j_Page_008.tif
1f5168df88ec02bc4a96517cc75dc9ec
073c510aeaa816d2d3d2c92b1bf7651678ac5ca6
2589 F20101118_AABEDT lamar_j_Page_173.txt
0cd6f6231232d28196d5998c9c10d30b
fcf3d7468c3f71377680f3257d7a5ce284bae380
51428 F20101118_AABDYN lamar_j_Page_112.jpg
b22abb5cf6d3a3647ae2b6d396b2ee7c
b59d82765c579f835f782107d24f042e382e0891
107386 F20101118_AABDXZ lamar_j_Page_065.jp2
911a75509e8e40ca21c1b45e08af1f80
27b37e91883875c97ae3f76dd7fc71a268571650
57445 F20101118_AABEEI lamar_j_Page_127.pro
1f515dff97513c5cba46e2077e409241
89f877efc68aadae11d2db58c169a7f8ac94f710
F20101118_AABFHL lamar_j_Page_060.tif
92cd1636d951c6fd8f29c92d1fff8c7a
f481b4b6b69e71e91151037a61b8e103f3e93979
F20101118_AABFGW lamar_j_Page_012.tif
38b72728eba423e4fa2f897c1c90b411
48ac94c8b3f95f21a5140767641e36b960418378
125249 F20101118_AABEDU lamar_j_Page_039.jp2
547186de45f7ba269d411df8398451b5
ded74920290c7a1b31488e3d099d7a92558275e9
25941 F20101118_AABDYO lamar_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
0d66158e0e3a639fdf8bd4c3f7041118
9a9f468d9e443ee77a70ab146604712ff0a044a4
68079 F20101118_AABEEJ lamar_j_Page_011.jp2
cf602dca14ed886c9f2a879dff2f2aa1
606bf6f717a4d746cbc6857bdfbad1c527f062a8
20106 F20101118_AABDZC lamar_j_Page_179.QC.jpg
9c103df8d1f328e5e753dd30ac27bbff
d8c8b32da18bf20b380ef096474b16a134ee2748
F20101118_AABFIA lamar_j_Page_106.tif
a2d084207add8ac6b5c0e50f93ba9c08
9c933b5742ed31830fbbe12a05e4d841af63d0a9
F20101118_AABFHM lamar_j_Page_061.tif
42e6adf97e9042238cb80548bb6368de
e2c710eb2161d58c1d1ff9fec1d88e11084d46c0
F20101118_AABFGX lamar_j_Page_013.tif
9fb0249f2c1dc1042104877f1c144485
2bc12d216b81e214458145f174143f6d861a8703
F20101118_AABEDV lamar_j_Page_026.tif
b374d9b4c0ab734f59ed9dc78fe49b5a
8d41cb128a3561465296916841b2a6f9172824eb
487984 F20101118_AABDYP lamar_j_Page_171.jp2
ecf54723d481bd5a79f5c37392dc0d9f
d70e1a356a6b2e08600a76ce6c3357bc02f77fb2
3537 F20101118_AABEEK lamar_j_Page_151thm.jpg
35315e7e295fa38a0d1349538eedc826
b4154439689e8695141dae8318e2e9510908c0d4
F20101118_AABDZD lamar_j_Page_110.tif
90dae0b24d0eb4537a3c29b7be7dd23b
8f2e1465be178bb90b33aa39232f9112714bd8c7
F20101118_AABFIB lamar_j_Page_109.tif
534bb2d5b9feec992ebc0bbfb73cc448
36131021b13880562154043bfacc11860444ab42
F20101118_AABFHN lamar_j_Page_066.tif
5387cb2ae844302aba415d5d3cfe9435
8c83874b4a6f7c0a8c3d059604a61b1489012a47
F20101118_AABFGY lamar_j_Page_014.tif
fe8ab9c2bf7b07d4a6264e06118a0c14
9a922f5d961fb7a1da5946ea5cbdf0dd08b332ca
45483 F20101118_AABEDW lamar_j_Page_020.pro
2b4fd049c2cc6583fd50109a02b3d68d
128ef4081ef33b28937a23857a4884fa7ff7a2c5
42190 F20101118_AABDYQ lamar_j_Page_181.pro
f6e0bb1d733aea671fede4362f9ef155
7f9465c4d6e53751af4c707caf1ce4eb76f930ed
F20101118_AABEEL lamar_j_Page_059.tif
b79edb02cc8407e1565b2eb9fd8f12bf
a8f370ca5b6f2acf93b966ee0400c157bd133c75
51767 F20101118_AABDZE lamar_j_Page_113.pro
d77780dfce446bed669a6427ba42777c
b34c9421422606a04888a4d0da73acf244617d95
F20101118_AABFIC lamar_j_Page_111.tif
3f5985ce5b90cde29f4a6777314187f8
83dd8301ccbf1ce1197c123bf02cb0a653b629a2
F20101118_AABFGZ lamar_j_Page_020.tif
f7f789defa75551850e5e69115d107a5
b293f57e6fe344df3cf82180194e10270dc04a1c
F20101118_AABEDX lamar_j_Page_006.txt
1208d7f67c380f56db7f2bfd883a0603
f2122ae95949f1f40ed847234bb24a64272f5a42
76145 F20101118_AABDYR lamar_j_Page_036.jpg
71b011c9b8f5aa5be80d1c21aba3168e
5d443f70443f1d8f5dc1c5b6fd5b94751fa8232e
54008 F20101118_AABEFA lamar_j_Page_067.pro
25fe6cf34da694429392c0d6502d3d34
9f80b8b5cae4376749083c01a157c5878bfefd90
24693 F20101118_AABDZF lamar_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
a72f5eddb3cb9a545f54bcaff253422b
5ea7c29d4a4b58cb0c67a13d0ed9aa93ce45587c
F20101118_AABFID lamar_j_Page_114.tif
f0bb866f65b26b4dd0292924a77e1d9c
c1fee659058f99e91ed47b3ef9b667d2fc49e994
F20101118_AABFHO lamar_j_Page_068.tif
34d03449a5849589c0b9edb5185ba319
8b0716ff63cb6d9d3810e173545c2ef8348bf68f
895936 F20101118_AABEDY lamar_j_Page_115.jp2
0034dfea5355994e83065b2242359da6
df7afcada4c8dec2df23c85f7f52e4fa98c79dd9
539 F20101118_AABDYS lamar_j_Page_184.txt
2fd3d7a21016f66c177dbf610e4bc87b
d33f2e64d4acb54b0e80d1671b3a9856a71fa526
3759 F20101118_AABEFB lamar_j_Page_142.txt
b06b3a3499e9c4b65b2a9b1f9b047282
53d0d1ccfbec8ef4820319d3ddff1695514764f4
103487 F20101118_AABEEM lamar_j_Page_106.jpg
4df3c17c3360bccc13dce07dd2aafd76
874becf74b0c17c18a3245ba2d21cb1e5d12a577
5380 F20101118_AABDZG lamar_j_Page_117thm.jpg
f81a3d7665c0c732ffa17aa58bd47bb3
9c43c89b9e57c961cb8b363c7dd81834be7250f6
F20101118_AABFIE lamar_j_Page_116.tif
af839c12398a097e467384d01356f8e7
f3aec3345ad089481b4523f3c74036d8590ebb27
F20101118_AABFHP lamar_j_Page_069.tif
10a331ad7bce14b252d1674c905932b4
d205c7cdc6ea36ee5ab598154e8f858b0e171969
78716 F20101118_AABDYT lamar_j_Page_022.jpg
b168bb57fe8fa34048d2c0f3bee5affd
07c4da4448eba45496462573887e3075d86f7135
7261 F20101118_AABEFC lamar_j_Page_039thm.jpg
82bb929e9a36bcae4ca303e13b4b6581
5c8d3568656a67ad53a8682280a0449b73f026f3
55068 F20101118_AABEEN lamar_j_Page_121.pro
cfeab4ae0fd41dfe53d44c27867d425d
cdaaf37c9993069a4f44d0efc4314b3ad60cca5d
2546 F20101118_AABDZH lamar_j_Page_092.txt
966e235f1356146bac7e654ead92ff3a
0ee6be1fe63a87d0007dbb5021ddaa1c70b335af
902 F20101118_AABEDZ lamar_j_Page_046.txt
c3eef8deee239d76e22ed1f405a16e9b
9c802a7f3273fa450d68f1b7c4599bc3980b64ad
F20101118_AABFIF lamar_j_Page_117.tif
559bceaf3c1b753956396e69da614724
770c2c665e2583c88a7da17f4b077be5e575342e
F20101118_AABFHQ lamar_j_Page_071.tif
9d09411328901e69b71482de6e6fc7bb
b62893ba180b5dd0c2a29cbfad01a956a62bd1f1
53106 F20101118_AABDYU lamar_j_Page_160.jpg
990d3f9f8eb51bf02070e3e81a29c879
bd9fabd3f22f7307813501cf172e1c0af00bc4b0
F20101118_AABEFD lamar_j_Page_044.tif
c5c5abe8a73e2463029ea29c0df25788
b840e9dd495333e4f887970267d9c7d3c5af7066
F20101118_AABEEO lamar_j_Page_011thm.jpg
5a19fc8686da4b7d51b7e66038dd8989
f388a506a871a1abfc8fdbef4ef77629434095fb
115223 F20101118_AABDZI lamar_j_Page_044.jp2
edb5e613cef8533d0e05f59ae6225d32
2b568d935e86d87a53e15b4eb9b59c1ae7641303
F20101118_AABFIG lamar_j_Page_118.tif
f8db8f20d4d5eccf85c1382101bdc7ae
d2475d83ae0938d68127f196b8a0fa296a292e0a
F20101118_AABFHR lamar_j_Page_076.tif
aba2db6aaadf6bbc9f3a3010d9ea760c
fc7ce9c9f69686894c7173dcee1baa5d99153589
18167 F20101118_AABDYV lamar_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
777c3e4137f4b40341609b68ba2ae2ef
b56bef0592e6bb75803c4adc8c87a55c567ce6f7
53657 F20101118_AABEFE lamar_j_Page_145.pro
e171111509284f3257963ca7c6fd0861
9a152777ae4225fac321b2fdaefe951891269642
7030 F20101118_AABEEP lamar_j_Page_026thm.jpg
0a94b91168fbc9c18e2e1e963d363288
77b3dd2244043241329b2959fc84a237548bda32
F20101118_AABDZJ lamar_j_Page_007.jp2
1c919d2ec189f82ac277e23c6bf3f6da
83f723838853f785f97f5cbe85dc2c63469ef3a2
F20101118_AABFIH lamar_j_Page_121.tif
b6e3e878efa4be3f88a9aaf45aa18fce
fbff4f73fe29a23961f35279c91dd9dbe76de254
F20101118_AABFHS lamar_j_Page_084.tif
23a8dc355b596b68031d8d1fcd9ea21f
e9dbc3b387a6a339296f478a77dbcc3d10590463
7491 F20101118_AABDYW lamar_j_Page_108thm.jpg
3991b1f60a3f8449c8f21f056318e914
75752e10cf386acd34a833fe64f93c3bf7e1c405
2410 F20101118_AABEFF lamar_j_Page_147.txt
5cf1072b1357ba530ee7c51cdbd3e9ad
24d91944524ede28c2f39302360218354a0e48f9
63982 F20101118_AABEEQ lamar_j_Page_082.jp2
7ac45da12d8b4f253ea7abe8e1370797
e8a6b191973c34dcfdc9775b33ad36c363c5c7d4
27889 F20101118_AABDZK lamar_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
035a432802695e88591c6d527173af18
6ec0fbb6182ef34323f23475f5b126b273c17947
F20101118_AABFII lamar_j_Page_122.tif
8ce068b4207df55c95baf6f0971325fb
188b170bf74d6d0f8de57fe7d56eddb236411953
F20101118_AABFHT lamar_j_Page_085.tif
116645278f4cc7d0f777ef45a8df6e64
e52b7abf0576b34c90a078d9eed066a323cbdd6f
7212 F20101118_AABDYX lamar_j_Page_050.pro
dbf1acf916e8dd0a5f1878be30e2f2d7
dabcd82e372e9056f88e3edcfba894380302a51e
53541 F20101118_AABEFG lamar_j_Page_138.jpg
f0b06e7da1f0a5cce2895730f9af3859
31ef919cdda1f532970d9efc2abcdfab58c99327
26288 F20101118_AABEER lamar_j_Page_158.pro
e765598643ea79bd2ce9db9558ce10ea
7618a0cfa2e3a95f38676a689e762d21b1e054ca
77287 F20101118_AABDZL lamar_j_Page_140.jpg
ca2d0440a6831883f9957bc1485cd139
cf09153ef5c70f1ed5641a9067497275847c9598
F20101118_AABFIJ lamar_j_Page_123.tif
91c54d45cc59322580aae57859a62249
71e21392ff0abd1234cf028295b400ab7bce93ec
F20101118_AABFHU lamar_j_Page_086.tif
d4e1e54558f1fcfb2124196aaee2caaa
855feb061a7964e9ebdcf466dbccdaee0cae66d2
25444 F20101118_AABDYY lamar_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
27921b315ded1b156ec8a1278f006249
f05413eafd6cccbcad7275b813d03947f454af16
94663 F20101118_AABEFH lamar_j_Page_141.pro
c300ed024964e5dbd0dacf0964810157
c23f84db6bc491b236812a0074b948f4f6be30f5
7165 F20101118_AABEES lamar_j_Page_132thm.jpg
5c3bc8e56c56bf6797beedb6fcfd6d02
cd4b463f70d032604bc15b79b214eb27110df60c
25518 F20101118_AABDZM lamar_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
8d4e17512c3d9f9db9f417a89fb4cc8c
393a9c742e302d0d047e2e40a51e26e133e8df74
F20101118_AABFIK lamar_j_Page_124.tif
3f25a99ecba9def4ead2321f56f4fea9
b53cd3fdb05a99cf2bb78e37dca565cef9796b9f
F20101118_AABFHV lamar_j_Page_091.tif
75652596dbcaa9716f52125a51667baf
2430bfe87fd45944eca427bbc9f62713f8375432
70524 F20101118_AABDYZ lamar_j_Page_153.jpg
ab3a8aa86d8e2527fa06939e2348ca41
90cee621533eb1cc71d53944060bf4cdfddbf9d9
1288 F20101118_AABEFI lamar_j_Page_148.txt
22c4fadda8056304079805766d21dc06
30ec713e9f312e7ef460dbddf5dc5adfdb7fff7f
F20101118_AABEET lamar_j_Page_011.tif
a7a6c6392795bed9fcdb2ccaaddc697d
8306c6810d9cd4f740d2161bc7c1fbc1e0ef6dd9
3066 F20101118_AABDZN lamar_j_Page_159thm.jpg
67210e6674da8467a3df5387085b76cc
d5b46bd6d937d80c1f443676cb6e60b7ef2b1811
F20101118_AABFIL lamar_j_Page_125.tif
4c716f50cb252311f1693a6849bd7457
824bdfe68061b91ae990ff2d18239ddd889d1555
F20101118_AABFHW lamar_j_Page_092.tif
8b64bf3f828ae342969167e8a853962f
792a630b34abe0752d23d16dd28c240f99b24199
7198 F20101118_AABEFJ lamar_j_Page_021thm.jpg
6da85c87bfaad96ced826cf7f0c6b3f5
a1b0a6789834380a455fb8cd3c588f4fb01b6ebc
20563 F20101118_AABEEU lamar_j_Page_156.pro
27714899fc6c6d9cccba353bb6c60ce6
f7773e81e2addb7e319cc22f4ca19e6b1c2276a5
1881 F20101118_AABDZO lamar_j_Page_071.txt
3a0b3027ec8f701d8ca25e4d25b280d3
19fe731386c99d0036d4da80546812c23b5e3a7c
F20101118_AABFJA lamar_j_Page_157.tif
477096342e4ed415bddef3e0b20a3a20
33f3de011e61d1a7bddf31bfe5003ef64fe23abb
F20101118_AABFIM lamar_j_Page_128.tif
202f4e8de7780179de5f628fd40dfa70
d928b096ee093cf498e2bee9a5136eafcd5b6d9e
F20101118_AABFHX lamar_j_Page_094.tif
e97d1969d9250b42326e73283fa4f4cd
ae97fae2af02a2794d2b279906e107970dea8d3d
F20101118_AABEFK lamar_j_Page_137.txt
cdbf8dbb9b15a43cc9221aceee0b16c4
1a9ed8bbd37134f9b7a4ecd8b2faba968a04267d
2423 F20101118_AABEEV lamar_j_Page_076.txt
d988080d84da898a0168ec338dd6bc97
fb636a33728620179217b4228de52a7698ddcbc9
F20101118_AABDZP lamar_j_Page_016thm.jpg
19fd04580aa82fcddf86fbe472acde86
6cca00619bcc88ef572ac8e1dc6156ce361b9e65
F20101118_AABFJB lamar_j_Page_159.tif
8be99f9fa9ca311f10e1d2e800945c0f
c728b99464723fbf76f9f956a52002ce8fa65628
F20101118_AABFIN lamar_j_Page_130.tif
6c8d2037db6ed7f0ab0ed7b8a57d8a6f
44b22f4e3091741564aebc1d1776dbbb052e3658
F20101118_AABFHY lamar_j_Page_098.tif
8ac4bb7057c6bdb44f29f070b0765317
39c05ef6e7e3b993e3040f4b88b8bc34d7f15d74
158597 F20101118_AABEFL lamar_j_Page_110.jp2
44285e646c077ff7ad323757491c4bc6
d1bc2d84370f7698ed998fa1a7f4409197e9a615
948870 F20101118_AABEEW lamar_j_Page_181.jp2
a575939f1472f886ebe3b5e0d32b02f3
82cdc1447189d073459b4f87574c636a15d88d1a
1558 F20101118_AABDZQ lamar_j_Page_073.txt
f5bcff5392371b1d5b3c4da4182c8378
284e378958af3dd87d5d5c5a7ff87d5f9672537c
F20101118_AABFJC lamar_j_Page_160.tif
a32e774f1c272b75540330889363caa0
adbe8192d19999f0831580c17401f69af44c6fab
F20101118_AABFIO lamar_j_Page_131.tif
41a6579ad536be3683d043ae62d73dda
fb9a1d363ab649ed9f7bf08a6a645a5c650d1e76
F20101118_AABFHZ lamar_j_Page_102.tif
1a557c3335e4b4667c184c4b4940404c
9991dd53deaffe1779ec42ddf0c1cf3955f60e7b
64501 F20101118_AABEFM lamar_j_Page_109.pro
f9a7f75984d19308ae124f989519c268
0404a419a9d5ad2bac6c8ef6fa68422288f375cd
24206 F20101118_AABEEX lamar_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
9df6f512512095b05799bee81c68c372
e7fc7c9e4f051b5b7d22d6c7cdf5ab16bf90f357
716535 F20101118_AABDZR lamar_j_Page_175.jp2
e38d0549b6de4905b9287a992f2b43c5
1810e2c73e09b940e52e8b09f1af254c180ad19d
F20101118_AABEGA lamar_j_Page_136.tif
aba64b4bec42003f0a75985fb079cdbf
6c7bb728f72e1552476aaee31373ab8daf1d69c2
F20101118_AABFJD lamar_j_Page_162.tif
afac7cf8ee4c28e8a8f9df9fad9acf9e
01d13848e1366be7657db8c65e2f3931ee498aa3
6976 F20101118_AABEEY lamar_j_Page_022thm.jpg
210e97568b19901c25935df33d9816f8
5ebc1cce34ba6b1ddfe0e101f39cd3460cf49a2c
F20101118_AABDZS lamar_j_Page_033.jp2
7df0ebd4e600c0b0d0ff3174d56ceed6
ee71907f2ff28bc925b8456eb123d3a7c941d833
114450 F20101118_AABEGB lamar_j_Page_067.jp2
75b61faf426e143ad995ad22df68dc69
4528c93fe3e7ceb85349044c06e8b43a824fbf27
F20101118_AABFJE lamar_j_Page_164.tif
120a149dc46a3097248c16345e3f9b8b
98db339a1cdd9bfb199b82b59d03ee009c76d9f4
F20101118_AABFIP lamar_j_Page_133.tif
7dd06308d81b2442e90dcd72d6c78cdd
d18797ff9c4cdc3a2de9141c72d2517c0b021013
114169 F20101118_AABEFN lamar_j_Page_087.jp2
263288d3f2586c6df49ba82b41541dcb
c1d04cbb9325e19284c09d48d81795c637f3b958
13167 F20101118_AABEEZ lamar_j_Page_169.QC.jpg
2ee343001d7f2a3e03bc7a6663bedb36
df51b29f72b0d8b4e190d3eec2a741ce2d95bc59
1051962 F20101118_AABDZT lamar_j_Page_154.jp2
ed99d4d9f6ae6fd418acb846c685ae4a
770f6e6553c144ad32479048e7ced5ecd4d3a674
141906 F20101118_AABEGC lamar_j_Page_107.jp2
b06dac00c3eb9bf6d58c073bfd38b9be
bba1795849f644fdad884ccd4efb5d568aeed3fa
F20101118_AABFJF lamar_j_Page_167.tif
dec321e4e99c3efa63771803d6835bbb
586efd36b9a960afda989ca7a079a668c499e427
F20101118_AABFIQ lamar_j_Page_137.tif
e2163dee722ef2cc1d408d1b3cba4aed
30c72435f414c938b23b226e1e7a32a37128a426
7062 F20101118_AABEFO lamar_j_Page_067thm.jpg
27dc3f3cf7b2da67d6b062050780d0df
d578375dac1a8afbb9fea38517a892da10aa4e72
5848 F20101118_AABDZU lamar_j_Page_059thm.jpg
b7ad206d8a321cdcd6bf7722964aac95
996e93288b3415896b358338b27030833f6b7931
79016 F20101118_AABEGD lamar_j_Page_035.jpg
c5076d61a7d16327585e09aefcdabd67
a81b1cfea5b997d38484ce7a526bd238229fac24
F20101118_AABFJG lamar_j_Page_169.tif
fca11e36b67b8469962d664f7eeeb945
456dfdc11c0bfc4295b13e5d228c1d41c72be739
F20101118_AABFIR lamar_j_Page_138.tif
09e8429fa8ca926695dfa03fffd694db
6136dc1e53d7417038c84655ab5cf4e708ee84d4
2255 F20101118_AABEFP lamar_j_Page_035.txt
5bb19d3c62758c5fee7a75fc0a87df10
daa5da4e8dfeedf98518282e63abbaf77d2c6afb
1477 F20101118_AABDZV lamar_j_Page_049.txt
3b74016e9bfa4ecb01614412a23611fc
603d822dcff932f2d116eb930092773a25a0e591
111097 F20101118_AABEGE lamar_j_Page_086.jp2
77e0652ffa1bc7842baea29d349ff45a
c3b2fc945dce8a9bd2c95369430521b2c9803b35
F20101118_AABFJH lamar_j_Page_170.tif
ee98df33fdfae6c6209ef1e225a5744c
7bc11589687364c2a5c4e9f4c3c9916e48fbf817
F20101118_AABFIS lamar_j_Page_139.tif
958b85d83e74d2249b60f96683034dac
b707a567867ef822c0dfaf3ab2de5d7580673ab1
25844 F20101118_AABEFQ lamar_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
dca2e5ce3fdc3864ca87d06a5eeac099
ff79dcfff6aa2d604a7b9b313a0dabfaaf7febc7
25300 F20101118_AABDZW lamar_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
16669aa9025631b6ad3811b815b84887
de6a79a82f62106b8c7a8e258dca9fa4be3fe7d7
864698 F20101118_AABEGF lamar_j_Page_179.jp2
d73c686399316d418a087e65f1b5ca86
8be5a6d29dc288481adf658d3129596bd5081c3f
F20101118_AABFJI lamar_j_Page_172.tif
28f33969bd573053fc4fe89e29454b26
ed982b15350ed0559b59293c75a64c984ae42167
F20101118_AABFIT lamar_j_Page_141.tif
9acf6ae266a0c287994b302aa29efab8
6797df2a965e42d5f77c4c5b46c6bf9f1451dbb9
29162 F20101118_AABEFR lamar_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
ae2ae0a70f7e84a5b0527f059d4b86f0
1e75f17a05c704742805cb06e5d701bcb9f70e2a
F20101118_AABDZX lamar_j_Page_146.tif
12805aabec56ce99bd8a5834ab193da0
6fab75aa7cf1bdf9fc07f07957e90d2c46646af2
25303 F20101118_AABEGG lamar_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
6ba31326309c3d682d0f3b5c2881ddc0
53b80542bff998b2f29d463abf69b0094ed96633
F20101118_AABFJJ lamar_j_Page_173.tif
cbd7c5bdb2ee3d2c30904eba33ce699d
6d1b567ffeff6885b9dd4aba900ed7fa33133dfe
F20101118_AABFIU lamar_j_Page_142.tif
395e9bb184b9133b79d5aae040d9c07e
3d354923351dfdd1fe15ef45242495add27fbcfb
27234 F20101118_AABEFS lamar_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
4b266df18fce724883864b725b3cd91b
d4b2d21f2ed408eac33220048698299abda6dffe
1051935 F20101118_AABDZY lamar_j_Page_052.jp2
3ea86db37ad9316afeb329894bd29de9
2b4a13d06baf9444ca9c9c889e5c97fe70b22ab4
F20101118_AABEGH lamar_j_Page_176.tif
4758fb9e3612c8a7018c9e9604435ff0
7a7db0da1762714ed812c0cb5d02b4c38d2e27a2
F20101118_AABFJK lamar_j_Page_174.tif
7b8ff1de59160673bec1ce6bfbee3724
27f7d7a4ea187f58f170ce8184bba80a8ee3ce4d
F20101118_AABFIV lamar_j_Page_144.tif
b919993aff399163ec4393c56d8fe133
c9e9fb52ad4d4892e48ea6a6b3812a97b9c0e82c
7003 F20101118_AABEFT lamar_j_Page_100thm.jpg
00b6ae783f36bea4167a07a5ea9d217d
047c379263dc296890faa66af8423b309ecde05f
31230 F20101118_AABDZZ lamar_j_Page_026.pro
7787d754b4f7a30d4ffc80ce705c9ab0
b248464774a69bb3ea7eec190909dbbba13bcb46
5509 F20101118_AABEGI lamar_j_Page_122thm.jpg
4c3d0826b518650afc302618bc32d927
6e14dfd9f380aeed9bbac79eaa52904bffd21e86
F20101118_AABFJL lamar_j_Page_180.tif
1b09e4be15e5654e8823d49929f053a5
4c18fd1dfb9fdd26f2a00c978382cda988b17230
F20101118_AABFIW lamar_j_Page_145.tif
44e431f7de1f9d474939132f5385d440
3ab9827a945935d28f28605ca4734032d0e17d03
125111 F20101118_AABEFU lamar_j_Page_129.jp2
8ed44c79164e907951a07b59b7dd3abe
0746715219229a43066aea8578b0e4a1c004473d
855908 F20101118_AABEGJ lamar_j_Page_155.jp2
c8c67625aa9cbe2d0926a2992d85d8b6
c4f924e16c01bb301d4f4430a77955e542f58c1a
29743 F20101118_AABFKA lamar_j_Page_011.pro
8aedc8501040cfa8c441ac2c9f8b0815
af4d39cca91aab2484d834030a4091e328145f42
F20101118_AABFJM lamar_j_Page_182.tif
cc6505acdde879418b8778ed0359a37c
05c6e3c8e339901fba48f9560027d34f2d4da6b3
F20101118_AABFIX lamar_j_Page_150.tif
c1944fad7bacdbad844896cb31591d54
d595c1f52acf10d3e68ce9e607b25ba9b8426bb2
66343 F20101118_AABEFV lamar_j_Page_132.pro
45aed5a1c9ca3c4b7c8bb6826573ea33
fb374e132640cbd43bbb88a67924e31b32eab403
49608 F20101118_AABEGK lamar_j_Page_143.jpg
208c700b7a6fe2c0d0105b6e11ed8c42
0f9f151fe622666960cb0c1c1dc079a17a1de5ed
55667 F20101118_AABFKB lamar_j_Page_013.pro
d21e1253cfc700f95b679034ca83287b
105bfd99ad62ff7a59c3aaaa2269c7afadc67c5a
F20101118_AABFJN lamar_j_Page_183.tif
33100941174886cffbbbd295fe292310
781d249bdc8f0dde55d9ba819ee08bf533111506
F20101118_AABFIY lamar_j_Page_152.tif
695dbc7c14d9b884825fc6d14239fbd3
1c62fe0a76805b9521d291a6db71c0ef551f2eaf
12913 F20101118_AABEFW lamar_j_Page_119.pro
e9e6c2d28ed9c37f002ce5972dd15874
4e694db7b69e35e9266d749879e7ea9d3a303e01
F20101118_AABEGL lamar_j_Page_040.tif
9e594d0d5f9daea470011943ce52ff30
c9f9afccf5b019dabb812ef9c886590190f52aee
53390 F20101118_AABFKC lamar_j_Page_014.pro
449ac4636f3701adaed95cf9a07e4c14
6f4d38a3f52804d4120a7ce6e910bce706273ec3
F20101118_AABFJO lamar_j_Page_184.tif
74a232bfabf729ba424da19312292e7c
d3c696e61bbf0351ce6785e02874e59e346aae97
F20101118_AABFIZ lamar_j_Page_155.tif
1b6cba53dfa33ba92249786e78c36418
04f626dce7465da2567fc170c882938aeb2ad6b0
55815 F20101118_AABEFX lamar_j_Page_134.pro
823bb8cd02bd7197a861528c5be8f8d0
512eadec50fcdb0889b51e6b33b0d2e1fb39d552
80723 F20101118_AABEHA lamar_j_Page_066.jpg
d01de39e5febdbf491b0f207312533e6
1dfe3f9efc4b5ff40f7b27c330e715324bdbf160
3024 F20101118_AABEGM lamar_j_Page_146thm.jpg
d90e301ae34d2b2e5da72055562c12eb
300d6b3a1d02abdc63889bd703672ca89d58ec66
55882 F20101118_AABFKD lamar_j_Page_016.pro
bda793fcd3063b0392ab1b780ef90a89
6a7cb29d1f204d04741932e274560deb1d2425f7
F20101118_AABFJP lamar_j_Page_185.tif
5410d140144d5915f1436119e13b9e68
0cc2300695816dc98ae9ceb05139213d8fc8957f
F20101118_AABEFY lamar_j_Page_168.tif
b6934e733a2394b14995d9966f120f3a
1d5b72bd8d45c396117523d3c73a7540410ebea6
75559 F20101118_AABEHB lamar_j_Page_050.jpg
d02db6b21c84af6e274ba3b42976a36e
5542610e36c2672a0c1816f7adc053c0793b701e
26918 F20101118_AABEGN lamar_j_Page_001.jpg
2cb9d428e9e006c7ebf7e0f229d6f4ce
cc9225b645d05d4997ebeb88c9ced9faff9837ce
54998 F20101118_AABFKE lamar_j_Page_017.pro
d29781569cf9ae88b8bd7d5af644e815
ed5da4472762ca42b157a304bf87bc28f2d4051e
F20101118_AABEFZ lamar_j_Page_126.tif
97c409e3598105d4771804942b11c7cb
4d3d4594dae646b6bd49630b7fa89759d8f52f3f
F20101118_AABEHC lamar_j_Page_120.tif
cd686b88fba86bae7f16c5ff648040c3
f436751ddaee9411ebe364bcf6729f3d3ee9e32c
60219 F20101118_AABFKF lamar_j_Page_018.pro
9b158525f363c9688e13fd37b945afa7
9cdf28ea5dc4a5db5284e9869cb6b1feb40258c4
F20101118_AABFJQ lamar_j_Page_186.tif
1921225a96d6f82d7ac24851025b1e38
447ded64cc335d6f710aa93d013593013bfb846d
2141 F20101118_AABEHD lamar_j_Page_082.txt
c88ca35a7ae7616e67cfb309dc0ebaf4
af706ce8e11b97c66ef21f9994b93cf8bcdf2e95
2136 F20101118_AABEGO lamar_j_Page_020.txt
c163b555b9c7a91724ed58bc365add93
af1de10518d170575d4d0faaf5b2b76f125b523c
57823 F20101118_AABFKG lamar_j_Page_019.pro
f88f5885a4ac6536c1ab6a27f402d628
f83d9c1953516b2612d6fcea950d0e832d218179
F20101118_AABFJR lamar_j_Page_189.tif
a79f38eaa5d6ec75c9f286bf023aa30d
10e452b01d512b649235711629be1bfd1dc64fa0
F20101118_AABEHE lamar_j_Page_132.tif
2de81bb58dd83c735127e8985ba2eeda
26e2cc41b5ac703ac65f16aeaedd435428e9b8cf
F20101118_AABEGP lamar_j_Page_013.txt
78a9e017d9176e931422ab5fea94eef6
94692d20320806914c62b04da4f3af713aef4d10
56262 F20101118_AABFKH lamar_j_Page_022.pro
0f9eac9c9183345d67318aaeff934543
bb31b40b768243d3477c6598faf404719f63f726
10189 F20101118_AABFJS lamar_j_Page_001.pro
81a9222ff893546f9f09f7e6af8219f1
3098239ca4e613669fa62139f2b001c2c70bde47
36896 F20101118_AABEHF lamar_j_Page_183.jpg
88b675f4175054e5d5ba7d649c7104d9
0c236af28373b3bbac69f8c7f5f5e388085db2d4
879 F20101118_AABEGQ lamar_j_Page_183.txt
7436e42a45c536429bec96c3d054009b
4189042916dd279b8a893cd1abebf8dee999039b
33439 F20101118_AABFKI lamar_j_Page_023.pro
d8e5d04c7ad6bab1bf02bc7963c12067
0e9288c0cda2c6ed834f1be8566b18ce05e2f827
45921 F20101118_AABFJT lamar_j_Page_003.pro
b08ee27a88b0c2f13189ee3d32868810
87b41b9c0f9eb4fcef2a7909cd353f01e85ea52d
1051888 F20101118_AABEHG lamar_j_Page_030.jp2
28d6adea9c9fb04e862e1355b55204d5
44122a2934cc12e4883be41f1e09e5619b64c575
6671 F20101118_AABEGR lamar_j_Page_092thm.jpg
4d32c6ebbf75ef5636bc1e1b03a2ef08
2580b7976851e26a29fd8a3409d2d4b0b9983475
49237 F20101118_AABFKJ lamar_j_Page_024.pro
e549b75c1e6c74d630d7cf7829b71d88
aef28d670c2e2b8d90010a6cedbd95479b73aaa4
98534 F20101118_AABFJU lamar_j_Page_004.pro
590066e058f7c42931a8b34dda1d5883
0c4d542c265b8def4e2ac9b10723ed12753c6e67
78059 F20101118_AABEHH lamar_j_Page_057.jpg
5654a769cbca2870955cb5450b3fc056
56e3122572950dd2e68c6e2d296349b7fd1be120
53838 F20101118_AABEGS lamar_j_Page_036.pro
b52da3dcbacb137bff986d5484af1639
7198e01b390769e83722493a32256787909d3dc9
54931 F20101118_AABFKK lamar_j_Page_025.pro
b5a79cc213d8e4af515535245d1f3ca1
ca0e76d9e3177be28a622d31cdaf6584d13aeaba
101991 F20101118_AABFJV lamar_j_Page_005.pro
c6f2beccd4e6e11c04e1269691c9409e
e511b83e5f6f1128f4ce7843e5f6ae3f2b5bad25
2859 F20101118_AABEHI lamar_j_Page_178.txt
38a6c873fec34f868f1079a52d022b56
e7ee5657db60c90f1553bb00d659276a8ca25116
F20101118_AABEGT lamar_j_Page_067.tif
666367f1fba516f55c1cdc6da07ea702
74ee138fa8cbf3036e1217e8091683291a88e7b1
51214 F20101118_AABFKL lamar_j_Page_027.pro
eb9e47bb380251611c5d16b0e37f3cdc
212150fbeb6d7b5d1ffd3c7fd3b9eed6e21daf13
26350 F20101118_AABFJW lamar_j_Page_006.pro
6012bf48924223448c817322d94e5af6
30fae56b18403fb953eb28cc7946e7aba568ac18
52983 F20101118_AABEHJ lamar_j_Page_074.pro
1e89be31d6e6e5d95a91219ae8386599
1901f26bca80c85bf09827239c02ff84e5fbce0c
7105 F20101118_AABEGU lamar_j_Page_106thm.jpg
34c41a3c0171890f6ed596c536696785
30aa42647ca480043f3cf9b11f1e6a932e8638c4
56141 F20101118_AABFLA lamar_j_Page_064.pro
7cbe3ed4ac3253c020a17e0ad6800724
90a9329ba79714086cda64b5619b08b02fda982f
66677 F20101118_AABFKM lamar_j_Page_028.pro
93b50a1cb1f54c326d19b7e944871e9d
dc2ec8401c8eff33693adb289f412a201985dc91
71991 F20101118_AABFJX lamar_j_Page_008.pro
228d9b6858abadc95bb3c2422d4e4707
df158bab38d02517f874244ac850d84272208509
4055 F20101118_AABEHK lamar_j_Page_139thm.jpg
2f94973a92dd233c6f47f153a409710b
99b9f6238a8681f8bdf434cc882c19ad1031ed8a
74027 F20101118_AABEGV lamar_j_Page_056.jpg
efc59ba89ff3f931c909b96daac2008e
de555e22588aa5dfcdce0805784028cd1d533e33
52572 F20101118_AABFLB lamar_j_Page_065.pro
1c3256716cb11e25bac8318471330d00
92713ca1bbe7e19dfb807a78506d3a454229f109
28518 F20101118_AABFKN lamar_j_Page_032.pro
74a80313e3bd38812fda3df15ebfa9f3
ea492ff63384d252fe9a24f0c05f0167ed592fd7
21152 F20101118_AABFJY lamar_j_Page_009.pro
b06d92e9c67cf54ebbe2197d88a62ef0
e84a9e8d8c713d8593afc35fdddd931524731fbe
23153 F20101118_AABEHL lamar_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
a54274580e75fb7b13e0c79854d4c2f2
8954aba59ecca18224f2f447b3ed43bb1c17b61d
6551 F20101118_AABEGW lamar_j_Page_131thm.jpg
419f990832ea1cb0ee9781f5472c2432
23ebfc262da34ab20429a993d2273495d5a94bcb
52542 F20101118_AABFLC lamar_j_Page_078.pro
f628f22abdda6415fede47766585288d
5e27f611fe0e2ccbfd1cb3461f243a372f9b51a6
56976 F20101118_AABFKO lamar_j_Page_035.pro
2806652075e2f76f72bf4d2a3b923a01
664aef8c424962a620014df816d2b46cc496a891
48312 F20101118_AABFJZ lamar_j_Page_010.pro
4df25b72b1f87bd0c4b6a27be4575e3a
142f24e6e372c917f87fd73af4390693a7c15bd6
F20101118_AABEIA lamar_j_Page_187.tif
9c73f10b2e5c3707a561a8addf7259da
71931ad9e7ad570da4490c3330b4bd3a46c28f22
F20101118_AABEHM lamar_j_Page_089.tif
1059c6e1cb7d7ce68184ea242c8761c8
daa3821170a9bd0908407e21495ccd78ba8d6d65
47836 F20101118_AABEGX lamar_j_Page_163.jpg
7e13f865271df10731e7ad2cd197e8fa
c6f9951a6301112d26cd40622b64d59e451a5546
34972 F20101118_AABFLD lamar_j_Page_083.pro
fead4a9885dfda69e6a0a4e63d892607
69c83f76f85a994d2e37026de8cb402bbd5f7213
53778 F20101118_AABFKP lamar_j_Page_038.pro
9d5f274faf7fdd2708b7334f8bca9056
5a1b43b14107cbe912828f653fa4a9de292be233
159616 F20101118_AABEIB lamar_j_Page_102.jp2
0d5e684318fc101f400213e1b6d2c1d3
155e3558b8af666c9d5f166df939a92a3ecb61ad
12235 F20101118_AABEHN lamar_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
c649b213038dff82dc43e57a558c276d
4e10a342487158429d03e3005c9d5d4dfca53865
F20101118_AABEGY lamar_j_Page_035.tif
5d557915aab0683c114431aaa6f0f4f1
a262d571b001ec736a19d9f2bf2edd67d1eed250
43682 F20101118_AABFLE lamar_j_Page_084.pro
b3d7ccf83e7f027cbed024dedb4a919d
1fb9d4ee4dd5884fd1c264f8aaf7b34a31506969
55726 F20101118_AABFKQ lamar_j_Page_041.pro
7257d58e8d33e674301d420dfc11033b
763dcf0b5f37110c6e0b57b15c78420d6ec26844
21007 F20101118_AABEIC lamar_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
252ac3685119c610ffb19c633f4c6377
d96d0ef9fca746c1f4f11f8f75b8bd1bc39759a4
6817 F20101118_AABEHO lamar_j_Page_109thm.jpg
8ce740506b92a10aa6c21e2ec6031836
6931b6a6fe0e44494a237598a9a0c7d8dfde299b
1274 F20101118_AABEGZ lamar_j_Page_026.txt
5800c7fd9b6788263bd26af6306f69d9
7215f5206fa5f36ab81aa2bbbfda87b140a51498
51539 F20101118_AABFLF lamar_j_Page_085.pro
c93f0718525ba3f39ec90a35661288d5
f2a609d6e28f9dd358f1257a1b34b00e2b91887b
136220 F20101118_AABEID lamar_j_Page_099.jp2
bdcccbe4537a05b0cb04e3d4a75fa459
5be68503e099ac1af80e7d2dff6428b568ec6a9e
53617 F20101118_AABFLG lamar_j_Page_087.pro
08ed8121bd362411193d1bc8f6142d38
737b651cae0a9023d41171e0b9ad927dcf45f00a
54636 F20101118_AABFKR lamar_j_Page_042.pro
0d8e22101a240f8f9d3475ad28a46853
3e9a7f1caac6978492cb1e39bb60e8c63a775b6c
73835 F20101118_AABEIE lamar_j_Page_092.jpg
9a76fb406a65eee5b71f13d86dae3255
82d34ecbb2de218358d5fecdf3ad28444ebe8cab
19950 F20101118_AABEHP lamar_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
f49d138f4efe6b626afda136082ab647
32639ab054b2458b55ec0ca46f9ac88594ac54d2
61053 F20101118_AABFLH lamar_j_Page_089.pro
fc68abc64277d1a432985f8275fcfbff
f0dd003aae6893ea4253f61839a4ecea61059e23
53990 F20101118_AABFKS lamar_j_Page_044.pro
24c53bc2e0b8f70fb799591d48ec533c
69d918588d5c5d6adb0678978e45994412b32561
6891 F20101118_AABEIF lamar_j_Page_064thm.jpg
551016d7657ea8c3cac1b7b0eb81d9b6
33b05c4cd5f6648da397ba45d4b84c34e774022b
2170 F20101118_AABEHQ lamar_j_Page_054.txt
b61d618d3767355183606610b61f7630
7fd4167577e069247645c7b0226963359f6e592f
52410 F20101118_AABFLI lamar_j_Page_091.pro
f4e3e5ab8faddd25b36b876b771c6ef9
b9f877232f87c3734d974ce43ef9c5c84c6d2ca8
21471 F20101118_AABFKT lamar_j_Page_051.pro
078cede925756fc6f0e4d2fbb6552e42
5099a754c712ea549531edc60cdee18638018c46
56270 F20101118_AABEIG lamar_j_Page_069.pro
b7c587065f72e9c6a4c4e18e68f914ee
fb4adbcb4bd0832c1715b6e62e40ecf4e52fd397
80970 F20101118_AABEHR lamar_j_Page_019.jpg
b021150275a59d38f7f46d8310ae1771
ea3bfee49979eb1dfd671360fab203e1a35781da
52624 F20101118_AABFLJ lamar_j_Page_093.pro
8580c08b1b91db0548f7c9b9db3a3ec4
605f56e83ffe5a3322c6de218a97f6f960335523
25067 F20101118_AABFKU lamar_j_Page_052.pro
e478e392059bb2065a02ef28bc2230f9
bab31287a9dae0ed4872ed163857c8373d354473
104231 F20101118_AABEIH lamar_j_Page_097.jpg
a4df5be646787028e7d13844bfd68ac4
7abb1a857b0cdc38c089d4bcfe437dc286278ee9
70477 F20101118_AABEHS lamar_j_Page_055.jpg
0c428ced4bf3e2b9dda98afc2719f486
9969b01a993a4cd6ebbb4ad2b40c713ba4fe1d1d
52440 F20101118_AABFLK lamar_j_Page_094.pro
492b26fc62f092f5aea056c78e2d275f
35bf41ac4dc12160cd648cc90a6c11f3fbfc6c4b
30523 F20101118_AABFKV lamar_j_Page_053.pro
0190af1823c7e4300f6abb9ccf4244b5
fc9ba3cb22f49c31dde4746e4e10ac7b219f895b
30130 F20101118_AABEII lamar_j_Page_160.pro
427a72c5861d57dbabf54f578439de46
cba2adbf9def068d5d1ac7c75ac91efff0201097
1006923 F20101118_AABEHT lamar_j_Page_122.jp2
ad596e903634e9d1bfc0555bbdecab3d
df340120c790e84ba68d67ee300d30a2ec17c9e5
60655 F20101118_AABFLL lamar_j_Page_095.pro
28ffda62eebfe0bf50c8869149654432
a69e7646c3e5b7f781b57ab94159dec47eab128b
59129 F20101118_AABFKW lamar_j_Page_055.pro
7d53ef31e6f6579fc1ed4ca7e01b4ad3
ac50ff903d2e41ffb3a1932cd0d042bd7b810849
F20101118_AABEIJ lamar_j_Page_052.tif
6d7f37267606a9209f95d0e7fd7a5dbd
1012668171b53b68e7be52806e0cc95fb60447d5
7976 F20101118_AABEHU lamar_j_Page_159.pro
7d94ee526c4fb99c5830297a62226d19
041de8e1178c171921e49b7baa7326470fa269f2
51216 F20101118_AABFMA lamar_j_Page_124.pro
498f0ef647d8cddbf6fe8bc86a4dc634
11223fd1f5066e205c95d1393542edf75c8928a4
53271 F20101118_AABFLM lamar_j_Page_096.pro
375fab84677329b746ba1e2f79fe066a
055cfbe8551db0ea74823ced415d3b15ffa3216e
54221 F20101118_AABFKX lamar_j_Page_057.pro
5cfa7245f76244b44bf8443e108f8475
1a337d7b1b9170c7ae279b896da411587850074b
F20101118_AABEIK lamar_j_Page_129.tif
f7acd449947b64e6ce9cf8532102595b
d6bd0a7370c4c86358ca749cdbc643e9eff8ffb1
F20101118_AABEHV lamar_j_Page_099.tif
a08ea67e151494f70984b614e758b355
751ba99d2e6dd108e2acbf3edf831ee393acec62







ACTION RESEARCH AS A PLANNING AND DESIGNING APPROACH:
POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE LAWTON CHILES LEGAL INFORMATION
CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA





















By

JENNIFER C. LAMAR


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 Jennifer C. Lamar









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the support of many kind people. I

would like to extend a very special thank you to Dr. Jo Hasell who contributed not only her time

and efforts to this project, but also her relentless support while challenging my way of thinking

every step of the way. I would also like to thank Dr. Meg Portillo and Candy Carmel-Gilifen for

their valuable contributions. Without their direction, knowledge, and viewpoints, this project

would not have been possible.

Special thanks to Dr. Kathy Price, the Director of the Lawton Chiles Legal Information

Center, as well as Mr. Rick Donnelly, the Assistant Director. They generously contributed their

time, knowledge, and resources so that I was able to conduct my research. Thank you to Howie

Ferguson of University of Florida's Facilities Planning and Construction office and Joe Walker

of Ponikvar and Associates for providing me with the necessary information and documentation

in order to conduct this study.

I would like to thank Katie Dobbelaar and Melanie Brang for sharing this journey

through design school with me and continually offering their support while I was working on this

research. I thank my dear friend, Jenna Talbott, for always being a great listener and supporter

and whose own work inspires mine. I would like to thank my wonderful family who has always

been there for me when I needed them. To my parents, John and Mary Lamar, I would like to

thank them for teaching me that I can accomplish anything if I put my mind to it. I thank my

brother, David Lamar, for reminding me to have fun. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to

thank Lenny DeStefano for always believing in me even when I doubted.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N OW LED GEM EN TS ......................................... ...... ........................ ............... 3

L IST O F T A B L E S ...................... ............... ....................................................... . 7

LIST OF FIGU RE S ................................................................. 8

ABSTRAC T ............................... ..................... 10

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ................................................................................ 12

Statement of Purpose ..............................................................................14
Research Questions and Strategies ........................................................ ......... 15
S ig n ifican ce .........................................................................16
D efin itio n s ..........................................................................17
P planning the P program ...............................................................17
Conducting A action R research ..................................... .................. .... .. .. ........ .... 19
Evaluating the Program, the Building and the Process ...................................... 21
Assum options Underlying the Study ............................................... ........ ................ 22
D elim stations ....................................................................... ................ ............. 23

2 LITER A TU RE REV IEW ................................................................ .. ............................24

B ackgrou n d ....................................................................................... ............ 24
Defining the College of Law Design Problem .............................................................. 25
History of the Legal Information Planning Process ............................................................27
About the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center .......................................................30
Examining Methods of Architectural Programming ................ ...................................34
Action Research as a Programming Approach ........................................................... 38
P ost-O occupancy E valuations ......................... ........................................ ............... .. ....40
Action Research Process vs. the Traditional Approach .............................. ........... 44
Su m m ary ................... ............................... .... ............................ ..............................4 6

3 RE SEA R CH M ETH O D O LO G Y ..................................................................................... 47

R research Study D design ............................................................................................ 47
R research Setting ........................................ .................................... ........ ..... 49
R research Participants ..................................................... ............................ 53
Sampling Research Participants for the Surveys........................... ............... 53
Sampling Key Participants for the In-Depth Interviews ........................................54
Procedures and Instrum ents ............... ................................... ................................... 54
Comparison Across the CDCP, FP&C, and TK&A Programs and the LIC Building ....54
Staff and Student Satisfaction with the Newly Renovated LIC ....................................57


4









In-depth Interviews with Key Participants .......... ................................ ...............61
L im itatio n s ................... ...................6...................2..........
S u m m ary ................... ...................6...................2..........

4 F IN D IN G S ................... ...................6...................4..........

Analyzing and Comparing the Preliminary AR Program....................................................64
U ser Satisfaction Surveys ............. ........................... ............ ...................... .. 69
D ata A n aly sis ................................. .... ............ .................................. 70
LIC Staff Demographics & Workspace Descriptors ..................................................71
LIC Staff Satisfaction: Participation (Questions 11 21)........................................73
LIC Staff Satisfaction: Technical Dimensions(Questions 22 31) .............................73
LIC Staff Satisfaction: Functional Dimensions(Questions 32 48).............................75
LIC Staff Satisfaction: Ambient Dimensions (Questions 49 56)...............................77
LIC Staff Satisfaction: Psychological Dimensions(Questions 57 62) ........................79
LIC Staff Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 63 67)..................................................81
LIC Student Demographics & LIC Usage................... .................... 82
LIC Student Satisfaction: Technical Dimensions(Questions 21 28)...........................85
LIC Student Satisfaction: Functional Dimensions(Questions 29 44) .........................87
LIC Student Satisfaction: Ambient Dimensions(Questions 45 51) ...........................89
LIC Student Satisfaction: Psychological Dimensions (Questions 52 56).................92
LIC Student Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 57 60) ................................................93
Exploring the Planning Process through In-Depth Unstructured Interviews .......................95
Reason for the AR partnership and How It Worked ..................................................96
Value of the AR Process, the Student Designs, and the CDCP Program Document......98
The Design Process with the Architects .............................. .................... 103
Com prison to Other Building Projects ................................. ............. .................. 108
Importance of Participants' Input and Involvement................................. .................. 111
S u m m ary ................... ...................1...................1.........2

5 D IS C U S S IO N ........................................................................................ 1 13

D iscu ssion .................................................................. ..... .. .................113
Comparison and Verification of the Preliminary CDCP Program .............................1.13
User Satisfaction with the LIC as Assessed by the Surveys .............. ... ...............115
Analyzing the In-Depth Interviews with Key Participants ................. .. ..................123
Action Research as a Planning and Design Approach ....................................................... 125
Further Discussion on Other Discoveries ........................................ ...............127
Recommendations for Designers and Stakeholders .................................. ...............130
Recommendations for Future Research................................................... .. ................. 133
C conclusion ......... .... .............. .................................. .. ...........................134

APPENDIX

A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
L E T T E R ............................................................................... 13 6









B C O N SE N T F O R M S ....................................................... ................................ ............ 137

C EXCERPTS FROM THE PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS ........... ............140

D PROGRAM VERIFICATION CHECKLISTS ....................................... ............... 144

E SURVEY QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT...... ..........................................................153

F STAFF USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS ........................................... ............... 156

G STUDENT USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS ..................................... ...............171

H EMAIL TO KEY PARTICIPANTS FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS .............................185

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................. ..........................186

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... .. ...................... 190









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 Comparisons with the CDCP Program 's 110 Items. ........................... .....................65

4-2 Comparisons of the Net Square Footages of the Programs and the Building ....................67

4-3 Categories and Dimensions of the AR Framework. ............................. .....................70

4-4 Alpha Ratings of Categories of Dimensions................... ....... ..................... ..71

4-5 Staff Satisfaction with Technical Dimensions....................................... ............... 74

4-6 Staff Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions....................................... ............... 76

4-7 Staff Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions........ ......................................77

4-8 Staff Opinion on LIC Ambient dimensions. ............................... ......................... 79

4-9 Staff Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions. ................................ .................79

4-10 Staff Opinion on LIC Psychological Dimensions................ ......................80

4-11 Staff Overall Satisfaction with the LIC. ........................................ ....................... 82

4-12 Staff Recommendations for LIC Improvements.......................... ...... ............. 82

4-13 Students' Years at University of Florida .................. ............ .................... 83

4-14 Student A activities in the LIC .................................................................... ..................84

4-15 Areas Students Typically Use in the LIC. .............................................. ............... 84

4-16 Student Satisfaction with the Technical Dimensions............................................. 86

4-17 Student Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions. ...................................................88

4-18 Student Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions. .................................... .................90

4-19 Student Opinion LIC Ambient Dimensions....................... ...................... ...............91

4-20 Student Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions.............................. ..............92

4-21 Student Opinion LIC Psychological Dimensions. .................................. .................93

4-22 Student Satisfaction with the LIC. ...... ........................... ......................................93

4-23 Student Recommendations for LIC Improvements. .................................. ...............94









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Cyclical Process of Action Research ............ .... ........ ........................ 20

2-1 H olland H all B before Renovations ........... .................. ......... ............... ............... 26

2-2 Diagram of the Three programming Documents..... ............................................... .........27

2-3 Timeline of the Planning and Designing of the LCoL................................................ 30

2-4 Entrance to the O 'Connell Reading Room ................................... .................................. 32

2-5 Student Study Carrels ................................. ... .. ............... ......... 33

2-6 L ounge Seating on Second Floor............................................................ .....................33

3-1 Research Process of the AR study. ....................................................................... 49

3-2 Site Plan of the Levin College of Law .................................................................... 50

3-3 Construction and Renovation of Holland Hall.......................... ...................... 50

3-4 Aerial View of Holland Hall during Construction..........................................................51

3-5 Floor Plan of the First Floor of Holland Hall ............................................ ............... 52

3-6 Floor Plan of the Second Floor of Holland Hall. ..........................................................52

3-7 Levin College of Law Courtyard and Legal Information Center Entrance .....................53

3-8 Legal Information Center Departments and How They Changed. ...................................55

3-9 Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework of User Satisfaction....................59

4-1 Time Staff Has Occupied New Workspace. .............................. .............................71

4-2 H ours Staff U ses W orkspace. ................................................. ........................................... 72

4-3 Staff D description of W orkspace ........................................................................... ... .... 73

4-4 Staff Participation in the Planning Process..................................................................... 73

4-5 Tim e Students Spend in the LIC ...................................................................... 83

5-1 G graduate Tax Student Study A rea ........................................................................ ..... 115

5-2 Graduate Tax Student Lounge Area ..................................................... ..................116



8









5-3 Staff K kitchen and C afe .................................................................................. ......... 116

5-4 D director's P private O office ................................................................................ ....... .. 117

5-5 View to the North at the Top of the Atrium Stairs. ...................................................119

5-6 View to the South at the Top of the Atrium Stairs. ...................................................119

5-7 Circulation Desk and Two Collection Staff Member Offices. ..........................120

5-8 Students Using the Lounge Seating in the LIC..................................... ...............122

5-7 The D design Process ............. ................... ........... .................. .. ...... 131









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design

ACTION RESEARCH AS A PLANNING AND DESIGNING APPROACH:
POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE LAWTON CHILES LEGAL INFORMATION
CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

By

Jennifer C. Lamar

August 2007

Chair: M. Jo Hasell
Cochair: Margaret Portillo
Major: Interior Design

This case study investigated the role of action research methodologies in the planning and

designing process of a university facility. The Levin College of Law at the University of Florida

began its planning process for its law library (know as a legal information center) in the fall of

1999. The action research partnership with the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Law

with the faculty and students of the College of Design, Construction, and Design influenced the

process employed with the chosen project architects, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates and Ponikvar &

Associates. The planning process involved many, sometimes competing objectives and many

constituency groups. The intent was that the Legal Information Center (LIC) serve as a center or

"heart" of the college while representing the ideals and the prestige of the profession. Further

goals for the design included the preservation of books, dissemination of information, and the

development of study and work areas for patrons and staff alike.

To evaluate the action research process for the Legal Information Center, this study used a

multi-method process and triangulation with qualitative and quantitative methods. The

researcher initially analyzed the programming document created during the action research

partnership between the faculty, students, and staff of the College of Law and the faculty and









students of the College of Design, Construction, and Planning to determine expressed user needs

and preferences for the new building. These items, user needs and preferences, were then cross-

checked against the following: (1) the University of Florida's Facilities Construction and

Planning Request for Proposals that invited project proposals from architectural firms, (2) the

final architectural program created by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, and (3) the completed

renovated building. User surveys also were conducted to determine the student and staffs

satisfaction. The study developed an Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework that

presented the findings on user satisfaction through Technical, Functional, Ambient, and

Psychological dimensions. Third, in-depth interviews were conducted with key participants in

the planning and designing of the LIC. Utilizing an action research model, a democratic process

in which all involved parties work together to plan for a solution, appeared to facilitate the

design and building process. Recommendations for conducting action research in similar projects

are presented.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Consider this scenario. A local school district's elementary school inadequately meets the
needs of the students and the community. There has been an influx of students in the past
few years and the school does not have enough space to accommodate all of the students
properly. In addition, the building's systems are outdated and there have been numerous
maintenance issues. However, there is a limited budget to build a new school and the
superintendent realizes that a new facility will need to last at least thirty years. In addition,
the community wants to be involved in the planning process since there is a large
population of young families in the area whose children attend or will be attending school.
The community members realize that this new facility will also affect their property value
and reputation within the town's larger community; therefore, they want the new school to
be of the highest quality. The teachers have there own needs as well. Many of them have
expressed that they would like to have spaces that would support a new paradigm of
teaching that involves "team teaching" and communal learning. The school board
members have their own concerns about the new facility, mainly that it should be flexible
and be able to accommodate a growing student body. The superintendent wants to make
sure that all of these users and stakeholders have a chance to be involved so that they can
voice their concerns and opinions. He believes that this would minimize the risk of having
disagreements and dissatisfaction among them in the future. But, how does he do that?
How does he include all of the different groups who all have very different needs and
preferences, but also valuable insights? How can he include all of the stakeholders in a
meaningful and significant way? Will it take too much time and effort to involve
everyone? Will it be too confusing? Most importantly, will it contribute to a successful
school project that satisfies the teachers, students, staff, parents, school board members,
and the general community?

This scenario demonstrates that planning for a new school building can be complex and

difficult where there are many different stakeholders and end-users. In other words, planning for

a new building design can be exciting, but also very overwhelming. Each stakeholder has a

different goal in mind for a new building depending on their role, and it can be difficult to bring

all of the various groups together to create a common vision and consensus for the project.

Every good design starts with an evaluation of the problem and a good plan. Strategies need to

be developed to solve the stakeholders' problems. Usually, this information is presented in a

formal document referred to as program. Program for a building is a document that

generally contains a list of required spaces with their respective square footages. A design team

translates that information into a set of drawings describing the physical form. Programming for









a building is the definitionall stage of design the time to discover the nature of the design

problem, rather than the nature of the design solution" (Hershberger, 1999, p. 1).

The U.S. government agency, General Services Administration (GSA), realizes the value

of programming. More specifically, the organization realizes the value of extensive pre-design

research and strategic planning. In 2002, GSA launched WorkPlace 20-20 to develop new tools

and better methods to design efficient and functional workspaces. They were aware that

"traditional space-planning methods rely on statistics that are readily available, such as job titles,

cubic feet of files, organizational rank, and, often, self-reported work habits" and that a more

extensive and thorough approach is needed to gain all the benefits of the planning phase

(Workplace Matters, 2006, p. 12). Therefore, the GSA planning "toolkit" includes additional

quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a clear understanding of the goals and the culture of

the organization. They also strive to assess space use, turnover rates, absenteeism, long-term

costs, and benefits related to planning and designing. By implementing a comprehensive

approach to the planning process, "the organization as a whole is challenged to rethink its central

mission, assumptions, and strategies," as well as the spaces they utilize (Horgen & Sheridan,

1999, p. 6). This approach is appropriate for organizations with different user groups who

perform many different tasks or for a group undergoing organizational changes. It is also

appropriate for complex situations with a wide range of stakeholders who have vested interest.

The planning process is an opportunity for the organization to examine their practices, discover

what is working and what is not, and to figure out how the bricks and mortar can help to support

and enhance the human activities within.

In 1999, the College of Law at University of Florida faced a similar issue as the elementary

school described in the scenario that began this chapter. The College of Law's law library was









no longer able to meet the needs of its students due to lack of space, an influx of students, and

inadequate facilities. In addition, they faced the reality of losing their American Bar Association

accreditation. Therefore, they had to ask themselves whether or not they should add on and

expand, or should they build a completely new library? What do the faculty and students need to

support both research and learning activities? What vision and image should they project to

attract top law professors? What is the best course of action to maintain their accreditation

standing?

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this case study is to conduct a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of a

recently constructed library facility on the University of Florida (UF) campus 18 months after its

occupation. The unique project was planned and completed using an action research

partnership with the stakeholders and end-users to create a preliminary program. Action

research (AR) is an approach that promotes democratic inclusion among all willing constituents

in order to gather the necessary information to solve problems (Hasell, King & Pohlman, 2001,

p. 11). This method for the planning process was non-traditional and similar to the GSA method

described earlier, since more time and research went into the pre-design research phase of the

process than traditional programming practices. Using the AR planning process, a preliminary

programming document was created. Then, the University of Florida's Facilities Planning and

Construction (FP&C) office created the Request for Proposals (RFP) document that was posted

on their website for architectural firms to bid on the project. After interviewing six short-listed

applicants, design and construction teams were then selected to design and build the library.

This study investigates the value of the AR planning methodology and aims to discover how this

comprehensive approach contributed to a successful building project from the end-users point of

view.









In order to do this, the study evaluates to what degree the final building design of the Levin

College of Law's (LCoL) Legal Information Center (LIC) is consistent with the objectives set

forth in the comprehensive AR preliminary program. The four main service divisions of the LIC

(Public Services, Media Services, Collection Services, and Computing Services) were

investigated to determine if both the staff members and students are satisfied with the functional,

psychological, technical, and ambient dimensions of the building. These four dimensions are a

part of an Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework and will be described in detail in

Chapter 3. Students and staff were administered slightly different user satisfaction surveys, since

they use the library for different purposes. In addition, key participants in the planning process

were interviewed to determine their satisfaction with the planning process. These participants

included the Director and Associate Director of the LIC, the former Director of the LIC, a LIC

staff member, one of the project's principal architects, and the interim dean at the time of the

planning for the LIC.

Research Questions and Strategies

This case study uses a multi-method approach to provide a comprehensive assessment of

the AR methods used in the planning process and tests its success based upon the end-user's

satisfaction with the LIC and the key participant's assessment of the planning process. This

study aims to answer the following questions:

1) What did the AR approach produce? What information included in the preliminary AR

programming document was evident in the official Request for Proposals (RFP) document

prepared by the University of Florida's Facilities Construction and Planning (FP&C) office, in

the final architectural program prepared by the architects, and in the final building? If so, how

much? In order to test this, a checklist was created based upon the building criteria in the









preliminary program, and then used to analyze how many of those specific items were included

in the RFP, the final architectural program, and the final building design.

2) What needs, values, and preferences of both user groups, staff and students, did the AR

approach satisfy, in relation to the LIC? In order to test this, two surveys were created to assess

user satisfaction with the LIC. One was tailored for the staff and the other for the students, since

the students use the public areas for studying, locating research materials, or meeting with their

peers, and the staff uses the LIC on a daily basis and is mainly located in their own workspace.

The survey is based upon a building satisfaction framework that evaluates the technical,

functional, ambient, and psychological dimensions of the building.

3) Are the key participants who were involved in the planning process satisfied with the AR

planning and design process? What do they remember from the process and how would they

describe the process today? In order to test this, key participants were invited to participate in in-

depth interviews where they were asked to share their thoughts, opinions, and stories about the

planning and design process of the LIC.

Significance

Over the past decade thousands of new schools buildings and renovations (K 12) have

been constructed in the U.S.; however, only a small percentage of these will ever be evaluated to

discover if these new facilities satisfy the students, faculty, and staff. (Lackney, 2001, p.1). The

same is true for university campus buildings. Post-occupancy evaluations of unique case studies

are valuable tools in designing successful projects and preventing designers from repeating

similar mistakes. It helps designers to build upon successful elements to make new designs even

better. It also informs facility managers what renovations need to be made in the future.

Numerous methods can be used to conduct POEs. The purpose of this case study's POE is to

focus on the users' satisfaction with the LIC building project and thus to evaluate the success of









an AR programming and planning process. Lackney, an expert in designing school

environments, states, "we were warned early on in the development of the POE that in order to

evaluate solutions effectively, the design and planning process must be included" (Lackney,

2001, p.4). This study does just that. It returns to the beginning and evaluates the planning

process to discover if the efforts made then translated into a final product that satisfies its users.

Definitions

The following three sections are definitions of terms used throughout the text to allow the

reader to better understand the content.

Planning the Program

Programming is the first stage of the building process "in which the relevant values of the

client, user, architect, and society are identified; important project goals are articulated; facts

about the project are uncovered; and facility needs are made explicit" (Hershberger, 1999, p.5).

Programs for large-scale projects are usually performed by a facilities manager or an outside

consultant. All of the goals, values, facts, and needs are presented in a document that is typically

passed on to the architects and designers. It is the designer's task to interpret this document into

a physical manifestation that accommodates the human activity. Ching states, "Form and space

are presented not as ends in themselves, but as means to solve a problem in response to

conditions of function, purpose, and context" (Ching, 1996, p. ix). Architecture is created to

support the users, and the planning process in design is the most critical step in defining the

problem "since the nature of a solution is inexorably related to how a problem is perceived,

defined, and articulated" (Ching, 1996, p. ix). The program should promote design and focus not

only on defining the problem, but also question the problem to uncover the values of the users,

the community, the client, and the designers (Hersherberger, 1999, p.5). Active communication

and collaboration during the programming phase is the key to a successful building project. It









helps set the tone for how the project will progress because, in the end, the building belongs to

those who inhabit the spaces within.

Disagreements, disappointments, and dissatisfaction by the end-users can be avoided with

proper planning from the beginning. Before there is a building, there are drawings

communicating how to construct the building. Before there are drawings, there is a program

communicating what the drawings should include. Before there is a program, there is a vision of

what the building should be, whom it will serve, and how it will support its users. Whose job is

it to communicate that vision so that it becomes a reality? Hershberger (1999) states, "the values

and concerns of the client and the programmer will have significant impact on the form of the

building, because they choose the information presented to the designer." It is the job of the

client to communicate what it is they want to improve and what they want to accomplish with

their new space. The client knows what the problems are and it is the programmer's job to ask

the right questions, and to listen and to document the answers.

Typically, a program document is a list of spaces with corresponding numbers denoting

square footages, number of occupants, and notes about space usage. Horgen and Sheridan

(1999) describe traditional programming as the following:

The consultant asks the users how many wastebaskets they need, for example, or gets them
to describe their work process, but only in order to understand and build a shelter around
those processes, not to improve or change them. The users tend to treat the building expert
with a kind of distant respect, believing that he or she will figure out what they need.
Unfortunately, the users are almost always disappointed when the space is built,
exclaiming in despair, "This is not what we asked for." The building expert shrugs and
says, "They don't know what they want. I spent hours and hours listening to their
complaints and requirements, and I tried to meet their specifications. They always just
want the moon. (p.240)

The programming and planning process should be a time for the client, the designer, and the

programmer to explore the problems and solutions to the problems to bring about positive









changes, while at the same time uncovering the values of the organization and its members.

Designers can then use that information to create spaces that support and satisfy the users.

Design success typically translates into winning prizes and competitions; however,

committees of architects and designers, not those who inhabit the spaces, judge these

competitions. A study by Vischer and Marcus (2006) demonstrated that the design competition

jury's ranking of a new housing project was exactly opposite of how the residents ranked the

projects. The architects graded the projects by their aesthetic appeal, while the residents focused

more on the functional and practical aspects. Another study performed at a nursing home found

that while architects favored designs that promoted social interaction, the residents preferred

designs that allowed for more privacy (Duffy, Bailey, Beck, & Barker, 1986). These two studies

demonstrate that it is impossible for designers to guess what the users' needs and values are.

Therefore, a clearly communicated program is required in order to produce a satisfying space for

the users. Moreover, involving the users in a democratic process to produce the program and

design may contribute to a more satisfying process and building design. This study investigates

how using action research methods to produce a preliminary program was executed in the final

College of Law LIC building design, and how successful the process itself was to those involved.

Conducting Action Research

A solution to effectively communicate the problems, solutions, values, and needs of the

users could be the use of AR in the programming and planning process. Kurt Lewin (1890 -

1947), "the father of social psychology," devoted his research to discovering the intricacies of

group dynamics and to developing strategies to improve organizations ("Kurt Lewin," 2006, 1).

Credited with being the founder of action research, Lewin theorized that if workers were

involved in collaboratively working on creating, implementing, and testing strategies then the

organization itself would grow (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006, p. 19). Today, AR is defined as a









process that "favors consensual and participatory procedures that enable people (a) to investigate

systematically their problems and issues, (b) to formulate powerful and sophisticated accounts of

their situations, and (c) to devise plans to deal with the problems at hand"(Stringer, 1999, p. 17).

Figure 1-1 illustrates the cyclical process of conducting action research.

DIAGNOSIS
WHAT'S THE
PROBLEM?


ANALYSIS ACTION PLANNING
DID ITWORK? RESEARCH HOWCANWE
MAKE IT BETTER?

K IMPLEMENTATIO
1 LET'S TAKE
ACTION


Figure 1-1. Cyclical Process of Action Research.

Applying AR to the planning and designing of a building can effectively involve the

stakeholders and the end-users in the decision making process by providing opportunities for

them to voice what does and does not work for them. AR can also assist the participants in

developing the necessary skills to formulate strategies to solve problems within their own

organization. Boog (2003) states that AR helps participants in achieving "self-determination," so

that they have a direct influence on the functioning and decision-making procedures of their

organizations (p. 426). Furthermore, it is a process that promotes emancipation, individual and

social empowerment, and participatory democracy (Boog, 2003; Swann, 2002). Individuals are

regarded as parts of the whole. In addition, the users, the programmer, and the designers must

trust each other and treat one another as equals in the quest for discovering the problems and

developing solutions during this process.

There are many examples of how AR has been used to improve communities and

organizations. At University of Pennsylvania, Greenwood (1993) and his team used









participatory action research (PAR) methods to improve the quality of life in a local community

in Philadelphia. The internationally recognized revitalization program, West Philadelphia

Improvement Corps, was comprised of a "year-round program involving 1000 children, their

parents, and community members in education, cultural, recreation, job training, and community

improvement and services activities" (Greenwood, Whyte, & Harkavy., 1993, p. 181). Xerox

implemented AR by creating a cost study team with members of their organization to determine

if they could cut costs and save 900 domestic jobs. The process involved utilizing ideas and

theories from a variety of fields, such as, industrial engineering, accounting, and social science

(Greenwood, et. al, 1993, p. 179). The team was successful and "this new form of worker

participation in decision making led to a series of other changes in policies, organizational

structure, and in the social processes of joint problem solving" (Greenwood, et. al, 1993, p. 179).

The decisions were not left to the big chiefs on the top floor, instead the decisions and problem

solving involved the ones whose lives were affected by the impending crisis.

Putting trust in the organization's individuals and empowering them to change their world

ultimately leads to positive change for the organization and self-determination for the

individuals. Currently, in the design world, AR is used in developing K-12 school buildings by

Fielding Nair International (Lackney, 2007). In addition, Sanoff (2002) is a pioneer in this

educational arena encouraging the participation of all users-children, teachers, and

administrators--in the planning process and integrating AR into the design process as well. This

case study investigates AR as a planning tool, to discover how it was used, and whether or not it

helped to create a successful design solution.

Evaluating the Program, the Building and the Process

Post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) are widely acknowledged, but are rarely practiced

due to cost and liability. Usually there is little or no funding to support the endeavor, and









designers want to guard their reputation so that they can obtain new contracts and avoid scrutiny.

However, there are many benefits to including a POE in a building project. In this study, the

POE focuses on the technical, functional, psychological, and ambient dimensions of the LIC

building, in order to determine both staff and student satisfaction. The purpose of evaluating the

building performance is to provide design guidelines for future law library projects, as well as:

* Provide feedback to school administration, facility planning, librarians, faculty and
students of LCoL and CDCP about the effectiveness and value of participating parties'
input in the design of the program.

* Provide feedback to all interested parties about the building designs successes and failures
so that they are aware of what can be done to improve future facilities.

* Complete the reflection phase of the AR cycle of the building project by the analyzing the
success of the planning and design process.

* Contribute to the body of knowledge within the architectural and interior design
community about the value of programming for design.

Assumptions Underlying the Study

Several assumptions underlie this study. First, the study assumes that all of the research

participants accurately represented their perspective about their satisfaction with the Legal

Information Center and with the programming process. Second, the study assumes that the

convenience sample for the student surveys was a representative group of College of Law

student library users. Third, it is assumed that the self-reported demography, self-reported time

spent using the LIC, and self-reported usage of the LIC is sufficiently free of error and offers a

reliable estimate for the study. Fourth, it is assumed that although a number of the LIC staff

members who participated in the planning for the new library may have left their position, the

current staff can reliably assess the building since they perform similar activities as the previous

staff members. Lastly, it is assumed that the researcher maintained objectivity and was "free of









bias and skilled in asking questions, listening, and comprehending the issues involved," which is

required when conducting case studies (Francis, 2001, p. 18).

Delimitations

This study focused solely on the Levin College of Law Information Center and the primary

end users of the facility, students, and staff. The LIC was the first phase of the master plan for

the College of Law due to funding. In phase II, classrooms and a moot courtroom were to be

added. However, a generous donation allowed for the construction of the two classroom towers

to the east and west side of the College of Law courtyard during the phase I construction.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of this research, the focus will solely be on the LIC.

Since this is a case study, there are inherent limitations. The findings cannot be

generalized without further study, however "generalizability (external validity) can be increase

by multiple case studies" (Sommer, 2001, p. 209). In addition, when a case study takes place

after the fact, as in this study, "the researcher must depend on people's recollections of events,"

which can often be selective and distorted (Sommer, 2001, p. 209). Therefore, the interview

process with the key participants was limited by their accounts of past events.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

The purpose of the law school library seems clear. It is a place that houses books,

documents, case studies, law manuals, and manuscripts, presented in a full range of media to

"meet the information needs of the faculty and students of the institution it supports" (Danner,

2003, p. 1503). Crawford and Gorman (1995) states:

[Libraries] are not wholly or even primarily about information. They are about the
preservation, dissemination, and use of recorded knowledge in whatever form it may come
so that humankind may become more knowledgeable; through knowledge reach
understanding; and, as an ultimate goal, achieve wisdom (p.5).

With this definition in mind, the library becomes a sanctuary in which wisdom is the ultimate

goal once information, knowledge, and understanding are attained. Therefore, the library's

purpose is to assist the users in their quest for knowledge, while at the same time preserving that

information for future learners and scholars.

Library building designs vary depending on their size, budget, and mission. Librarians

and support staff require their own working spaces. Students, faculty, and visitors use

designated spaces to search for material, study, and read. Currently, there are facilities that

provide private meeting areas, classrooms, coffee shops, and relaxation rooms. Publicly and

privately funded law school libraries differ regarding their clientele. In the United States, law

libraries at public universities are likely to provide a wider range of services to local or state

attorneys than at privately funded law schools (Danner, 2003, p. 1503). A number of factors,

such as the library's collection, its proximity to other types of law libraries, and the number of

patrons it serves on a day-to-day basis influence the size and scope of the law library. These









factors combined with budget, expected growth of the school, and its collection should also be a

consideration for the design and/or expansion of a new law school library.

This case study focuses on the Fredric G. Levin College of Law's Lawton Chiles Legal

Information Center at the University of Florida in Gainesville. The Legal Information Center

(LIC), or law library, is ranked in the "top 20 percent of large-sized law schools accredited by

the American Bar Association," however, by the late 1990s, the facility for the law school lacked

the space, flexibility, and appearance of a top ranking school (Hasell, et al., 2001, p. 10).

Therefore, it was in the school's best interest to start thinking about building a new library.

Defining the College of Law Design Problem

Beginning in the summer of 1999, the LCoL's Dean Jon Mills contacted the UF's

College of Design, Construction, and Planning (CDCP) to assist them in creating a plan for

renovation. The collaborative project between CDCP and the LCoL began in the fall semester of

1999 and included a preliminary program and exploratory designs for a new multi-million dollar

project. The preliminary program not only addressed the LIC but a master plan for the whole

College of Law. The interdisciplinary programming team included professors and students from

CDCP who collaborated with the administrators, professors, staff, and students in the LCoL.

The goal was to create an action research partnership "to gain a collective picture of its LCoL

members' desires and needs for new facilities" (Hasell, et al., 2001, p. 6). Hasell, King, &

Pohlman (2001), the authors of the CDCP preliminary program, define action research as a

process that "uses information gathering techniques and problem solving strategies that promote

democratic inclusion while maintaining social research quality" (Hasell, et al., 2001, p.11). The

AR participants had a voice in defining the design problem, and they were encouraged to

examine schematic solutions. This phase of the project lasted a year, concluding in final









presentations of design proposals by the CDCP architecture and interior design students and a

preliminary programming document.

In March 2001, the law school faced a major dilemma. The American Bar Association

(ABA) accreditation board visited the LCoL and threatened to take away the law school's

accreditation due to the condition of the library and its inability to meet the learning modes of the

students. Suddenly, there was an urgency to turn all of this planning into something real. Figure

2-1 is a photo of how Holland Hall looked before the renovations.
























Figure 2-1. Holland Hall Before Renovations (Photo provided by University of Florida's
College of Law Communications Office).

Therefore, the preliminary program document information was then passed on to

University of Florida's Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) office to develop a RFP

document that would be presented to the Board of Regents for budget approval (see Figure 2-1).

The RFP included five elements: "1) functional space descriptions, 2) spatial relationships and

adjacencies, 3) building site and design criteria, 4) project budget, 5) project schedule" (Hasell,









et al., 2001, p. 11). In addition, it stated that the hired architect must review and address the

preliminary AR program by validating the information contained therein. Once the project was

approved, the RFP was posted on the FP&C website so that architecture firms could apply. Over

twenty-four firms from across the nation competed for the design contract. A partnership of two

architectural firms, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates (Boston, Massachusetts) and Ponikvar &

Associates (Gainesville, Florida), was selected for the LCoL project by the FP&C office, the

CDCP representatives, and the LCoL Dean and Chair of LCoL Facilities Planning committee.

Representatives from Tsoi/Kobus & Associates were responsible for the planning and schematic

design for the LIC, and they produced the final architectural program by reconciling the CDCP

program and the FP&C program. Figure 2-2 shows the progression of the programming

documents for the College of Law.



CDCP consulting and UF Facilities Planning & The architectural firms of
action research team Construction division creates Tsoi/Kobus and Ponikvar
creates the Preliminary 0 RFP to be distributed to create the final architectural
Programming Document architects program for the LIC


Figure 2-2. Diagram of the Three programming Documents

History of the Legal Information Planning Process

Development of the CDCP preliminary AR program for the Lawton Chiles Legal

Information Center was conducted in several stages. A selective group of students, staff, and

faculty from LCoL were active participants in the progression of the project and worked closely

with CDCP students and faculty by contributing their opinions, ideas, and thoughts via surveys,

interviews, discussions, and working sessions. The following information was complied from

the CDCP preliminary AR program, "Designers, Researchers, Stakeholders: Partners for









Planning the Fredric G. Levin College of Law" (Hasell, et. al., 2001), and details the stages of

the project. Refer to figure 2-3, which summarizes the following information.

Stage 1: AR preliminary planning & programming (Fall 1999)

* Interior design faculty and students met with representatives from the LCoL and the FP&C
to conduct an initial analysis of the values and needs of the LCoL and assess the issues
with the physical building.

* Designed research tools: A survey was developed and tested by a team of two faculty
members and thirty-five students from the Interior Design department within the CDCP.
The survey was based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs in order to ascertain "their
full range of needs from task performance to psychological needs of both individuals and
groups" (p. 11).

* Conducted research: The survey team interviewed 50 participants and gathered
information about each department's needs and requests. Interviews were also conducted
with faculty, staff, and students of the LCoL. Systematic observations of activities within
the pre-existing buildings were conducted. Information was compiled regarding building
codes.

* Produced a schematic program so that students CDCP students in interior design and
architecture studios could produce exploratory designs.

Stage 2: Students' exploratory designs and planning (Spring 2000)

* One architecture and two interior design studios produced conceptual designs for the new
facilities over the course of a semester under the direction of three faculty members.

* Architecture students focused on creating a master plan for the whole complex.

* Interior design students focused on the interior spaces of Legal Information Center and the
new classrooms, including space layout and FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment).

* A preliminary program was developed with square footage allocations for the whole
College of Law, including the Legal Information Center.

* Collaboration and involvement of LCoL faculty, staff and students was encouraged with
regular meetings and workshops throughout the design schematic phase. During working
sessions, LCoL representatives would consider student proposals and concepts for 1) a
master plan to replace all buildings, 2) a new LIC, and 3) new and improved classrooms.

* Chair of the LCoL Facility Planning Committee, the Dean, and the University Facilities
Planning and Construction Office explored funding strategies with the President of the
University.









Stage 3: Final presentation of student work (Summer 2000)


* Faculty members presented the architecture and interior design students' final design
proposals of the master plans and classrooms.

* Publications of the findings from this first phase of the planning process and the student
designs were produced for the LCoL so that they could use the document to gain interest
among potential donors and to raise funds for the project.

Stage 4: Finalizing the preliminary program (Fall 2000 Summer 2001)

* Interior design faculty members and graduate students continued to work with the LCoL to
complete the preliminary program.

* The interior design group worked closely with the FP&C and used their templates for
programming spreadsheets to calculate the net and gross square footage allocations for
public educational facilities.

* Each unit of the LCoL was re-surveyed and the square footages for both existing and
projected needs were calculated. This information was complied into a document that was
then presented to LCoL representatives for verification.

* Once an agreement was reached, a final preliminary program was published and printed
("Designers, Researchers, and Stakeholders: Partners for Planning the Fredric G. Levin
College of Law"). The document was then distributed to various stakeholders, such as,
LCoL participants, alumni, the college fundraiser, potential donors, and university
officials.

Stage 5: Moving the plan forward (Fall 2001 Fall 2002)

* The ABA visited the LCoL and their report noted the inadequacies of the law library.
Because of this, the LCoL could have lost their accreditation.

* In the Spring 2002, UF's President, Charles Young, and other top officials met with the
LCoL Dean, the law library Director, the FP&C project manager, and a key faculty
member from CDCP, Jo Hasell, to confront the loss of accreditation problem. As a
consequence, the LCoL project was moved from the 43rd on the priority list for new
university campus buildings to third.

* FP&C reviewed the preliminary program and began to revise it from a visionary program
into a pragmatic one. They transformed the CDCP preliminary program from a mostly
narrative and descriptive document that was created for the LCoL user participants and
potential donors into the required format for a RFP.

* The final version of the RFP is approved and published on the FP&C website for A/E
firms to create proposals. Twenty-six proposals met the July deadline.









* Interviews conducted by the FP&C representatives, CDCP representatives, the LCoL Dean
and the Chair of Facilities Planning with six short-listed applicants to select the project
architect and engineering firm. Partners, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, a Boston firm, and
Ponikvar & Associates, a local Gainesville firm, were selected.

Stage 6: Design and construction (Spring 2003 Fall 2005)

* Tsoi/Kobus developed a final architectural program for the building by reconciling the
CDCP preliminary program and the RFP. Sessions were held with members of CDCP
team, the LCoL Facilities Planning committee, and with LCoL faculty and staff to check
and make sure that the information in the pre-design program and RFP was correct.

* Tsoi/Kobus was mainly responsible the architectural program, the schematic design, and
the design development. Ponikvar was mainly responsible for the construction documents
and the bidding/contract administration.

* In Summer 2003, construction of the classroom towers began. The following summer the
construction of the LIC began.

* In Fall 2004, the classrooms opened. A year later, the LIC opened.

Stage 7: Post-occupancy evaluation of the LIC (Spring 2007)

* POE conducted.


BP ccle f
~~3C~~~~i- -(a~, 'V? aL j (a"~


Figure2-3. Timeline of the Planning and Designing of the LCoL.

About the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center

The renovated LIC is part of the first completed phase of the LCoL renovations. As a

stated earlier, Phase I of the construction to LCoL also included two three-story classroom

towers between Holland and Bruton-Greer Halls due to generous donations to the college. The


~, ,s "41
10 41 101, :f~L7Q~\C









LIC, "the laboratory and social heart of the law school," took two years to complete and opened

its doors at the beginning of the fall semester in 2005 ("Message from the director," 1).

According to the LCoL website, the "renovated facility includes 13 student study rooms, a

relaxation/meditation room, lounge seating, open reserve area and commodious carrels"

("Message from the director," 3). The new facility houses 595,000 volumes and equivalents

and approximately 10,000 new volumes and equivalents are added annually. The new 100,000

square-foot facility includes the following features, according the LCoL website ("UF Law

facilities expansion and renovation complete"):

* An archway replicating the entrance to Bryan Hall, which was the home to the UF law
school from 1914-1969, opens up to the Stephen C. O'Connell Supreme Court Reading
Room, named for the first UF law alumnus to serve as president of the University of
Florida (see Figure 2-4).

* An open reserve room allowing easy student access and quiet study of reserve materials.

* The Richard B. Stephens Tax Research Center offers special facilities exclusively to tax
law students, including 70 study carrels, a graduate lounge, a meeting room, and offices for
the Florida Tax Review.

* More than 300 study carrels, including video equipped carrels for review of educational
audio-visual material, with additional seating for another 300 students throughout the
library (see Figures 2-5 and 2-6).

* Thirteen conference rooms that hold up to a dozen students for team study and research.

* Dedicated classroom for training in research and computer usage.

* Student production lab and faculty instructional technology lab for state-of-the-art media
use.

* Displays of faculty writings and special collections in the Rare Book Room.

* A meditation/lactation room that recognizes personal needs of a diverse student body.









The new facility is almost double the size of the original library facility, has integrated

wireless internet technology, and is expected to qualify for LEED certification1. The LIC serves

not only the staff, students, and faculty of the LCoL and the University of Florida, but also

members of the Florida Bar, the general public, and state prisoners. The newly renovated facility

is now the "largest academic law library in the Southeast and among the top 20 of more than 180

such facilities in the U.S. in terms of space" ("UF Law facilities expansion and renovation

complete," 1). This is noteworthy since the facility was designed and constructed on a limited

budget.


Figure 2-4. Entrance to the O'Connell Reading Room. (Source:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/expansion/gallery.shtml).


1LEED stands for the "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design," which is the nationally accepted green
rating system for benchmarking the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings
("Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design," 1).
































Figure 2-5. Student Study Carrels (Photo taken by Jennifer Lamar, graduate student at the
University of Florida).


Figure 2-6. Lounge Seating on Second Floor (Photo taken by Jennifer Lamar, graduate student
at the University of Florida).

Fredric G. Levin College of Law is named for a prominent trial lawyer whose financial

support has assisted the school in becoming one of the "best endowed public law schools in









America" as well as offering comprehensive law programs ("About the Fredric G. Levin College

of Law," 3). In addition, the college is proud of four of its distinguished alumni who have

served as presidents of the ABA. The Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center honors the late

Florida governor and U.S. senator who graduated from LCoL in 1955 ("UF Law facilities

expansion and renovation complete," 1).

The coined term "legal information center," instead of "law library," recognizes that this

facility not only houses a library, but also offers computer support and media services ("Message

from the director," 2005, I1). The term "information center" is also a nod to Christopher

Columbus Langdell, Harvard Law School's appointed dean in 1870, who changed the method of

teaching law by increasing the reliance of the school on its library. Langdell "pioneered the use

of the case system, employing the Socratic Method in teaching law. He believed that the library

was to law students what the laboratory was to scientists" ("History of the Harvard Law School

Library," 2005, 15). Therefore, the library is perceived as an "information center" with an

exploratory atmosphere where knowledge is put to use and tested. Although this is a continuing

trend only recently have law libraries begun to rename their libraries "information centers." This

new title reflects Langdell's ideology, as well as the growing use of technology-based

information sources.

Examining Methods of Architectural Programming

The programming phase can define the design process. The information gathered and the

method in which it is gathered greatly affects the outcome of the design; therefore, it is an

essential step that designers, planners, and stakeholders must take caution with and be thorough

in gathering the necessary information. Methods in architectural programming vary depending









on the client, the programmer's knowledge, and the depth of the project. Hershberger (1999)

states that the objective is the following:

to program for architecture, for environments that transcend the 'problem' to create
something of wonder that captures the essence of the institution; relates marvelously to the
site, climate, and time; goes beyond immediate needs to enhance the potential of the users;
expresses the highest aspirations of the client, architect, and society; and 'moves' all users
in some special way (p. 5).

Ideally, the program should gather information about the building users' needs and preferences,

question and address the users' problems, assess the budget and time constraints, gather

information regarding space usage and required square footage allocation, and discover the

culture and values of the users. The program's essential objective is to assist in the creation of

architecture and interior environments that support the users' activities and reflect their design

preferences.

There are several different approaches to architectural programming, however the most

frequently used approach is the design-based (d-b) method. In this method, there is minimal

programming prior to initializing the design process. Often the programming occurs

"simultaneously with the design process" (Hershberger, 1999, p. 7). For example, during the

first meeting with the client, the client tells the designer what spaces are required, the size of the

spaces, budget, and overall feel of the space. The designer records these statements, asks

questions, and begins sketching ideas for the client. The process continues with the designer

presenting designs for the client's reaction and comments. Issues that still need to be addressed

become evident in these drawings and the process can be repeated until there is a satisfactory

resolution. This method requires the designer to be a good interviewer and the client to have a

clear and thorough idea of what the needs are. Problems can arise if the process requires more

time than originally allocated, which results in higher costs. In addition, this method runs the









risk of the designs being reactionary, and the designer becomes frustrated because their "voice"

is being lost in the final product. The d-b method works best with small projects, such as a

residential project, with only a few users. It provides the opportunity for the designer and the

client to create a close working relationship based upon open communication and respect. The

LCoL was a large project with many stakeholders and a wide variety of users, therefore the d-b

method was not an appropriate choice for this project.

Knowledge-based (k-b) architectural programming is a process that began in the 1960s

with the emergence of social and behavioral scientists who specialized in how users behaved in

environments. This relatively new field in social science is known today as environmental

psychology. The k-b method uses "research methods, techniques, and tools developed by social

and behavioral scientists to study human attitudes and behavior-literature search and review,

systematic observation, controlled interviewing, questionnaires and surveys, sampling, and

statistical analysis" (Hershberger, 1999, p. 15). This method has proven to be a viable method in

gathering all the necessary information about the users' needs and preferences, however

quantitative information is difficult to translate into design. In the LCoL, the stakeholders set out

with the notion of being involved in identifying the problem. Therefore, the information that

was collected was reported to them in a format they could understand and one that designers

could easily access.

Agreement-based (a-b) programming involves key members of the clients' organization

representing the whole organization and working with a programmer. Usually, the key

participants are officers of the organization who are assigned to a building planning committee

"to generate the needed programmatic information, to hire the architect, and possibly monitor

construction" (Hershberger, 1999, p. 17). The client and the programmer assume that this









appointed building committee, usually comprised of department heads, managers, and building

supervisors, has enough knowledge, or can at least access the knowledge, to make satisfactory

decisions for the building users' requirements, needs, and desires. The process employs the

programmer as the facilitator in guiding the committee in communicating information. When

there are areas of conflict between committee members, the programmer leads the committee in

working out differences to produce a consensus for the program (Hershberger, 1999, p. 18). One

of the advantages of this method is that it produces a program in a timely and efficient manner.

The program document is developed after everyone on the committee reaches a satisfactory

agreement. However, this process does not typically include detailed requirements for individual

spaces, which could lead to inappropriate design decisions. In addition, this process does not

allow the individual users to express their own needs and ideas, thus alienating them and

potentially leading to frustration and poor design solutions. Since the original proposal for the

LCoL promised democratic inclusion of all willing constituents, the a-b approach was not

appropriate. Everyone in the college had the opportunity to participate, to explain and identify

their specific issues, and contribute to the overall design solution.

Value-based (v-b) programming determines the most important values of the

organization. The programmer conducts interviews and holds discussions with users and

community members to uncover these values and to discover the character of the organization

(Hershberger, 1999, p. 31). This programming method employs the use of procedures adopted

from the k-b programming method when necessary. Having knowledge of key issues guides the

programmer in realizing when to utilize research methods such as, literature review, content

analysis, interviewing, observations, and surveys (Hershberger, 1999, p. 31). This approach

allows for in-depth information gathering while still keeping the findings in a form that is









accessible to designers. Action research (AR) is similar to v-b except that AR requires a more

systematic approach to the planning process with the cyclical process of plan-act-observe-reflect.

The observation phase of the cycle is committed to quality research that is useful to the

stakeholders. Its major purpose is to identify the actions that are needed to change the setting for

the better. Careful reflection and documentation of the process and of the decisions that are

made contribute to the research component of a project.

Action Research as a Programming Approach

AR is a methodological approach to programming and design, which connects theory and

practice by focusing on a problem and developing strategies to solve it (Gifford, 2002, p. 482).

Lewin described action research as "perhaps the first major push in psychology toward linking

scientific research with real social change" (Gifford, 2002, p. 5). He believed that if people were

involved in the decision process of their workplace, they would be more productive at work.

Lewin developed action research as a cyclical process involving "planning, fact-finding (or

reconnaissance) and execution, and which later came generally to be understood as an action-

reflection cycle of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting" (McNiff & Whitehead, 2002, p.

41). This process enables individuals and/or groups to identify their problems using a systematic

approach, and then working together to reach a resolution to change the setting for the better.

AR is open to those willing to have a livingpractice by investigating one's work and

finding ways to improve it. Individual theories and narratives derived from these investigations

contribute to the body of knowledge and are an integral part of practical and theoretical

sustainability. As McNiff and Whitehead (2006) explain,

Sustainability is the idea that living systems have the capacity for interdependent self-
renewal, which is indispensable for continuing development. Reliance on an external









agency means that a system may collapse if the agency is withdrawn, whereas internal
capacity means the interdependent creation of renewable resources for growth. (p. 18)

Therefore, the idea is that practioners, organizations, and individuals all have the capacity to

investigate, identify, and resolve problems themselves. Using AR in programming empowers

the individual in the organization to come up with solutions that best suit their needs, rather than

relying on the outside consultants to be the sole expert. In other words, AR allows members of

the organization to be "actively engaged in the quest for information" and to contribute solutions

to the problem (Whyte, 1991, p. 20).

Participatory design (PD) integrates Lewin's theory with the practice of design. Henry

Sanoff, recognized for his contribution to PD in school and community design, remarks that the

"participatory approach recognizes that the building process should include the knowledge and

expertise of all people affected by design decisions" (Sanoff, 2002, p. 20). In the development of

an elementary school project in Davidson, N.C., Sanoff s role as a "planning partner" guided the

design team and the school community by using user-participation techniques throughout all

stages of the planning and design process. Children were asked to contribute to the new school

design through art and poetry exercises. Teachers, parents, and school-planning officials

participated in interviews and workshops. One workshop consisted of a building-image study

with a slide show depicting school buildings with different characteristics. Participants were

asked to rate each building and these "ratings were used to generate an overall priority list"

(Sanoff, 2002, p. 28). During the design development phase, the design team produced drawings

and then repeatedly allowed teachers to discuss and comment on them. The post-occupancy

evaluation revealed that the process allowed the end-users to have a strong sense of ownership

for the new facility, which has "far-reaching positive effects, especially when the viability of

traditional school building standards and processes are questioned" (Sanoff, 2002, p. 35).









Sanoff s efforts to push the envelope during the planning process has lead to successful school

building projects that benefit the students, faculty, and the community. This process is similar to

the LCoL project in that there is a high level of participation in a democratic process. In

addition, the continual involvement of the users in the design phase is similar to how the CDCP

involved the users. The CDCP team invited all of the LCoL users to participate in open house

style meetings with the architecture and interior design students, who presented their schematic

designs several times to them with each subsequent phase building upon what they had learned

from users in the last meeting.

Post-Occupancy Evaluations

There are numerous and well documented reasons POEs are beneficial, including: (1)

providing information and feedback to designers and stakeholders on which to base decisions for

the next project; (2) discovering changes needed to better suit the users; (3) improving building

operations by informing owner of ways to reduce energy consumption; (4) informing designers

of building aspects that were and were not successful (Preiser, 1989; Preiser & Vischer, 2005;

Zimmerman & Martin, 2001). Preiser, Rabinowitz, & White (1988) define POEs as follows:

[T]he process of evaluating buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have
been built and occupied for some time. POEs focus on building occupants and their needs,
and thus they provide insights into the consequences of past design decisions and the
resulting building performance. This knowledge forms a sound basis for creating better
buildings in the future. (p. 3)

POEs assist stakeholders, designers, and facility managers to make better decisions by learning

what does and does not work. POEs also have a clear intention so that future projects avoid

"reinventing the wheel" (Preiser, et al., 1988, p. 127). It allows us to learn from the past and to

build upon that knowledge.









The professional practice of POEs emerged in the late 1960s with the growing concern

about health, safety, security, and psychological effects of a building on its occupants. These

concerns and efforts to inspect the built environment led to exploring relationships between

human behavior and building design. An early pioneer, Alexander, contributed to the beginnings

of POEs by evaluating the needs of users in built environments and establishing design

guidelines. His research is published in three influential books: Notes on the Syi)uihe\i ofForm

(1964), Houses Generated by Patterns (1969), and A Pattern Language (1977) (cited in Preiser

et al., 1988, p. 8). Early POEs focused on student dormitories due to convenience factors of

access, lack of funding, and students' willingness to participate.

In 1968, Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) was formed by Sanoff,

who served as the chair until 1973 and incorporated EDRA as a non-profit organization in North

Carolina in 1972 (Sanoff, 2002, p.1). EDRA includes architects, designers, facility managers,

psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and geographers whose purpose is to advance and

disseminate "environmental design research, thereby improving understanding of the

interrelationships between people, their built and natural surroundings, and helping to create

environments responsive to human needs" (Sanoff, 2002, p.1). Research in the 1970s not only

evaluated buildings, but also "these projects were equally concerned with the process and

methods of evaluation, as well as exploring the relationships between the design of the physical

environment, behavior, and building performance" (Preiser, 1989, p. 11). During this time, the

government agency, General Services Administration (GSA), implemented office-systems

performance standards based on their own evaluations of federal office buildings (Preiser et al.,

1988, p. 9). Many studies conducted at this period used multiple buildings for data gathering,

multi-method approaches, and comparative analysis contributing to more in-depth evaluations.









Government institutions or grants provided funding for POEs in the 1960s and 1970s. In

the 1980s, the private sector, particularly retail and hospitality businesses, began noticing the

benefits of the POE. During this time, the International Facility Management Association

(IFMA) was founded. The formation of IFMA established credibility and growth in the field of

POE studies, which has lead to POEs being an integral part of facilities management. The field

is still evolving and research in this area continues to validate the need for professionals to be

aware of how the environment affects human behavior, health, and safety. There are numerous

methods available to conduct a POE, depending on the goal, scope, and budget for the

evaluation.

A POE of the Salt Lake City Public Library was conducted to "create tools that could be

used by public libraries to obtain useful and meaningful data from which to continuously

improve facility operations both for library staff and visitors" (Lackney & Zajfen, 2005, p. 16).

The process involved staff interviews, staff and visitor surveys, and photographic documentation

of problem areas. It was discovered that the planning process for the library involved the staff,

the local community, and a planning board. It was a "multistage planning and design process"

that was highly "unique and rigorous" (Lackney & Zajfen, 2005, p. 22). The evaluation revealed

that there were some areas that required re-design, such as, the private meeting rooms needed

alteration to minimize sound transfer. However, the POE overall revealed the success of the

"rigorous" programming method based upon minimal issues uncovered in the POE report.

POEs can uncover small design changes, or they can uncover larger systematic problems.

A POE of the San Francisco Public Library one year after its completion revealed that "serious

operational problems are caused by the facility" ("Post-occupancy evaluation," 2000, 9). Some

of the problems discovered related to the functional design of the building spaces, including









inappropriate adjacencies, lack of comprehensible wayfinding, lack of storage, and failures in

operational and maintenance of the building ("Post-occupancy evaluation," 2000, 13). In the

report, there is no mention of how the planning and design process was conducted, but it is clear

that the POE was highly successful in addressing issues and problems affecting staff and visitors

so that improvements could be made.

A multi-method approach to the evaluation of the Kennedy School of Government's

Taubman Building at Harvard University performed customary POE techniques, questionnaires,

interviews, and facilitated workshops. These workshops are a favored POE tool in Scandinavian

countries as it provides an arena for end-users to communicate their issues (Horgen & Sheridan,

1996, p. 16). A traditional approach was represented by Vischer's Building-In-Use

questionnaire. The purpose of the project was to develop a building evaluation prototype and to

"facilitate learning about programming, designing, and building approaches" (Horgen &

Sheridan, 1996, p. 17). The study concluded that quantifiable results from the Buildings-In-Use

questionnaire corresponded with the information gathered from the participatory workshops, or

"town meetings" (Horgen & Sheridan, 1996, p. 21). In addition, all of the participants in the

town meeting reported that the meetings were either "valuable" or "very valuable." The study

concluded that by providing opportunities for end-users to voice their issues provides a sense of

ownership in the building and acknowledges the importance of their thoughts. This case study's

POE is similar to the Taubman Building study since it is a multi-method evaluation combining

quantitative and qualitative measures. The purpose of using multiple methods is to gain a higher

reliability with the results and to gain a broad scope of information that contributes to

determining the successes and failures of the LIC project. The only difference is that this POE

also aims to discover how the AR planning process affected the outcome.









Action Research Process vs. the Traditional Approach

At Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, there lies a variety of

buildings designed by famous architects, such as, I.M. Pei, Alvar Aalto, Eero Saarinen, and

Frank Gehry. The Dean of the School of Architecture and Planning states, "I don't think it really

matters very much whether most students know that buildings are famous, or even know the

names of their architects. It just matters that the buildings are good and contribute positively to

the quality of student life" (Tse, 1999, 3). MIT has had a long commitment to supporting new,

innovative ideas of architecture in order to enhance the livelihoods of the students, faculty, and

staff. However, with new ideas, there can be controversy.

In May 2004, the Stata Center for Computer, Information and Intelligence Sciences opened

its doors and its controversy on the MIT campus. Gehry's $280 million-dollar creation,

originally budgeted at $95 million, was another stunning architectural achievement by the world

famous architect demanding attention for its uniqueness and originality. The envelope of the

building reflects the human activity within it. It is folded, torn, punched, warped, and crinkled

echoing the research activities of the scientists inside who are exploring the mysteries of

language, cognition, and intelligence (Crosbie, 2004, 3). The interior was left "rough" so that

the occupants feel like they can change and modify the space to suit their needs (Crosbie, 2004).

The concept was to incorporate the ad hoc approach of research to the physical environment

allowing for flexibility and collaboration.

Gehry stated in an interview that his design would be a success if he was able "to interpret

what [the occupants] were talking about in a way they never expected" (Dabek, 2004, 2). If

that meant turning professor's office into a student lounge, then Gehry succeeded. Professor

Abelson stated in an interview with the Boston Globe, "People don't know how to live in this









building. There has been very little attention paid to planning for an open-space environment"

(Beam, 2004, 8). Another occupant was quoted stating, "I feel as though I have lost something

very important a sense of my own space and a feeling of importance" (Dabek, 2004, 20).

Therefore, Abelson's lab group had to contact an architect who specializes in interior design to

restructure "part of Gehry's masterpiece" (Beam, 2004, 8).

The point of exposing the faults of Gehry's design is not to disparage his success. Many

elements of the Stata Center were very successful in supporting the user's activities. In addition,

it captured the spirit of the community promoting an image for MIT that says that they take risks,

and that they support pioneering ideas. However, as designers, we must ask ourselves who is to

blame for some of these users' dissatisfaction with the final building? Is it the fallacy of those

who created the architectural program? Did the designers pay too much attention to the aesthetic

and style of the building, rather than the users' requirements and needs to work productively?

Alternatively, does the building support the users needs in an "unexpected" way and, perhaps,

these dissatisfied users will come to appreciate the building after they have been given time to

adjust to their new surroundings. Or is it time to consider a new approach to creating both

exciting and satisfying architecture?

This study is significant because it investigates whether the newly constructed Legal

Information Center on the University of Florida campus satisfies all of the users' needs.

Uncovering any faults and successes of the building will benefit both designers and stakeholders

with knowledge of what changes need to be made in the current building and what should be

included or avoided in future building projects. In addition, the AR planning methodology is

evaluated to determine if it is a viable option for clients to include in their next building project.









Summary

The purpose of this literature review has been to give the reader background information

about the Legal Information Center. The history of the law school was covered, as well as an

account of how the LIC was planned and designed. This information puts the LIC in context so

that the reader can understand the steps taken to create it. Another purpose of this literature

review has been to define the different methods of architectural programming so that the AR

approach used in planning the LIC can be compared to these more traditional programming

models. AR is also defined and applications of action research have been discussed. Finally, the

literature review discusses the purpose and significance of conducting a POE. The history of the

POE has been outlined and relevant studies were presented.









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Study Design

This is a case study that employs multiple mixed methods. Case studies are widely used

in other professions, such as medicine, law, and business, and contribute to a body of knowledge

that collectively develops critical theories (Swann, 2006 and Francis, 2001). Francis (2001)

provides a thorough definition of case study, which is the following:

A case study is a well-documented and systematic examination of the process, decision-
making and outcomes of a project, which is undertaken for the purpose of informing future
practice, policy, theory, and/or education (p. 16).

This study is also an exploratory study about the efficacy of an action research approach for the

planning and designing of a university library project. The study used a multi-method process

and triangulation with both qualitative and quantitative measures to ascertain the validity of the

results. The study was divided into three parts to examine three different aspects of the LIC and

its planning process. Together, these three research processes will ascertain the success of the

AR method in this setting.

First, the CDCP preliminary program was assessed using a content analysis2. The

document was written in a descriptive narrative format and included information gathered during

the AR planning partnership between faculty, staff, and students of the LCoL and faculty and

students of the CDCP. The document, "Designers, Researchers, Stakeholders: Partners for

Planning the Fredric G. Levin College of Law," was written by the CDCP faculty, Hasell, King,

and Polhman (2002). Analysis of the CDCP preliminary program was compared to the Request

for Proposals program document created by the UF Facilities Planning and Construction office



2 "Content analysis systematically describes and analyzes the form and content of written or spoken material
(Sommer & Sommer, 2002). The investigator turns qualitative data into quantitative by expressing data in numbers.









and the final architectural program by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates. The purpose was to determine

how much information from the CDCP preliminary program is evident in those respective

documents. In addition, it was necessary to determine if the information was implemented in the

final building design of the Legal Information Center. The objective of this first phase of the

study was to determine whether user satisfaction with the LIC could be attributed to the AR

planning process.

Second, satisfaction of research participants in both user groups, LIC staff and LCoL

students, was analyzed in order to assess the success of the AR planning approach. It was

necessary to create two separate surveys for the two user groups since they use the building

differently. The surveys were used to ascertain their satisfaction with the LIC in regards an AR

Subjective Assessment Framework based upon human comfort, health, safety, psychological

security, and pleasure. If the current end-users were satisfied, then the project would be

considered successful. In addition, if the information presented in the preliminary AR program

(users' needs, values, and space requirements) was evident in the final building design, then user

satisfaction with the LIC could be attributed to those AR planning efforts.

Third, in-depth unstructured interviews were conducted with key participants from the

planning and designing process for the LIC. Their thoughts, accounts, and opinions contributed

to the exploratory portion of this research to analyze the following: 1) the process of the AR

method, 2) the success of the AR method, and 3) their satisfaction with both the process and the

final building design. The in-depth interviews provide a holistic view about the planning and

designing process from multiple perspectives. The interviews are qualitative and do not produce

tangible statistical results. However, it provides a deeper understanding about the process from

the participants' experiences. In addition, similarities among individual's stories may also be









uncovered to reveal an underlying thread or theme about the process. Figure 3-1 shows the

multiple methods of this study's research process.

Approval was sought before implementing the surveys. University of Florida's

Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) reviewed the study proposal, the two surveys, and letters of

consent, and they granted permission to conduct the study. Appendix A is a copy of the UFIRB

approval and Appendix B is a copy of the approved letters of consent.






ACTION RESEARCH
FOR PLANNING &
DESIGNING






Figure 3-1. Research Process of the AR study.

Research Setting

The newly constructed and renovated Legal Information Center at University of Florida's

Levin College of Law was completed in July 2005. The LIC is located in Holland Hall, a three-

story building located in the northwest quadrant of the university near the corer of Southwest

2nd Avenue and Village Drive in Gainesville, Florida (see Figure 3-2). Originally built in 1968,

approximately 70% of Holland Hall was gutted and restructured during the construction of the

LIC. The third floor remained intact and is mostly comprised of faculty offices. Figure 3-3

shows Holland Hall under going construction and how the third floor remained. Figure 3-4 is an

aerial view of Holland Hall during construction.
































Figure 3-2. Site Plan of the Levin College of Law. (Retrieved from
http://www.law.ufl.edu/construction/siteplans.shtml).


Figure 3-3. Construction and Renovation of Holland Hall (Provided by University of Florida's
College of Law Communications Office).



































Figure 3-4. Aerial View of Holland Hall during Construction (Provided by University of
Florida's College of Law Communications Office).

The first two floors of the building house the LIC, the Dean's Administrative Suite, two

classroom spaces, and the LCoL Communications Office. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the floor

plans for the first two floors of renovated Holland Hall and the addition to the LIC.

The LIC is approximately 100,000 square feet housing over 600,000 volumes, with

approximately 50% in the compact book stacks and 50% in open shelves. The entrance to the

LIC faces the College of Law courtyard, which is surrounded by Bruton-Geer Hall to the south

and by two classroom towers to the east and the west. Figure 3-7 is a photograph of the LCoL

courtyard and the main entrance to the LIC.














-" i -----
S ..- --.
1- -









iS?
I '" '
J -- -- ^ -- ,


O'Connell Reading
SRoom
SLIC Administrative
Suite
- Reference Desk


Circulation Desk


- -- Main Entrance

i


Figure 3-5. Floor Plan of the First Floor of Holland Hall. (Provided by Ponikvar & Associates
and Tsoi/Kobus & Associates)




Renn\ared Holland Hall & I 1C expansion


T_ Stu
:iL :. .. _.. ... .. C o



SL 1-- ------ Ro
SShCo
I' i : _-.i 1 ', --- n--T i-

'~i | las,


-- rI *






Dean's Suite /

Rare Book Room
Figure 3-6. Floor Plan of the Second Floor of Holland Hall. (Provided by Ponikvar & Associa
Figure 3-6. Floor Plan of the Second Floor of Holland Hall. (Provided by Ponikvar & Associal


dy Carells
npact
vlying
eting
)ms


1
tes


and Tsoi/Kobus & Associates).


0 a


, I I










I p
Ir W-L^^i


Figure 3-7. Levin College of Law Courtyard and Legal Information Center Entrance. (Retrieved
from http://www.law.ufl.edu/construction/photogallery.shtml).
Research Participants
Sampling Research Participants for the Surveys
Research participants included the LIC staff and students who currently use the LIC

facility. The LIC staff is comprised of twenty-three staff members: four administrative staff

(including the Director and Associate Director of the library), eleven public services staff, and

eight technical services staff. The surveys were distributed to the LIC staff via email with a link

to the web-based survey. The email was sent once a week for a month reminding them of their

option to participate. This method netted 15 responses.

Though the library is open to the general public, only LCoL students participated. The

student enrollment at the time of the survey was approximately 1,320 and the study sought to

obtain 8-10% participation from the student population by convenient sampling. A link was

provided on the LIC website that would connect them to the web-based survey. Participation









using this method was very low and netted only 10 responses. Therefore, the researcher set up a

table in the LCoL courtyard in front of the LIC entrance, so that passer-bys could take the web-

based survey using provided laptops. The law students usually arrive for classes between eight

and ten o'clock in the morning and generally stay on campus until the mid-afternoon. Between

classes, they typically study, socialize, eat lunch, or meet with study groups. The researcher was

positioned at this location from 5th of April 2007 to 11th of April 2007, between the hours of nine

o'clock in the morning to three o'clock in the afternoon. This method netted 114 responses, with

four respondents that had to be dropped from the report due to incomplete surveys.

Sampling Key Participants for the In-Depth Interviews

Identified key participants in the programming and planning process of the LIC were

asked to grant an interview with this researcher. An email was sent out to a list of these known

participants informing them of the research and asking if they would agree to participate.

Appendix H is an example of an email that was distributed. The following is a list of the

individuals who were emailed: the interim dean at the time of the planning for the LIC, the

current LIC Director, the former law library director, the LIC Associate Director, key LIC staff,

key LCoL faculty, and a principal architect from Ponikvar & Associates. Once the participant

replied, a date, time, and location was set up for the meeting. Six in-depth unstructured

interviews were conducted.

Procedures and Instruments

Comparison Across the CDCP, FP&C, and TK&A Programs and the LIC Building

The research is organized according to the four departments within the LIC: Collection

Services, Media Services, Public Services, and Computing Services. This was the original

departmental structure under the supervision of library Director, Betty Taylor. However, after

the completion of the preliminary AR program by the CDCP, Taylor retired and a new Director,











Kathleen Price, took her place. Under Price's direction, the departments were restructured into

the following: Administration, Public Services, Technical Services, and Technology. Figure 3-8

demonstrates the changes in the departments and their main functions. This study organized data

according to the old departmental structure since that is how the preliminary AR program, the

RFP, and the final architectural program documents are all organized. Media Services and

Computing Services, which is now Technology, will not be investigated in this study since they

are not located within the new LIC facility. In addition, their function relates more to the

technology aspects of the law school classrooms, rather than the LIC.

BOOK STACKS BOOK STACKS
REFERENCE REFERENCE
CIRCULATION CIRCULATION
SETiU' kREAE STUDY AREAS

PUBLIC PUBLIC
SERVICES SERVICES
ACQUISITIONS ACQUISITIONS
MANAGEMENTOF CATALOGING SERVICES CATALOGING SERVICES
LCOL NETWORK FISCAL SERVICES FISCAL SERVICES
I I
COMPUTING EICR COLLECTION LIC TECHNICAL
SERVICES ,G E SERVICES NW ERTMENT 3 SERVICES
SERVICES STRUCTE SERVICES STRUCTURE

I I

MEDIA ADMINISTRA.
COMPUTER
-cERVICES TION
SERVICES TION TECHNOLOGY LEARNING CTR
MULTI-MEDIA
EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER LIC DIRECTOR
LEARNING CENTER ASSOCIATE
MULTI-MEDIA DIRECTOR
EQUIPMENT


Figure 3-8. Legal Information Center Departments and How They Changed.

Content analysis of the CDCP program was executed to establish the user needs and

preferences, or items, in order to compare them to the other two programming documents and the

LIC building. As stated earlier, the purpose of the comparison was to determine how much of

the preliminary program is evident in the RFP, the architectural program by Tsoi/Kobus, and the

final building design. Each document was developed using a different method, so therefore the









information in each document is presented in a different manner and style. Excerpts from each

programming document can be referred to in Appendix C.

The CDCP program was written in a descriptive narrative format, rather than a traditional

program that usually includes a list of spaces with corresponding square footages. Though the

CDCP program does include tables of existing and proposed net and gross square footages, the

document states in the "Introduction" that its main focus is to assist the LCoL stakeholders and

the FP&C office as they move forward in the decision making process for the college.

Therefore, the creators of the document kept the information in a narrative format so that it

remained accessible to the stakeholders, while at the same time providing detailed

documentation of the decisions made during the AR preliminary planning process. This is

unique and different from most traditional programming documents and reflects the approach of

the AR method.

The RFP included information developed during the AR process between the CDCP and

LCoL participants, and it also states that the design team is required to verify the contents of the

CDCP program. The document also includes the FP&C's traditional format for programming

university campus buildings. Sections within the RDP were devoted to the master plan for the

College of Law, a space needs assessment, site analysis, programming list of the spaces (gross

and net square footages for each specific area), utilities impact analysis, information technology

requirements, building codes, university building standards, proposed project schedule, and

budgetary funds.

The architectural program by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates was different from both the

CDCP and the RFP. An "Executive Summary" at the beginning of the document provided a

synopsis of the programming requirements for the whole LCoL and benchmarked the LCoL to









other similar law schools. The programming section for the LIC, presented tables of net and

gross square footage requirements for each department and space within that department. Some

FF&E requirements were included in the tables. Following the space requirement tables was a

section that included adjacency diagrams for the whole LIC and for each individual department.

Appendix D is a chart of the items, user needs and preferences, that were recorded after

the content analysis of the CDCP preliminary program. By cross checking and tabulating each

program and the building to this checklist, a quantitative assessment was made of how much of

the preliminary AR program was evident in the other planning documents and in the final

building design. The net square footages that are included in each programming document were

also compared to the CDCP preliminary program to determine how much of the information

from the preliminary AR planning phase transformed and changed during each subsequent

phase. Measurements of the final building were taken using a laser tape measure and were

recorded in order to conduct comparisons between the final building to the programming

documents.

Staff and Student Satisfaction with the Newly Renovated LIC

Two surveys were administered, one for the LIC staff and one for the LCoL students.

Each survey had the same purpose but was tailored to the research participants. The staff

surveys assessed each individual's level of satisfaction with their personal workspace and the

public areas within the LIC. The student surveys assessed their level of satisfaction with the

study areas and meeting rooms ant the public areas of the LIC.

This study considered and expanded upon the synthesized habitability framework

developed by Preiser (1983) and Vischer (1989), among others, for conducting post-occupancy

evaluations (Preiser & Vischer, 2005, p. 5). Their framework consists of the 1) Technical:

health, safety and security performance; 2) Functional: efficiency and work flow performance;









and 3) Behavioral: psychological, social, cultural, and aesthetic performance (Preiser, et. al.,

2005, p.5). Technical performance of a building relates to building codes and life safety

standards. Functional performance relates to "state-of-the-art knowledge about building types

and systems" such as guidelines that are published in Time-Saver Standards: Architectural

Design Data (1997) by Crosbie, Callender, Watson, & Baerman. (Preiser, 2005, p. 5).

Behavioral performance relates to the research-based design guidelines, such as social

interaction, privacy, sense of community, and sense of belonging (Preiser, W. 1988).

This study significantly modified the habitability framework to include the specific

contextual goals of the LCoL evaluation and the AR approach. Figure 3-9 outlines this study's

Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework. Four categories of building performance

dimensions are the basis for determining user satisfaction with the LCoL building design. The

dimensions included under Technical and Functional were influenced by Preiser and Vischer.

However, the Psychological category is now renamed from Behavioral to reflect the specific

contextual focus and process. Ambient was added to the new framework. This category is

integral to the LCoL user satisfaction since it is includes dimensions that interior designers used

while producing LCoL designs. These ambient dimensions were selected to capture and reflect

the character and values of the organization. Researchers outside the interior design field

sometimes overlook ambient dimensions. Ambient dimensions can be found in the appearance

of the architectural elements, interior finishes and materials, as well as the overall architectural

language and style of the spaces.

By using the AR Subjective Assessment Framework numerous dimensions within each

category were evaluated. One of the objectives of this study was to gauge the user satisfaction

for each category, as well as their overall satisfaction with the building. Therefore, the











dimensions within each category were tabulated and combined to assess user satisfaction for the


respective category. For example, user satisfaction with the lighting, acoustics, and thermal


quality of the LIC were combined to assess Technical satisfaction.






TECHNICAL DIMENSIONS

Lighting
Acoustics
Secutiry
Fire Safety
ADA
Tiqrrr.il Qu.~hr.


ACTION RESEARCH
SUBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK


PSYCHOLOGICAL
DIMMENSIONS

Prvacy
Interaction
Sense of Place
Sense of Ownership
Sense of Securitn
Sense of Community


AMBIENT DIMENSIONS

Interior Finishes & Style
Architectural Elements
Sense of Exposure
Variety of Spaces





Figure 3-9. Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework of User Satisfaction.


The survey instrument for both the staff and students included modified questions from


the following resources:


* A survey developed by the Research Center for Architecture and Urban Design
Technology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil that assesses users' opinions about their
working environment (Preiser & Vischer, 2005, pp. 218 -225).3


* The Center for the Built Environment's Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality survey,
which assesses users' satisfaction and productivity within their working environment. The



3 "Readers are encouraged to test these tools in their own settings, and to compare them with methods developed and
published elsewhere (Prieser & Vischer, 2005, p. 209). The editors of Assessing Building Performance (2005),
Preiser & Vischer included surveys that they had collected from various researchers and added them as an appendix.
This quote is from the introduction to the appendix, encouraging other researchers to use the surveys and to share
the information with other practioners.


FUNCTIONAL
DIMENSIONS

Layout
Circulation
Furnishings
in relation to tasks
Ergonomics









CBE is affiliated with the College of Environmental Design at University of California
Berkeley (http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm)

Refer to Appendix E, which demonstrates how the surveys were developed and which source

provided the structure of certain questions. Other survey questions were developed after

thorough consideration of what was included in the programming documents. All of the

questions aimed to follow the AR Subjective Assessment Framework, as well as, the theoretical

framework developed by Preiser and Vischer. In developing the surveys, this study utilized tools

that have been tested and demonstrated reliability. However, this study also intended to build

upon past research and attempt to discover ways to improve upon it. It was also necessary to

modify the survey instruments and add to them in order to answer this case study's research

questions.

There were 60 questions for the student survey and 67 questions for the staff survey. The

staff survey can be referred to in Appendix F and the student survey can be referred to in

Appendix G. The web-based survey was created using http://www.SurveyMonkey.com. The

main objective of the survey was to assess user satisfaction; therefore, the majority of the

questions were on a seven-point rating scale ranging from "Very Satisfied" to "Very

Dissatisfied." Open-ended questions were also included to obtain any additional comments that

the participants wanted to express. Other information obtained included demographics, time

spent in the LIC, and type of usage. Participants were also asked a series of questions to

determine their level of participation in the planning and programming process for the LIC. At

the end of the survey, participants were asked to check which areas of the LIC were in need of

improvement, if any.









In-depth Interviews with Key Participants

Unstructured interviews "explore all the alternatives in order to pick up information,

define areas of importance that might not have been thought of ahead of time, and allow the

respondent to take the lead to a greater extent" (Sommer, 2002, p. 114). An in-depth interview is

a form of an unstructured interview, which allows the interviewer "to follow the respondent's

answers with a request for more information at an increasing level of depth" (Sommer, 2002,

p.114).

With this technique, stories and experiences were collected to gain a deeper

understanding of the planning process. The sessions lasted approximately thirty to forty-five

minutes in the participant's private office. The participant was sent an email that briefed them

about the research and asked if they would participate (Appendix H). At the beginning of the

interview, the research participant was asked to sign a consent form granting permission to tape-

record the interview. Only a few questions were asked during the session to keep the participant

actively engaged or to clarify any points discussed. Examples of some of these questions are the

following:

* Describe the process of working with the group from the College of Design, Construction,
and Planning. How did the relationship come about? How did it change? What was your
role?

* Do you remember any times when you felt your ideas were being ignored or you were not
able to express them?

* How did you involve the rest of the staff? How did you involve the students?

* How did you select the architects? How was the transition working going from working
with the faculty and students of the CDCP to working with the selected architects?

* Do you feel that the project with the CDCP was helpful to the final building design?

Other questions were not prepared but rather they were an impromptu reaction to what the

participant was saying in order to make clarifications or to keep the interview flowing while









maintaining the focus and objective of the interview. Later, the tape-recording was transcribed

and the participant had the option to make any corrections, changes, or omissions to the final

transcript.

Limitations

This study encountered several limitations. First, it was not possible to contact any of the

students that were originally involved in the AR planning process in the year 2000 to discuss

their involvement and satisfaction with the process. Although, their insights could be valuable to

this study's findings the current students still follow similar activities as the students who

participated in the planning of the LIC. Therefore, quality of the findings remains reliable.

Second, there were changes among the LIC staff, so it was difficult to find many staff members

that were actively involved in the AR planning and designing process between the years 2000 -

2004. However, the job tasks and duties of the departments and their staff has remained

basically the same. Third, due to lack in time and resources, a pilot study of the survey

instruments was not conducted prior to actual implementation.

Summary

This chapter discussed the case study's research methodology, explaining the multi-

method approach to assess user satisfaction with the Legal Information Center and satisfaction

with the new AR planning paradigm. The study was divided into three distinct parts: 1) Content

analysis and comparison of the CDCP preliminary program, the RFP, the TK&A program, and

the final building, 2) Surveys of users to determine satisfaction with the LIC, and 3) Interviews

with key participants' to ascertain satisfaction and assessment with the planning and design

process. Details of how research questions were answered have been provided, as well as an

explanation of why the methods were chosen. The research setting has been described to provide

the reader a context. The method for choosing the research participants, the survey instruments,









and an explanation of how they were created has been discussed. In addition, the in-depth

interviews have been discussed with an explanation of how they will be used in the study.









CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

The purpose of this case study is to determine if action research was a successful tool in

the planning of the Legal Information Center on the University of Florida campus. What are the

benefits and limitations of employing action research methods to create new spaces? Is it worth

the time and effort? This is a case study--an evaluation of one building that did use action

research methods. Its purpose is not to determine concretely if AR should be used in every

project. It is to explore how successful it was in this project. In doing that, the research focused

on three questions: first the RFP, the final architectural program, and the actual building were

compared to determine how much of the user's needs in the CDCP preliminary program were

carried through; next, user satisfaction with the LIC was ascertained by conducting surveys; and

lastly, in-depth unstructured interviews were conducted with key participants in the AR planning

process to learn more about the process and to gauge their level of satisfaction with the process.

Analyzing and Comparing the Preliminary AR Program

Research question one: Did the AR approach produce a robust program? Was the
information included in the preliminary programming document evident in the Requestfor
Proposals (RFP) by the University of Florida's Facilities Construction and Planning office, in
the final architectural program by the project architects, and in the final building? If so, how
much?

This portion of the study focused on tabulating and comparing how much of the

documented programming information (i.e. user needs, square footage requirements) from the

AR partnership between the CDCP and the LCoL group was evident in the two programming

documents, the RFP prepared by UF's Facilities Construction and Planning office and the final

architectural program prepared by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates (TK&A). In addition, how much

was evident in the final measured building plans and observed characteristics in the physical

building. As discussed in Chapter 3, the results of the comparison were tabulated by totaling the









items (users' needs) in the preliminary AR program to compare them with the other two

documents, the final building plans, and the actual LIC building (Refer to Appendix D). For

example, some of the items listed in the CDCP program for the student meeting areas included

data/power access, moveable furniture, and outside views. These items were then compared to

the other two documents and the final building to determine if these requests from the users

actually became a reality.

Table 4-1. Comparisons with the CDCP Program's 110 Items.
RFP TK&A LIC
n % n % n %
Collection Services 21 84.00 10 40.00 23 92.00
Public Services:
Study Areas 17 89.47 4 21.05 9 47.36
Circulation Desk 24 82.70 3 10.00 25 86.00
Reference Desk 22 95.60 6 26.00 19 82.60
Book stacks 10 100.00 4 40.00 10 100.00
Microfilm area 4 100.00 4 100.00 4 100.00

Total 98 89.09 31 28.18 90 81.81
n = items from the CDCP preliminary program that are evident
RFP = Request for Proposals document by UF's Facilities Planning and Construction office
TK&A = Tsoi/Kobus architectural final architectural program
LIC = Legal Information Center building.

Using the structure of the CDCP program, or preliminary AR program, as a reference, the

results are organized by the main areas of the LIC, Collection Services and Public Services.

Collection Services is one area on its own with no sub-areas, while Public Services is comprised

of five distinct sub-areas which include the Circulation Desk, the Reference Desk, the Study

Areas, the Book stacks, and the Microfilm Area. Table 4-1 shows how many of the user needs in

the CDCP program were found in each area and sub-area according to each programming

document and in the actual building and final building plans. The program comparison included

110 items from the CDCP preliminary program.









Based upon the results, the RFP included 89% of the items listed in the CDCP program.

Most of the items were included in the document verbatim. In addition, the RFP states that the

architect must conduct a thorough review of the CDCP during the program verification and

master planning phase of the project. In contrast, the architectural program created by

Tsoi/Kobus only includes 28.18% of the CDCP program items. It was imperative to the study to

find out why only a fraction of the information from the CDCP was included in the final

architectural program by TK&A. Therefore, the architectural project manager was contacted for

explanation, who stated the following:

Yes, we did refer to the [CDCP] document during the design process. Its biggest use was
to prompt us to ask questions about what their real needs were. We also referred back to it
to see if the initial thoughts about the project held true, or evolved.

The design team of the LIC used the actual CDCP document rather than repeat its contents into

their document. Their document, "Levin College of Law Final Programming Study" included

a summary of the gross and net square footages for the specific spaces within the LIC, adjacency

diagrams, and benchmarking (square footage comparison to other university law libraries).

Unlike the RFP and the CDCP program, which both included a detailed narration of

programming requirements as well as a listing of space square footage requirements, the "Final

Programming Study" was comprised mainly of square footages and supportive graphical

information. Based upon the project manager's comment and the RFP's requirement for the

architect to review the CDCP program, it is safe to conclude that the information in the CDCP

program was utilized during the design process.

Finally, in the researcher's observations of the final building, it was found that 81% of the

spaces in the final measured building were the same as those requested in the CDCP program.

This is a significant finding for this study. During the preliminary planning phase, the CDCP

group encouraged the faculty, staff, and students to dream about what they wanted for their new









library facility, as well as for the whole College of Law. This strong verification of what was

dreamt (CDCP preliminary program) and what actually became a reality should have a positive

impact on the satisfaction of the users. If the participants in the planning process represented the

users who currently occupy the space, it should be possible to test whether or not and how much

they are satisfied with the final building. Therefore, the results from the user satisfaction surveys

are necessary to validate this finding.

The net square footages (NSF) of each program document, the final building plans, and

on-site measurements were examined and compared. Table 4-2 shows the NSF listed in each

programming document and the measurements of the LIC. In addition, the differences between

those measurements and the NSF from the CDCP program are shown. The RFP was 29,212

NSF less than the CDCP program. The TK&A program was 2,697 NSF less than the CDCP

program. Based upon the measurements from the building plans and measurements taken on-

site, the LIC is 21,280 NSF less than the CDCP program.

Table 4-2. Comparisons of the Net Square Footages of the Programs and the Building.
CDCP RFP TK&A LIC
NSF NSF DIFF NSF DIFF NSF DIFF
Collection Services 6,775 6,720 (55) 2,619 (4,156) 1,821 (4,954)

Public Services: 56,872 23,930 (32,942) 54,100 (2,772) 34,024 (22,848)
Study Areas & Book
stacks
Circulation Desk & 3,585 3,605 20 3,786 201 3,761 176
Reserve Room
Reference areas 2,075 5,520 3,445 6,335 4,260 8,050 5,975
Administrative suite 1,070 1,390 320 840 (230) 1,441 371

Total 70,377 41,165 29,212 67,680 2,697 49,097 21,280
CDCP = College of Design, Construction & Planning preliminary program
DIFF = Difference
NSF = Net square footages
Note: Items in parenthesis under the DIFF column indicates a negative difference while items
not in parenthesis indicate a positive difference.









Based upon these results, the TK&A program incorporated a high percentage (96 %) of

the proposed NSF as stated in the CDCP program. The RFP incorporated 59% of the NSF

proposed by the CDCP program. The final LIC building incorporated 69.8% of the NSF

proposed by the CDCP program.

Analyzing the data, it is evident that the TK&A program took square footage away from

Collection Services (4,156 NSF) and may have re-allocated that space to the Reference Area

(4,260 NSF). Another significant difference is that the CDCP program allocated 2,075 NSF for

the Reference Areas. The RFP program increased this to 5,520 NSF, which is 266% more than

the CDCP program. The TK&A program increased this area to 6,335 NSF, which is 305% more

than the CDCP program. The final building ended up with 8,050 NSF for the Reference Area,

which is 390% more than the CDCP program.

However, one of the most significant findings is that the difference in NSF allocation for

the Study Areas and Book stacks. The CDCP program stated that 56,872 NSF is needed for the

Study Areas and the Book stacks. In contrast, the RFP stated that 23,930 NSF is needed, which is

significantly 42% less than the CDCP program. In the end, the final LIC ended up with 34,024

NSF in the Study Areas and the Book stacks, which is still 60% less than the CDCP program.

Changes and differences in the NSF allocation is to be expected, especially since the

project went through three planning/designing phases with three different groups, the CDCP,

UF's FP&C, and the architects TK&A and Ponikvar & Associates. The CDCP group adopted

the calculation methods for determining NSF from the FP&C office. However, the FP&C may

have modified some of the square footages to reflect changes in user needs and requirements or

university regulations. The architects utilized benchmarking, as well as expected student

enrollment, to determine the NSF by comparing the LIC to other similar university law libraries.









In addition, there was a change in leadership within the College of Law library. Betty

Taylor, the former library Director, retired at the beginning of the planning and design process

with TK&A. Kathy Price, who had previous experience with law library renovations and

construction, became the new Director. Her perspective may have also been a contributing

factor to the changes with both the NSF and the incorporation of certain user needs.

Furthermore, at the time of the AR partnership between the CDCP and the LCoL, a budget for

the LIC did not exist. One of the main reasons for involving the CDCP was to attract donors and

to convince the university to be aware that the need for a new law library was imminent. Further

explanation of these contributing factors to the planning process will be discussed later in this

chapter in "Exploring the Planning Process through In-Depth Unstructured Interviews."

One important factor to recognize about this planning process was the continuum of using

the action research process. The plan for the Legal Information Center went through three

distinct planning processes. The process with the CDCP utilized "plan-act-observe-reflect." The

Facilities Planning and Construction's planning process contributed to the planning process as

well by "reflecting" upon the CDCP programming document to then plan their RFP, produce it,

and then release it to architects to bid on. The architects repeated the same process and took it to

the next stage with the final product. This study contributes to the final stage of the action

research process by conducting a POE that "reflects" on and evaluates the final building and

process.

User Satisfaction Surveys

Research question two: Did the AR approach capture the needs, values, andpreferences
of the both user groups, staff and students, in relation to the LIC? Is there a difference in
satisfaction levels between staff and students?

This portion of the study used two very similar questionnaires that were tailored to both

user groups--LIC staff and LCoL students. Appendices F and G include both of the surveys. Of









the 23 staff members of the LIC, 15 responded. A total of 114 law students responded to the

student survey with four respondent surveys being omitted due to incomplete answers. The

surveys assessed their satisfaction with the final building design 18 months after being occupied.

Data Analysis

Table 4-3. Categories and Dimensions of the AR Framework.
Technical Functional Psychological Ambient
Lighting Layout Privacy Interior finishes/style
Acoustics Circulation Interaction Architectural elements
Security Wayfinding Sense of place Sense of exposure
Fire Safety Furnishings in Sense of ownership Variety of spaces
ADA relation to job task Sense of security
Thermal Quality Sense of community

The survey data analysis was done to determine if the two user groups were satisfied with

the LIC building. Both of the survey instruments contained four main categories: technical,

functional, psychological and ambient. These categories included dimensions used to define

them. For instance, technical consisted of questions that pertained to the lighting, acoustics, and

thermal quality of the LIC in order to determine if a research participant was satisfied with the

technical aspects. Table 4-3 outlines the specific dimensions within the Action Research

Subjective Assessment Framework that were included in the surveys.

In order to ensure the reliability of the survey instrument, the dimensions were tested for

inter-item reliability by obtaining alpha ratings using Cronbach's alpha. This test measures

reliability of the dimensions in producing consistent results (Blaikie, 2003). An alpha value

more than 0.80 indicates consistency among the dimensions, while an alpha rating less than 0.80

is not considered reliable. Table 4-4 shows the results from the reliability test that was done

using SPSS, a statistical software program. All dimensions in each survey were found to show

consistency in reporting since all categories exceeded the alpha threshold.









Table 4-4. Alpha Ratings of Categories of Dimensions.
Staff Survey Student Survey
Categories n Alpha n Alpha
Technical 12 0.81 9 0.85
Functional 23 0.94 36 0.96
Ambient 15 0.96 10 0.92
Psychological 6 0.89 5 0.88
Total 56 0.96 55 0.97
n = number of items tested for each dimension.


LIC Staff Demographics & Workspace Descriptors

The sample of participants for the staff survey consisted of 15 individuals from the three

departments of the LIC: Public Services, Technical Services and Administration. The

participants answered a series of demographic questions (i.e., gender and age). In addition,

specific questions about their workspace included the amount of time they have occupied their

new workspace, how much time they spend in their workspace and what type of workspace they

occupy (i.e. personal office, cubicle, etc.)


Time spent in new workspace
0 1 2 months
0 3 6 months
S7 12 months
0 19+ months








Figure 4-1. Time Staff Has Occupied New Workspace.

Thirteen of the staff was female and two were male. Three of the staff were between the

ages of 20-35, five were between the ages of 36-49, and seven were between the ages of 50-65.

The staff respondents were also asked to report how long they have been working at University

of Florida. Nine of the staff have been at the LIC for less than five years, therefore they most









likely did not participate in the planning process. Six of the staff have been there for more than

five years, including five staff members who have worked there for more than twenty years.

The amount of time that the staff has occupied their new workspace is illustrated in

Figure 4-1. Based upon their answers, eleven of the staff has been in their new workspace for

over a year. Only one has been in their new workspace for 1-2 months. Figure 4-2 illustrates

how much time the staff spends in their workspace during a typical week. Eleven of the staff

members reported that they spend the majority of their work week (over 30 hours) in their

workspace.


Hours staff spends in workspace
during a typical week:
20 30 hours
0 More than 30 hours










Figure 4-2. Hours Staff Uses Workspace.

Of the staff that participated in this survey, only three reported that they were involved in

the planning process for the LIC (see Figure 4-4). However, based upon the results of how long

the staff has been working at the library, only six of the survey respondents would have been

working at the LIC at the time of the planning sessions. Three of those survey participants

reported being a part of the AR planning process.











Staff description of workspace:
0 Enclosed private office
0 Cubicle with high partitions (5ft or higher)
0 Cubicle with low partitions (less than 5 ft)










Figure 4-3. Staff Description of Workspace.

LIC Staff Satisfaction: Participation (Questions 11 21)




Staff participation in the planning of the
Legal Information Center:
0 Pre-liminary programming with the CDCP
U Planning and programming with the architects
Was not involved in the planning process









Figure 4-4. Staff Participation in the Planning Process.

LIC Staff Satisfaction: Technical Dimensions(Questions 22 31)

The survey asked the participants to respond to a series of questions about the technical

aspects of the building and to rate their satisfaction with these on a 7-point scale, ranging from

1.00 meaning "Very Satisfied" to 7.00 meaning "Very Dissatisfied." A mean score between 1 -

2.5 is considered "very satisfied." A mean score between 2.6 4.5 is considered "moderately

satisfied." A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered "very unsatisfied." Table 4-5 shows

the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were









analyzed, including lighting, lighting control, acoustics, security, fire safety, ADA, and thermal

quality.

Table 4-5. Staff Satisfaction with Technical Dimensions.
Staff
Technical n M SD

Fire safety 14 1.79 1.05
ADA 14 2.21 0.89
Thermal: Temperature, humidity, 14 2.52 1.25
and odors
Security 14 2.59 1.32
Lighting: Natural, task, and ambient 14 2.82 1.87
Acoustics: Background, privacy, and 13 3.54 1.73
disruptions
Lighting: Control 14 3.98 2.23

Overall 14 2.76 0.90

The staff (n = 14) were very satisfied with fire safety (M= 1.79, SD = 1.05) and access for

the physically disabled, ADA, measures (M= 2.221, SD = 0.89) for the building. The staff

reported (n = 14) that they are moderately satisfied (M= 2.59, SD = 1.32) with security in their

work area, including security of personal belongings and storage areas for their department.

Another dimension in which the staff (n=14) reported being very satisfied with is the thermal

quality (M= 2.52, SD = 1.25) of the building, including temperature, humidity, and odors.

For lighting, the staff (n = 14) were moderately satisfied with their workspace's natural,

task, and ambient lighting (M= 2.82, SD = 1.87). Two participants commented about the

overhead artificial lighting and how it causes glare. "My office has no windows or natural light,

and the overhead lighting, which I have no control over, causes glare." "Two of the four light

panels in my office have burned out and so I no longer have to look into lights when I'm

working at my computer. There was a lot of glare when all four panels were working." In

addition, the staff (n = 14) reported that they were moderately satisfied with the amount of

control they have over the lighting in their workspace (M = 3.98, SD = 2.23).









Satisfaction with acoustics in their work area included their satisfaction ratings for

background noise (voices, noise from air ducts, etc.), acoustical privacy (ability to have a private

conversation, etc.), and acoustical disruptions (loud copiers, other conversations, etc.). The staff

(n = 13) were moderately satisfied with the acoustics in their work area (M= 3.54, SD = 1.73).

One participant included these comments:

My huge window overlooks the courtyard and is right by the front door. Outside is a nice
flat trashcan, just the right size to plop books on while talking on a cell phone. So, the
shades (which took awhile to acquire) are constantly closed. But I can still hear the
conversations in my office. At the Reference Desk, students exit the main reading room to
have their cell phone conversations in the lobby. So, no matter where I am, I hear one-
sided conversations.

Due to the location of this staff person's office, they are subjected to many acoustical

disruptions.

In conclusion, all of these technical dimensions were combined to reveal that the staff (n =

14) were moderately satisfied with the technical aspects of the LIC, with a combined mean score

of 2.76 (SD = 0.90).

LIC Staff Satisfaction: Functional Dimensions(Questions 32 48)

Table 4-6 shows the results of the staff satisfaction with the functional dimensions of the

LIC. The staff (n = 14) reported that they were very satisfied with most of the dimensions

within their work area, including: the size and arrangement of their workspace (M = 1.64, SD =

0.74), their workspace furnishings (M= 2.32, SD = 1.32), storage within their work area (M=

2.35, SD = 1.16), their staff meeting room (M= 1.75, SD = 1.05), the entrance into their

workspace area (M= 1.79, SD = 0.98), and circulation through their work area (M= 2.50, SD =

1.38.

Satisfaction with the layout of their workspace is reported under "Layout: Work area,"

and includes their satisfaction ratings about the distance between their workspace and other areas









of activity in which they are involved (sorting area, copy room, etc.), distance between

themselves and their supervisor, distance between themselves and their co-workers, and the

overall layout with their department's work area. The staff (n = 14) reported being very satisfied

with the layout of their work area (M= 2.03, SD = 1.02).

Satisfaction with the layout of the whole LIC is reported under "Layout: Whole

building," and includes their satisfaction ratings about the location of storage areas, meeting

rooms, printing/copy areas, toilet rooms, stairways, elevators, and their personal work area. The

staff (n = 14) were satisfied with the building's layout (M= 2.18, SD = 0.92).

The staff (n = 14) were also very satisfied with the main entrance to the LIC (M= 2.14,

SD = 1.35), as well as, the layout (M= 2.18, SD = 0.92) and the circulation (M= 1.79, SD =

0.89) of the whole building

Table 4-6. Staff Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions.
Staff
Functional n M SD

Size & arrangement of workspace 14 1.64 0.74
Staff meeting room 14 1.75 1.05
Circulation: Whole building 14 1.79 0.89
Entrance to staff work area 14 1.79 0.98
Layout: Work area 14 2.03 1.02
Main entrance 14 2.14 1.35
Layout: Whole building 14 2.18 0.92
Furnishings 14 2.32 1.32
Work area storage 14 2.35 1.16
Circulation: Staff work area 12 2.50 1.38
Wayfinding 14 2.71 1.86

OVERALL 14 2.11 0.84

In conclusion, all of these functional dimensions were tallied to determine the staff s

overall satisfaction with the functional dimensions of the LIC and of their workspace. The staff

were very satisfied overall with the functional dimensions (M= 2.11, SD = 0.84).









LIC Staff Satisfaction: Ambient Dimensions (Questions 49 56)

For the ambient aspects of the building, the staff (n = 14) reported that they were very

satisfied. Table 4-7 shows their satisfaction ratings for the ambient aspects. Satisfaction with

the finishes of their workspace included ratings about the colors, surface materials, flooring

materials, furnishings, and overall interior style. The staff (n = 14) was very satisfied with the

interior finishes of their work area (M= 1.89, SD = 0.88). The staff were also asked to rate the

same criteria for the public spaces of the LIC. The staff (n = 14) was very satisfied with the

interior finishes of the public spaces (M= 2.00, SD = 0.97). Architectural elements included

staff satisfaction ratings of some of the more prominent elements of the LIC, the interior atrium

at the entrance, the exterior building style, the courtyard, large windows and views, and the

connection to other buildings. The staff (n = 14) was very satisfied with these dimensions (M=

2.14, SD = 1.12).

Table 4-7. Staff Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions.
Staff
Ambient n M SD

Interior finishes: 14 1.89 0.88
Staff work area
Interior finishes: Public areas 14 2.00 0.97
Architectural elements 14 2.14 1.12
Overall 14 2.01 0.93

The survey also asked the staff to rate how well the building supports certain ambient

dimensions. Table 4-8 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific

dimensions that were analyzed. The results of these findings use the same scale. A mean score

between 1 2.5 is considered "very well supported." A mean score between 2.6 4.5 is

considered "moderately supported." A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered "very

poorly supported." These dimensions were not included in the combined calculation for user









satisfaction with ambient aspects of the building since they do not directly ask for users to rate

their satisfaction, but instead ask them to offer their opinion.

"Exposure" represents how well the LIC allows for easy supervision of the students

without the sense of them feeling exposed. The staff (n =13) reported that the LIC supports this

dimension moderately well (M= 3.00, SD = 2.04). The staff reported that the other ambient

dimensions were supported very well.

"Variety of spaces" represents how well the LIC supports many different spaces within

the library, ranging from open areas to alcoves of semiprivate activity. The staff (n =13)

reported that the LIC supports many different areas very well (M= 2.00, SD = 1.16). "Intimate

areas" represents how well the LIC supports areas that have a sense of intimacy within the

overall public setting. The staff (n =14) reported that the LIC supports intimate areas very well

(M= 2.07, SD = 0.98). "Reading areas" represents how well the LIC supports a wide variety of

reading areas to suit the users' mood or environment needs. The staff (n =14) reported that the

LIC supports a variety of reading areas very well (M = 2.07, SD = 1.41). "Understand areas

purpose" represents how well the LIC supports a clear understanding of the general purpose of

each area within the library. The staff (n = 14) reported that the LIC supports this dimension

very well (M= 2.50, SD = 1.09). Finally, "Visible staff" represents how well the LIC supports

visible staff area so that information, services, and people are brought together. The staff (n =

14) reported that the LIC supports visible staff areas very well (M= 2.21, SD = 1.52). Overall,

the staff (n = 14) reported that the LIC supports these ambient dimensions very well (M= 2.32,

SD = 1.05).

Question 53 included a quote from the RFP and the staff was asked to rate how well the

LIC supports the statement. The statement was the following: "The new facility should serve as









[the College of Law's] 'best foot forward' by conveying an impressive and first-class image to

current and prospective students, visiting faculty and distinguished lawyers and justices, alumni

and members of the legal community and other benefactors." The staff (n = 14) reported the

LIC supports this statement very well (M= 2.21, SD = 1.25).

Table 4-8. Staff Opinion on LIC Ambient dimensions.
Staff
Ambient n M SD
Variety of spaces 13 2.00 1.16
Intimate areas 14 2.07 0.98
Reading areas 14 2.07 1.41
Visible staff 14 2.21 1.52
Understanding areas purpose 14 2.50 1.09
Exposure 13 3.00 2.04
Overall 14 2.32 1.05

Question 54 asked the staff to rate how well the LIC symbolically expresses the

important values of knowledge and learning. The staff (n = 14) reported the LIC symbolically

expresses these values very well (M= 2.07, SD = 1.27).

LIC Staff Satisfaction: Psychological Dimensions(Questions 57 62)

For the psychological aspects of the building, the staff (n = 14) was very satisfied (M=

2.49, SD = 1.24). Table 4-9 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the

specific dimensions that were analyzed.

Table 4-9. Staff Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions.
Staff
Psychological n M SD

Sense of community 13 1.92 0.95
Sense of ownership 14 1.93 1.07
Sense of place 14 2.07 1.20
Sense of security 14 2.29 1.27
Interact with others 13 2.86 1.80
Interact with other departments 14 2.86 1.92
Privacy 14 3.21 1.84

Overall 14 2.49 1.24









The staff (n = 14) reported that they are moderately satisfied with the privacy of their

new work area (M= 3.21, SD = 1.84) under "Privacy." "Interact with others" represents how

satisfied they are with the ease of interaction with others. The staff (n 13) was moderately

satisfied (M= 2.86, SD = 1.80). The staff (n = 14) was also moderately satisfied with the ease of

interaction with other departments (M= 2.86, SD = 1.92). In contrast, the staff (n = 14) reported

that they were very satisfied with sense of place (M= 2.07, SD = 1.20) and sense of security (M

= 2.29, SD = 1.27), sense of ownership (M= 1.93, SD = 1.07), and sense of community (M=

1.92, SD = 0.95).

Table 4-10. Staff Opinion on LIC Psychological Dimensions.
Staff
n M SD
Share information quickly with 14 2.00 0.96
co-workers
Productivity 14 2.00 0.96
Personal Space 14 2.29 1.07
Ability to concentrate 14 2.36 1.08
Coordinate tasks with other 14 2.64 1.22
Work team projects 14 2.79 1.84
Awareness of others' tasks 14 3.71 1.98
Overall 14 2.71 1.31

A series of questions asked for the staff to rate how supportive the LIC was of certain

psychological dimensions. The results are show in Table 4-10. The results of these findings use

the same scale. A mean score between 1 2.5 is considered "very well supported." A mean

score between 2.6 4.5 is considered "moderately supported." A mean score between 4.6 7.00

is considered "very poorly supported." Similar to the ambient dimensions that use this same

scale, these psychological dimensions were not included in the combined calculation for user

satisfaction with psychological aspects of the building since they do not directly ask for users to

rate their satisfaction, but instead ask them to offer their opinion.









The staff (n =14) reported that the LIC supported the following activities very well:

ability to concentrate when needed (M= 2.36, SD = 1.08), feeling productive at work (M= 2.00,

SD = 0.96), ability to share information quickly with co-workers (M= 2.00, SD = 0.96), and the

ability to define personal space (M= 2.29, SD = 1.07). The staff (n = 14) reported that the LIC

supported the following dimensions moderately well: ability to be aware of what others are

working on (M= 3.71, SD = 1.98), ability to work on team projects (M= 2.79, SD = 1.84), and

ability to coordinate tasks with others (M= 2.64, SD = 1.22). Overall, the staff (n = 14) is feels

that the LIC supports these psychological dimensions moderately well (M= 2.71, SD = 1.31).

LIC Staff Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 63 67)

In conclusion, the staff were asked to rate their satisfaction with their personal workspace

and with the LIC overall. Table 4-11 shows these results. Question 65 asked them how satisfied

they are with their work environment and the staff (n = 14) reported that they are very satisfied

(M= 2.07, SD = 0.83). Question 66 asked them how satisfied they are with the building overall

and the staff (n = 14) reported that they are very satisfied (M= 2.36, SD = 0.93). The overall

satisfaction ratings for each category, technical, functional, ambient and psychological, were

combined to calculate an overall average of staff satisfaction with the LIC. The result was very

close to the results from question 66 with the staff (n = 14) reporting that they are very satisfied

(M= 2.40, SD = 0.85). Not only do the means correspond closely, but so do the standard

deviations.

The staff were asked what areas they thought should be improved within the LIC. Table

4-12 shows these results. Three of the respondents reported that they would not improve

anything in the LIC. None of the respondents would change the workstations, the copy room, or

improve the circulation. The layout, furnishings, equipment, and aesthetics categories each









received one vote. Five respondents want to improve the temperature in the LIC. The elevators

were chosen by four respondents. Another four respondents chose privacy.

Table 4-11. Staff Overall Satisfaction with the LIC.
Staff
Overall n M SD
Staff satisfaction with work 14 2.07 0.83
environment
Satisfaction with LIC building 14 2.36 0.93
Technical 14 2.76 0.90
Functional 14 2.11 0.84
Ambient 14 2.22 0.91
Psychological 14 2.49 1.24

Overall combined satisfaction 14 2.40 0.85

4-12. Staff Recommendations for LIC Improvements.
Staff
Improvement n
Work Stations 0
Copy room 0
Circulation 0
Aesthetics 1
Layout 1
Furnishings 1
Equipment 1
Meeting rooms 2
Ventilation 2
Lighting 2
Noise levels 2
Toilet rooms 2
Wayfinding 2
Stairways 2
Storage 3
None 3
Elevators 4
Temperature 5
Privacy 4

LIC Student Demographics & LIC Usage

The sample of participants for the student survey consisted of 114 law students. The

participants answered a series of demographic questions (i.e., gender and age). In addition,










specific questions (questions 7 9) addressed how often they use the LIC, what activities they

participate inside the LIC, and what areas they typically occupy in the LIC.

About 45 % (n = 52) of the students were female and 52% (n = 60) were male. Most

of the students (n = 107) were between the ages of 20-35 (98%). The student respondents were

also asked to report how long they have been studying or working at University of Florida.

Table 4-13 shows that there is the range among the students with 35% (n = 39) having been at

UF less than one year, 24% (n = 27) having been at UF for one to two years, 27% (n = 30)

having been at UF for three to five years and 13% (n = 14) having been at UF for six to ten

years.

Table 4-13. Students' Years at University of Florida.
Students
Years n %
Less than 1 yr 39 35.14
1 2 yrs 27 24.32
3 5 yrs 30 27.03
6- 10 yrs 14 12.61
Total 110 97.37


7.34% 1.83%
n=8 n=2 During a typical week, how
n=4
working or studying in the LIC?
37.61%
n=41 U Less than 5 hours U 26 to 35 hours
*5 to 10 hours Mobre than 35 hours
24.77% E 11 to 25 hours ] I never use the library
n=27





24.77%
n=27


Figure 4-5. Time Students Spend in the LIC.









The amount of time per week that students typically spend in the LIC is illustrated in

Figure 4-5. Based upon their answers, 38% (n = 41) spend less than five hours in the LIC. 25%

(n = 27) spend five to ten hours and another 25% (n = 27) spend eleven to twenty-five hours a

week.

Table 4-14 shows those activities that the students typically participate in while at the

LIC. The number one activity is studying with a response of 95% (n = 106). The second most

popular activity is meeting with peers with a response of 52% (n = 58) followed by searching for

books or research materials with a response of 39% (n = 44).

Table 4-14. Student Activities in the LIC.
Students
Activity n %
Studying 106 94.60
Meeting with peers 58 51.80
Searching for 44 39.30
books/research materials
Using computers 39 34.80
Taking a break between 35 31.30
classes
Socializing 21 18.80
Returning books 17 15.20
Meeting with librarians 3 2.70

Table 4-15 shows what areas the students usually use in the LIC. Study carrels is the

most popular area with a response of 61% (n = 68), followed by the O'Connell Reading Room

(57%) and the private meeting rooms (55%).

Table 4-15. Areas Students Typically Use in the LIC.
Students
Area n %
Study carrels 68 61.3
O'Connell Reading Room 63 56.8
Private meeting rooms 61 55.0
Circulation Desk 25 22.5
Tax Graduate study room 18 16.2
Reference Desk 17 15.3









Table 4-15 continued.
Book stacks 16 14.4
Other 12 10.8
Reference Room 11 9.9
Administrative office 1 0.9
Microfilm Area 0 0.0

LIC Student Satisfaction: Technical Dimensions(Questions 21 28)

The survey for the students was similar to the staff survey. It asked the participants to

respond to a series of questions about the various aspects of the building and to rate their

satisfaction with these on a 7-point scale, with 1.00 meaning "Very Satisfied" and 7.00 meaning

"Very Dissatisfied." The satisfaction ratings are reported in the same format as the staff survey

(i.e. very satisfied, moderately satisfied, very dissatisfied).

The student survey included three dimensions under technical, which were lighting,

acoustics, and thermal quality. Table 4-16 shows the overall results from this portion of the

survey. The students (n = 106) were very satisfied with the thermal quality of the building (M=

2.40, SD = 1.22), however they were only moderately satisfied with the lighting (M= 2.86, SD =

1.44) and the acoustics (M= 3.11, SD = 1.41).

A few did comment about it being too cold. "It's too cold! If the temperature was a few

degrees warmer I would prefer it." One research participant recognized the lack of control over

the temperature. "Once, it was sweltering hot in the Reading Room, and some students

complained. Administration personnel came out and said that 'it was out of their control because

the A/C was controlled by UF.' If that's the case, it's not the best management technique."

Many survey participants commented that there was a lack of lighting in the study

carrels. "Study carrels need individual lights." "I think they need to improve the lighting in the

study carrels there isn't enough lighting there." "Study carrels are aligned in a way so that

lighting isn't ideal for each individual carrel."









Table 4-16. Student Satisfaction with the Technical Dimensions.
Students
Technical n M SD
Thermal: Temperature, humidity, and odors 106 2.40 1.22
Lighting: Natural, task, and ambient 107 2.86 1.44
Acoustics: Background, privacy, and disruptions 106 3.11 1.41
Overall 108 2.79 1.06

Satisfaction with acoustics in the LIC is reported under "Acoustics: Background, privacy,

and disruptions," which includes their satisfaction ratings for background noise (voices, noise

from air ducts, etc.), acoustical privacy (ability to have a private conversation, etc.), and

acoustical disruptions (loud copiers, other's conversations, etc.). Many of the student

participants complained about undergraduate students coming in and being disruptive. "The

undergrads create disturbances beyond description." This is not a design flaw, however, one

participant suggests that a separate area should have been created for them. "There should be a

small area where only undergrads should be allowed to study, especially during exam time,

rather than a small area where only law students can study." Other complaints were made about

the meeting rooms. "I've had one experience where my group was asked to be more quiet

because our discussion was inhibiting another group's study in an adjoining meeting room."

"The study rooms are very far from sound proof (maybe they were not designed that way), but

hell, come on, you can hear a pen fall in the adjacent room." Some complained that there are not

any areas to study without noise, and some complained that there needs to be areas where talking

and group study is allowed. "It would be nice if the 'quiet areas' were truly quiet, and there were

more areas where small groups could work together without having to reserve a room." "There

should be a non-quiet area." "I would like it if there were areas that were dedicated to talking or

taking phone calls and areas dedicated to complete silence."









In conclusion, all of these technical dimensions were combined to reveal that the students

(n = 108) were moderately satisfied with the technical aspects of the LIC, reporting M= 2.79,

SD = 1.06, which is similar to the staff's satisfaction ratings (M= 2.76, SD = 0.90).

LIC Student Satisfaction: Functional Dimensions(Questions 29 44)

Table 4-17 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific

dimensions that were analyzed.

The students were very satisfied with five of the functional dimensions that are the

following: the layout of the O'Connell Reading Room (M= 2.48, SD = 1.37), the student

meeting rooms (M= 2.38, SD = 1.21), the circulation through the book stacks (M= 2.48, SD =

1.21), the main entrance (M= 2.49, SD = 1.85), and the ability to find and identify major areas in

the LIC (M= 2.45, SD = 1.05).

Satisfaction with the layout of the whole LIC is reported under "Layout: Whole

building," which includes their satisfaction ratings about the location of storage areas, meeting

rooms, printing/copy areas, toilet rooms, stairways, elevators, and their personal work area. The

students (n = 103) were moderately satisfied with the building's layout (M= 2.96, SD = 1.25).

Satisfaction with the layout of the study areas and the distance between themselves and others is

reported under "Layout: Distance." The students (n = 103) were moderately satisfied (M= 3.13,

SD = 1.80). The students (n = 94) were moderately satisfied with the layout of the book stacks

(M= 2.57, SD = 1.32). Students (n = 103) reported that they were moderately satisfied with

wayfinding through the LIC (M= 2.86, SD = 1.14).

Students (n = 103) were moderately satisfied with the study carrels (M= 2.83, SD = 1.54)

and the furnishings (M= 2.78, SD = 1.48). Students (n = 102) reported that they were

moderately satisfied with the seating options and arrangements in the LIC (M= 2.78, SD = 1.48).

One participant did comment, "there ought to be a place to relax and lay back with pillows." A









few others commented that the furniture should be adjustable. "Chair to study table height is not

quite correct. Adjustable chairs are more comfortable than un-adjustable chairs." "I would like

adjustable-height chairs in the O'Connell Reading Room." Other comments about the furniture

were about lounge type seating. "It would be nice if some of the most comfortable seating (i.e.

the armchairs) was located in areas where some conversation was allowed." "I like the couches

next to be large windows." "Love the leather easy chairs."

Table 4-17. Student Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions.
Students
Functional n M SD

Student meeting rooms 102 2.38 1.21
Ability find and identify major areas in 103 2.45 1.05
the LIC
Layout: O'Connell Reading Room 100 2.48 1.37
Circulation: Bookstacks 99 2.48 1.21
Main entrance 102 2.49 1.85
Circulation: Whole building 102 2.52 1.24
Layout: Book stacks 94 2.57 1.32
Furnishings 103 2.78 1.26
Seating options & arrangements 102 2.78 1.48
Study carrels 103 2.83 1.54
Wayfinding 103 2.86 1.14
Layout: Whole building 103 2.96 1.25
Layout: Distance 103 3.13 1.80
Overall 103 2.72 0.87

Satisfaction with the amount of circulation within book stacks is reported under

"Circulation: Book stacks." The students (n = 99) were very satisfied (M= 2.48, SD = 1.21).

Their satisfaction with the amount of circulation to walk and move throughout the whole

building is reported under "Circulation: Whole building." The students (n = 102) were

moderately satisfied (M= 2.52, SD = 1.24, compared to the staff who were very satisfied (M=

1.79, SD = 0.89). Eighteen participants made comments about the lack of having a second floor

exit. There are a few picture windows that provide transparency between the second floor of the









library and the hallway to the classrooms on the other side. Students who have been studying on

the second floor of the library have to go downstairs, exit the library, go up another flight of

stairs and re-enter the building to be on the other side of the glass so that they can go to class. "I

hate that you can't have access to the library from the second floor. It's really annoying to see

the hallway you need to get to for class from within the library but you still have to walk back

downstairs, outside, and then go back inside the library." Another comment:

It would be extremely useful to have access to the library from the second floor, instead of
having to go down to the first floor and then back upstairs to get to the second floor. The
floor to ceiling windows between the parts of the second floor that are not a part of the
library are frustrating in that you have to go up two flights of stairs to get to the areas just
on the other side of the panes of glass.

A few people did comment about the circulation within the study areas and how there was not

enough thought put into how the lack of proper circulation disturbs those that are studying.

To get to the carrels on the second floor, you have to walk past and disturb just about
everyone studying on the second floor. The layout of the O'Connell Reading Room isn't
very good for the same reason-to use the chairs closest to the windows, you have to walk
past everyone since there isn't really a separate 'walkway' other than the space between
the study desks.

In conclusion, all of these functional dimensions were tallied to determine the student's

overall satisfaction with the functional dimensions of the LIC and of their workspace. The

students (n = 103) were moderately satisfied with the functional dimensions with a mean score

of 2.72 (SD = 0.87).

LIC Student Satisfaction: Ambient Dimensions(Questions 45 51)

Table 4-18 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific

dimensions that were analyzed.

Satisfaction with the finishes of LIC is reported under "Interior finishes: Public areas",

which includes their satisfaction ratings about the colors, surface materials, flooring materials,

furnishings, and overall interior style. The students (n = 100) were very satisfied with the









interior finishes (M= 2.36, SD = 1.11). "Architectural elements" includes student satisfaction

ratings of the some of the more prominent elements of the LIC, the interior atrium at the

entrance, the exterior building style, the courtyard, large windows and views, and the connection

to other buildings. The students (n = 100) were very satisfied with these dimensions (M= 2.46,

SD = 1.13). Overall, the students (n = 100) were very satisfied with the ambient dimensions of

the LIC (M= 2.42, SD = 1.05). A few comments were made to support these results, such as:

"It seems as if a lot of thought was put into creating different sections that have different styles.

I love this effect." "The richly paneled reading room, with large windows, looks great!"

Table 4-18. Student Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions.
Student
Ambient n M SD

Interior finishes: Public areas 100 2.36 1.11
Architectural elements 100 2.46 1.13
Overall 100 2.42 1.05

The survey also asked the students to rate how well the building supports certain ambient

dimensions. The reporting of these findings uses the same scale of the staff s opinion of how

well the LIC supports ambient dimensions. Table 4-19 shows the overall results from this

portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed. "Exposure" represents

how well the LIC allows for easy supervision without the sense of students feeling exposed. The

students (n = 98) reported that the LIC supports this dimension moderately well (M= 2.53, SD =

1.25). "Variety of spaces" represents how well the LIC supports many different spaces within

the library, ranging from open areas to alcoves of semiprivate activity. The students (n = 100)

reported that the LIC supports many different areas moderately well (M= 2.51, SD = 1.29).

"Intimate areas" represents how well the LIC supports areas that have a sense of intimacy within

the overall public setting. The students (n = 100) reported that the LIC supports intimate areas









moderately well (M= 2.51, SD = 1.39). "Reading areas" represents how well the LIC supports a

wide variety of reading areas to suit the users' mood or environment needs. The students (n =

100) reported that the LIC supports a variety of reading areas moderately well (M= 2.64, SD =

1.49). "Understand areas purpose" represents how well the LIC supports a clear understanding

of the general purpose of each area within the library. The students (n = 99) reported that the

LIC supports this dimension moderately well (M= 2.72, SD = 1.36). Finally, "Visible staff"

represents how well the LIC supports visible staff area so that information, services, and people

are brought together. The students (n = 99) reported that the LIC supports visible staff areas

moderately well (M= 2.62, SD = 1.30). Overall, the students (n = 99) reported that the LIC

supports these ambient dimensions moderately well (M= 2.61, SD = 1.17).

Question 48 was the same as the staff survey question 53, which included the quote from

the RFP about whether or not the LIC conveyed "best foot forward." The students (n = 97)

reported the LIC supports this statement moderately well (M= 2.59, SD = 1.28).

Table 4-19. Student Opinion LIC Ambient Dimensions.
Students
Ambient n M SD

Variety of spaces 100 2.51 1.29
Intimate areas 100 2.51 1.39
Exposure 98 2.53 1.25
Visible staff 99 2.62 1.30
Reading areas 100 2.64 1.49
Understanding areas purpose 99 2.72 1.36

Overall 99 2.61 1.17

Question 49 was the same as the staff survey question 54, which asked to rate how well

the LIC symbolically expresses the important values of knowledge and learning. The students (n

= 97) reported the LIC symbolically expresses these values moderately well (M= 2.88, SD =

1.42).









LIC Student Satisfaction: Psychological Dimensions (Questions 52 56)

Table 4-20 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific

dimensions that were analyzed. Overall, the students (n = 100) were moderately satisfied with

the psychological dimensions of the LIC (M= 2.91, SD = 1.25).

Table 4-20. Student Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions.
Students
Psychological n M SD
Sense of place 100 2.71 1.36
Interact with others 100 2.79 1.36
Privacy 100 2.90 1.56
Sense of community 99 2.91 1.60
Sense of security 99 2.93 1.66
Ability to block distractions 98 3.18 1.78
Sense of ownership 100 3.27 1.66
Overall 100 2.91 1.25

The students (n = 100) reported that they are moderately satisfied with the privacy within

the LIC (M= 2.90, SD = 1.56). "Interact with others" represents how satisfied they are with the

ease of interaction with others. The students (n = 100) were moderately satisfied (M= 2.79, SD

= 1.36). The students (n = 98) were moderately satisfied with their ability to block distractions

while studying in the LIC (M= 3.18, SD = 1.78). The students were moderately satisfied with

sense of place (M= 2.71, SD = 1.36), sense of ownership (M= 3.27, SD = 1.66), sense of

security (M= 2.93, SD = 1.66), and sense of community (M= 2.91, SD = 1.60) compared to the

staff, who were very satisfied with these psychological dimensions.

A series of questions asked for the students to rate how supportive the LIC was of certain

psychological dimensions. The results are show in Table 4-21. The results of these findings use

the same scale as the staff s opinion of psychological dimensions. A mean score between 1 -2.5

is considered "very well supported." A mean score between 2.6 4.5 is considered "moderately

supported." A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered "very poorly supported." These









dimensions were not included in the combined calculation for user satisfaction with

psychological aspects of the building since they do not directly ask for users to rate their

satisfaction, but instead ask them to offer their opinion.

Table 4-21. Student Opinion LIC Psychological Dimensions.


Students
n M SD
Productivity 99 2.36 1.31
Ability to concentrate 99 2.48 1.42
Work team projects 100 2.69 1.42
Overall 98 2.70 1.31

The students (n = 99) reported that the LIC supported the following activities very well:

ability to concentrate when needed (M= 2.48, SD = 1.42) and feeling productive at work (M=

2.36, SD = 1.31). Students (n = 100) reported that the LIC supported their ability to work on

team projects moderately well (M= 2.69, SD = 1.42). Overall, the LIC supports these

psychological dimensions moderately well (M = 2.70, SD = 1.31).

LIC Student Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 57 60)

Table 4-22. Student Satisfaction with the LIC.
Students
Overall n M SD

Satisfaction with LIC building 102 2.59 1.30
Technical 108 2.79 1.06
Functional 103 2.71 0.87
Ambient 100 2.40 1.05
Psychological 100 2.91 1.25

Overall combined satisfaction 107 2.59 0.98

In conclusion, the student were asked to rate their satisfaction with the LIC overall.

Question 59 asked how satisfied they are with the building overall and the students (n = 102)

reported that they are moderately satisfied (M= 2.59, SD = 1.30). Table 4-22 shows these

results. The overall satisfaction ratings for each category, technical, functional, ambient and

psychological, were combined to calculate an overall average of student satisfaction with the









LIC. The result was very close to the results from question 59 with the students (n = 108)

reporting that they are moderately satisfied (M= 2.58, SD = 0.99).

The students were also asked to check which areas of the LIC should be improved. Table

4-23 shows the results. Of the respondents, 41% (n =43) reported that improvements needed to

be done to the toilet rooms. In addition, there were 12 negative comments about the toilet rooms.

"The library needs more restrooms. I know this is probably impossible, but it's silly to have

dozens and dozens of people studying in one place and only have one toilet stall per floor."

Another comment:

The toilet rooms need much improving. There are too few stalls for the number of people
present in the LIC. The toilet rooms are often dirty and smell bad. The urinals are
particularly bad. I usually leave the LIC and go to Bruton-Geer to use the toilet room even
though it is older and not as aesthetically pleasing, it is a much better restroom.

Table 4-23. Student Recommendations for LIC Improvements.
Students
Improvement n %
Ventilation 2 1.90
Circulation 7 6.60
Equipment 8 7.60
Aesthetics 9 8.50
Storage 14 13.20
Wayfinding 14 13.20
Temperature 15 14.20
Elevators 16 15.10
Stairways 19 17.90
Layout 22 20.80
Copy room 22 20.80
Privacy 23 21.70
Lighting 24 22.60
Meeting rooms 24 22.60
Furnishings 25 23.60
Study Carrels 28 26.40
Noise levels 39 36.80
Toilet rooms 43 40.60

The second highest score was for noise levels with 37% (n = 39) reporting that this needed to be

improved. As noted earlier, there were many comments about noise disturbance, the need for a









quiet area, and a need for a group study area. The third highest score was for the study carrels

with 26% (n = 28) reporting. It was noted earlier that lighting was an issue. Another comment

that was made about the study carrels was that "there isn't enough room to spread out my stuff

while using my computer!" Only 1.9% (n = 2) chose ventilation, only 6.6% (n = 7) chose

circulation, 7.6% (n = 8) chose equipment, and 8.5% (n = 9) chose aesthetics.

Exploring the Planning Process through In-Depth Unstructured Interviews

Research Question Three: Are the key participants who were involved in the planning
process satisfied i i/h the AR planning and design process? What do they remember from the
process and how would they describe the process today? In order to test this, key participants
were invited to participate in in-depth interviews where they were asked to share their thoughts,
opinions, and stories about the planning and design process of the LIC.

The following section of the findings includes excerpts from the six in-depth interview

sessions that were conducted in order tell the story of the planning process. The findings are

divided into the following themes: 1) Reasoning for the AR partnership and how it worked, 2)

Value of the AR process, the student design, and the CDCP program document, 3) The design

process with the architects and creating the heart of the LCoL, 4) This process compared to

individuals' experiences with other building projects, and 5) Importance of participation. The

excerpts from the interviews illustrate how AR influenced and affected the design process and

the final building design. It relates how the participants felt about the process, and if they

thought it was valuable. In addition, four of the participants have had previous experience with

other large building projects, and their insights on how the process for the LIC compared to those

projects provides a unique perspective. The interview participants' names have been omitted.

The following are alias names and descriptions of who they are and how they relate to the LIC

project:

"Ms. Jones": She is the former Director of the law library and has been at the LCoL for a
long time. Her insights are of particular value since she was a part of the planning process









for the original library in Holland Hall that was built in the 1960s, as well as the planning
process for the LIC.



"Mr. Smith": He was the interim dean of the LCoL at the time when the planning and
design for the LIC was underway.



Ms. Maxwell": She is the current Director of the LIC who served as a consultant during
the planning process with the architects. However, she was not a part of the planning
process with the CDCP faculty and students. She does have experience with building other
law libraries, specifically at a prominent private law school in the Northeast.



"Mr. Davis": He is the Associate Director of the LIC and was apart of the planning
process with both the CDCP faculty and students and with the architects. He also has
experience with past building projects, specifically with Bruton-Geer.



"Ms. Amos": She is apart of the LIC staff and participated in the planning process with
both the CDCP faculty and students and with the architects.



"Mr. Mars": He was one of the chief architects involved in the design process for the LIC.
He has extensive experience with designing higher-educational facilities.

Reason for the AR partnership and How It Worked

Why was there such a need to build a new library? What was wrong with the library in

Holland Hall. Ms. Jones explained,

Moving [into the Holland Hall law library] the first time it was oh-so expansive and then
you get 700 students in the building and not very much space. Soon you realize that it's
getting cramped and books are stacked on the floor because we had no other place to put
them. We were really going all out to make it look pretty bad in the library. And telling
them that we were throwing away books because we didn't have space for them. But we
had the third floor just lined with books up there on the floor because we had no other
place to put them and I didn't want to throw them away. But we really needed a new
space; there was no question about that, even with all the books that were discarded.









In addition to not having enough space for the library collection, the LIC was not compliant with

American Bar Association (ABA) standards. Ms. Jones, the Director at the time, was trying her

best to keep the LIC to their standards, but it was impossible. Ms. Amos explained even further

that there was not even enough space for students to study.

And we had all of this furniture crammed in because the director then wanted us to have
this certain number of seat counts in order to be ABA compliant. [The Director] wouldn't
let us take away chairs because we needed to maintain a certain number of seat counts. So
we had a table here and then three feet away there was another table. Even though two
chairs were backed up to each other as if the chairs could be pulled out with people
sitting in them in a three-foot space. That isn't going to happen. We just had all the
furniture crammed in there. We had the right number of seats, there was no way they
could be occupied, but they were there!

Due to lack of space and an influx in the law student population it was clear that a new library

was needed, however there was not a budget to support this endeavor. The school needed a way

to generate interest from donors, to let others know that they were serious. Therefore, the

partnership between the LCoL and the CDCP began. Mr. Smith, the interim dean at the time,

explained,

I think that the components of the story include the fact that it was not ABA compliant and
we had accreditation issues. So we very much wanted to build a new library. So the issue
was where do you start to build some sort of consensus vision and the ability to galvanize
folks around wanting to raise money to do that. And we had to get everybody to say that
this was a good idea because everybody would like a new library whether its alumni,
students or faculty. So we started meeting with [a key member from the CDCP group and
with the Director] looking at what the library could look like. And one of the thresholds
was that we didn't have any money at that point. So what worked very well was to work
with the architecture students and give them a project to design this law school library
facility. And then they began by doing all the things that I think an architect would do.
Interviewing the users. Analyzing existing uses. Analyzing what uses should be scaled to
size. Looking at other plans. They ended up doing plans and models. And during this
entire process, we were still doing other things. But at each phase it was extraordinary
helpful to have student plans when we could not yet afford plans. And student models
when we did not have models. It was something that we used to generate faculty and
student interest and we showed it to alumni and we showed it to donors.

The partnership developed to be something that would benefit both groups. The CDCP students

would be able to work on a "real" project, starting with the planning process and moving into









conceptual designs. The LCoL would benefit not only by generating interest among potential

donors, but also by discovering what options, they had for the design of the new facility. Mr.

Davis, the Assistant Director, explained,

The idea was for it to be that a joint effort so that architecture students had the opportunity
to participate in a real live planning process. And on one hand, we would get the
advantage for the College of Law, to get professionals to look at the plan here and help us
envision what we wanted to do....They all came over and they helped the College of Law
by getting focus groups together and bringing their students over to create these focus
groups, to get these ideas together of what is was that we wanted.

Another goal for the planning process for the LIC was to make sure that everybody had a

chance to give their input to ensure that the majority of the users would be happy with the final

building design. Ms. Jones added,

So that's how we got started with that project. That was very interesting to me because we
had entirely different goal. [The interim dean] said that 'He wanted everybody satisfied in
this law school. And that the plan is acceptable and that they had been involved in it.' So
he gave us instructions about what we were to do about making sure faculty had input,
students had input, staff had input.

From the very beginning, this was a prime focus for the partnership. Making sure that users

were involved every step of the way.

Value of the AR Process, the Student Designs, and the CDCP Program Document

How valuable was the AR process? What was valuable about it? As mentioned earlier,

one of the greatest benefits of the preliminary planning was to gain interest among alumni and

other potential donors in contributing funds to the project. Mr. Smith spearheaded the

fundraising efforts.

People are loyal to their college and want to see it succeed. The issue we had with the
accreditation issues was not only are we looking to improve, but we are also looking to
avoid being penalized for inadequate facilities. It was pretty easy to show people that the
facilities were inadequate, both in terms of the library and the classrooms. So it was a
matter of getting leadership among to the alumni to say this is a good idea. And then
commit to ask other alumnus and come up with a very specific plan over a period of time
to raise money and to raise matching money. Our director of development, who is now
with the Florida Bar Association, was terrific. We had deadlines; we had people faxing









things in three hours before deadlines. We had to reach matching amounts of money. It
ended up being $24 million to do the project. And we raised that money, true pledges over
periods of time and all sorts of creative financing.

Ms. Jones explained how some of that "creative financing" happened.

When it came to fundraising and [Mr. Smith] was raising funds from all of our graduates
and anybody else he could talk to...he's a true politician having been in the legislature.
And he went around to people and he said that lawyers didn't want to contribute. But he
would say, "Just give us ten dollars and your name will be on the list." And here's [Mr.
Smith] talking to a lawyer who is probably making $200,000 dollars a year asking for ten
dollars. And nobody had the nerve to give him just ten dollars. So he did a wonderful job
with fundraising. But he went around to all these lawyers to raise these funds and
explaining with the building. And I kept him totally involved with everything that was
happening in the meetings with all of the different groups. So he knew what was going on
with the decision-making.

Not only did Mr. Smith's creative skills in raising the necessary funds for the project work, so

did the information that Ms. Jones kept him abreast with about all of the decisions that were

being made. Being able to explain to alumni and donors that the new facility was necessary and

that they were already starting to plan for it, it was easier for them to commit a larger dollar

amount to the project.

Another benefit of the AR process was that it exposed the LCoL faculty, students, and

staff to what was going to happen with the library, while at the same time it gathered useful

information for the design process. Mr. Smith explained,

[It] was extremely useful for a number of reasons. Not only to give us the information, but
[it] educated everybody in the building. The way the questions were asked and the way the
information was acquired so the library staff and the faculty and all the people who
participated learned too. So when it came time to look at the architectural plans, they had
already been exposed to the ideas and the information.

Mr. Davis also believed that the planning process with the CDCP introduced everybody to the

architectural language and allowed them to feel comfortable talking about the building in spatial

terms. It also helped them to start thinking about what they would want to accomplish with a

new building. The process was constructive and informative.









Made us more conversive, I think. And I think that it probably helped us better interpret
what we thought we needed to the architects. Probably made it easier on them. So that
was helpful... And to be forewarned, as it were, to make sure that you're thinking in terms
of spaces, traffic movement, your place in the building, how many floors you want, how
difficult it is to get from place to place, the idea of having big open spaces and quieter
study spaces. We knew that we wanted study rooms, and they helped us get an idea of
where we might incorporate those. Again, I can't say enough about that group of people.
At no time did we think, "Good lord. Why did we call them? They are in the way." No.
They were always available when we wanted them but they never imposed themselves
during the project. Maybe that's something to say about the personality of the people. We
were very fortunate to get the team that we did.

As the planning process progressed, town-hall style meetings were organized to allow faculty,

staff, and students to discuss their opinions, concerns, and ideas for the LIC in an open forum.

Ms. Jones related what they did during this AR planning process and how this was different from

the first time they planned the library when the dean and she were primarily responsible for

making the decisions.

We met with student groups. They told us what they didn't like about the building and
what they did like and what they wanted in the future. And we met with faculty. We had
open meetings and said anyone can come to the meetings. Three or four faculty from over
at the College of Architecture would facilitate the meetings, and then we would invite
faculty here from specific subject areas, the teaching faculty, clinical faculty, the students
and the staff. And we would say this is what we were going to talk about that day, come
and tell us what you think. It worked out very well. Because everybody felt like they had
some input into what we were talking about and how the building was going to be
designed. And that every step along the way they had input. And this entirely was
different from the last time when the dean and I made most of the decisions...well, the
architects would make the decisions and we concurred.

Mr. Davis shared that the experience was positive because the CDCP group was "objective" and

gave them a good starting point.

I felt like they were totally objective, because they had no interest in the long-term building
plan, other than to help us think about what it was that we wanted to do, so that there was
no interest on their part of coming in and actually designing and finishing the building or
making a profit from it. So we felt like they were people who did help us think more
broadly than what we were thinking before. We had no idea where to begin, how we
would go with an architect.









Of those who participated in the AR planning partnership, they had positive memories and

opinions of the process. There were no negative experiences relayed to the researcher.

After the students and faculty of the CDCP gathered information, the students created

conceptual and schematic designs for the LIC. The architectural students focused on the exterior

overall structure of a new building or renovation of the existing library, and how it would relate

to the other buildings of the LCoL. The interior design students focused on the classrooms, the

library, and the moot courtroom designs. Mr. Smith explained in further detail how the models

done by the architecture students were helpful.

And they were allowed to dream. There were some of these things that clearly we could
not afford to do. But, it also provided a context. It also provided very different structural
options. We could do it as rebuilding the library. We could have another separate
building for the library. We could be either on the west side, the east side or the north side.
Just the fact that people had been turned loose to create all these different options was
useful to us when we ultimately sat down with architects and they were trying to do this for
real with their options.

Ms. Jones also related her memories about the experience with the student designs.

Then the students were encouraged to get together in one of the classes where you design
projects, and they had 10 different designs. And the architecture students would bring over
floor plans and present them. And we would set it all up and then invite everybody,
students, staff, faculty, come and see what some of the proposals are for the building. And
they all thought that that was just great. And they would go around and say, "I like this but
I don't like that." And we were very pleased with the turnout with the students and faculty
both who went over there to critique the designs. To me, it was very fascinating because it
was entirely different than the first go around.

Ms. Jones elaborated on the process and explained that this type of involvement and participation

from the faculty, students, and staff of the LCoL continued with the planning and design process

with the architects.

When somebody would leave, they would go tell somebody else, "Go look and see what
these architecture students are suggesting about the building. You can tell what you like
and what you don't like." You know. And the faculty were doing the same thing...and the
staff...we got the whole community in the law school was involved. And then the interior
design students put their designs up...they were scattered around a big classroom...what
they were proposing for sections of the building and what they would look like. And, then









the [architects from Boston] came down with their plans that were much more expanded,
much more of an idea of what they are really talking about and what the school is going to
look like. And they had faculty and students coming in critiquing their designs, "I don't
like this. This would be better if you did this." And they would go back and bring back
another set. So there was a lot involvement that we didn't have before and that was the
instruction that Mr. Smith gave me.

Involvement from students, staff and faculty from the beginning was a major goal for the project.

Mr. Smith explains that this was imperative in order to ensure that everyone is satisfied.

The effort to get people involved was important because one of the things that inevitably
happens in the any projects, particularly a building project, that sometime later when things
are going along somebody or some set of people will say, "Why didn't we do this!" And
we would say, "We considered that six times!" And so its valuable to make sure that you
are getting all these ideas out to people even if...there's no way you can get everybody to
participate. So I think inevitably, that some people will come back towards the end of the
process and say, "I have a really great idea." And you say, "You know, that great idea was
seriously considered two or three times. That would be a great idea but it just doesn't
work in this context."

Mr. Smith thought that the whole AR planning process contributed positively to selection

process for the architects, as well as providing the architects a good starting point from which to

work.

But is was also helpful when we came to selecting architects because there were so many
proposals and we had some very good ideas and information that had been developed by
the students that allowed us to evaluate their proposals more effectively. We did have
people from the University who had been involved in building construction but we had
additional information about law libraries and about this law library that we never would
have had. That was an additional value. And there was further additional value when it
came to the actually doing it because we were able to give all this information to the
architects that won the project and it was very useful to them. It gave them a baseline. It
gave them information that they could use.

In addition, the experience with the AR process informed them about what to look for in an

architectural firm. Mr. Smith elaborates,

I think we learned form the students and the design faculty about law schools and libraries.
And just because somebody has built a government building does not mean that they know
about law schools and about the particular issues that arise in law schools. It was more
important to know that somebody had had experience with law schools before. I think I
was more attentive to that because of the experience. They had experience with law
schools and they also, in terms of Tsoi/Kobus in particular, they seemed very attuned to









understanding what we were doing here and what our problems were. They were not just a
big company that knew how to build and how to design a flashy building.

In conclusion, Ms. Jones commented that the process was very positive and she would

recommend it to other departments on campus.

I think the working with the two groups was just wonderful and I would recommend it to
any department on the campus. Because if you don't have any background in planning a
building and you work with people who have the background, but don't know the subject
area it is very good to work it together and to come out with a wonderful product.

Mr. Davis also had similar sentiments.

I would recommend it. If they can do that. I know others may be stretched and have their
own schedule and problems...and I'm assuming that they can't do it for everyone on
campus. But it was just an easy way to get started as opposed to being just thrown in.

They felt that the process was valuable because it gave them a solid start, as well as, information

to what steps to take next and allowed them to feel more in control of the project.

The Design Process with the Architects

Ms. Jones remembers the sequence of events,

And then after that, the architects were hired from Boston. And they came down and held
sessions. And we would plan what sessions do you want....well, let's talk about faculty
offices today. And I would send out a notice to everybody that the architects are here and
we are going to be discussing faculty offices.

The AR process continued with the design and planning efforts of the architects. Participation

from the faculty, staff, and students was still a top priority. Mr. Mars discovered early on that

the participants in the meetings were very collaborative and receptive.

One of the things that I thought was really interesting was the buy in was so strong.
Typically, people are good about what's good for the group is good for the group, as long
as I get what I want. And there was pressure initially re-do the faculty offices because they
are in pretty bad shape on the third floor. And it became clear that the project budget
couldn't stretch to do all of that. So we said, "What's the priority?" [And they always said
that] the priority is classrooms first [and] the offices can come later. So the offices were
seen as a phase two. That's just another indication of that people understood what was
trying to be done. Now there was a limited amount of money so you couldn't do
everything but we wanted the right and best things first. And they knew that they needed









to give up some of the creature comforts for themselves in order to help the College as a
whole.

The faculty, students, and staff already understood what the situation was, understood what could

and could not be done. In addition, the architects were given the CDCP preliminary

programming document. Mr. Mars saw this to be a very valuable resource.

[We used the CDCP preliminary] document that had been prepared [and it] became very
valuable. [It] was clear that there had been spadework done and we did not need to spend
a lot of time essentially reinventing the wheel. We were able to pick up from the point
where they had left off and validate some of the decisions that had come out of that
document. Some of them were validated 100%, some had changed because time had
passed and people had changed. But we had a starting point that was somewhere much
further up than zero and that helped move the programming along more quickly so that we
could start to look at what was the right way to achieve the goal.

It was interesting because we had the document and the mission statement. And we didn't
know what to do with all this stuff and we didn't know what would take precedent. So we
just dove in and got started. And as we dove in, we realized the value of the document as
we were going because we would say, "What did they say about that?" And go back and
use it as a springboard. We saw the value of the document more at the end of the process
more than at the beginning of the process, which was interesting. It was not like "oh
there's nothing there." No, it was "okay we got to talk to these people and find out what
they need and we got this as more for background information." Well, it turned out to be
more than background information. It was a way to check and say, "This says this and
you're saying this. Why did you say this here and why are you saying this now? And
what's the right answer?"

The document served as a way for the designers to check to make sure they were on the right

track. They were able to clarify information so that the best decisions were being made during

the design process. In addition, the participants had already spent time exploring their needs

during the AR planning process, which aided the design process to progress smoothly.

I would much rather design for a client that knows their thing. Because we're architects -
we're not lawyers, we're not scientists. And the more that they know, the better the
solution is going to be. I never go in there thinking that I know more than them. I go in
there thinking I'm a sponge. "Tell me what you want. Show me what you [have]. Tell me
what works and doesn't work." And you take all of that information and then try to do the
best you can with the money and time available. That's what design is. But first, you got
to listen. And the more that they can tell you, the more it feeds the process. If they just sit
there and say, "We don't know. Just draw something." Somehow, it just won't be quite as
good.









Now that all of the participants, the building users and the architects, were informed of what their

needs and priorities were, they were able to get into more of the specifics of what the building

may look like, to discover how all of this information would translate spatially. The open forum

discussions continued and, as these meetings progressed, the idea of creating a square, or a

"heart," for the school became to be important for them. Mr. Smith explained,

There was that and there were other options...like developing a square. I remember the
architect saying that [the courtyard] began to feel like the heart of the college, that this was
the place were people circulated around with all sorts of different activities. I think we all
contributed to that conversation. We were down to discussing two or three final
approaches to this. And I just remember that a couple of the final approaches were to have
two buildings lined up....which would not have been terrible, sort of a main street feel with
things on both sides...and then the other option was to enclose the courtyard so you would
have circulation and it would become the heart of the school.

So essentially the whole building was destroyed, gutted, and redone for the library and
classroom space. And these two towers that sort of enclose [the courtyard] are classroom
space. And one of the thoughts that played in various design ideas from the very
beginning was trying to integrate the space more closely so people would be able to go
from classes to library to offices more easily. And putting a building way out there did not
translate very well into that idea.

This was the biggest decision made in one of the meetings, and Mr. Mars reflected upon how

important it was to get that noted in the meeting minutes so that everyone knew that it was

agreed upon.

And I remember one of the biggest things that I said was, "If we design it this way, we will
get less building than we will if we go over here and build a new building. Because its
going to be cheaper to do start anew than it is to renovate. And I want everybody to
understand that because if somebody is sitting here thinking, 'My goodness, it's important
that we get the most square footage that we can get.' Then this is not the right answer."
And without fail, everybody said, "No, we're willing to take less if it's the right thing to
do." And that was important. To get that noted in the minutes because there were people
who later came in and said, "How much could we have gotten if we had done that?"
"Well, we would have gotten more." "How much more?" "I don't know how much more,
just more." However, we made a decision, an informed decision, that we were willing to
give up space for having a qualitative thing happen.

This was a difficult decision for all of the participants to make because it was not the easiest

solution. They felt that it was the right solution. Mr. Mars elaborated,









We found a real nice quips and the one that comes to my mind is, "Make a community not
an architectural statement." And there were several comments that talked about that. So
instead of looking like at two existing buildings and looking to build a third building to the
west, which was what was originally envisioned by the program, we elected to look at how
we could use this project to do that, to make a community. And that certainly meant
interjecting ourselves into the heart of this and actually trying to create a heart because at
that time there were just two linear buildings that did not really elicit a sense of
community.

That meant that we tear down literally half of the existing original building. We tore it
back to the structure and rebuilt the whole east half of that existing building that was
originally built in 1965 to allow the space to happen in the way that we wanted to do it.
And to make the LIC the center focus of that courtyard. We basically did the hardest thing
that we could think to do because it was the right thing to do. Both in terms of design it
was very hard to design that project because we had to connect two existing buildings
which was certainly a lot harder design problem than coming to the west and building a
third building. And saying, "Gee, aren't we great? Look at the beautiful building."
Taking our pictures and going home. But here we left exhausted, everybody was
exhausted. It was a very difficult project to do, structurally. Because of the interface of
new and the old. It was hard for the users and the students because we were right in the
middle of their little campus doing this renovation because that's where the heart needed to
be. We weren't over here just quietly building a new building. So it was hard on
everybody but when it was done, everybody felt like any other solution would not have
been as sufficient as the one that we came up with. But it was hard on everybody.

Another major design element that came out of the collaborative meetings was the

architectural peak element above the entrance into the O'Connell Reading Room. According to

Mr. Mars, quite a few participants wanted the new LIC to have the same architectural language

as the old Bryant Hall. However, this would not work stylistically in context with the

surrounding buildings. Therefore, that element was into the interior of the building incorporated

in a different way.

That's why when you go into the LIC and the element that goes into the reading room -
there's that peak element with the double doors that is actually a dimensional abstract of
the entrance to the old Bryant Hall, which was the original law school. We took the exact
dimensions and built it as an abstract. And there are people who go in there that go in
there and say, "I know that. I know what that is. What is that?" And if they look at the
wall where we did the recognition of donors, we have the picture of the original Bryant
Hall there.









Specific elements of the building were also discussed by others during the design

development phase. They felt that their contribution to the planning process was not all for

naught. They were actually making a difference to the quality of the LIC. Ms. Amos related her

experience.

And when I would raise a concern, they would actually make the changes. Originally,
there was just going to be one set of glass doors to come in the front door, and that's what
we had before was just one set of doors and you were immediately outside. We talked
about how that was not a good scenario. Even the winters here are not Nordic there is still
cold air that can come gushing in. And when there would be leaves in the courtyard, they
would blow into the library. So it was a combination of mess and cold air. It wasn't so
much noticeable in the hot times of the year. So they put a double set of doors there! Oh,
it made me feel like I had made a big impact.

However, it was recognized that not everyone participated in these meetings. Most of the

key participants who were interviewed reported that everyone was invited to participate in the

planning process with the architects. However, it was also recognized by some that either not

everyone took advantage of the invitation or certain groups were not included. Ms. Amos stated

that not all of the staff was involved, but that the design team tried their best to accommodate the

needs of all users.

That worked fairly well since I was involved with the planning and that I had input. I'm
not sure about the rest of the staff if they just felt like things were happening and they
weren't having any involvement and if they were happy with it afterwards. We tried to let
them know what we were doing and what the options were. And we let people choose -
like we had it down to a few models of chairs and we let them pick what kind of chair they
wanted. Tried to give them some options as we went. We tried to make the ones that were
in cubicles we tried to go with as fancy as we could with options, storage options so it
wouldn't be just a work surface and two drawers.

Mr. Davis stated that mostly staff and faculty were present at the open forum meetings. He

speculated that the students did not participate due to class schedules or possibly, because they

were not interested in a building that would be built after they were gone.

But it was more staff and faculty that were there. And it may have been a timing thing
because some of it was held in the afternoons...and I think that it was more of a timing
issue. You know students are here for three years. And sometimes, I think that when you









are a student, it's hard to think three years down the road....most of them would be gone
when the building would actually be finished.

In addition, everything about the building project was certainly not perfect. Ms. Maxwell stated

there were some aspects of the design process that they were not involved in. She thinks that

because of their lack of involvement in these areas the final design suffered.

I think they made some horrible mistakes in the part of the building that we weren't
involved in. I didn't have anything to do with classrooms. And I had said to them that
based upon my experience at NYU where the rolling chairs kept rolling out of the building
and I said, "Do not have non-fixed seating." Well, the most of the seating is fixed and half
the seating is rolling. And we've already lost 23 chairs. I would have had a dark finish on
all of the tables and all of the chairs. And when you go into Room 180, you'll see -first
they chose the cheapest of the desk suppliers for the classrooms and they look cheap, and
then they got the lightest color and of course, the students write on that with pencil and ink.
And then they bought chairs that have a white frame and pale green seat. Well, the
students immediately spilled coffee all over them and they look awful.

Comparison to Other Building Projects

How did this experience compare to other building projects that they were involved in?

Ms. Jones related her experience with building the original library within Holland Hall.

So no one had any experience in building a new building before. So he decided that he
would have a committee. So he appointed a committee of faculty and one of the faculty
members served as the chair. And we started in on the planning for the new building -
what we needed. Nobody knew what office space ought to be and how much library space
there ought to be and how are you going to arrange classrooms. This was all brand new to
all of us. Well, the faculty started arguing about this department ought to have more space
and the faculty who were professors ought to have bigger offices than the assistant
professor coming in. The architects were having a horrible time working with us on it. So
the Dean said that he and I would do the planning. He would do it for the academic side
and I would do it for the library side. And to avoid a lot of problems with the faculty...

No, the architects had no patience with these groups that wanted to do different things.
And the faculty was so divided. How big should a faculty office be? Should it have a
window...all these types of things. So the way we finally got around all of this. The Dean
and I would travel to the architect's office in Miami. And we went down there once a
month. We drove to Jacksonville, flew to Miami. Spent the day with them going over all
these plans and they were making suggestions and we would say yes or no. Come back to
Jacksonville, drive to Gainesville. And once in a while, they would come up with and we
would distribute them around and the faculty said yes or no. That was the way the original
building was designed. The Dean and I did most of that. And so of course, there were lots
of complaints.









Because the first time, the architects would say, "This is the design. How do you like this?
This is what the first floor of the library will look like. And this where people are going to
come and go." And I didn't see any problem with it, but it was hard for me to visualize
what it was going to look like from a floor plan. And then I didn't see any of these things
until we actually moved into the library...and then I thought, "Oh my. We shouldn't have
done this." Or "I wish I had told them to do that."

This [current] process was so different than from the first building because we had eleven
different models. And everybody was looking at them and critiquing them. And [before]
we didn't have faculty meetings and we didn't involve staff and we didn't involve
students.

Her prior experience with Holland Hall lacked the collaboration and participation that this

process had. She expressed regrets over her decisions that affected the final design and now

recognizes the value of involving all of the building users in the democratic process.

Mr. Mars explained how the LIC project was not necessarily different for them, just more

"rigorous."

I would say it was not different from what we do typically. It was just more rigorous and
included a broader range people over a longer period of time because it just seemed so
important.

Yes, we are doing a large laboratory building at University Z. The size of the project got
cut in half because their budget was half of what it needed to be. So we are literally
building less than half of the original program. And it was a little disconcerting for the
people that the building was being built for and for them to come to the first meeting and
be told, "You don't have enough money to build half of this." Which is what we told
them. Because we had just done several laboratory buildings for the state university
system and we knew what they cost.

I was a little surprised that there was that big of a disconnect. That there wasn't more work
done on finding out how much does a laboratory cost. So we had to back up and it was
incumbent upon us as designers to gain their trust because we were telling them something
that they didn't want to hear.

Mr. Mars recognizes the value of the CDCP program over the program that his firm received for

the laboratory building at University Z. The CDCP program, though not complete, was at least

accurate and thorough due to the AR process.









Mr. Davis related how this process was "freer" than a building project that he was

involved with at Bruton-Geer Hall.

But that process that we participated in with the architects... it was more time driven
because they were already underway. They were actually designing the plans. And, quite
frankly, they said to us, "Here is your space. What would you do with it?" And then they
helped us work out the details. But, with the project with the [CDCP], that was much freer
or open because we didn't have the immediate time constraints. They encourage us to
think differently and not....you know...they didn't push us in one direction or another.

Mr. Davis values the time and the lack of pressure that the AR partnership between the LCoL

and CDCP allowed them to explore their options.

Ms. Maxwell was involved with a law library project at a university (referred to as

University X) in the New York City and told her account about that experience.

Let me tell you about University X and what they did. I was the director of the law library
there. And in New York City, they tell you essentially how tall a building you can build if
you're not trading for air space over another building. So the architects knew that they
were going to fill half a city block and they could go 13 stories high. And they filled 13
stories, but when you look at that space now, it's really to me very disappointing. The
library, of course, got the sub-basement, no windows. Each of the floors is very small.
They seem to be crowded. I would disagree with some of the priorities of the choices
made of things to go into that building. Because they were planning for the building, that
building which was across the street from the current building, they never really looked at
the overall structure of the campus. And the beauty of the cooperative plan that we
currently had, was that [the design team] talked to everybody. And what we ended up with
then was a master plan for future of the law school. Not just individual buildings taken in
isolation.

What I had a University X was one hour with the architects. And the two associate deans
who were planning the new facility. It wasn't just a library. It was a 13-story building, the
library got one floor of it. I found it to be a very unsatisfactory process. They hired a
library consultant. And essentially we got the impression that person was there to second-
guess everything that the library had told the architects.

Considering the space that we got, I think it was the best consultant they could have and
we did as much as we could. But because the library was not high on the priorities of
University X, it never really was able to get space that flowed well together. And one of
the things that happened during this process was that the administrative space that the
library director and director staff had was turned over to one of the Centers at the law
school ...And the director of the law library and the administrative staff are now clear
across the building outside of the library. Now this is just totally non-functional.









We renovated every summer at University X. There were lots of projects and very
expensive wasteful projects. For example, one year they would put in study rooms. The
next year they would throw away all of that study room furniture and turn that space into
offices. You can't even imagine how much that university wastes. I keep saying to
people, "If I had the budget of what University X wastes, it would be larger than our larger
our current library budget." But that's the difference between a $50,000 dollar tuition and
a $7,000 dollar tuition.

Ms. Maxwell had a very negative experience while employed with University X. The process

was dictated by a small group of stakeholders, the consultant, and by the architects. The users

had no control, no ownership, and limited say in the design process. Therefore, she concludes

that the final design is "totally non-functional." In addition, she notes that this university has a

much larger budget than LCoL and that LIC is a much better design than the law library that was

designed at University X.

Importance of Participants' Input and Involvement

The participants noted the value of everybody's involvement. Ms. Jones observed.

Because with involving everybody nobody complained! Everybody was complimenting
the beautiful entrance to the library and the great improvements that were made in the
whole building. So I think it worked out. I would recommend it to anybody even if you
were just building a house. You need information in order to work with the architects to
know how to build a house. Or anything else.

Mr. Mars concurred that building a consensus among the participants leads to a more successful

project.

And the reason that we carried through was because we had good buy in with everybody.
Gave people a chance to talk. We had forums, we built a consensus. Not everybody got
what he or she wanted, but everybody had a chance to talk and have themselves heard.
And that whole process was very much necessary in order for us to feel like when we got
done that nobody could say, "I didn't get a chance to talk." Everybody had a chance. And
I think, if it's successful as I think it is, it is because of that. We had lots of buy in from
students, faculty, and staff.

Mr. Smith added that a democratic process like the AR partnership brings people together and

builds a closer community.









Projects like this do bring people together. When you have a particular goal in mind, there
can be a major achievement that everybody can look at. And I think with the alumni,
students, faculty...it did bring people closer together. And it was so clearly needed and so
clearly a galvanizing force to say, "If we can do this, it will make it a better place and we
will all benefit." It did bring people together.

Summary

This chapter presented the finding from the three different methods: verification of the

preliminary AR program, user satisfaction surveys, and in-depth unstructured interviews with the

key participants. The researcher concludes that the preliminary AR program was utilized during

the planning and designing process for the LIC. A significant number of the users' needs were

evident in the final LIC building. The results from the surveys demonstrate the staff is very

satisfied and the students are moderately satisfied with LIC based upon the technical, function,

ambient, and psychological dimensions. Lastly, the key participants related that they were

satisfied with the planning process and that user participation in the planning process is of value

in order to have a successful building project, as well as raise the necessary funds and interest to

make the project a reality.









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Discussion

This case study used a multi-method approach with both qualitative and quantitative

measures to explore the success of the AR planning methods for the Legal Information Center at

University of Florida's Levin College of Law. Verification of the preliminary AR program

created during the partnership between the College of Design, Construction and Planning and the

College of Law revealed that a majority of the users' needs were implemented into the design of

the final building. The user satisfaction surveys revealed that some unresolved issues exist, but

the majority of staff were very satisfied and the students were moderately satisfied with the final

results. The in-depth unstructured interviews revealed that key participants in the planning and

designing of the LIC were satisfied with the process and valued the participatory approach. AR

was a valuable process for the College of Law in gaining a collective vision for the LIC from

different users and user groups, which lead to satisfaction among those groups. The AR

preliminary program also assisted the LCoL in raising funds for the project by showing potential

donors all of the spadework that had already been done and how committed the college was to

building a high quality facility. Not only do these findings support the success of the AR

planning partnership, but it may prove to be a viable option for stakeholders who will be

planning future facilities that have just as much complexity as the LIC.

Comparison and Verification of the Preliminary CDCP Program

The discussion of the findings for the comparison of the CDCP program to the RFP, the

Tsoi/Kobus architectural program, and the final building design was presented in Chapter 4,

along with the findings. The researcher decided that this was the best course of action in order

for the reader to have a better understanding of the user satisfaction survey findings and of the









key participant interviews. The discussion of the findings clarified the content of the programs

and explained how much of the CDCP program items were found in the programs and in the

final building design and why.

One document that was not discussed and is relevant to uncovering the value of the AR

process was the proposal the Ponikvar & Associates submitted, along with their partners

Tsoi.Kobus & Associates. In the document distributed to the LCoL Facilities Planning

committee, a list of key team members was provided along with a description of their job task

through each phase of the project, pre-design, schematic design, design development,

construction documents, and construction administration. The interesting part of the document is

a section about the design charette process. Their objective of conducting charrettes was to

identify the project goals, verify the CDCP and FP&C programs, review site plans and

alternatives, review building configuration and alternatives, produce adjacency diagrams and

schematic plans. During these charettes, they proposed to work closely with the College of Law

representatives to develop a common vision about the project goals and design preferences. In

addition, they proposed organizing tours of other newly constructed benchmark law schools for

the College of Law representatives to get an idea of what is currently being done at other

universities. They also proposed organizing student focus groups to investigate likes and dislikes

about the existing law library so that they can develop strategies to improve the facility to best

suit students' needs. These proposals and strategies of the design team suited the LCoL

Facilities Planning committee's vision of how the process should proceed for the LIC project. If

the LCoL representatives had not participated the AR preliminary planning, they may not have

known the true value of this process and recognized that this approach would involve them in the

design decision making and allow them to participate on all levels.









User Satisfaction with the LIC as Assessed by the Surveys

The findings from the user satisfaction surveys were also very interesting. The staff and

the students use the LIC in different ways and occupy different spaces within the LIC. The staff

reported being very satisfied with their sense of ownership in the building, while the students

were moderately satisfied. This could be attributed to the fact that the most of the staff has

individual offices within the LIC while the students do not. It would be interesting to compare

the general law student population to the graduate tax law students since the latter group has a

designated study space and lounge on the second floor of the LIC. Figure 5-1 and 5-2 show

these respective spaces. Since these students have their own study area and lounge, they may

report a higher satisfaction with the LIC and with their sense of ownership of the LIC.

















Figure 5-1. Graduate Tax Student Study Area

























Figure 5-2. Graduate Tax Student Lounge Area

In the new LIC, the staff has a new administrative suite, which consists of private offices,

cubicles, a kitchen/cafe, a staff meeting room, and a book sorting area. The administrators (the

Director, Associate Director, and support staff) are in this area, as well as, the technical services

staff. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show some of the areas in the administrative suite. These areas

provide a sense of ownership, as well as, exterior views and natural light. These were

dimensions that that staff was very satisfied within their work area.

















Figure 5-3. Staff Kitchen and Cafe

































Figure 5-4. Director's Private Office.

Since some of the staff members participated in the planning process, their satisfaction

with sense of ownership could also be higher than the student's, since the current student

research participants (RP) that were surveyed were not part of the LIC planning process.

However, the former students who participated in the planning process, provided a solid

representation for the future law students since the current student RPs are moderately satisfied

with the final LIC. It appears impossible to please all of the users; therefore, a moderate

satisfaction rating from the students is considered to be a successful result of the planning and

designing process.

One of the most significant findings from the user satisfaction surveys was the student

dissatisfaction with the layout of the second floor of the LIC. At the interior atrium near the

main entrance to the LIC, there is a stairway that leads up to the second floor book stacks and









study areas. At the top of the stairs are large picture windows to the north and south that provide

interior views. To the north (figure 5-5), one can see part of the study spaces and book stacks of

the LIC. To the south (figure 5-6), one can see the entrance hallway to the second floor of

Holland Hall, which leads to classrooms and administrative offices. The LIC is not accessible

from the hallway on the second floor. In order to access the classrooms and offices on the

second floor, one must exit the LIC through the main entrance on the first floor, use the exterior

stairs that are located in the courtyard, and then re-enter Holland Hall.

Students found this to be inconvenient and frustrating. However, from a staff librarian's

point of view, it is a means for security of the LIC's books, materials, and equipment. If a

second entrance to the library was provided at this location, then it would have to be monitored

and controlled requiring more staff and security measures. However, if the windows were not

transparent but still allowed for natural light to penetrate the LIC interior, students would be less

aware that their classroom was on the other side. It is a no-win situation for the designers. The

designers wanted to allow for natural light, but they probably were aware that this visual

transparency would aggravate the library patrons. This is an issue that affects the students and

not the staff because of the differences in the way the two groups use the building. The staff

primarily occupies the work areas on the first floor, while the students use the study carrels and

tables, most of which are on the second floor.

Another significant finding from the surveys was student dissatisfaction with the toilet

rooms. According to student RPs' comments, there are too few toilets to accommodate the

number of students. There is one toilet room per gender, per floor. This may be due to several

contributing factors, such as, space limitations, location of plumbing walls, and budget. In

addition, the architects did meet the codes for the correct amount of toilet stalls per the facility's









occupancy, however the student RPs are requesting that the design should have exceeded the

code requirements. Another popular issue heard from quite a few male students pertained to the

cleanliness of the waterless urinals. This may be due to lack of proper janitorial maintenance

and building commissioning may be a strategy to solve the problem.


Figure 5-5. View to the North at the Top of the Atrium Stairs.


Figure 5-6. View to the South at the Top of the Atrium Stairs.









Acoustics and noise distractions were an issue that arose for both staff and students.

According to some of the staff, their workspace does not provide enough acoustical privacy.

Often, they overhear conversations taking place both inside the LIC near the Circulation Desk

and immediately outside in the courtyard. This is probably an issue for the two staff members

whose workspace is directly behind the Circulation Desk. Figure 5-7 shows these two semi-

private offices. The walls of these offices do not go all the way to the ceiling so they are still

subject to noise from patrons who are in the entrance atrium.




















Figure 5-7. Circulation Desk and Two Collection Staff Member Offices.

This noise issue may also affect staff members whose private offices are adjacent to the

courtyard. The courtyard is constantly bustling with activity, especially between class times, and

since the new addition for the LIC is a glass envelope sound transmits more easily than it would

with a brick building. Once again, it proves to be a no-win situation for the designers. Either

provide natural light and views with some noise distractions or provide offices with little or no

natural light but with complete acoustical privacy.









Another noise issue came from the law students' complaints that the undergraduates were

too noisy and distracting. However, the LIC is a public institution that welcomes not only other

University of Florida students but also other members of the community. This is not directly

related to the design of the LIC, but it could be solved by providing different zones, such as,

quiet zones, group study zones, and law student-only zones. This was not an issue that was

discussed in any of the three programming documents, therefore it could be a problem that has

only started to surface with this new building. The LIC does provide a variety of spaces, so

creating different zones could be a viable option that the library administration could facilitate.

Students also suggested that an area where food and drinks are allowed would better suit

their needs. Across the courtyard in Bruton-Geer, a student center exists where there is snack bar

and tables. Casual observations of the student life at LCoL revealed that this area is lively with

student activity, ranging from socializing to quiet individual study. However, the space is not

particularly attractive, nor inviting. Perhaps by providing a "cafe" in the LIC would improve the

student life and encourage them to use the facility more. It could also be a strategy to increase

profits for the LCoL by selling drinks and snacks. However, from a staff s point of view, this

becomes an issue of security, monitoring, and maintenance. If this idea was to be explored

further, certain strategies would have to be implemented in order to satisfy both user groups.

The food and drink would have to be limited to one small area within the library. Students

commented that they "loved the lounge chairs." Figures 5-8 shows how the students use the

lounge chairs that are provided in the new facility. The students want to be comfortable at their

school. The LIC provides an opportunity for that, but perhaps more can be done to facilitate

their comfort needs by providing a cafe area with lounge chairs and tables. The cafe could









become a place for impromptu group study sessions or a place for students to relax while

studying and enjoying a nice frothy cappuccino.
























Figure 5-8. Students Using the Lounge Seating in the LIC.

Overall, the staff and students' main complaints were in regards to factors that are

restricted by codes and/or university regulations, such as toilets, elevators, and noise distractions

from undergraduate students. Factors that are attributed to the design of the building (i.e.

wayfinding, circulation, and aesthetics) were mostly satisfying to both user groups. In addition,

both user groups found the ambient dimensions very satisfying. This category was added to the

assessment framework to determine how design decisions affect users' satisfaction. This study

found that these dimensions are important. Aesthetic appeal and design elements that reflect

user values have a considerable affect on users' overall satisfaction with a building.









Analyzing the In-Depth Interviews with Key Participants

It is evident from the in-depth interviews, that the planning process overall was

successful and a good experience. This section will discuss the important findings that were

discovered from the interviews based upon the themes that were developed.

The theme, "Reasoning for the AR Process and How It Worked," revealed that the library

book collection was overflowing, there was an influx in the student population, and that the

LCoL was threatened with the possibility of losing their ABA accreditation due to the

inadequacy of the law library. The AR partnership between the LCoL and the CDCP had three

main goals: to generate ideas and interest among the LCoL community and potential donors, to

allow CDCP students the opportunity to work on a "real" project, and to allow everyone a

chance to voice their opinions and concerns to ensure user satisfaction.

"Value of the AR Process" demonstrated that the process was valuable. Under the

guidance of the CDCP group who utilized the AR methodology, participation in the democratic

planning process was achieved by inviting the faculty, staff, and students to meetings and

planning sessions. The interim dean at the time of the AR partnership used the preliminary AR

program to generate interest among the donors, which lead to additional funding to build the two

classroom towers that flank the east and west sides of the LCoL courtyard. In addition, the

FP&C office used the information in the CDCP program to generate the RFP that was sent out

the A/E firms. Moreover, the efforts that began with the AR partnership were then carried over

to the planning/design process with the architects, which was revealed in the "Design Process

with the Architects." The architect who was interviewed commented often that there was "good

buy-in" with the participants, and they understood that "they needed to give up some of the

creature comforts for themselves in order to help the college as a whole." An attitude and a clear

common goal was formed among the different user groups of the LCoL. It was also evident that









the CDCP programming document was a useful tool for the architects. Often, they referred to it

to verify not only what was discovered during the preliminary AR planning process, but to also

verify what they were doing during the design process. It also served as a solid starting point for

the architects so that they did not have to focus on what the problems were, but instead focused

on how to solve the problems.

Some of the more interesting findings that emerged from the in-depth interviews with the

key participants were revealed during the "Comparison to Other Building Projects." Some of the

interview participants had a means of comparing the planning process for the LIC to another

building project in which they had been involved. "Ms. Jones" had been the Director of the

LCoL library when Holland Hall was originally built in 1968. The dean at the time and she were

primarily responsible to represent the LCoL. In her accounts of that experience, she recalls

complaints from the faculty and staff after the building was completed. She realized that this

was due to the lack of participation from users. In comparing that experience to the experience

with the AR planning process, she concluded that inclusion of the building users in the planning

process was an enormous benefit to creating a facility that supports their activities and satisfies

their needs and preferences.

"Ms. Maxwell" had an experience with another university law library and recounts how

she had only "one hour with the architects." Since she was allowed very little input during the

planning process, she concluded that the final product is "non-functional" because the

administrative staff is now on the other side of the building and not even within the library. The

design team of that project ignored the users' opinions and needs. She too believed that the

collaborative planning process for the LIC contributed to a successful design.









It was clear that the participants valued the participation process of the AR planning

approach in the "Importance of the Participants' Input and Involvement." They were aware that

it is impossible to give everybody everything that they want, but at least they were able to speak

their mind and offer their opinions. In conclusion, the key participants' responses and accounts

of the planning process proved interesting by not only explaining how the process unfolded, but

also it also revealed their values and opinions of the process and the final building design.

Action Research as a Planning and Design Approach

Based upon the interview with the former Director of the law library, it became evident

that the original law library within Holland Hall utilized agreement-based programming

techniques. The former director and the dean at the time were primarily responsible for

communicating the user's needs and preferences. The dean communicated the needs of the

faculty and administrative staff of the College of Law, while the former director communicated

the needs of the staff and students for the law library. Based upon the results, this method

proved to be ineffective in satisfying the needs of the users. The former director remembers the

faculty complaining immediately after the completion of the project. Therefore, the interim dean

at the time of planning for the LIC knew that an integrated and collaborative approach was

required in order to give everyone a chance to voice their opinions so that they would most likely

be satisfied with the final building design.

On the other hand, a knowledge-based (k-b) programming method could have been used to

identify the LCoL's design problems. This method requires systematic research methods and

statistical output. Closed-ended surveys would have been administered to gauge the needs and

preferences of the staff, students, and staff. Systematic observations of how the students used the

space would have been conducted. Structured interviews with staff would have revealed what

activities they perform and how they need the space to support them.









When data is collected in this manner, the output includes descriptive statistics and

compares the results across different user groups. Most designers and users find this information

somewhat interesting but not very useful. Statistics do not really point to a design solution or

create an image that designers or stakeholders can easily access. In addition, once the report is

completed and distributed, it is the designer's responsibility to turn the statistical information

into functional spaces. When the stakeholders receive the report, they rarely reflect on the

report, critique it, or make suggestions since the information is presented in a way that is not

particularly easy to comprehend. The k-b method is similar to most methods in social science

research. The real testing of the results are not performed until much later when the building is

completed and only then do the users begin to really understand whether or not their needs have

been realized. Action research attempts to solve this problem by addressing the issues at the

beginning of the process by involving users in a manner in which they feel comfortable

contributing to planning and designing decisions. In addition, the CDCP program was

constructed in a descriptive narrative format so that it would be accessible to all of the

stakeholders (i.e. users, potential donors, alumni, university officials) and to project architects

and designers.

The action research approach relates most closely to value-based (v-b) programming.

Similar to the Hershberger's description of v-b programming and how this approach borrows

methods from the k-b approach, the action research preliminary planning team interviewed

building users and conducted systematic observations. The CDCP team of faculty and students

from the Interior Design department developed a survey interview instrument to collect

information from 50 respondents. (Hasell, et. al., 2001, p. 12). The observations of the user

activities were used to support the findings from the interviews and to gain a broader









understanding about each group and department. In addition, the CDCP team attended LCoL

faculty and staff meetings where plans for the new facility were discussed. All of this

information was then compiled into overview statements, which give a clear picture about each

user group or department (Hasell, et al., 2001, p. 12). The descriptive and narrative information

contained in the preliminary program aimed to be more accessible to designers by providing

more detailed overview of how the LIC should take form to support the users' needs and

preferences and the College of Law's collective vision. The AR approach differs from the v-b

approach in that it not only is the process about revealing the users' needs preferences, and

vision, but it also aspires to bring about change. The continual and cyclical process of AR forces

the participants to observe what they have just planned and acted upon, reflect upon what is

working and what is not, and then re-plan to make the situation even better. The development of

the programming documents and the design for the LIC went through a series of AR cycles until

a final plan was constructed. This case study observed and reflected upon the final results to

determine that the project and the process was successful.

Further Discussion on Other Discoveries

The purpose of the POE is to evaluate whether a facility "meets the intended

organizational goals and user-occupant needs" (Lackney, 2004, p.3). It is a way to learn from

the past so that future design decisions are better informed. POEs can also inform future

planning methods. They can inform facility managers about what changes need to done to be

made to improve the facility, as well as inform designers about what changes need to be done in

their design practice. Users, as well, can be informed about the value of their facility, which in

turn can evoke a sense of pride if the facility is successful or spark a revolution for change if the

facility is unsuccessful. The most common form of a building evaluation is "to look primarily at

the observable conditions of the physical structure and building systems." (Lackney, 2004, p.3)









However, this approach does not reveal the adequacy of how the facility is serving the

community. This case study explored how well a law school library served its community based

upon the AR Subjective Assessment Framework, which included four categories (technical,

functional, ambient, and psychological) that were developed and modified for the contextual

purpose of this study.

As mentioned earlier, the POE should not only evaluate the building, but also the process.

It is useful to have knowledge about whether a facility is successful or not in serving the needs of

the users and the organization and why. It would also be valuable to know how this was

achieved. Who was involved? How was the information gathered? How was the information

organized and disseminated? How was the information utilized and synthesized? In this study,

the process was found to be successful and satisfactory to the key participants in the process.

This may be due to the wide range of user participation throughout not only in the planning

phase but also during the design phase. Nevertheless, the process is critical. The stakeholders

took responsibility for their facility rather than relying on the architects to be the "experts." Ed

Tsoi, the chief architect from Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, stated the following during a

presentation that he made at a convention for stakeholders of law libraries.

You shape the way the architect sees the problem. How the design team communicates
with and how you communicate with them is critical in terms of determining the outcome.
You should not expect that the designers are conversing with all of the subtleties of what
you are dealing with. You have to be able to communicate it and communicate it clearly.
(Tsoi, 2006)

Communication is critical. The AR process started the collaborative process, and the

preliminary AR program began to communicate the needs of the users and the law school to the

design team. The planning and design process involved many voices, not just one voice. Tsoi

stated,









There are times when I know that the consultants would love to have one voice. But I'm
actually a proponent of many voices. I think the richness of those who are interested in
developing one part of a law school or another, needs to be heard.

From the information divulged from the interview participants, it was clear that faculty, staff,

and students were involved in the planning process. As it was revealed in the in-depth

interviews, it was imperative to the interim dean that "everybody is satisfied." Therefore,

everyone needed the opportunity to communicate their ideas.

In addition, it was imperative that the right design team was chosen for the project.

Ferguson, the Senior Project Manager of the LIC from UF's FP&C office, states that this

decision is very important because they need be able to work collaboratively not only with the

users and stakeholders of the facility, but also the facility's project manager, contractor, code and

permitting officials, etc. The selection of the architect should not be based solely on their

"impressive resume of similar facility types" (Ferguson, 2003, p. 19). Ferguson explains,

[T]he design team [needs to be able] to translate complex design components from a
narrative program and concept to a set of construction documents free of errors, omissions,
and conflicts, code compliant and absent of flaws that make end users wonder later if
anyone actually thought about what was drawn. (Ferguson, 2003, p.19)

All of the work during the AR preliminary programming process could have been lost if a design

team did not understand the culture of the LCoL and their desire for the project to be

collaborative. It could have also been lost if the design team completely ignored the CDCP

program. However, it was utilized according to the one of the chief architects and the

architectural project manager of the LIC. In addition, Ferguson stated that the CDCP program

was "largely a benefit in intangible ways" (Ferguson, 2007). It was a catalyst for getting LCoL

to think and dream, it helped demonstrate to A/E applicants that the LCoL was serious and had

taken time to study user needs, and it partially helped the LCoL in warding off the threat of

losing accreditation by the ABA (Ferguson, 2007).









Recommendations for Designers and Stakeholders

Reflection 'in action' and reflection 'on action' lead to 'action research.' This
comparatively recent evolution of methodology of research in the social science field has
lead to significant elements that could be assimilated into the design practice. (Swann,
2002, p.50)

Implementing AR into the planning and design process is something that could come

easily to designers. Most designers can universally accept that design is about problem solving.

A problem arises and it is the designer's job to analyze the problem, research solutions,

synthesize the information, execute a solution, produce a solution, and evaluate the solution. The

design process is a cyclical, so that if the solution does not alleviate the problem then the process

can begin again to discover a better answer. Figure 5-1 illustrates this process, which is similar

to the AR model of diagnosis, planning, implementation, and analysis, or more simply, plan-act-

observe-reflect.

Action research "has been described as a program for change in a social situation, and

this is an equally valid description for design" (Swann, 2002, p.56). However, AR may require

more work, time, and effort than what many designers would accept into their current

professional paradigm. Theoretically, designers would support AR, but few would actually

make the effort to involve all of the users, gather all of their information, and synthesize it

(Swann, 2002, p.57). A strategy that may solve this problem is for the client to hire a planning

consultant who works collaboratively with the stakeholders, the users, and the design team.

By hiring a consultant, there is also less risk of there being a conflict of interest. If the

same design office is working on both the program and the design for a large-scale project

similar to the LIC, there may be an inclination for the programming team to influence decisions

that may not be the best solution for the client and instead benefit the aesthetic design.









Moreover, if an outside consultant is not used, there is less "fact-checking" between the two

teams.


ANALYSIS & RESEARCH



EVALUATE DESIGN SYNTHESIZE
PROBLEM



EXECUTE & PRODUCE 4

Figure 5-7. The Design Process (adapted from Swann, 2007, p.55)

When the architectural team was chosen for the LIC project, the two firms, Ponikvar &

Associates and Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, formed a partnership. Ponikvar & Associates acted as

the lead architect while library-planning experts from Tsoi/Kobus served as consultants.

Tsoi/Kobus was responsible for the programming and schematic design, and then Ponikvar

started where they left off and continued the design process into the construction documents and

administration phases. This strategy allows the planning team to keep the client's best interest at

the forefront. It minimizes conflict and ethical implications. The two teams must be willing to

work together and the lead architect must be open to criticism from the consultants and accept

their corrections in order to provide the users with the most functional and pleasing space. It

may take extra time and steps to perform then action research approach; however, this case study

and evaluation indicates that the implementing action research methods is worth the extra effort,

especially for a building that will have to last for at least thirty to forty years.

In addition, the client has to take responsibility. In the case for the LIC, the LCoL

interim dean realized from the beginning the importance of involving the whole community in

the process. The CDCP assisted the LCoL by getting the ball rolling, having the community









generate ideas, inviting all users to participate, and gathering all necessary information. It was

discovered from the in-depth interviews with key participants that this preliminary step inspired

the LIC users to be active in the process and to feel comfortable talking about space and what it

means to them. The LCoL may be a special case, just because of the awareness of the

stakeholders in the project. They were aware that "architecture matters." Dean Jerry of the

LCoL stated the following:

At the risk of stating the obvious, architecture matters. The nature of space in which we
work, teach, and study is important. The design of our surroundings affects our attitudes,
moods, self-esteem, efficiency, and sense of community. For our students, space makes a
difference in the quality of the learning experience. It is possible to teach and learn in
deficient space, but it is easier to teach and learn when both faculty and students are
comfortable, happy and not distracted by the inconveniences and annoyances of a poorly
designed environment. Inadequate space prevents us from achieving all of which we are
capable, thereby diminishing our productivity, creativity, and accomplishments. If
deficient space limits our future, then good space can expand it. Ultimately, the space
around us helps define who we are and what we can achieve (Jerry, 2004, p. 86).

If the client knows why it is important to have good space (meaning space that suits the users'

needs and values), then they will be able to demand this from their design team. However, they

must communicate their needs and values to the designer clearly. The AR approach can

contribute to this process by involving all of the users, analyzing the problem, evaluating

solutions, and generating a narrative of the problem (i.e. a preliminary program) for the

designers. This program would not just include the traditional list of space requirements with

their respective gross square footage and net square footage suggestions. It would include items

that reflect the users' needs and values. It could even include the information that is rooted in a

habitability framework, similar to the one used by this study's surveys to evaluate user

satisfaction of technical, functional, ambient, and psychological. Since, an evaluation of the

design problem at the beginning of the planning process is similar to an evaluation of a newly

built facility, then why not incorporate the same means of analysis to both evaluations? Once the









design team receives this detailed program, they are then obligated to work with the client/users

and to continue with them in the AR process of plan-act-observe-reflect.

AR can prove to be a valuable methodology for the design profession as a whole. By

conducting POEs and by evaluating one's work systematically, the information "could provide a

learning resource in the way that case studies have contributed to the establishment of a culture

of dissemination and learning in the business world" (Swann, 2002, p.60). Communicating the

evaluation of the design to the public, could positively contribute to the profession by elevating

the importance of design. By involving users, consumers, and the general public in the process

of the design, they are in turn being educated about the mysteries of the design process and could

gain appreciation for the profession.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study contributes to the body of knowledge that exists on university law library

design and to the body of knowledge that exists on AR methodology in the planning and

designing of public facilities. However, there is always a need for future research especially due

to the growth of the internet in this Information Age. The role of the library may change

drastically. Who knows? Books may become obsolete. What will become of the library? How

will user needs change?

Future research about action research and how it relates to the design and planning

process is greatly needed. There are practitioners currently using this method and publishing

articles about their projects. However, there is little evidence of formal research about AR in the

planning process. This study was a case study about one library facility. It would be interesting

to conduct a study that involved a formal comparison between a similar facility that used a

different planning and design process. Investigation of other libraries would be valuable in order

to learn how the new LCoL facility compares to other institutions. It would also be valuable to









compare the results of this research, specifically user satisfaction with the LIC and key

participants' evaluation of the planning process, to other programming methods and to examine

further the validity of architectural programming methods.

Conclusion

The school district mentioned in the scenario (see "Introduction" in Chapter 1) could

benefit from using the AR planning approach to plan and design their new facility. The

superintendent could involve the teachers, students, parents, and the community in numerous

ways. An open forum discussion about the new school would allow everyone to voice their

complaints and offer their opinions and ideas on how to improve it. A survey could be

administered to gauge the students, teachers, and staff s current level of satisfaction with the

school and what they would want to improve. Most likely, an educational design consultant

could be hired to facilitate design workshops where the teachers, students, and parents actually

get to actively participate in the process. They could draw, write, or talk about their ideas. This

process could assist the school in raising funds for the project, just as it did for the LCoL.

Then a design team would be hired to act upon these ideas and implement them into the

design. Once the building is complete and the teachers and students have a chance to settle in, an

evaluation of the process and how it has changed the space and it improved the users' ability to

teach and learn would be conducted. From this evaluation, it may not be surprising to discover

that there is a stronger sense of community and a higher level of learning. The teachers are

proud of where they work and there has been a boost in morale. The students are able to

concentrate better and they are enjoying their new school. The parents are proud of their

children's school and to have been apart of the planning process for it. The surrounding

community is pleased that they were involved as well because they were able to voice their

concerns and have now received a new attractive building in their neighborhood, which has









boosted their property value. AR is a cyclical process that can positively affect the success of

any organization or community. By evaluating their work, figuring out a solution, implementing

the plan, and then observing the repercussions, improvements are made to benefit the group as a

whole. If it does not work, then the process can start over again to fix it. However, with

inclusion of all those who will be affected, problems can be avoided.










APPENDIX A
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER



j I Institutional Review Board PO Box 112250
UNIVERSITY of FLORIDA Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
352-392-0433 (Phone)
352-392-9234 (Fax)
irb2*ufl.edu


DATE: March 22, 2007

TO: Jennifer C. Lamar
6306 5. MacDill Avenue #1101
Tampa, FL 33611
FROM: Ira S. Fischler, PhD; Chair
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board

SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2007-U-0262
TITLE: Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center:
Investigating the Impact of Action Research as a Programming Tool
SPONSOR: None

I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has
recommended approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this
research presents no more than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is
essential that you obtain signed documentation of informed consent from each participant.
Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved informed consent to be used when recruiting participants
for the research.

It is essential that each of your participants sign a copy of your approved informed
consent that bears the IRB approval stamp and expiration date.


If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase the number
of participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that
the Board can assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board
any unexpected complications that affect your participants.

If you have not completed this protocol by March 22. 2008, please telephone our office (392-
0433), and we will discuss the renewal process with you. It is important that you keep your
Department Chair informed about the status of this research protocol.

ISF:dl










APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORMS


Dear participant:

I am a student at the University of Florida pursuing my Master of Interior Design
degree within the College of Design, Construction, and Planning. As part of my
thesis, I am conducting a survey to gain feedback about your daily experiences
within the recently constructed Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center (LCLIC).
The new LCLIC opened its doors in August 2005. A five-year process of
planning, fundraising, and designing preceded the completion of the library. One
of my goals is to understand your role in this process. My second goal is to
assess your satisfaction with the library.

The survey included should take you about 15 minutes to complete. There are no
anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant.
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your
identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. Your participation is
completely voluntary and there is no penalty if you choose not to participate. You
may withdraw at any time without penalty.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at
(617) 290-9336 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Jo Hasell, at (352) 392-0252, ext.
337. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be
directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL
32611; ph (352) 392-0433.

By proceeding with the questionnaire and answering the questions, you give me
permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be
submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work.


Thank you for your time!
Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Lamar
jclamar@ufl.edu








Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2007-U-0262
For Use Through 03/22/2008
















Dear participant:


I am a student at the University of Florida pursuing my Master of Interior Design
degree within the College of Design, Construction, and Planning. As part of my
thesis, I am conducting a survey to gain feedback about your daily experiences
within the recently constructed Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center (LCLIC).
The new LCLIC opened its doors in August 2005 A five-year process of
planning, fundraising, and designing preceded the completion of the library. One
of my goals is to understand your role in this process. My second goal is to
assess your satisfaction with the library.

The survey included should take you about 15 minutes to complete. There are no
anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant.
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your
identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. Your participation is
completely voluntary and there is no penalty if you choose not to participate. You
may withdraw at any time without penalty

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at
(617) 290-9336 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Jo Hasell, at (352) 392-0252, ext.
337. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be
directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL
32611; ph (352) 392-0433.

By proceeding with the questionnaire and answering the questions, you give me
permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be
submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work.


Thank you for your time!
Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Lamar
jclamar@ufl.edu








Approved by
University of Flonda
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2007 -U-0262
For Use Through 0322'/2008
















Dear participant


I am a student at the University of Florida pursuing my Master of Interior Design
degree within the College of Design, Construction, and Planning. As part of my
thesis. I am conducting a survey to gain feedback about your daily experiences
within the recently constructed Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center (LCLIC)
The new LCLIC opened its doors in August 2005. A five-year process of
planning, fundraising, and designing preceded the completion of the library. One
of my goals is to understand your role in this process. My second goal is to
assess your satisfaction with the library.

The survey included should take you about 15 minutes to complete. There are no
anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant.
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your
identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. Your participation is
completely voluntary and there is no penalty if you choose not to participate. You
may withdraw at any time without penalty.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at
(617) 290-9336 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Jo Hasell, at (352) 392-0252, ext.
337. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be
directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL
32611; ph (352) 392-0433.

By proceeding with the questionnaire and answering the questions, you give me
permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be
submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work.


Thank you for your time!
Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Lamar
jclamar@ufl edu








Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2007-U-0262
For Use Through 33/22/2008












APPENDIX C
EXCERPTS FROM THE PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS


College of Design, Construction and Planning Preliminary Action Research Program:


The reference desk area should be located in a
manner that allows people who enter the library to find
it easily. Although the reference desk area does not
need to be next to the circulation desk, it should be
near the reserve area and adjacent to the reference
collection as well as in close proximity to the general
stacks particularly the periodicals and microform
collections. Reference materials do not circulate and it
is desired that the materials do not wander far from
their designated location. Therefore, quiet areas where
students can read and study should be provided near
the reference collection. Localing two o six cimpuler
stations next to the reference desk area for public use
will allow students and other users convenient and
independent access to online services Cones of
silence at these workstations will provide computer
users full access to multimedia information while
ensuring quiet work and study for otner occupants in
relatively close proximity. Photocopy equipment as
well as microtorm- viewing equipment should be within
a short distance from the reference desk area.
Office space for the reference librarians and
reference staff should be located near the reference
desk area. Currently there are three librarians who
have specific reference responsibility in addition to the
Associate Director. At present there are two USPS
assistants and a full-time OPS individual. The depart-
ment grows at a rate of about one person every three
to four years. It is anticipated that this rate will
continue during the coming decade. At present the
reference staff are scattered throughout two floors with
only Iwo individuals having contiguous offices A
weekly meeting is held to nisciL,'ss department l
matters, and other communication occurs in a haphaz-
ard fashion. Conference space is desirable, but should


have the option of doubling as workspace when a larger
surface is required. The current use of areas where
food is normally present is unacceptable,
The reference book collection is shelved in five
double-faced bookcases 154 linear feel o shelving,
each i that run the length of the First Floor Reading
Room. Single faced shelving 190 linear feel of shelving
is mounted on the brick wall. In addition, the reference
book collection occupies 1116 linear feet of shelving on
the Upper Level. Two index tables are located in the
reference area and each has a capacity for 18 linear
feet of shelving and provides an area in front of the
stored materials for usage and note taking. The
penodicals are in compact shelving on the Lower Level
and need to be near the reference desk area, as they
are now. Primary legal research materials are housed
in the First Floor Reading Room compact shelving and
also need to be near the reference desk area, as they
are now.
Part of the reference activity includes providing
hands-on training, either by appointment, planned
small group session, or impromptu opporluntly A
training room which will accommodate ten to twelve
learners should be near to and visible from the refer-
ence desk.

Book Slacks
Currently the shelving that stores, organizes,
and displays the volumes in the Legal Information
Center's collection does not meet the functional
requirements ol tne Ilbrary. The library needs 120,000
linear feel of shelving lo house Ihe enlire collection of
approximately 350,000 physical volumes Projecling
continued growth and fewer withdrawals when space is
available, staff estimate ThaT the library could grow to
500,000 volumes in 10 years and require 175,000 linear


.im-





















feet and approximately a total of 27,000 sq. ft. Stu-
dents and patrons use about 20 percent of the library's
holdings 80 percent of the time. These are considered
the "most-used books" and Ihls 20 percent of the
collection (24,000 linear feet shelving) should be
housed in open-stack shelving. The remaining volumes
can be stored in compact movable shelving systems.
Whether open or compact, the above average weight
anO sze ul law nooks requires Inal the Legal Inlorma-
tion Center use higr quality shelving to store the
collection and that the floors be reinforced to bear the
weight for moving shelves.
Trno ook ltack, should 00 arranged in a logical
manner that facilitates locating and re-shelving of
materials and located near study areas as well as
copy machines and printers when possible. Aisles
between the stacks should comply with the Americans
With Disabilities Act Accessibilities Guidelines.
Adequate space should be retained on each shelf to
allow for collection growth,

Microform Collection
This collection constitutes about the equivalent
of 1 3 of the coleclion in 63 standing filing cabinets
occupying 570 square feet. Appropriate area is needed
for cabinets, readers, reader-printers, and computers
for downloading and scanning. Growth of the collection
requires space for additional cabinets each year. In
addition, space needs to be provided for researchers to
use the microform and microfiche two to five persons
simultaneously.

Student Study Areas
In contemporary libraries both individual study
carrels and group or team study spaces are needed.
Although Ihe Legal Information Center has over 300


individual study carrels, Ihe college currently does not
have group study spaces for students to use for formal
or informal gatherings. The library's individual study
carrels are too small to comfortably support prolonged
study and are not wired to provide data and power
access for laptop computers. Thus, the library facili-
tates quiet and individual study of print material, but
does not provide places where patrons have prolonged
access to electronic data access or places for study-
ing in groups.
The number of Legal Information Center study
spaces has shrunk in the thirty years since Holland
Hall was constructed. The current third floor of the
library collection was originally study space. Carrels
were scattered throughout tne Lower Level, both in the
stacks and where the microform cabinets are now
located. Most recently, tables and comfortable sealing
in the First Floor Reading Room were sacrifice to
accommodate compact shelving. Additionally, the
room occupied by Computer Services, as well as the
storage room at the northwest end of the second floor
had been available as typing/study spaces.
Law students spend several hours a day study-
ing in Ihe law library. These students often use indi-
vidual study carrels and need a large surface for
reading and writing plus for setting up a notebook
computer. Each study carrel should provide data and
power access and the appropriale task lighling
Students often take breaks orgo to class and leave
their personal possessions at their carrels. Therefore,
each carrel should have a lockable storage unit for
computers and valuables Due to prolonged sealing.
each carrel should be equipped with an ergonomically
adjustable chair. Since conversations may occur when
students are seated in table configurations, carrels
sho'lld be located in a separate room from the study


LR













University ofFlorida's Facilities Planning & Constructions' Requestfor Proposals Excerpt:




E. SPACE DESCRIPTION FORM Refrennce: sus CM-N-04. oo-_97 Alahment 28)


SPACE NUMBER
DEPARaTMETrl

SPACE NAME
DESCRWPTON l Use
LUS spAE CATEOCORY:
PERSONNEL ASSIGNED / MAX :
DIMENsrCN / AREA:z
NUMBER REPQUED:
RELATIONS PS
PRIMARv:
SECONDARY:
ARCEITECruRAL CRITERIA


Public Services


Student Study
Open Stack Study Room (my aio be d=nnd as General Book Sak space- 0)
Store of books with interspersed study carrels
OpD Stack Study Room RIoO USE CODE: 430
100
17,630 NASF
I dispersedd


I Public Copy Room, means of egress(stairs doors), retoms
I Circulation desk, Reference desk


FL oRs: Tile ormildsw-resistant carpet w/ vinyl base.
WALLS: i Latex painted plaster or gypsum wall board on metal studs.
Cen N s i 2 X 2 ecoustica[ ceiling grid or veneer plaster on gpm wallboard.
Doo :: I NT: Solid cor wood venter with hollow metal frame; self-closed and sealing.
WrmDOws: BEcrgy-efficient windows for day-lighting & view.
LUGHnNm : Recessed T-8 fluorescent w/ parabolic reflector and electronic ballast Specialty
lighting as needed to illuminate all stacks (minimum 10 foot-candles at base of '
_AcOsT _c. Sound-tack). insuati in
ACOUSTCAL Sound-attenuating insulation in walIs.


MECHANICAL CRITERIA
HVAC:

COMMUNICATIONS:


ELECTRICAL.


FURNITURE T EQUIPMENT
FURNmsE (OwNER).
EQUlJPKMSr (OWNER):
FuRNmmUr (CcONRACTOR)
EQUIPMENT (CONTRACTOR):


Zoned system with scaled supply and return ductwork.
Fire suppression system
Multiple 3-cable ports (4-pair Cat 5E 2 data, I voice), plus data ports for
portable I laptop computers use at each study carrel
Continuous 110 volt multpli outlets; power at each carrel for laptop computers;
power for disposed public copyachins s needed.


j Carrels, chair$, standing height consultation tables
I Photocopy machines
SOpen stack shelving compact shelving, lockabi storage


SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION/REQUIREMENTS
1. Plan and furniture / equipment shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act
2.. Program verifcation phase shall include discussions with Owner to detennine which materials will be housed inthe
LIC addition and which will remain in the xiAting LTC.
2. Layout and arrangement ofthis space likely dispersed throughout the first and second floors shall be explored
with the Owner during program verification. Since additional stack space maybe needed in the future the floor plan
and engineered syems (structural bays, HVAC, elecuical, lighting,, etc.) shall be designed to accommodate such
changes.
3. Stack space areas of the addition shall be stnruurally capable of bearing the dynamic loading of the "compact
shelving" system utilized by the LIC for efficient book storage (estimated to bc250 IbsSF). The program budget
includes a structural premium allowance of $20/SF for t B.000 not assignabie square feet of slack space, but the
architect shall research costs, sructura options, alternative storage systems, or optional layouts to allow for maximum
flexibility at minimum cost.
4. Locate stacks in such a way that ultraviolet light is minimized.
5. Coordinate power and telecommunications design with Owner-purchased carrels.


BR-150 Ix-Ig


Public Set'vlces


I


a _


I


IX-18


BR-150












Tsoi/Kobus & Associates Final Architectural Program:


PUBLIC SERVICES: REFERENCE
Stacks and Reader Spaces

I SPACE


Existing
ex rm# ex sf


Proposed


Print Resources: Book Stacks
exstg. compact 1 451
exstg. compact 2 3,621
Foreign Law 209 BG 1,465
3 rd FI collection 312 3,298
500,000 volumes@5 voVLF 27,000
50 % compact, 50 % non-compact

INon-Print Resources: 250,000 vol equlv

Microform Room:100 file cabinets, 5 1,000
reader stations w. printers, computers,
Note: this Is a self-contained space
Video Collection 218 BG 1,104 300
with 4 viewing stations @ 50 SF and
storage for collection(OVD & Current)
Student Study Areas
Totaf # seats provided: 60% of 1311 (total 170 2,982
enrollment) = 787 seats 171 5,966
267 2,041
271 11,186
216aBG 299
271 a-f 264
700 seats@35 sf/seat (carrel 54" x 30") 271h,l 89 24.500
including 70 lounge seats, 400 carrels, 230
seats at tables
group study rooms 11 @
150 sf (6 person) 1650
group study rooms, 2 @ 300 SF (12 600
person)
Copy/Printer Rooms: 180 439
1 @350 with supply area 350


SUBTOTAL: SUPPORT SF 58,980
nPi v ~F 'nAI PNNI L .. .


Auui i IULNYML OummE'i I
SStructural support to be provided for compact shelving. 50%
compact, 50% non-compact is final configuration when 500,000
volume collection has been reached.
ADJACENCIES:
2 Microform areas to be adjacent to compact shelving.
Circulation desk and reference desk should be adjacent to
each other.


EX SF 34,834


TOTAL DEPT SF:


Ponlkvar Associates
with Tsoi/Kobus Associates


University of Florida
Levin College of Law


60,914


Final Program
12/20/02












APPENDIX D
PROGRAM VERIFICATION CHECKLISTS


PUBLIC SERVICES
BOOK STACKS

NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM

1 LIC needs 120,000 linear feet of shelving to house
the entire collection of approx 350,000 volumes

2 Expected *jronh wTrnhn the red 10 years is
500,000 volumes that would require an additional
175,000 linear 'eel ana approw 27.000 sq. feet

3 Patrons use 20% of the volumes 80% of the time
These are considered the "most-used books" and
should be in 24,000 linear ft of open stack shelving

4 The remaining volumes can be stored in compact
movable shelving systems

5 Shelving should be high quality due to weight of
the average law book

6 Floors should be reinforced to bear the weight of
moving shelves

7 Book stacks should be arranged in a logical
manner that facilitates locating and re-shelving of
materials

8 Book stacks should be located near study areas
as well as copy machines and printers

9 Aisles should comply with ADA guidelines

10 Adequate space should be retained on each shelf
to allow for collection growth





TOTAL INCLUDED


RFPDOC TSOlKOBUS


RFP DOC

11
100%


TSOVKOBUS

4
36.36%


FINAL LIC


FINAL LXC

10
100%


















PUBLIC SERVICES
CIRCULATION DESK & ENTRY AREA

NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

1 Offices of the Assoc. Dir, reference personnel and 0 0 1
secretary do not need to be adjacent to circulation
desk relocate to reduce traffic

2 Entrance should be designed to create a 1 0 1
"professional and efficient appearance"

3 Circulation desk should be located near the 1 1 1
entrance in a "prominent location"

4 USPS staffer office should be near circulation desk 0 0 1
so "he can assist and observe staff on duty"

5 Personnel offices should allow for privacy 1 0 0


6 Personnel offices should shut out noise 1 0 0


7 Personnel offices should be not be in a public 1 0 1
passageway

8 Reduce traffic interference with the circualtion 0 0 1
desk from the mail/supply room and delivery dock

9 Provide area to sort returned books for re-shelving 0 0 1

Provide storage @ circulation desk for the following:
10 Book desensitizer 1 0 1
11 Telephone 1 0 1
12 Printer 1 0 1
13 Book truck 1 0 1
14 Bullentin board for staff notices 1 0 1
15 (2) recycling bins 1 0 1
16 12 linear feet of file space 1 0 1
17 Key cabinets 1 0 1

18 2 security boxes in the area to control magnetic 1 0 1
locks to hold outer doors of library closed plus
manual locks on the doors

19 Provide at least (2) computers for staff plus (1) 1 0 1
library computer for patrons

20 Provide enough space in front of circulation desk 1 0 1
for patrons so that main entrance is not blocked
CIRCULATION DESK & ENTRY AREA


















NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFPDOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

21 Provide ADA compliant counter for patrons 1 0 1

22 Minimize tracking of dirt and dust from entrance by 1 0 1
use of air filters and a second set of doors

23 Provide paging system to inform patrons of 1 0 0
closing time

24 Provide master light switch at the circulation desk 1 0 1

25 Computers should be hidden behind counter for 1 0 0
appearance

26 Reserve book area behind circulation desk should 0 0 1
be "arranged so that workers can efficiently locate
and shelve materials".

27 Need at least 105 linear feet of shelving for reserve 1 0 1
book area behind circulation desk

28 A separate Reserve Room housing the maloriry 1 1 1
of the reserve material would be preferable rather
than shelving them behind Circualtion desk

29 Reserve Room should be equipped with tables, 1 1 1
chairs, carrels, and a book theft security system



RFP DOC TSOIKOBUS FINAL LIC

TOTAL INCLUDED: 24 3 25
82.70% 10.00% 86%


















PUBLIC SERVICES
REFERENCE DESK

NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

1 Counter designed to help patrons on a walk-in 1 0 1
basis & accommodate multiple students at a time

2 Desk should allow librarian to be at eye level with 1 0 1
patron

3 ADA compliant counter for patrons 1 0 1

4 (2) Computers 1 1 1
5 (2) Telephones 1 0 1
6 Six linear feet of file storage space 1 0 1

7 Space for student workers' belongings 1 0 0

8 60 linear feet of shelving "within easy reach of 1 0 1
counter" for reference materials


9 "Librarians often need to print, copy or fax 1 0 1
information so connectivity" should be provided

10 Desk should be located "in a manner that allows 1 0 1
people who enter the library to find it easily"

11 Does not need to be near Circulation desk but 1 1 1
but should be near Reserve area and Reference
collection

12 Should also be near general stacks particulary 1 0 0
the periodicals and microfilm collections"

13 Reference materials do not circulate and should 1 0 0
not wander too far from those stacks so quiet
reading areas should be provided

14 2-6 computers & photocopy machines for patrons 1 1 1


15 "Cones of silence" at these workstations so that 1
other patons are not disturbed 1

16 Adjacent to reference librarians' & 1 1 1
reference staff's offices

17 Conference area or weekly meetings that 0 0 1
can double as workspace (no food allowed)


















REFERENCE DESK
NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

18 Training room for 10-12 people near 1 1 1
the reference desk

Book collection:
19 (5) bookcases with 54 linear feet of shelving that 1 0 1
run i e lenglh of the First Floor Reading Room

20 Single faced shelving (90 linear feet of shelving) 1 0 1

21 Reference books on 1116 linear feet of shelving 1 1 1
on Upper Level

22 Two index tables located in the reference area, 1 0 0
each with 18 linear feet of shelving

23 Primary legal research materials in the First Floor 1 0 1
Reading Room compact shelving need to be near
the Reference Desk area



RFP TK&A LIC

TOTAL INCLUDED: 22 6 19
95.60% 26.00% 82.60%


















PUBLIC SERVICES
BOOK STACKS

NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

1 LIC needs 120,000 linear feet of shelving to house 1 1 1
the entire collection of approx 350,000 volumes

2 Expected growth within the next 10 years is 1 0 1
500,000 volumes that would require an additional
175,000 linear feet and approx 27,000 sq. feet

3 Patrons use 20% of the volumes 80% of the time 1 0 1
These are considered the "most-used books" and
should be in 24,000 linear ft of open stack shelving

4 The remaining volumes can be stored in compact 1 1 1
movable shelving systems

5 Shelving should be nigh quality due to weight of 1 0 1
the average law book

6 Floors should be reinforced to bear the weight of 1 1 1
moving shelves

7 Book stacks should be arranged in a logical 1 0 1
manner that facilitates locating and re-shelving of
materials

8 Book stacks should be located near study areas 1 1 1
as well as copy machines and printers

9 Aisles should comply with ADA guidelines 1 0 1

10 Adequate space should be retained on each shelf 1 0 1
to allow for collection growth



RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

TOTAL INCLUDED 11 4 10
100% 36.36% 100%


















PUBLIC SERVICES
MIRCOFILM COLLECTION

NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

1 Held in 63 standing Tiling cabinets & occupying 1 1 1
570 square feet


2 Area needed for cabinets, readers, reader-printers, 1 1 1
and computers for downloading and scanning

3 Growth of the collection requires space for more 1 1 1
cabinets each year

4 Space needs to be provided for researchers to use 1 1 1
microfilm and mircofiche 2 to 5 persons at a time



RFP DOC TSOIIKOBUS FINAL LIC

TOTAL INCLUDED 4 4 4
100% 100% 100%


















COLLECTION SERVICES
COLLECTION SERVICES

NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC

1 Minimize noise, provide more privacy used to be 1 0 1
open to the library so outside noises were
disturbing to staff

2 Large workspaces for sorting mail 1 0 1
Staff often stands for 3+ hrs soning mail so work
table should be adjustable and there should be
floor mats to cushion the concrete floor

3 Staff spend most of their time at their computers 1 0 1
so ergonomic work spaces with large flat surfaces
on both sides of the computers is critical

4 Task lighting Ihal prevents glare is essential 1 0 0

5 Easy access to elevators 1 0 0

6 Adjacent to loading dock and mailroom 1 1 1

7 No public access to technical services 1 0 1

8 Better views, daylight, and more comfortable work 1 1 1
environment

9 Easy access to Circulation Desk 1 1 1

Individual work space should have the following:
10 Large work surface 1 0 1
11 Shelving 1 0 1
12 Fle and supplies storage 0 0 1
13 Space for book trucks 1 0 1
14 Waste and recycle containers 0 0 1
15 Storage for personal belongings 0 0 1

Common areas should have Ihe Toilowing:
16 Storage space for supplies 0 1 1
17 Shelving for books waiting to be processed 1 1 1
18 Book truck 1 0 1
19 Copier 1 1 1
20 Fax machine 1 1 1
21 Printers 1 1 1
22 Data access 1 0 1

23 Receiving and sorting area with a large work 1 1 1
surface, shelves, garbage and recycling and
space for book trucks


















COLLECTION SERVICES
NEED STATED IN CDCP PROGRAM
24 Access to conference room with data access
for training sessions

25 Small kitchen area with a sink, microwave, and
refrigerator


RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC
1 0 1


RFP DOC TSOI/KOBUS FINAL LIC


TOTAL INCLUDED:


10
40.00%














APPENDIX E

SURVEY QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT


CBE = Centerfor the Built Environment sample survey

(http: /www. cbe. berkeley. edu/RESEARCH/survey. htm)


Univ of Sao Paulo


CONCEPT VARIABLE

Background Name

Email

Department
Posilion/Job title
Gender
Age
Time @ LCoL
Time @ new workspace
Hours @ workspace
Personal workspace
description



Programming Involvement in planning
and Planning process for the LIC
Involvement in planning
process for the LIC
Involvement in AR
process for the LIC
Involvement in AR
process for the LIC


CONCEPT VARIABLE

Technical Lighting: natural
Lighting: task
Lighting
Lighting: artificial

Lighting: natural

Lighting: computer glare


Lighting: computer glare

Acoustics. background

Acoustics privacy

Acoustics

Security

Security

Security

Fire Safety
ADA
Thermal: temperature

Thermal: humidity
Thermal: odours

Air Quality


University of Sao Paulo survey


QUESTION

Name: (your information will be kept confidential and
anonymous.)
Email: (Your information will be kept confidential and
anonymous
What department do you work in?
Position/Job title:
Gender:
Age:
How long have you worked at the College of Law library?
How long have you been working in your new workspace?
How many hours do you spend in your workspace during a typical week?
Which of the following best describes your personal workspace:
Enclosed private office; Enclosed office shared with co-workers;
Cubicle with high partitions (over Sft); Cubicle with low partitions (less than 5ft);
Workspace in an open office environment; Other

Did the architects ever interview or survey you about your workspace needs?
If yes, brielly describe the process:
How involved were you in the planning process for the new LIC?

How involved were you in the planning process for the LIC when the CDGP was
collaborating with the LCoL?
Dki faculty or students from CDCP ever interview or survey you about your
workspace needs? If yes, brielly describe the process:


QUESTION

On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with natural lighting in your work area.
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with task lighting in your work area
Overall, does the lighting quality enhance or interfere with your ability to get your
On a scale ol 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount ol control you have over
artificial lighting in your work area
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of control you have over
natural lighting in your work area
How would you characterize the glare on your computer screen?
No glare; Glare occurs occasionally; Glare occurs 50% of the time; Glare occurs
frequently
Indicate the origin of the glare, if this is a problem for you.
Artilicial lighting; Natural lighting; Dont know
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the level of background noise in
your work area
On a scle of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the level of privacy at your workstation
while engaged in conversation with either another person or on the telephone
Overall, does the acoustic quality in your workspace enhance or interfere with your
ability to gel your job done? Enhances------ Interferes
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the security of your personal
belongings at your work area.
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satislacation with the security of public access to your
work area.
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the security of storage rooms or
areas for your department?
How satisfied are you with the lire safety measures for the building?
How satisfied are you with the access for physically disabled in the building?
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your overall satisfaction with the air temperature in your
work area?
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the humidity levels in your work area?
On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of odours in your
work area
Overall, does the air quality in your workspace enhance or interfere wilh your ability
to get your job done? Enhances ------Interferes


SOURCE

WA

NIA

WA
N/A
NWA
NWA
N/A
CBE
CBE
OBE




NIA



N/A

NWA


SOURCE

N/A
N/A
CBE
N/A

N/A

Univ of Sao Paulo


Univ of Sao Paulo

N/A

N/A

CBE

N/A





N/A
N/A
N/A


N/A

CBE















CONCEPT VARIABLE QUESTION

Functional Adjacencies On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the distance between you and other
areas of activity in which you are involved in
Adjacencies On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the distance between you and your
immediate supervisor
Adjacencies On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the distance between you and your
co-workers
Adjacencies Overall, does the location of your workspace enhance or interfere with your ability
to perform your job?
Layout How satisfied are you with the appearance of the layout of your department's work
area
Layout Overall, does the office layout enhance or interfere with your ability to perform your
job?
Layout Please describe any other issues relatioed to the office layout that are important
to you:
Satisfaction with On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the size and arrangement of your
workspace workspace in relation to the activities that you perform
Space needs: storage On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the space for storage of materials
at your workspace
Space needs: storage On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of storage space for
your department?
Space needs: storage On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the location of storage room/space
for your department
Space needs: storage Please describe any other issues related to storage that are important to you
Space needs: meeting On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the size of meeling/conference rooms
rooms available for your departments usage
Space needs: meeting On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the location of meeting/conference
rooms rooms available for your department's usage
Space needs: meeting Please describe any other issues related to meeting rooms that are important to you
rooms
Space needs: printing/ On a scale of I to 7, rate your satisfaction with the location of the printing/copying
copying areas areas for your department
Space needs: toliets On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your salisfation with the location of the toliet rooms?
Space needs: stairways On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the location of the elevators and
and elevators stairways in relation to your work area


CONCEPT VARIABLE

Functional Ergonomics

Ergonomics
Ergonomics
Ergonomics
Space needs

Space needs

Equipment needs

Equipment needs

Circulation
Circulaton


QUESTION

How satisfied are you with the comfort of your office furnishings (chair, desk,
computer, equipment, ect)?
How satisfied are you with your ability to adjust your furniture to meet your needs
Do vcur oril:e lurr ,ns r: ,nnance of rnirlere a~ir y3ur abilrt l0a ,l cijr icE ene'
Pler3S :l ::'-riC e an^ cirn r l istue riEala ] [:i rf:c r l ur r n !inl:nln in l are ,iT .pCf r n[
Were all of the space needs for your department met in your new work area?
If not, what areas should have been included and why:
Are there areas in your department's work area that were provided but are not being
used? It so. what are these areas and why are they not being used:
Were all the equipment needs for your department provided? If not, what should have
being provided and why:
is there equipment in your department hat was provided but is not being utilized?
if so, which equipment and why is it not being used?
How satisfied are you with the amount of circulation around your workspace?
How satisfied are you with the amount of circulation within your department's work
area?


SOURCE

Univ of Sao Paulo

Univ of Sao Paulo

N/A

N/A

Univ of Sao Paulo

CBE

CBE

Univ of Sao Paulo

Univ of Sao Paulo

N/A

N/A

CBE
N/A

N/A

CBE

N/A

Univ of Sao Paulo
Univ of Sao Paulo


SOURCE

CBE

CBE
CBE
CBE
N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A















CONCEPT VARIABLE

Ambient Aesthetics

Aesthetics

Symbolism

Symbolism


Psychological Privacy
Privacy

Privacy
Interaction
Interaction

Sense of ownership

Sense of place

Sense of security

Sense of density

Proxemics




CONCEPT VARIABLE

Overall Areas for improvement

















Elements of importance


QUESTION

How satisfied are you with the colors and textures of the flooring, lurnilure, and
surface materials within your work area?
How satisfied are you wit the colors and textures of the flooring, furniture and surface
materials within the public areas of the LIC?
Do you feel that your work area reflects the proper image for the LIC?
Yes; No; Somewhat; Comments
Do you feel that the public areas of the LIC reflect the proper image?


On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with visual privacy at your workstation
Does the level of privacy within your workspace enhance or interfere with your
ability to perform your job?
Are you able to access a private area within the LIC when needed?
How satisfied are you with the ease of interaction with your co-workers?
How satisfied are you with the ease of interaction with other departments within the
LIC?
Do you feel that you have a sense of ownership over your workspace?
Yes; No; Somewhat; Comments
Do you have a sense of belonging or a sense of place in your new workspace?
Yes; No; Somewhat; Comments
Do you feel safe in your new workspace?
Yes; No; Somewhal; Comments
Do you feel that you have enough space in your new workspace?
Yes; No; Somewhat; Comments
Do you feet that you are able to define your own personal space within your work
area?



QUESTION S


SOURCE

CBE

CBE

N/A

WA


WA
N/A

WA
CBE
N/A

NWA

NWA

NWA

N/A

WA





SOURCE


in your opinion, which of the following items below do you think should be improved Univ of Sao Paulo
in your work environment (place an X in the table below):
Layout
Work stations
Meeting rooms
Storage
Equipment
Coffee Area
Toliet Rooms
Temperature
Ventilation
Lighting
Noise Levels
Privacy
Aesthetics
None
Others, please list:

In your personal evaluation, classify (from 1 to 10), in order of importance in a work Univ of Sao Paulo
environment, the items listed below (with "1r as the most important):
Thermal Comfort
Air Oualily
Visual comfort (lighting/shades)
Acoustic comfort
Acoustic and visual privacy
Comfort of furnishings and dimensions of work area
Fire safety
Security against theft
Liberty to control the conditions of your work environment
Beauty/aesthetics of the building
Image the building and the interior elements portray to visitors

Additional comments










APPENDIX F
STAFF USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS


1. Name:
(Your name will be kept confidential and your results will remain anonymous.
This is required in case I need to contact you for an interview. This information
will not be shared with anyone.)




2. Email:
(Your email will be kept confidential and your results will remain anonymous.
This is required in case I need to contact for an interview. This information will
not be shared with anyone.)




3. Which department do you work in?




4. Position/Job title:




5. Gender:




6. Please state your age in years:

l .,,,,,, ,...............................


7. How long have you worked at the College of Law library approximately?




8. How long have you been working in your new workspace?













9. How many hours do you spend in your workspace during a typical week?




10. Which of the following best describes your personal workspace?
O Enclosed private office
O Enclosed office shared with other co-workers
O Cubicle with high partitions (5 ft or higher)
O Cubicle with low partitions (less than S ft)
O Workspace in open office and no partitions
O Other (please specify)





The planning process for the Legal Information Center went through several stages under the direction of
several different groups. The College of Design, Construction and Planning began the planning process in Fall
of 1999 and acted as an outside consultant for the library. In Spring of 2000, UF Facilities Planning and
Construction began to oversee the project. Then in 2001, the architects (partners Ponikvar and Tsoi/Kobus
Associates) were selected to design the building based upon the building program by the Facililties Planning
and Construction with contributions from the College of Design, Construction and Planning. The next series of
questions are in reference to this planning process to assess your level of involvement and participation
data-gathering initiatives by any or all of these groups.

11. Which phases of the planning process for the College of Law Legal
Information Center were you involved in [check all that apply]:
D Preliminary programming with the College of Design, Construction and Planning
D Planning and programming with UF's Facilities Planning and Construction
D Planning and programming with the architects Tsol/Kobus and Ponikvar
D Was not involved in the planning process (skip to #22)


12. On a scale of 1 to 7 (with "1" meaning Very Involved), please rate your
involvement with the planning process for the Legal Information Center:
Very Little or no
Involved 2 3 4 5 6 involvement
1 7
Involvement in Planning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


13. On a scale of 1 to 7, please rate your level of satisfaction with the planning
process.
Very Very










iwton SlS hile Is LSe Informatio e ntei


ndiSihie t .z 4 5 UISDLISTi U I iVA
1 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Planning Process


14. Did a representative from the College of Design, Construction and Planning
ever conduct an interview or survey with you about your workspace needs?
O Yes
O No (skip to #16)
O Don't remember (skip to #16)


15. If yes, briefly describe your experience with that process:







16. Did a representative from UF's Facilities Planning and Construction ever
conduct an interview or survey with you about your workspace needs?
O Yes
O No (skip to #18)
O Don't remember (skip to #18)


17. If yes, briefly describe that process:







18. Did a representative from the architectural firm (Ponikvar or Tsoi/Kobus
Associates) that designed the building ever conduct an interview or survey with
you about your workspace needs?
O Yes
O No (skip to #20)
O Don't remember (skip to #20)












19. If yes, briefly describe that process:


20. Did you participate in any "town hall" style meetings about the plans for the
Legal Information Center and the College of Law?
O Yes
Q No (skip to #22)
O Don't remember (skip to #22)

21. If yes, briefly describe that process:















22. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the lighting in your
workspace:


Very
Satisfied 1

0 0
0 0
0 0


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


23. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of control you
have over the lighting in your workspace:


Very
Satisfied 1

0 0
0 0
0 0


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


24. How would you characterize the glare on your computer screen?
O No glare (skip to #26)
O Glare occurs occasionally
O Glare occurs 50% of the time
O Glare occurs frequently


25. If glare is a problem, I believe it typically comes from [fill in the blank].
0 Artificial Lighting
SNatural Lighting
O Don't Know


26. Overall, on a scale of 1 to 7, does the lighting quality enhance or interfere
with your ability to get your job done?


Enhance 1 2
0 0


Lighting Quality


Interfere 7
0


27. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following in your
work area:


Natural Lighting
Task Lighting
Artificial Lighting


Natural Lighting
Task Lighting
Artificial Lghting












Lw to hle eaS lIwnfrainCni.eS -


Very
Satisfied 1 2


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


Background Noise (voices, noise from the air O O O O O O O
ducts, ect)
Acoustical Privacy (private conversation, ect) O O O O O O O
Acoustical Disruptions (loud copiers, buzz from 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
artificial lights, others' conversations, ect) '


28. Overall, on a scale of 1 to 7, does the acoustic quality in your workspace
enhance or interfere with your ability to get your job done?
Enhances Interferes
2 3 4 5 6
1 7
Acoustic Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


29. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Very
Satisfied 1


Security of personal belongings in your
workspace
Public access to your workspace
Security of storage areas/rooms for your
department
Fire safety measures for the building
Access for physically disabled


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0


30. Do you know where to go and what to do in case of a fire or emergency in
the building?

0 Yes
0 NO
O Maybe


31. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following in your
work area:


Very
Satisfied 1


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000


Temperature
Humidity
Odors

















32. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Very 2
Satisfied 1


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


Distance between you and other areas of O O O O O O O
activity in which you are involved (i.e. work area
for sorting books, printer/copier room, ect.)
Distance between you and your supervisor 0 O O O O 0 O
Distance between you and your co-workers 0 O O O O O 0


Layout of your department's work area


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


33. Overall, does the layout of your workspace enhance or interfere with your
ability to get your job done?


Enhance 1 2
Workspace Layout 0 (0


6 Interfere 7
0 0


34. Please describe any other issues related to the office layout that are
important to you:









35. Rate on a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Very
Satisfied 1


2 3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


Size of your workspace in relation your job O O
tasks
Arrangement of your workspace in relation to O O
your job tasks
Storage space within your personal workspace 0 0
Storage space within your department's work O O
area
Location of storage space 0 0
Size of meeting rooms 0 0
Location of meeting rooms 0 0
Location of printing/copy areas 0 0
Location of toilet rooms 0 0
Location of stairways 0 0











Location of elevators Q Q Q Q Q Q
Location of your work area (O O O O O O


36. Were all of the space needs or wishes for your department fulfilled based
upon what you or your department asked for during the planning process that
proceeded construction?
O No
O Somewhat
O Yes (skip to #39)
O Not sure (skip to #39)

37. If you answered "no" or "somewhat" on the last question, briefly explain
which areas are lacking and why.


38. Are there areas in your department that were provided by the new
construction, but are not being used?
O Yes
O Somewhat
O No (skip to #41)
O Not sure (skip to #41)

39. If you answered "yes" or "somewhat" on the last question, briefly explain
what are these areas are not being used and why.


40. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the amount of circulation
within your work area?












w tSn Cie LgallwInomtnCeinteS -


Circulation through work area


Very
Satisfied 1

00


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


41. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the circulation space to walk
and move around throughout the whole Legal Information Center?


Circulation through building


Very
Satisfied 1

00


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


42. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the ease of finding your way
through the Legal Information Center.


Wayfinding through building


Very
Satisfied 1

00


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


43. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the entrance into the library
from the courtyard.


Very
Satisfied 1
Access 0 0


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


44. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the entrance and means of
access to your work area.


Very
Satisfied 1

00


Access to work area


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


45. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the comfort provided by your
office furnishings (chair, desk, computer monitor, keyboard tray, ect.)?


Comfort with furnishings


Very
Satisfied 1

0 0


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


46. On a scale of 1 to7, how satisfied are you with your ability to adjust your
furniture to meet your needs?











w tSn Cie LgallwInomtnCeinteS -


Very
Satisfied 1


Furniture adjustment


3 4


0 0 0 0 0


6 Dissatisfied
S 7
0 0


47. Do the office furnishings enhance or interfere with your ability to get your
job done?
Enhance 1 2 3 4 5 6 Interfere 7
Office furnishings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


48. Please describe any other issues related to the office furnishings that are
important to you:










49. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you aesthetic quality of the following
within your workspace?


Very
Satisfied 1


Colors
Surface Materials
Flooring Materials
Furnishings
Overall Interior style


Very
3 4 S 6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0


50. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you aesthetic quality of the following
within the public areas of the library?


Very
Satisfied 1


Colors
Surface Materials
Flooring Materials
Furnishings
Overall interior style


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 O 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
















51. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the appearance of the
following architectural elements?


Very
Satisfied 1


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


Interior atrium at the entrance
Exterior building style
Courtyard
Large windows and views
Connection to the other buildings


52. Please state any additional comments about the aesthetics of the Legal
Information Center.









53. In the programming document prepared by UF's Facilities Planning and
Construction it states the following: "The new facility should serve as [the
College of Law's] 'best foot forward' by conveying an impressive and first-class
image to current and prospective students, visiting faculty and distinguished
lawyers and justices, alumni and members of the legal community and other
benefactors." On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does the new Legal Information
Center support this statement?


Very Well 2

0 O


"Best foot forward"


Very
ry Comments
Poorly 7
0 0


54. On a scale of I to 7, how well does the Legal Information Center
symbolically express the important values of knowledge and learning?


Very Well 2
1
0 0


Very
Poorly 7
0


55. Please state any additional comments about the atmosphere of the Legal
Information Center.


Values












Lw Slton ChsilsL InfoSmaionl Center


56. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well does the library design supports the
following needs.


Very Well 2 3 4
1
Easy supervision by staff without the sense of O O O O
feeling exposed In a large impersonal space
Different spaces within the library, ranging from O O O O
open areas of public activity to alcoves of
semiprivate activity
Areas that have a sense of intimacy within the O O O O
overall public setting
A wide variety of reading areas providing O O O O
choices to fit the users mood or environment


needs
A clear understanding while moving through the
library of the general purpose of each area
Clearly visible staff areas as a means of
bringing information, services and people
together


0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0


5 6 Very
Poorly 7

O O O
O O O

O O O
O O O


0 0
0 0















57. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well your work space supports the following
activities:


Very
Supportive


Very
4 5 6 Unsupportive
7


Ability to concentrate when needed
Ability to coordinate tasks with others
Awareness of what others are working on
Feeling productive at work
Ability to share information quickly
Ability to work effectively as a team


58. Please describe any other issues related to your ability to work effectively in
your workspace:








59. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Privacy
Ease of Interaction with co-workers
Ease of interaction with other departments
Sense of place
Sense of ownership
Sense of security


Very
Satisfied 1

0
0
0
0
0
0
O


Very
2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7
0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
000000 O
000000 O


60. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your ability to define your own personal space
within your work area (i.e. flexibility to move furniture to suit your needs; ability
to personalize with photos or knick-knacks, ect)


Very able 2

0 O


Personal Space


Not able 7

0












61. On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does the library facility support a sense of a
strong academic community?
Very Well 2 3 4 5 6 Very
1 Poorly 7
Sense of community 0 O O O O 0


62. Do you feel proud being a part of the College of Law community at UF?
SYes
O NO
SSomewhat




63. In your opinion, which of the following items below do you think should be
improved in your work environment (Check all that apply):
D Layout
D Work stations
SMeeting rooms
D Storage
D Furnishings
D Equipment
D Coffee Area/Kitchen
D Toilet Rooms
F Copy Room
D Circulation
D Wayfinding
D Stairways
SElevators
D Temperature
] Ventilation
D Lighting
D Noise Levels
H Privacy
H Aesthetics
H None
Others, please list:



















64. In your personal evaluation, classify (from 1 to 14), in order of importance
in a work environment, the items listed below (with "1" as the most important
and "14" as the least important).

Thermal Quality
Visual comfort
(lighting/shades)
Acoustic comfort

Acoustic privacy
Visual privacy

Comfort of furnishings
Dimensions of work area

Fire safety

Security against theft _______.......
Liberty to control the
thermal conditions of
work environment
Beauty and aesthetics of
the building
Beauty and aesthetics of
your work area
Image of the exterior
Image of the interior



65. Overall, on a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with your work
environment?


Very
Satisfied 1

Work Environment 0 0


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


66. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the building overall?


Legal Information Center


Very 2
Satisfied 1

0 0


3 4


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0


67. Any additional comments about your personal workspace or the building
overall?












APPENDIX G
STUDENT USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS


1. Please select one of the following that best describes you:
O College of Law Faculty
O College or Law Staff
O College of Law Undergrad Student
O College of Law Graduate or Doctorate Student
O Other UF Faculty
O Other UF Staff
O Other UF Student
O Outside Visitor
O Other (please specify)
........................................

2. If employed with the University of Florida, please list the department in which
you work.



3. If a student at the University of Florida, please list your area of study.



4. Gender:
I--3
FF1'

5. Please state your age in years.



6. How long have you worked and/or studied at the University of Florida?
O Less than I year
S1 to 2 years
Q 3 to 5 years
O 5 to 10 years
O More than 10 years
Q Not applicable














7. During a typical week, how much time do you spend working or studying in
the Legal Information Center?
Q Less than 5 hours
Q 5 to 10 hours
O 11 to 25 hours
O 26 to 35 hours
0 More than 35 hours
O I never use the library

8. Typically, what activities do you participate in while at the Legal Information
Center? (Check all that apply)
D Studying
D Working
D Meeting with peers
D Searching for books or research materials
D Returning books
D Using computers
D Meeting with librarians
Socializing
STaking a break between classes
I Other (please specify)



9. Which areas do you typically use in the Legal Information Center? (Check all
that apply)
D Circulation Desk
D Reference Desk or Librarians' offices
D O'Connell Reading Room
D Private meeting rooms
D Graduate student study room
B Study carrells
B Administrative office
B Book stacks
B Reference Room
D Microfilm Area
D Other (please specify)



















The planning process for the Legal Information Center went through several stages under the direction of
several different groups. The College of Design, Construction and Planning began the planning process in Fall
of 1999 and acted as an outside consultant for the library. In Spring of 2000, UF Facilities Planning and
Construction began to oversee the project. Then in 2001, the architects (partners Ponikvar and Tsoi/Kobus
Associates) were selected to design the building based upon the building program by the Facililties Planning
and Construction with contributions from the College of Design, Construction and Planning. The next series of
questions are in reference to this planning process to assess your level of involvement and participation
data-gathering initiatives by any or all of these groups.

10. Which phases of the planning process for the College of Law Legal
Information Center were you involved in [check all that apply]:
D Pre-liminary programming with the College of Design, Construction and Planning
D Planning and programming with UF's Facilities Planning and Construction
D Planning and programming with the architects Tsol/Kobus and Ponikvar
D Was not Involved in the planning process (skip to #20)


11. On a scale of 1 to 7 (with "1" meaning Very Involved), please rate your
involvement with the planning process for the Legal Information Center:
Very Little or no
Involved 2 3 4 5 6 involvement
1 7
Involvement In Planning 0 0 0 0 0 O 0


12. On a scale of 1 to 7, please rate your level of satisfaction with the planning
process.
Very Very
Satisfied 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied N/A
1 7
Planning Process 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


13. Did a representative from the College of Design, Construction and Planning
ever conduct an interview or survey with you?
O Yes
O No (skip to #14)
O Don't remember (skip to #14)


14. If yes, briefly describe your experience with that process:


















15. Did a representative from UF's Facilities Planning and Construction ever
conduct an interview or survey with you?
SYes
O No (skip to #16)
O Don't remember (skip to #16)

16. If yes, briefly describe that process:







17. Did a representative from the architectural firm (Ponikvar or Tsoi/Kobus
Associates) that designed the building ever conduct an interview or survey with
you?
Q Yes
O No (skip to #18)
O Don't remember (skip to #18)

18. If yes, briefly describe that process:







19. Did you participate in or attend any "town hall" style meetings about the
plans for the Legal Information Center and the College of Law?
0 Yes
Q No (skip to #20)
Q Don't remember (skip to #20)















20. If yes, briefly describe that process:









For the next series of questions, please answer them in regards to the overall interior of the Legal
Information Center. If there are specific areas of concern, please report these at the end of the survey in
the space provided.

21. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the lighting.
very Very
Satisfied 1 3 5 6 Dissatifed
7
Natural Lighting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Task Lighting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Artificial Lighting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


22. If you use a laptop computer or one of the library's computers, how often
do you experience glare on the screen?
O No glare (skip to #23)
O Glare occurs occasionally
O Glare occurs 50% of the time
O Glare occurs frequently
( Not applicable (skip to #23)


23. If glare is a problem, I believe it typically comes from [fill in the blank].
O Artificial Lighting
O Natural Lighting
O Don't Know


24. On a scale of 1 to 7, does the lighting quality enhance or interfere with your
ability to perform activities within the following areas:
Enhance 1 2 3 4 5 6 Interfere 7
Booktacks,, O O O O O O
Study Carrels O O O O O 0O















-awton~ Chle Lgl nfratonCntr tuen. urve


Meeting Rooms
O'Connell Reading Room
Reserve Room


O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0


25. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Very 2
Satisfied 1


Very
4 5 6 Dissatisfied


Background Noise (voices, noise for air ducts, 0 0 0 0 0 0
ect.)
Acoustical Privacy (private conversations, ect.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acoustical Disruptions (copy machines, others' () ) 0 O )
conversations, buzz from light fixtures, ect.)


26. On a scale of 1 to 7, does the acoustic quality enhance or interfere with your
ability to perform your activities within the following areas of the library:


Bookstacks
Study Carrels
Meeting Rooms
O'Connell Reading Room
Reserve Room


Enhances 2 3 4 5 6 Interferes
1 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000 O


27. Do you know where to go and what to do in case of a fire or emergency in
the building?
O Yes
Q No
O Maybe


28. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Very
Satisfied 1


Very
3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7


0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Temperature
Humidity
Odors




















29. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Distance between you and others while
studying
Layout of the O'Connell reading room
Layout of the book stacks


Very
4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7


Very
Satisfied 1

0

0
0


30. On a scale of 1 to 7, how easy is it to find a comfortable place for you to
study in the library?


Very easy


Nearly
6 impossible


2 3 4


Comfortable study area


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


31. On a scale of 1 to 7, how crowded does the library seem to be on a typical
weekday?


Crowded 1
0 0


Not
Crowded 7
0


32. On a scale of 1 to 7, does the overall layout of the library enhance or
interfere with your ability to perform your activities?
Enhance 1 2 3 4 5 6
Library Layout 0 0 0 0 0 O


Interfere 7
0


33. Please describe any other issues related to the layout of the library that are
important to you:


34. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Very
satisfied I


Very
2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7


Crowded















Size of the study carrels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Power/data connectivity in the study carrels O O O O O 0)
Storage space for books, backpack, ect. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Size of meeting rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Location of meeting rooms O0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Location of printing/copy areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Location of toilet rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Location of stairways 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Location of elevators 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Location of study carrels 0 0 0 0 0 0 O


35. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the amount of circulation
space to walk and move around the book stacks?
VVery ery
VSat erd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
Satisfied 1 7
Circulation through bookstacks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


36. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the circulation space to walk
and move around throughout the whole Legal Information Center?
Very Very
Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7
Circulation through building 0 0 0 0 0 0 O


37. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the ease of finding your way
through the Legal Information Center:
VVery ery
SatVeryd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
Satisfied 1 7
Wayfinding through building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


38. On a scale of 1 to 7, how easy is it for you to find materials/books within the
library?
Nearly
Very Easy 2 3 4 5 6 impossible
17
Finding books/materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


39. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the entrance to the Legal














I Lawton Chiles Legal InformationCenter


Information Center from the courtyard
Very
Satisfied 1
Access/Egress 0


40. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with
identify the following areas within the library:


Circulation Desk
Reference Desk
Book Stacks
Reference Materials
Reference Room
Copy/printing areas
Microfilm Collection
Foreign Books Collection
Audiovisual Collection
Reading Room
Meeting Rooms
Administration
Toilets


Very
Satisfied 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O


41. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with
furnishings?
Very 2 3
Satisfied 1
Comfort with furnishings 0 0 0


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0 0


being able to easily find and


Very
Dissatisfied
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


the comfort of the


Very
4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7
0 0 0 O


42. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with your ability to adjust the
furniture (i.e. the chairs, desk heights, ect.) to meet your needs?


Very
Satisfied 1
Furniture adjustment 0


Very
6 Dissatisfied


0 0 0 0 0 0


43. On a scale of 1 to 7, do the furnishings enhance or interfere with your ability
to perform your activity?















Enhance 1 2 3 4 5 6 Interfere 7
Furnishings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


44. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your satisfaction with the amount of seating in
regards to seating options and seating arrangements.
Very
satVsfed 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
7
Seating options 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seating arrangements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




45. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the aesthetic quality of the
following finishes throughout the library?
Very
Satisfierd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
Colors 0 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Materals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flooring Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Furnishings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall interior style 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


46. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with the appearance of the
following architectural elements?
Very
SatVeryd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dissatisfied
Satisfied 1
7
Interior atrium at entrance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Building style 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Courtyard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Large windows and views 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Connection to the other buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


47. Please state any additional comments in regards to the aesthetics of the
Legal Information Center.


I )




















48. In the programming document prepared by UF's Facilities Planning and
Construction it states the following: "The new facility should serve as [the
College of Law's] 'best foot forward' by conveying an impressive and first-class
image to current and prospective students, visiting faculty and distinguished
lawyers and justices, alumni and members of the legal community and other
benefactors." On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does the new Legal Information
Center support this statement?
Very Well 2 3 4 5 6 Very
1 Poorly 7
'Best foot forward' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


49. How well does the Legal Information Center symbolically express the
important values of knowledge and learning?
Very Well


Values


1
0 0


Very
Poorly 7
0


50. Please state any additional comments about the atmosphere of the Legal
Information Center.








51. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well does the library design supports the
following needs.


Very Well


Easy supervision by staff without the sense of
feeling exposed in a large impersonal space
Different spaces within the library, ranging from
open areas of public activity to alcoves of
semiprivate activity
Areas that have a sense of intimacy within the
overall public setting
A wide variety of reading areas providing
choices to fit the users mood or environment
needs
A clear understanding while moving within the
library of the general purpose of each area


0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Very
Poorly 7
0

0

0

0
O



















together


52. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate how well the library supports the following
activities.


Very
Supportive 2


Very
5 6 Unsupportive


Ability to concentrate when needed
Feeling productive
Ability to work on team projects
Ability to block distractions


53. Please describe any other issues related to your ability to work effectively in
the library:


54. On a scale of 1 to 7, rate your level of satisfaction with the following:


Sense of privacy
Ease of interaction with others
Sense of place
Sense of ownership
Sense of security


Very
6 Dissatisfied


Very
Satisfied 1

0
0
0
0
0


55. On a scale of 1 to 7, how well does the library facility support a sense of a
strong academic community?


Very Well 2
1
0 0


Sense of community


Very
Poorly 7
0


56. Do you feel proud being a part of the College of Law community at UF?














Lato Chiles Leg Inforatio Center Sdent S v

O Yes
SNO
O Somewhat




57. In your opinion, which of the following items below do you think should be
improved (check all that apply):
D Layout
D Study carrels
D Meeting rooms
D Storage
D Furnishings
I Equipment
D Toilet Rooms
D Copy Room
D Circulation
D Wayfinding
SStairways
SElevators
STemperature
SVentilation
D Lighting
D Noise Levels
D Privacy
D Aesthetics
D None
B Others, please list:






58. In your personal evaluation, classify (from 1 to 12), in order of importance,
the items listed below (with "1" as the most important and "12" as the least
important).
Thermal Quality
Visual comfort
(lighting/shades) -
Acoustic comfort



















Acoustic privacy
Visual privacy
Comfort of furnishings _______.........
Dimensions of work area
Fire safety
Security against theft
Beauty and aesthetics
Image of the exterior
Image of the interior



59. On a scale of 1 to 7, how satisfied are you with your the Legal Information
Center overall?


Legal Information Center


Very 2
Satisfied 1

0 0


60. Any additional comments about the Legal Information Center?


Very
Dissatisfied
7
0









APPENDIX H
EMAIL TO KEY PARTICIPANTS FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS



Dear

Thank you for participating in the recent survey about your satisfaction with the new Legal

Information Center. I would like to conduct an interview to learn more about your participation

in the planning process. It would take approximately 30 minutes, the session would be tape

recorded so that it can be transcribed. Once a transcript of the interview is completed, I would

send it to you so that you can edit or omit information. This interview is voluntary and you will

not be compensated. Your responses would be used anonymously in my thesis and your

information would be kept confidential. You would also sign an IRB permission letter.



If you would like to participate (which I would greatly appreciate!!), I am available to conduct

the interview either May 14th or 15th. Are you available then? If not, please let me know

when would be a good date and time.



Thank you once again for your participation and I look forward to hearing from you!



Jennifer C Lamar









LIST OF REFERENCES

History of the Harvard Law School library. (2005). Retrieved January 12, 2006 from

http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/about/history/specialhistory.php.

Leadership in energy and environmental design. (2007). Retrieved July 21, 2007 from

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorylD=19.

Message from the director. (2005). Retrieved January 12, 2006 from

http://www.law.ufl.edu/lic/about.shtml.

UF law facilities expansion and renovation complete. (2005). Retrieved January 12, 2006 from

http://www.law.ufl.edu/expansion.

Workplace Matters. (2006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration.

Ahlers Sr., G. (2002). The history of law school libraries in the United States: From laboratory

to cyberspace. Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., Inc.

Axelroth, J. (2004). The law library: New models & frameworks. In Y. Boyer, L. Mak, J.

Henderson & G. Seer (Eds.), The law library 2004: \kil1\, strategies, & solutions (pp. 7).

New York, NY: Practicing Law Institute.

Beam, A. (2004, May 4). After buildup, MIT center is a letdown. Boston Globe. Retrieved from

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articlies/2004/05/04.

Bloch, R. H., & Hesse, C. (Eds.). (1995). Future libraries. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Blumenthal, R. (2005, May 14). College libraries set aside books in a digital age. New York

Times.

Boog, B. (2002). The emancipatory character of action research, its history and the present state

of the art. Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology, 3(6).









Budd, C. (2000). Narrative research in design practice: Capturing mental models of work

environments. Journal ofInterior Design, 26(2)

Carlson, S. (2005). Thoughtful design keeps new libraries relevant. Chronicle of Higher

Education, (Sept 30), B 1.

Ching, F. (1996). Architecture: Form, Space, and Order. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Crawford, W., & Gorman, M. (1995). Future libraries: Dreams, madness & reality. Chicago, IL:

American Library Association.

Crosbie, M. (2004, June 23). Gehry at MIT. Architecture Week. Retrieved from

http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0623/design_1-1.html.

Crosbie, M., Callender, J. H., Watson, D., & Baerman, D. (1997). Time Saver Standards:

Architectural Design Data. New York City, NY: Mc-Grall-Hill.

Dabek, F. (2004, May 7). Masterpiece orjunkpile? Stata opens its doors. The Tech. Retrieved

from http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N25/25stata.25n.html.

Danner, R. A. (2003). Law school libraries. In M. A. Drake (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and

information science (Second ed.) (pp. 1503). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Duffy, M., Bailey, S., Beck, B., & Barker, D.G. (1986). Preferences in nursing home design-A

comparison of residents, administrators, and designers. Environment andBehavior, 30, p.

246-257.

Francis, M. (2001). A case study method for landscape architecture. Landscape Journal, 20(1),

p. 15-29.

Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Canada:

Optimal Books.









Greenwood, D., Whyte, W., and Harkavy, I. (1993). Participatory action research as a process

and as a goal. Human Relations, 46(2), p. 175-192.

Hasell, M., King, J., & Pohlman, R. Designers, researchers, stakeholders: Partners for planning

the Fredric G. Levin college of law. Unpublished manuscript.

Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming andpredesign manager. New York City,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Horgen, T., & Sheridan, S. (1996). Post-occupancy evaluation of facilities: A participatory

approach to programming and design. Facilities, 14(7/8)

Jerry, R. (2004). A brief exploration of space: Some observations on law school architecture.

University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 36, p. 85-93.

Lackney, J. (2001). The state ofpost-occupancy evaluation in the practice of educational

design. Paper presented at the Environmental Design Research Association, EDRA 32,

Edinburg, Scotland.

Lackney, J. and Zajfen, P. (2005). Post-occupancy evaluations of public libraries: Lessons

learned from three case studies. Library Administration and Management, 19(1), p. 16-

25..

Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1982). Measuring overall architectural quality: A

component of building evaluation. Environment andBehavior, 14(6), p. 652.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006). Action Research: Living Theory. London: Sage

Publications.

Preiser, W., Rabinowitz, H., & White, E. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York, NY:

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.









Preiser, W., & Vischer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Assessing building performance (1st ed.). Burlington,

MA: Elservier Butererworth-Heinemann.

Preiser, W., Visher, J., & White, E. (Eds.). (1991). Design intervention: Toward a more humane

architecture. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Sanoff, H. (2002). Schools designed ~ i/h community participation. Washington, D.C.: National

Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Shill, H. and Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a better place: Physical improvements in academic

libraries, 1995 2002. College and Research Libraries, 64(6), p. 431.

Sommer, R. (1983). Social design: Creating buildings / i/h people in mind. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Sommer, R. and Sommer, B. (2002). Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Swann, C. (2002). Action Research and the Practice of Design. Design Issues, 18(2).

Thompson, G. (1989). Planning and design of library buildings (3rd ed.). London, England:

Butterworth Architecture.

Tse, M. (1999, June 4). Famous architecture: Unique buildings echo MIT's innovative style. The

Tech. Retrieved from http://www-tech.mit.edu/V 19/N27/MIT_architectur.27f.html.

Tsoi, E. (2006). Careful what you dream. Seattle: Bricks and Bytes Conference.
Vischer, J. C. & Marcus, C. C. (2006). Evaluating evaluations: Analysis of housing design
awards program. Places, 3, p. 66-86.
Whyte, W. (1991). Participatory Action Research. London: Sage Publications.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jennifer Lamar was born in Greenwich, Connecticut in 1977. When she was four years

old, her family moved to Houston, Texas during the oil boom and this is where she now calls

home. As a young girl, she was always interested in the arts, both the performing and visual arts.

She was either dancing, acting, or roaming the galleries at the Menill Museum. She received her

Bachelor of Science from Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York in 1999 with a

major in Theater and a minor in English. During her studies there, she also spent a semester

abroad in London studying with the Shakespeare Programme. It was during this time that she

began to discover her passion for set design, interior design, and architecture.

After working in Boston for five years, she decided to pursue her dream and began her

graduate work on University of Florida in Gainesville. There she discovered her interest in

educational design and the importance of the planning process in relation to the final product.

Dr. M. Jo Hasell approached her in fall of 2005 with the idea of conducting a post-occupancy

evaluation of the Legal Information Center to investigate the planning process and she gratefully

accepted the challenge. Jennifer is now working as a consultant with Fielding Nair International,

an educational design firm, as an Associate Designer. She hopes to use her knowledge and skills

to help improve the quality of life and learning for teachers and students around the world.





PAGE 1

1 ACTION RESEARCH AS A PLANNI NG AND DESIGNING APPROACH: POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE LA WTON CHILES LEGAL INFORMATION CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA By JENNIFER C. LAMAR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Jennifer C. Lamar

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without the support of many kind people. I would like to extend a very special thank you to Dr Jo Hasell who contributed not only her time and efforts to this project, but also her rele ntless support while challengi ng my way of thinking every step of the way. I would also like to thank Dr. Meg Portillo a nd Candy Carmel-Gilifen for their valuable contributions. Without their direction, knowledge, and viewpoints, this project would not have been possible. Special thanks to Dr. Kathy Price, the Dire ctor of the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center, as well as Mr. Rick Donnelly, the Assistan t Director. They generously contributed their time, knowledge, and resources so that I was able to conduct my research. Thank you to Howie Ferguson of University of Floridas Facilities Planning and Construction office and Joe Walker of Ponikvar and Associates for providing me with the necessary informa tion and documentations in order to conduct this study. I would like to thank Katie Dobbelaar a nd Melanie Brang for sharing this journey through design school with me and continually o ffering their support while I was working on this research. I thank my dear friend, Jenna Talbott, for always being a great listener and supporter and whose own work inspires mine. I would like to thank my wonderful family who has always been there for me when I needed them. To my parents, John and Mary Lamar, I would like to thank them for teaching me that I can accomplish anything if I put my mind to it. I thank my brother, David Lamar, for reminding me to have f un. Last, but certainly no t least, I would like to thank Lenny DeStefano for always believing in me even when I doubted.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Statement of Purpose........................................................................................................... ...14 Research Questions and Strategies.........................................................................................15 Significance................................................................................................................... .........16 Definitions.................................................................................................................... ..........17 Planning the Program......................................................................................................17 Conducting Action Research...........................................................................................19 Evaluating the Program, the Building and the Process...................................................21 Assumptions Underlying the Study........................................................................................22 Delimitations.................................................................................................................. .........23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................24 Background..................................................................................................................... ........24 Defining the College of Law Design Problem.......................................................................25 History of the Legal Info rmation Planning Process...............................................................27 About the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center..............................................................30 Examining Methods of Architectural Programming..............................................................34 Action Research as a Programming Approach.......................................................................38 Post-Occupancy Evaluations..................................................................................................40 Action Research Process vs. the Traditional Approach..........................................................44 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........46 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................47 Research Study Design.......................................................................................................... .47 Research Setting............................................................................................................... ......49 Research Participants.......................................................................................................... ....53 Sampling Research Participants for the Surveys.............................................................53 Sampling Key Participants for the In-Depth Interviews.................................................54 Procedures and Instruments....................................................................................................54 Comparison Across the CDCP, FP&C, and TK&A Programs and the LIC Building....54 Staff and Student Satisfaction with the Newly Renovated LIC......................................57

PAGE 5

5 In-depth Interviews with Key Participants......................................................................61 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........62 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........62 4 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... .......64 Analyzing and Comparing th e Preliminary AR Program.......................................................64 User Satisfaction Surveys...................................................................................................... .69 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. .70 LIC Staff Demographics & Workspace Descriptors.......................................................71 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Partic ipation (Questions 11 21)...............................................73 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Technica l Dimensions(Questions 22 31)................................73 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Functiona l Dimensions(Questions 32 48)................................75 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Ambient Dimensions (Questions 49 56)..................................77 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Psychological Dimensions(Questions 57 62)..........................79 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 63 67)........................................................81 LIC Student Demographics & LIC Usage.......................................................................82 LIC Student Satisfaction: Technica l Dimensions(Questions 21 28).............................85 LIC Student Satisfaction: Functiona l Dimensions(Questions 29 44)...........................87 LIC Student Satisfaction: Ambien t Dimensions(Questions 45 51)..............................89 LIC Student Satisfaction: Psychologi cal Dimensions (Questions 52 56).....................92 LIC Student Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 57 60)...................................................93 Exploring the Planning Process through In-Depth Unstructured Interviews.........................95 Reason for the AR partnership and How It Worked.......................................................96 Value of the AR Process, the Student Designs, and the CDCP Program Document......98 The Design Process with the Architects........................................................................103 Comparison to Other Building Projects........................................................................108 Importance of Participants Input and Involvement......................................................111 Summary........................................................................................................................ .......112 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ..113 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ........113 Comparison and Verification of the Preliminary CDCP Program................................113 User Satisfaction with the LIC as Assessed by the Surveys.........................................115 Analyzing the In-Depth Interv iews with Key Participants............................................123 Action Research as a Pla nning and Design Approach..........................................................125 Further Discussion on Other Discoveries......................................................................127 Recommendations for Desi gners and Stakeholders.............................................................130 Recommendations for Future Research................................................................................133 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .......134 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUT IONAL REVIEW BOARD APRROVAL LETTER......................................................................................................................... ......136

PAGE 6

6 B CONSENT FORMS.............................................................................................................137 C EXCERPTS FROM THE PR OGRAMMING DOCUMENTS............................................140 D PROGRAM VERIFICATION CHECKLISTS....................................................................144 E SURVEY QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................153 F STAFF USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS......................................................................156 G STUDENT USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS................................................................171 H EMAIL TO KEY PARTICIPANTS FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS...............................185 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................190

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Comparisons with the CDCP Programs 110 Items..........................................................65 4-2 Comparisons of the Net Square Foot ages of the Programs and the Building....................67 4-3 Categories and Dimensions of the AR Framework...........................................................70 4-4 Alpha Ratings of Categories of Dimensions......................................................................71 4-5 Staff Satisfaction with Technical Dimensions...................................................................74 4-6 Staff Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions..................................................................76 4-7 Staff Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions.....................................................................77 4-8 Staff Opinion on LIC Ambient dimensions.......................................................................79 4-9 Staff Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions............................................................79 4-10 Staff Opinion on LIC Ps ychological Dimensions..............................................................80 4-11 Staff Overall Satisfaction with the LIC.............................................................................82 4-12 Staff Recommendations for LIC Improvements................................................................82 4-13 Students Years at University of Florida ..........................................................................83 4-14 Student Activities in the LIC.............................................................................................84 4-15 Areas Students Typically Use in the LIC..........................................................................84 4-16 Student Satisfaction with the Technical Dimensions.........................................................86 4-17 Student Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions.............................................................88 4-18 Student Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions................................................................90 4-19 Student Opinion LIC Ambient Dimensions.......................................................................91 4-20 Student Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions........................................................92 4-21 Student Opinion LIC Ps ychological Dimensions..............................................................93 4-22 Student Satisfaction with the LIC......................................................................................93 4-23 Student Recommendations for LIC Improvements...........................................................94

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Cyclical Process of Action Research.................................................................................20 2-1 Holland Hall Before Renovations......................................................................................26 2-2 Diagram of the Three programming Documents...............................................................27 2-3 Timeline of the Planning and Designing of the LCoL.......................................................30 2-4 Entrance to the O Connell Reading Room........................................................................32 2-5 Student Study Carrels...................................................................................................... ..33 2-6 Lounge Seating on Second Floor.......................................................................................33 3-1 Research Process of the AR study.....................................................................................49 3-2 Site Plan of the Levin College of Law...............................................................................50 3-3 Construction and Renovation of Holland Hall...................................................................50 3-4 Aerial View of Holla nd Hall during Construction.............................................................51 3-5 Floor Plan of the First Floor of Holland Hall....................................................................52 3-6 Floor Plan of the Second Floor of Holland Hall................................................................52 3-7 Levin College of Law Courtyard an d Legal Information Center Entrance.......................53 3-8 Legal Information Center Depa rtments and How They Changed.....................................55 3-9 Action Research Subjective Assessm ent Framework of User Satisfaction.......................59 4-1 Time Staff Has Occupied New Workspace.......................................................................71 4-2 Hours Staff Uses Workspace.............................................................................................72 4-3 Staff Description of Workspace.........................................................................................73 4-4 Staff Participation in the Planning Process........................................................................73 4-5 Time Students Spend in the LIC........................................................................................83 5-1 Graduate Tax Student Study Area...................................................................................115 5-2 Graduate Tax Student Lounge Area................................................................................116

PAGE 9

9 5-3 Staff Kitchen and Cafe.....................................................................................................116 5-4 Directors Private Office..................................................................................................117 5-5 View to the North at the Top of the Atrium Stairs..........................................................119 5-6 View to the South at the Top of the Atrium Stairs..........................................................119 5-7 Circulation Desk and Two Co llection Staff Member Offices.........................................120 5-8 Students Using the Lounge Seating in the LIC................................................................122 5-7 The Design Process......................................................................................................... .131

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design ACTION RESEARCH AS A PLANNI NG AND DESIGNING APPROACH: POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE LA WTON CHILES LEGAL INFORMATION CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA By Jennifer C. Lamar August 2007 Chair: M. Jo Hasell Cochair: Margaret Portillo Major: Interior Design This case study investigated the role of action research met hodologies in the planning and designing process of a university facility. The Levi n College of Law at the University of Florida began its planning process for its law library (kno w as a legal information center) in the fall of 1999. The action research partnership with the facu lty, staff, and students of the College of Law with the faculty and students of the College of Design, Construction, and Design influenced the process employed with the chosen project arch itects, Tsoi/Kobus & Asso ciates and Ponikvar & Associates. The planning pr ocess involved many, sometimes competing objectives and many constituency groups. The intent was that the Lega l Information Center (LIC) serve as a center or heart of the college while re presenting the ideals and the pres tige of the profession. Further goals for the design included the preservation of books, dissemination of information, and the development of study and work areas for patrons and staff alike. To evaluate the action research process for the Legal Information Center, this study used a multi-method process and triangulation with qua litative and quantitative methods. The researcher initially analyzed the programmi ng document created during the action research partnership between the faculty, students, and staff of the Colle ge of Law and the faculty and

PAGE 11

11 students of the College of Design, Construction, a nd Planning to determine expressed user needs and preferences for the new building. These items user needs and preferences, were then crosschecked against the following: (1) the Universi ty of Floridas Facil ities Construction and Planning Request for Proposals that invited project proposals from architectural firms (2) the final architectural program created by Tso i/Kobus & Associates, and (3) the completed renovated building. User surveys also were co nducted to determine th e student and staffs satisfaction. The study developed an Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework that presented the findings on user satisfaction through Technical, Functional, Ambient, and Psychological dimensions. Third, in-depth interviews were conducted with key participants in the planning and designing of the LIC. Utilizing an action research model, a democratic process in which all involved parties work together to plan for a soluti on, appeared to facilitate the design and building process. Recommendations for conducting action research in similar projects are presented.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Consider this scenario. A local school districts elementary school inadequately meets the needs of the students and the community. There has been an influx of students in the past few years and the school does not have enough space to accommodate all of the students properly. In addition, the buildings system s are outdated and there have been numerous maintenance issues. However, there is a limited budget to build a new school and the superintendent realizes that a ne w facility will need to last at le ast thirty years. In addition, the community wants to be involved in th e planning process sin ce there is a large population of young families in the area whose child ren attend or will be attending school. The community members realize that this new fa cility will also affect their property value and reputation within the towns larger commun ity; therefore, they want the new school to be of the highest quality. The teachers have there own needs as well. Many of them have expressed that they would like to have sp aces that would support a new paradigm of teaching that involves team teaching and communal learning. The school board members have their own concerns about the new facility, mainly that it should be flexible and be able to accommodate a growing student body. The superintendent wants to make sure that all of these users a nd stakeholders have a chance to be involved so that they can voice their concerns and opinions. He believes that this woul d minimize the risk of having disagreements and dissatisfaction among them in the future. But, how does he do that? How does he include all of the different gr oups who all have very different needs and preferences, but also valuable insights? How can he include all of the stakeholders in a meaningful and significant way? Will it ta ke too much time and effort to involve everyone? Will it be too confusing? Most im portantly, will it contribute to a successful school project that satisfies the teachers, stude nts, staff, parents, school board members, and the general community? This scenario demonstrates that planning for a new school building can be complex and difficult where there are many differe nt stakeholders and end-users. In other words, planning for a new building design can be exciting, but also very overwhelming. Each stakeholder has a different goal in mind for a new building dependi ng on their role, and it can be difficult to bring all of the various groups together to create a common vision and consensus for the project. Every good design starts with an evaluation of th e problem and a good plan. Strategies need to be developed to solve the stakeh olders problems. Usually, this information is presented in a formal document referred to as a program A program for a building is a document that generally contains a list of requi red spaces with their respective square footages. A design team translates that information into a set of draw ings describing the physical form. Programming for

PAGE 13

13 a building is the definitional stage of design the time to di scover the nature of the design problem, rather than the nature of the design solution (Hershberger, 1999, p. 1). The U.S. government agency, General Services Administration (GSA), realizes the value of programming. More specifically, the organizati on realizes the value of extensive pre-design research and strategic planning. In 2002, GS A launched WorkPlace 20-20 to develop new tools and better methods to design efficient and f unctional workspaces. Th ey were aware that traditional space-planning methods re ly on statistics that are readily available, such as job titles, cubic feet of files, organizational rank, and, of ten, self-reported work habits and that a more extensive and thorough approach is needed to gain all the be nefits of the planning phase ( Workplace Matters 2006, p. 12). Therefore, the GSA planning toolkit includes additional quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a clea r understanding of the go als and the culture of the organization. They also stri ve to assess space use, turnover rates, absenteeism, long-term costs, and benefits related to planning and designing. By implementing a comprehensive approach to the planning process, the organization as a whole is challenged to rethink its central mission, assumptions, and strategies as well as the spaces they utilize (Horgen & Sheridan, 1999, p. 6). This approach is appropriate for organizations with diffe rent user groups who perform many different tasks or for a group undergoing organizati onal changes. It is also appropriate for complex situations with a wide range of stakeholde rs who have vested interest. The planning process is an opportunity for the organization to examine their practices, discover what is working and what is not, and to figure out how the bricks and mortar can help to support and enhance the human activities within. In 1999, the College of Law at University of Fl orida faced a similar issue as the elementary school described in the scenario that began this chapter. The College of Laws law library was

PAGE 14

14 no longer able to meet the needs of its students du e to lack of space, an influx of students, and inadequate facilities. In addition, they faced th e reality of losing their American Bar Association accreditation. Therefore, they had to ask them selves whether or not they should add on and expand, or should they build a completely new libr ary? What do the faculty and students need to support both research and learning activities? Wh at vision and image should they project to attract top law professors? What is the best course of action to maintain their accreditation standing? Statement of Purpose The purpose of this case study is to conduc t a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of a recently constructed library facility on the Univer sity of Florida (UF) campus 18 months after its occupation. The unique project was planned and completed using an action research partnership with the stakeholders and end-users to create a preliminary program. Action research (AR) is an approach that promotes democratic inclusion among all willing constituents in order to gather the necessary information to solve problems (Hasell, King & Pohlman, 2001, p. 11). This method for the planning process wa s non-traditional and simi lar to the GSA method described earlier, since more tim e and research went into the pr e-design research phase of the process than traditional programming practices. Using the AR planning process, a preliminary programming document was created. Then, the Un iversity of Floridas Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) office cr eated the Request for Proposals (RFP) document that was posted on their website for architectural firms to bid on the project. After interviewing six short-listed applicants, design and constructi on teams were then selected to design and build the library. This study investigates the valu e of the AR planning methodology and aims to discover how this comprehensive approach contributed to a successful building project from the end-users point of view.

PAGE 15

15 In order to do this, the study evaluates to what degree the fi nal building design of the Levin College of Laws (LCoL) Legal Information Center (LIC) is consistent with the objectives set forth in the comprehensive AR preliminary program The four main service divisions of the LIC (Public Services, Media Services, Collecti on Services, and Computing Services) were investigated to determine if both the staff member s and students are satisfied with the functional, psychological, technical, and ambient dimensions of the building. These four dimensions are a part of an Action Research Subjectiv e Assessment Framework and will be described in detail in Chapter 3. Students and staff were administered slightly different user satisfaction surveys, since they use the library for different purposes. In addition, key participants in the planning process were interviewed to determine their satisfaction with the planning process. These participants included the Director and Associat e Director of the LIC, the form er Director of the LIC, a LIC staff member, one of the project s principal architects, and the in terim dean at the time of the planning for the LIC. Research Questions and Strategies This case study uses a multi-method approach to provide a comprehensive assessment of the AR methods used in the planning process a nd tests its success based upon the end-users satisfaction with the LIC and the key participan ts assessment of the planning process. This study aims to answer the following questions: 1) What did the AR approach produce? What information included in the preliminary AR programming document was evident in the o fficial Request for Proposals (RFP) document prepared by the University of Fl oridas Facilities Construction and Planning (FP&C) office, in the final architectural program prepared by the arch itects, and in the final building? If so, how much? In order to test this, a checklist was created based upon the bui lding criteria in the

PAGE 16

16 preliminary program, and then used to analyze how many of those specific items were included in the RFP, the final architectural program, and the final building design. 2) What needs, values, and preferences of both user groups, staff a nd students, did the AR approach satisfy, in relation to the LIC? In order to test this, two surveys were created to assess user satisfaction with the LIC. One was tailored for the staff and the other for the students, since the students use the publi c areas for studying, locating research materials, or meeting with their peers, and the staff uses the LIC on a daily basis and is mainly located in their own workspace. The survey is based upon a bu ilding satisfaction framework that evaluates the technical, functional, ambient, and psychologica l dimensions of the building. 3) Are the key participants who were involved in the planning process satisfied with the AR planning and design process? What do they re member from the process and how would they describe the process today? In or der to test this, key participants were invited to participate in indepth interviews where they were asked to shar e their thoughts, opinions, and stories about the planning and design process of the LIC. Significance Over the past decade thousands of new school s buildings and renovations (K 12) have been constructed in the U.S.; however, only a small percentage of these will ever be evaluated to discover if these new facilities satisfy the students, faculty, and staff. (Lackney, 2001, p.1). The same is true for university campus buildings. Po st-occupancy evaluations of unique case studies are valuable tools in designing successful proj ects and preventing designers from repeating similar mistakes. It helps designers to build upon successful elements to make new designs even better. It also informs facility managers what renovations need to be made in the future. Numerous methods can be used to conduct POEs. The purpose of this case studys POE is to focus on the users satisfaction with the LIC buildi ng project and thus to evaluate the success of

PAGE 17

17 an AR programming and planning process. Lackney, an expert in designing school environments, states, we were warned early on in the development of the POE that in order to evaluate solutions effectivel y, the design and planning proce ss must be included (Lackney, 2001, p.4). This study does just that. It return s to the beginning and evaluates the planning process to discover if the efforts made then translat ed into a final product that satisfies its users. Definitions The following three sections are definitions of terms used throughout the text to allow the reader to better understand the content. Planning the Program Programming is the first stage of the building process in whic h the relevant values of the client, user, architect, and soci ety are identified; important proj ect goals are articulated; facts about the project are uncovered; and facility needs are made e xplicit (Hershberger, 1999, p.5). Programs for large-scale projects are usually performed by a faci lities manager or an outside consultant. All of the goals, valu es, facts, and needs are presented in a document that is typically passed on to the architects and designers. It is the designers task to interpret this document into a physical manifestation that accommodates the human activity. Ching states, Form and space are presented not as ends in themselves, but as means to solve a problem in response to conditions of function, purpose, and context (C hing, 1996, p. ix). Architecture is created to support the users, and the planning process in design is the most cr itical step in defining the problem since the nature of a solution is inex orably related to how a problem is perceived, defined, and articulated (Ching, 1996, p. ix). Th e program should promote design and focus not only on defining the problem, but also question the problem to uncover the values of the users, the community, the client, and the designers (Hersherberger, 1999, p.5). Active communication and collaboration during the progr amming phase is the key to a su ccessful building project. It

PAGE 18

18 helps set the tone for how the project will progr ess because, in the end, the building belongs to those who inhabit th e spaces within. Disagreements, disappointments, and dissatisfac tion by the end-users can be avoided with proper planning from the beginning. Before there is a building, there are drawings communicating how to construct th e building. Before there are drawings, there is a program communicating what the drawings should include. Be fore there is a program, there is a vision of what the building should be, whom it will serve, and how it will support its users. Whose job is it to communicate that vision so th at it becomes a reality? Hershberg er (1999) states, the values and concerns of the client and the programmer w ill have significant impact on the form of the building, because they choose the in formation presented to the desi gner. It is the job of the client to communicate what it is they want to improve and what they want to accomplish with their new space. The client knows what the problems are and it is the programmers job to ask the right questions, and to listen and to document the answers. Typically, a program document is a list of spaces with corresponding numbers denoting square footages, number of occupants, and notes about space usage. Horgen and Sheridan (1999) describe traditional programming as the following: The consultant asks the users how many wastebaskets they need, for example, or gets them to describe their work process, but only in order to understand a nd build a shelter around those processes, not to improve or change them The users tend to treat the building expert with a kind of distant respect, believing that he or she will figure out what they need. Unfortunately, the users are almost always disappointed when the space is built, exclaiming in despair, This is not what we asked for. The building expert shrugs and says, They dont know what they want. I spent hours and hours listening to their complaints and requirements, and I tried to m eet their specifications. They always just want the moon. (p.240) The programming and planning pro cess should be a time for the cl ient, the designer, and the programmer to explore the problems and solutions to the problems to bring about positive

PAGE 19

19 changes, while at the same time uncovering the values of the organization and its members. Designers can then use that information to creat e spaces that support and satisfy the users. Design success typically translates into winning prizes and competitions; however, committees of architects and designers, not those who inhabit the spaces, judge these competitions. A study by Vischer and Marcus (2006) demonstrated that the design competition jurys ranking of a new housing project was exac tly opposite of how the residents ranked the projects. The architects graded the projects by th eir aesthetic appeal, while the residents focused more on the functional and practical aspects. Another study performed at a nursing home found that while architects favored designs that promot ed social interaction, the residents preferred designs that allowed for more privacy (Duffy, Bailey, Beck, & Ba rker, 1986). These two studies demonstrate that it is impossible for designers to guess what the users needs and values are. Therefore, a clearly communicated program is re quired in order to produce a satisfying space for the users. Moreover, involving the users in a democratic pro cess to produce the program and design may contribute to a more satisfying proces s and building design. Th is study investigates how using action research methods to produce a preliminary program was executed in the final College of Law LIC building design, and how succe ssful the process itself was to those involved. Conducting Action Research A solution to effectively communicate the probl ems, solutions, values, and needs of the users could be the use of AR in the programmi ng and planning proce ss. Kurt Lewin (1890 1947), the father of social psychology, devoted his research to discover ing the intricacies of group dynamics and to developing st rategies to improve organizati ons (Kurt Lewin, 2006, 1). Credited with being the founder of action resear ch, Lewin theorized that if workers were involved in collaboratively work ing on creating, implementing, and testing strategies then the organization itself would grow (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006, p. 19). Today, AR is defined as a

PAGE 20

20 process that favors consensual a nd participatory procedures that enable people (a) to investigate systematically their problems and issues, (b) to formulate powerful and so phisticated accounts of their situations, and (c) to devise plans to deal with the problems at hand(Stringer, 1999, p. 17). Figure 1-1 illustrates the cyclical process of conducting action research. Figure 1-1. Cyclical Pro cess of Action Research. Applying AR to the planning and designing of a building can eff ectively involve the stakeholders and the end-users in the decisi on making process by providing opportunities for them to voice what does and does not work for them AR can also assist the participants in developing the necessary skills to formulate st rategies to solve problems within their own organization. Boog (2003) states that AR helps participants in achieving self-determination, so that they have a direct infl uence on the functioning and decisi on-making procedures of their organizations (p. 426). Furthermore, it is a pr ocess that promotes emancipation, individual and social empowerment, and participatory demo cracy (Boog, 2003; Swann, 2002). Individuals are regarded as parts of the whole. In addition, the users, the pr ogrammer, and the designers must trust each other and treat one another as equals in the quest for discovering the problems and developing solutions during this process. There are many examples of how AR has been used to improve communities and organizations. At University of Pennsy lvania, Greenwood (1993) and his team used

PAGE 21

21 participatory action research (PAR) methods to im prove the quality of lif e in a local community in Philadelphia. The internationally recogni zed revitalization program, West Philadelphia Improvement Corps, was comprised of a y ear-round program invol ving 1000 children, their parents, and community members in education, cultural, recreation, job training, and community improvement and services activities (Gr eenwood, Whyte, & Harkavy., 1993, p. 181). Xerox implemented AR by creating a cost study team with members of th eir organization to determine if they could cut costs and save 900 domestic jobs. The process involved utilizing ideas and theories from a variety of fields, such as, i ndustrial engineering, accoun ting, and social science (Greenwood, et. al, 1993, p. 179). The team was successful and this new form of worker participation in decision making led to a series of other changes in policies, organizational structure, and in the social pr ocesses of joint problem solving (Greenwood, et. al, 1993, p. 179). The decisions were not left to the big chiefs on the top floor, instead th e decisions and problem solving involved the ones whose lives we re affected by the impending crisis. Putting trust in the organizati ons individuals and empowering them to change their world ultimately leads to positive change for the organization and self-determination for the individuals. Currently, in the design world, AR is used in de veloping K-12 school buildings by Fielding Nair International (Lackney, 2007). In addition, Sanoff (2002) is a pioneer in this educational arena encouraging the particip ation of all usersch ildren, teachers, and administrators--in the planning pr ocess and integrating AR into the design process as well. This case study investigates AR as a planning tool, to discover how it was used, and whether or not it helped to create a succe ssful design solution. Evaluating the Program, the Building and the Process Post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) are wi dely acknowledged, but ar e rarely practiced due to cost and liability. Us ually there is little or no f unding to support the endeavor, and

PAGE 22

22 designers want to guard their reputation so that they can obtain new contr acts and avoid scrutiny. However, there are many benefits to including a POE in a building project. In this study, the POE focuses on the technical, functional, psycho logical, and ambient dimensions of the LIC building, in order to determine both staff and st udent satisfaction. The purpose of evaluating the building performance is to provide design guidelines for future la w library projects, as well as: Provide feedback to school administration, facility planning, librarians, faculty and students of LCoL and CDCP about the effectiv eness and value of participating parties input in the design of the program. Provide feedback to all interested parties a bout the building designs successes and failures so that they are aware of what can be done to improve future facilities. Complete the reflection phase of the AR cycle of the buildi ng project by the analyzing the success of the planning and design process. Contribute to the body of knowledge within the architectural a nd interior design community about the value of programming for design. Assumptions Underlying the Study Several assumptions underlie th is study. First, the study assu mes that all of the research participants accurately represen ted their perspective about thei r satisfaction w ith the Legal Information Center and with the programming process. Second, the study assumes that the convenience sample for the student surveys wa s a representative group of College of Law student library users. Third, it is assumed that the self-report ed demography, self-reported time spent using the LIC, and self-repo rted usage of the LIC is suffici ently free of error and offers a reliable estimate for the study. Fourth, it is assumed that although a number of the LIC staff members who participated in the planning for th e new library may have left their position, the current staff can reliably assess th e building since they perform similar activities as the previous staff members. Lastly, it is assumed that the re searcher maintained object ivity and was free of

PAGE 23

23 bias and skilled in asking ques tions, listening, and comprehending the issues involved, which is required when conducting case studies (Francis, 2001, p.18). Delimitations This study focused solely on the Levin College of Law Information Center and the primary end users of the facility, students, and staff. The LIC was the firs t phase of the master plan for the College of Law due to funding. In phase II, classrooms and a moot courtroom were to be added. However, a generous donation allowed fo r the construction of th e two classroom towers to the east and west side of the College of Law courtyard during the phase I construction. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this research, the focus will solely be on the LIC. Since this is a case study, there are inherent limitations The findings cannot be generalized without further study, however generalizability (exter nal validity) can be increase by multiple case studies (Sommer, 2001, p. 209). In addition, when a case study takes place after the fact, as in this study, the researcher must depend on peoples recollections of events, which can often be selective and distorted (S ommer, 2001, p. 209). Therefore, the interview process with the key partic ipants was limited by their accounts of past events.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Background The purpose of the law school library seem s clear. It is a place that houses books, documents, case studies, law manuals, and manuscri pts, presented in a full range of media to meet the information needs of the faculty and students of the instituti on it supports (Danner, 2003, p. 1503). Crawford and Gorman (1995) states: [Libraries] are not wholly or even primarily about information. They are about the preservation, dissemination, and use of record ed knowledge in whatever form it may come so that humankind may become more knowledgeable; through knowledge reach understanding; and, as an ultimate goal, achieve wisdom (p.5). With this definition in mind, the library become s a sanctuary in which wisdom is the ultimate goal once information, knowledge, and understanding are attained. Therefore, the librarys purpose is to assist the users in their quest for knowledge, while at the same time preserving that information for future learners and scholars. Library building designs vary depending on their size, budget, and mission. Librarians and support staff require their own working sp aces. Students, faculty, and visitors use designated spaces to search for material, study, an d read. Currently, there are facilities that provide private meeting areas, cl assrooms, coffee shops, and relaxation rooms. Publicly and privately funded law school libraries differ regardi ng their clientele. In the United States, law libraries at public universities are likely to pr ovide a wider range of serv ices to local or state attorneys than at privately funded law schools (Danner, 2003, p. 1503). A number of factors, such as the librarys collection, its proximity to other types of law libraries, and the number of patrons it serves on a day-to-day basis influenc e the size and scope of the law library. These

PAGE 25

25 factors combined with budget, expected growth of the school, and its collection should also be a consideration for the design and/or e xpansion of a new law school library. This case study focuses on the Fredric G. Levin College of Laws Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center at the University of Florid a in Gainesville. The Legal Information Center (LIC), or law library, is ranke d in the top 20 percen t of large-sized la w schools accredited by the American Bar Association, how ever, by the late 1990s, the facili ty for the law school lacked the space, flexibility, and a ppearance of a top ranking schoo l (Hasell, et al., 2001, p.10). Therefore, it was in the schools best interest to start thinking about bui lding a new library. Defining the College of Law Design Problem Beginning in the summer of 1999, the LCoLs Dean Jon Mills contacted the UFs College of Design, Construction, and Planning (CDC P) to assist them in creating a plan for renovation. The collaborative project between CDCP and the LCoL began in the fall semester of 1999 and included a preliminary program and expl oratory designs for a new multi-million dollar project. The preliminary program not only addr essed the LIC but a master plan for the whole College of Law. The interdisciplinary programmi ng team included professors and students from CDCP who collaborated with the administrators, professors, staff, and students in the LCoL. The goal was to create an action research partnership to gain a collective picture of its LCoL members desires and needs for new facilities (Hasell, et al., 2001, p. 6). Hasell, King, & Pohlman (2001), the authors of the CDCP preliminary program, define action research as a process that uses information ga thering techniques and problem so lving strategies that promote democratic inclusion while maintaining social re search quality (Hasell, et al., 2001, p.11). The AR participants had a voice in defining the de sign problem, and they were encouraged to examine schematic solutions. This phase of th e project lasted a year, concluding in final

PAGE 26

26 presentations of design proposals by the CDCP ar chitecture and interior design students and a preliminary programming document. In March 2001, the law school faced a majo r dilemma. The American Bar Association (ABA) accreditation board visited the LCoL and threatened to take away the law schools accreditation due to the condition of the library and its inability to meet the learning modes of the students. Suddenly, there was an urgency to turn a ll of this planning into something real. Figure 2-1 is a photo of how Holland Hall looked before the renovations. Figure 2-1. Holland Hall Befo re Renovations (Photo provided by University of Floridas College of Law Commu nications Office). Therefore, the preliminary program document information was then passed on to University of Floridas Facilities Planning a nd Construction (FP&C) office to develop a RFP document that would be presented to the Board of Regents for budget approval (see Figure 2-1). The RFP included five elements: ) functional sp ace descriptions, 2) spa tial relationships and adjacencies, 3) building site and design criteria, 4) project budget, 5) project schedule (Hasell,

PAGE 27

27 et al., 2001, p.11). In addition, it stated that the hired architect must review and address the preliminary AR program by valida ting the information contained therein. Once the project was approved, the RFP was posted on the FP&C website so that architecture firms could apply. Over twenty-four firms from across the nation competed for the design contract. A partnership of two architectural firms, Tsoi/Kobus & Associat es (Boston, Massachus etts) and Ponikvar & Associates (Gainesville, Florid a), was selected for the LCoL project by the FP&C office, the CDCP representatives, and the LCoL Dean and Chair of LCoL Facilities Planning committee. Representatives from Tsoi/Kobus & Associates were responsible for the planning and schematic design for the LIC, and they produced the final architectural program by reconciling the CDCP program and the FP&C program. Figure 2-2 shows the progression of the programming documents for the College of Law. Figure 2-2. Diagram of the Three programming Documents History of the Legal Information Planning Process Development of the CDCP preliminary AR program for the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center was conducted in several stag es. A selective group of students, staff, and faculty from LCoL were active participants in th e progression of the project and worked closely with CDCP students and faculty by contributing their opinions, ideas, and thoughts via surveys, interviews, discussions, and working sessions. The following information was complied from the CDCP preliminary AR program, Designers Researchers, Stakeholders: Partners for

PAGE 28

28 Planning the Fredric G. Levin Colle ge of Law (Hasell, et. al., 2001), and details the stages of the project. Refer to figure 2-3, which summarizes the following information. Stage 1: AR preliminary planning & programming (Fall 1999) Interior design faculty and students met with representatives from the LCoL and the FP&C to conduct an initial analysis of the values and needs of the LCoL and assess the issues with the physical building. Designed research tools: A survey was deve loped and tested by a team of two faculty members and thirty-five students from the Inte rior Design department within the CDCP. The survey was based on Maslows Hierarchy of Human Needs in order to ascertain their full range of needs from task performance to psychological needs of both individuals and groups (p. 11). Conducted research: The survey team in terviewed 50 participants and gathered information about each departments needs and requests. Interviews were also conducted with faculty, staff, and students of the LCoL. Systematic observations of activities within the pre-existing buildings were conducted. Information was compiled regarding building codes. Produced a schematic program so that studen ts CDCP students in interior design and architecture studios could produce exploratory designs. Stage 2: Students exploratory designs and planning (Spring 2000) One architecture and two interior design studi os produced conceptual designs for the new facilities over the cour se of a semester under the direc tion of three faculty members. Architecture students focused on creating a master plan for the whole complex. Interior design students focused on the interior spaces of Legal Information Center and the new classrooms, including space layout and FF& E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment). A preliminary program was developed with square footage allocations for the whole College of Law, including the Legal Information Center. Collaboration and involvement of LCoL facult y, staff and students was encouraged with regular meetings and workshops throughout th e design schematic phase. During working sessions, LCoL representatives would consider student proposals and concepts for 1) a master plan to replace all buildings, 2) a ne w LIC, and 3) new and improved classrooms. Chair of the LCoL Facility Planning Committee, the Dean, and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office explored fundi ng strategies with the President of the University.

PAGE 29

29 Stage 3: Final presentation of student work (Summer 2000) Faculty members presented the architecture and interior design students final design proposals of the master plans and classrooms. Publications of the findings from this first phase of the planning process and the student designs were produced for the LCoL so that th ey could use the document to gain interest among potential donors and to rais e funds for the project. Stage 4: Finalizing the prelimin ary program (Fall 2000 Summer 2001) Interior design faculty members and graduate st udents continued to work with the LCoL to complete the preliminary program. The interior design group worked closely w ith the FP&C and used their templates for programming spreadsheets to calculate the ne t and gross square footage allocations for public educational facilities. Each unit of the LCoL was re-surveyed and the square footages for both existing and projected needs were calculated. This inform ation was complied into a document that was then presented to LCoL repres entatives for verification. Once an agreement was reached, a final pre liminary program was published and printed (Designers, Researchers, and Stakeholders: Partners for Planning the Fredric G. Levin College of Law). The document was then di stributed to various stakeholders, such as, LCoL participants, alumni, the college fundraiser, poten tial donors, and university officials. Stage 5: Moving the plan forward (Fall 2001 Fall 2002) The ABA visited the LCoL and their report no ted the inadequacies of the law library. Because of this, the LCoL could have lost their accreditation. In the Spring 2002, UFs President, Charles Young, and other top officials met with the LCoL Dean, the law library Director, the FP&C project manager, and a key faculty member from CDCP, Jo Hasell, to confront the loss of accreditation problem. As a consequence, the LCoL project was moved from the 43rd on the priority list for new university campus buildings to third. FP&C reviewed the preliminary program and be gan to revise it from a visionary program into a pragmatic one. They transformed th e CDCP preliminary program from a mostly narrative and descriptiv e document that was created for th e LCoL user participants and potential donors into the requi red format for a RFP. The final version of the RFP is approve d and published on the FP&C website for A/E firms to create proposals. Twenty-s ix proposals met th e July deadline.

PAGE 30

30 Interviews conducted by the FP&C representative s, CDCP representatives, the LCoL Dean and the Chair of Facilities Pla nning with six short-listed appli cants to select the project architect and engineering firm Partners, Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, a Boston firm, and Ponikvar & Associates, a local Ga inesville firm, were selected. Stage 6: Design and constr uction (Spring 2003 Fall 2005) Tsoi/Kobus developed a final architectural program for th e building by reconciling the CDCP preliminary program and the RFP. Se ssions were held with members of CDCP team, the LCoL Facilities Planning committee, and with LCoL faculty and staff to check and make sure that the information in the pre-design program and RFP was correct. Tsoi/Kobus was mainly responsible the archite ctural program, the schematic design, and the design development. Ponikvar was mainly responsible for the construction documents and the bidding/cont ract administration. In Summer 2003, construction of the classroom towers began. The following summer the construction of the LIC began. In Fall 2004, the classrooms opened. A year later, the LIC opened. Stage 7: Post-occupancy eval uation of the LIC (Spring 2007) POE conducted. Figure2-3. Timeline of the Plan ning and Designing of the LCoL. About the Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center The renovated LIC is part of the first comp leted phase of the LCoL renovations. As a stated earlier, Phase I of the construction to LCoL also included two three-story classroom towers between Holland and Bruton-Greer Halls due to generous donations to the college. The

PAGE 31

31 LIC, the laboratory and social heart of the law school, took tw o years to complete and opened its doors at the beginning of the fall semest er in 2005 (Message from the director, 1). According to the LCoL website, the renovated facility includes 13 student study rooms, a relaxation/meditation room, lounge seating, open reserve area and commodious carrels (Message from the director, ). The ne w facility houses 595,000 volumes and equivalents and approximately 10,000 new volumes and eq uivalents are added annually. The new 100,000 square-foot facility includes the following f eatures, according the LCoL website (UF Law facilities expansion a nd renovation complete): An archway replicating the entrance to Bryan Hall, which was the home to the UF law school from 1914-1969, opens up to the Stephe n C. OConnell Supreme Court Reading Room, named for the first UF law alumnus to serve as president of the University of Florida (see Figure 2-4). An open reserve room allowing easy student access and quiet study of reserve materials. The Richard B. Stephens Tax Research Center offers special facilities exclusively to tax law students, including 70 study carrels, a gra duate lounge, a meeting room, and offices for the Florida Tax Review. More than 300 study carrels, in cluding video equippe d carrels for review of educational audio-visual material, with additional s eating for another 300 students throughout the library (see Figures 2-5 and 2-6). Thirteen conference rooms that hold up to a dozen students for team study and research. Dedicated classroom for training in research and computer usage. Student production lab and facu lty instructional technology lab for state-of-the-art media use. Displays of faculty writings and spec ial collections in the Rare Book Room. A meditation/lactation room that recognizes personal needs of a diverse student body.

PAGE 32

32 The new facility is almost double the size of the original library f acility, has integrated wireless internet technology, and is exp ected to qualify for LEED certification1. The LIC serves not only the staff, students, and faculty of the LCoL and the University of Florida, but also members of the Florida Bar, the general public, and state prisoners. The newly renovated facility is now the largest academic law library in th e Southeast and among the top 20 of more than 180 such facilities in the U.S. in terms of space (UF Law facilities expansion and renovation complete, 1). This is noteworthy sin ce the facility was designed and constructed on a limited budget. Figure 2-4. Entrance to the O Connell Reading Room. (Source: http://www.law.ufl.edu/ expansion/gallery.shtml ). 1 LEED stands for the Leadership in Energy and Enviro nmental Design, which is the nationally accepted green rating system for benchmarking the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, 1).

PAGE 33

33 Figure 2-5. Student Study Carre ls (Photo taken by Jennifer Lama r, graduate student at the University of Florida). Figure 2-6. Lounge Seating on Second Floor (Photo taken by Jennifer Lamar, graduate student at the University of Florida). Fredric G. Levin College of Law is named for a prominent trial lawyer whose financial support has assisted the school in becoming one of the best endowed public law schools in

PAGE 34

34 America as well as offering comprehensive law programs (About the Fredric G. Levin College of Law, 3). In addition, the college is proud of f our of its distinguished alumni who have served as presidents of the ABA. The Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center honors the late Florida governor and U.S. senator who gradua ted from LCoL in 1955 (UF Law facilities expansion and renovation complete, 1). The coined term legal information center, in stead of law library, recognizes that this facility not only houses a library, but also offers computer support and me dia services (Message from the director, 2005, ). The term information cente r is also a nod to Christopher Columbus Langdell, Harvard Law Schools appoin ted dean in 1870, who changed the method of teaching law by increasing the reliance of the sc hool on its library. Langdell pioneered the use of the case system, employing the Socratic Method in teaching law. He be lieved that the library was to law students what the laboratory was to scientists (History of the Harvard Law School Library, 2005, ). Therefore, the library is perceived as an information center with an exploratory atmosphere where knowle dge is put to use and tested. Although this is a continuing trend only recently have law libraries begun to rena me their libraries information centers. This new title reflects Langdells ideology, as we ll as the growing use of technology-based information sources. Examining Methods of A rchitectural Programming The programming phase can defi ne the design process. The information gathered and the method in which it is gathered greatly affects th e outcome of the design; therefore, it is an essential step that designers, planners, and stakeholders must take caution with and be thorough in gathering the necessary information. Met hods in architectural programming vary depending

PAGE 35

35 on the client, the programmer's knowledge, and the depth of the project. Hershberger (1999) states that the objective is the following: to program for architecture for environments that transcend the problem to create something of wonder that capture s the essence of the institutio n; relates marvelously to the site, climate, and time; goes beyond immediate need s to enhance the pote ntial of the users; expresses the highest aspirations of the client, architect, and society; and moves all users in some special way (p. 5). Ideally, the program should gather information a bout the building users needs and preferences, question and address the users problems, a ssess the budget and time constraints, gather information regarding space usage and required square footage allocation, and discover the culture and values of the users. The programs e ssential objective is to assist in the creation of architecture and interior envir onments that support the users activities and reflect their design preferences. There are several different approaches to architectural programming, however the most frequently used approach is the design-based (d-b) method. In this method, there is minimal programming prior to initializing the desi gn process. Often the programming occurs simultaneously with the design process (Her shberger, 1999, p. 7). Fo r example, during the first meeting with the client, the client tells th e designer what spaces are required, the size of the spaces, budget, and overall feel of the space. The designer records these statements, asks questions, and begins sketching ideas for the client. The proc ess continues with the designer presenting designs for the clients reaction and comme nts. Issues that still need to be addressed become evident in these drawings and the proces s can be repeated until there is a satisfactory resolution. This method requires the designer to be a good interviewer and the client to have a clear and thorough idea of what th e needs are. Problems can aris e if the process requires more time than originally allocated, which results in higher costs. In addition, this method runs the

PAGE 36

36 risk of the designs being reactionary, and the de signer becomes frustrated because their voice is being lost in the final produc t. The d-b method works best w ith small projects, such as a residential project, with only a few users. It provides the opp ortunity for the designer and the client to create a close working relationshi p based upon open communication and respect. The LCoL was a large project with many stakeholders and a wide variety of users, therefore the d-b method was not an appropriat e choice for this project. Knowledge-based (k-b) architectural programming is a process that began in the 1960s with the emergence of social and behavioral scie ntists who specialized in how users behaved in environments. This relatively new fiel d in social science is known today as environmental psychology The k-b method uses research methods, techniques, and tools developed by social and behavioral scientists to study human attitude s and behavior-literature search and review, systematic observation, controlled intervie wing, questionnaires and surveys, sampling, and statistical analysis (Her shberger, 1999, p. 15). This method has proven to be a viable method in gathering all the necessary information about the users needs and preferences, however quantitative information is difficult to translate into design. In th e LCoL, the stakeholders set out with the notion of being involve d in identifying the problem. Therefore, the information that was collected was reported to them in a format they could understand and one that designers could easily access. Agreement-based (a-b) programming involves key memb ers of the clients organization representing the whole organization and work ing with a programmer. Usually, the key participants are officers of the organization who are assigned to a building planning committee to generate the needed programmatic informati on, to hire the architect, and possibly monitor construction (Hershberger, 1999, p. 17). The cl ient and the programmer assume that this

PAGE 37

37 appointed building committee, usually comprised of department heads, managers, and building supervisors, has enough knowledge, or can at least access the knowledge, to make satisfactory decisions for the building users requirements, needs, and desires. The process employs the programmer as the facilitator in guiding the committee in comm unicating information. When there are areas of conflict be tween committee members, the pr ogrammer leads the committee in working out differences to produce a consensus for the program (Hershberger, 1999, p. 18). One of the advantages of this method is that it produc es a program in a timely and efficient manner. The program document is developed after everyone on the committee reaches a satisfactory agreement. However, this process does not typi cally include detailed requirements for individual spaces, which could lead to inappropriate design decisions. In addition, this process does not allow the individual users to express their ow n needs and ideas, thus alienating them and potentially leading to frustrati on and poor design solutions. Sin ce the original proposal for the LCoL promised democratic inclusion of all w illing constituents, the a-b approach was not appropriate. Everyone in the coll ege had the opportunity to partic ipate, to explain and identify their specific issues, and contri bute to the overall design solution. Value-based (v-b) programming determines the most important values of the organization. The programmer conducts interv iews and holds discussions with users and community members to uncover these values and to discover the character of the organization (Hershberger, 1999, p. 31). This programming me thod employs the use of procedures adopted from the k-b programming method when necessary. Having knowledge of key issues guides the programmer in realizing when to utilize research methods such as, literature review, content analysis, interviewing, observations, and surv eys (Hershberger, 1999, p. 31). This approach allows for in-depth information gathering while still keeping the findings in a form that is

PAGE 38

38 accessible to designers. Action research (AR) is similar to v-b exce pt that AR requires a more systematic approach to the planni ng process with the cyclical proce ss of plan-act-observe-reflect. The observation phase of the cycle is committed to quality research that is useful to the stakeholders. Its major purpose is to identify the actions that are needed to change the setting for the better. Careful reflection a nd documentation of the process and of the decisions that are made contribute to the resear ch component of a project. Action Research as a Programming Approach AR is a methodological approach to program ming and design, which connects theory and practice by focusing on a problem and developing strategies to solve it (Gifford, 2002, p. 482). Lewin described action research as perhaps th e first major push in psychology toward linking scientific research with real so cial change (Gifford, 2002, p. 5). He believed that if people were involved in the decision process of their workplace, they woul d be more productive at work. Lewin developed action research as a cyclical process involv ing planning, fact-finding (or reconnaissance) and execution, and which later came generally to be understood as an actionreflection cycle of planning, acting, observi ng, and reflecting (McNiff & Whitehead, 2002, p. 41). This process enables individuals and/or grou ps to identify their problems using a systematic approach, and then working together to reach a re solution to change the setting for the better. AR is open to those willing to have a living practice by investigating ones work and finding ways to improve it. Individual theories and narratives derived from these investigations contribute to the body of knowledge and are an integral part of practical and theoretical sustainability As McNiff and White head (2006) explain, Sustainability is the idea that living systems have the capacity for interdependent selfrenewal, which is indispensable for conti nuing development. Reliance on an external

PAGE 39

39 agency means that a system may collapse if the agency is withdrawn, whereas internal capacity means the interdependent creation of renewable resources for growth. (p. 18) Therefore, the idea is that practioners, organiza tions, and individuals all have the capacity to investigate, identify, and reso lve problems themselves. Using AR in programming empowers the individual in the organization to come up with solutions that best suit their needs, rather than relying on the outside consultants to be the sole expert. In othe r words, AR allows members of the organization to be actively engaged in the qu est for information and to contribute solutions to the problem (Whyte, 1991, p. 20). Participatory design (PD) integrates Lewin s theory with the prac tice of design. Henry Sanoff, recognized for his contribution to PD in school and community design, remarks that the participatory approach recognizes that the building process should in clude the knowledge and expertise of all people affected by design decisions (Sanoff, 2002, p. 20). In the development of an elementary school project in Davidson, N.C., Sa noffs role as a planning partner guided the design team and the school community by using user-participation techniques throughout all stages of the planning and design process. Child ren were asked to contribute to the new school design through art and poetry exercises. T eachers, parents, and school-planning officials participated in interviews and workshops. One workshop consisted of a building-image study with a slide show depicting school buildings with different charact eristics. Participants were asked to rate each building and these ratings were used to generate an overall priority list (Sanoff, 2002, p. 28). During the design developm ent phase, the design team produced drawings and then repeatedly allowed teachers to discuss and comment on them. The post-occupancy evaluation revealed that the proc ess allowed the end-users to have a strong sense of ownership for the new facility, which has far-reaching positiv e effects, especially when the viability of traditional school building standards and processes are questioned (Sanoff, 2002, p. 35).

PAGE 40

40 Sanoffs efforts to push the envelope during th e planning process has l ead to successful school building projects that benefit the students, faculty, and the community. This process is similar to the LCoL project in that there is a high level of participation in a democratic process. In addition, the continual involvement of the users in the design phase is similar to how the CDCP involved the users. The CDCP te am invited all of the LCoL us ers to participate in open house style meetings with the architecture and interior design students, who pr esented their schematic designs several times to them with each subs equent phase building upon what they had learned from users in the last meeting. Post-Occupancy Evaluations There are numerous and well documented r easons POEs are beneficial, including: (1) providing information and feedback to designers and stakeholders on which to base decisions for the next project; (2) discovering ch anges needed to better suit the users; (3) improving building operations by informing owner of ways to reduc e energy consumption; (4) informing designers of building aspects that were and were not su ccessful (Preiser, 1989; Preiser & Vischer, 2005; Zimmerman & Martin, 2001). Preiser, Rabinowit z, & White (1988) define POEs as follows: [T]he process of evaluating buildings in a syst ematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied for some time. POEs focus on building occupants and their needs, and thus they provide insight s into the consequences of past design decisions and the resulting building performance. This knowle dge forms a sound basis for creating better buildings in the future. (p. 3) POEs assist stakeholders, designe rs, and facility managers to ma ke better decisions by learning what does and does not work. POEs also have a clear intention so that future projects avoid reinventing the wheel (Preiser, et al., 1988, p. 127). It allows us to learn from the past and to build upon that knowledge.

PAGE 41

41 The professional practice of POEs emerged in the late 1960s with the growing concern about health, safety, security, and psychological effects of a bu ilding on its occupants. These concerns and efforts to inspect the built enviro nment led to exploring relationships between human behavior and building design. An early pi oneer, Alexander, contributed to the beginnings of POEs by evaluating the needs of users in built environments and establishing design guidelines. His research is publ ished in three influential books: Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964), Houses Generated by Patterns (1969), and A Pattern Language (1977) (cited in Preiser et al., 1988, p. 8). Early POEs focused on student dormitories due to convenience factors of access, lack of funding, and students willingness to participate. In 1968, Environmental Design Research A ssociation (EDRA) was formed by Sanoff, who served as the chair until 1973 and incorporated EDRA as a non-profit organization in North Carolina in 1972 (Sanoff, 2002, p.1). EDRA include s architects, designers, facility managers, psychologists, sociologists, anth ropologists, and geographers w hose purpose is to advance and disseminate environmental design resear ch, thereby improving understanding of the interrelationships between peopl e, their built and natural surr oundings, and helping to create environments responsive to human needs (San off, 2002, p.1). Research in the 1970s not only evaluated buildings, but also these projects were equally concerned with the process and methods of evaluation, as well as exploring the relationships between th e design of the physical environment, behavior, and building performan ce (Preiser, 1989, p. 11). During this time, the government agency, General Services Administ ration (GSA), implemented office-systems performance standards based on their own evaluations of federal office build ings (Preiser et al., 1988, p. 9). Many studies conducted at this period used multiple buildings for data gathering, multi-method approaches, and comparative analysis contributing to more in-depth evaluations.

PAGE 42

42 Government institutions or grants provided funding for POEs in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, the private sector, particularly retail and hospitality businesse s, began noticing the benefits of the POE. During this time, the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) was founded. The formation of IFMA establ ished credibility and growth in the field of POE studies, which has lead to POEs being an inte gral part of facilities management. The field is still evolving and research in this area contin ues to validate the need for professionals to be aware of how the environment affects human beha vior, health, and safet y. There are numerous methods available to conduct a POE, depe nding on the goal, scope, and budget for the evaluation. A POE of the Salt Lake City Public Library was conducted to create tools that could be used by public libraries to obtai n useful and meaningful data from which to continuously improve facility operations both for library st aff and visitors (Lackney & Zajfen, 2005, p. 16). The process involved staff interv iews, staff and visitor surveys, and photographic documentation of problem areas. It was discovered that the pl anning process for the library involved the staff, the local community, and a planning board. It was a multistage planning and design process that was highly unique and ri gorous (Lackney & Zajfen, 2005, p. 22). The evaluation revealed that there were some areas that required re-d esign, such as, the private meeting rooms needed alteration to minimize sound transfer. However, the POE overall revealed the success of the rigorous programming method based upon mini mal issues uncovered in the POE report. POEs can uncover small design changes, or they can uncover larger systematic problems. A POE of the San Francisco Public Library one y ear after its completion re vealed that serious operational problems are caused by the facility (Post -occupancy evaluation, 2000, ). Some of the problems discovered related to the func tional design of the building spaces, including

PAGE 43

43 inappropriate adjacencies, lack of comprehensib le wayfinding, lack of storage, and failures in operational and maintenance of the building ( Post-occupancy evaluation, 2000, ). In the report, there is no mention of how the planning and design proce ss was conducted, but it is clear that the POE was highly successful in addressing issues and problem s affecting staff and visitors so that improvements could be made. A multi-method approach to the evaluati on of the Kennedy School of Governments Taubman Building at Harvard Un iversity performed customary POE techniques, questionnaires, interviews, and facilitated workshops. These work shops are a favored POE tool in Scandinavian countries as it provides an arena for end-users to communicate their issu es (Horgen & Sheridan, 1996, p. 16). A traditional approach was re presented by Vischers Building-In-Use questionnaire. The purpose of the project was to develop a building eval uation prototype and to facilitate learning about pr ogramming, designing, and build ing approaches (Horgen & Sheridan, 1996, p. 17). The study concluded that quantifiable results from the Buildings-In-Use questionnaire corresponded with the information gathered from the participatory workshops, or town meetings (Horgen & Sheridan, 1996, p. 21). In addition, all of the participants in the town meeting reported that the meetings were e ither valuable or ver y valuable. The study concluded that by providing opportunities for end-us ers to voice their issues provides a sense of ownership in the building and ackno wledges the importance of their thoughts. This case studys POE is similar to the Taubman Building study since it is a multi-method evaluation combining quantitative and qualitative measures. The purpose of using multiple methods is to gain a higher reliability with the results and to gain a br oad scope of information that contributes to determining the successes and failures of the LIC project. The only differe nce is that this POE also aims to discover how the AR pl anning process affected the outcome.

PAGE 44

44 Action Research Process vs. the Traditional Approach At Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge there lies a variety of buildings designed by famous architects, such as I.M. Pei, Alvar Aalto, Eero Saarinen, and Frank Gehry. The Dean of the School of Archite cture and Planning states, I dont think it really matters very much whether most students know th at buildings are famous, or even know the names of their architects. It just matters that the buildings are good and contribute positively to the quality of student life (Tse, 1999, 3). MIT has had a long commitment to supporting new, innovative ideas of architecture in order to enha nce the livelihoods of th e students, faculty, and staff. However, with new ideas, there can be controversy. In May 2004, the Stata Center for Computer, Information and Intelligence Sciences opened its doors and its controversy on the MIT cam pus. Gehrys $280 million-dollar creation, originally budgeted at $95 million, was another stunning architectural achievement by the world famous architect demanding attention for its uni queness and originality. The envelope of the building reflects the human activity within it. It is folded, to rn, punched, warped, and crinkled echoing the research activities of the scientis ts inside who are expl oring the mysteries of language, cognition, and intelligence (Crosbie, 2004, 3). The interior was left rough so that the occupants feel like they can change and modi fy the space to suit their needs (Crosbie, 2004). The concept was to incorporate the ad hoc appro ach of research to the physical environment allowing for flexibility and collaboration. Gehry stated in an interview th at his design would be a success if he was able to interpret what [the occupants] were talking about in a way they never expected (Dabek, 2004, 2). If that meant turning professors office into a student lounge, then Gehry succeeded. Professor Abelson stated in an interview with the Bost on Globe, People dont know how to live in this

PAGE 45

45 building. There has been very little attention pa id to planning for an open-space environment (Beam, 2004, 8). Another occupant was quoted stating, I feel as though I have lost something very important a sense of my own space and a feeling of importance (Dabek, 2004, 20). Therefore, Abelsons lab group had to contact an architect who speci alizes in interior design to restructure part of Gehrys masterpiece (Beam, 2004, 8). The point of exposing the faults of Gehrys de sign is not to disparage his success. Many elements of the Stata Center were very successful in supporting the users activities. In addition, it captured the spirit of the community promoting an image for MIT that says that they take risks, and that they support pioneering ideas. However, as designers, we must ask ourselves who is to blame for some of these users dissatisfaction with the final building? Is it the fallacy of those who created the architectural prog ram? Did the designers pay too much attention to the aesthetic and style of the building, rather than the users requirements and needs to work productively? Alternatively, does the building su pport the users needs in an unexpected way and, perhaps, these dissatisfied users will come to appreciate the building after they have been given time to adjust to their new surroundings. Or is it tim e to consider a new a pproach to creating both exciting and satisfying architecture? This study is significant because it investig ates whether the newly constructed Legal Information Center on the University of Florida campus satisfies all of the users needs. Uncovering any faults and successes of the building will benefit both designers and stakeholders with knowledge of what changes need to be ma de in the current build ing and what should be included or avoided in future building projec ts. In addition, the AR planning methodology is evaluated to determine if it is a viable option for cl ients to include in their next building project.

PAGE 46

46 Summary The purpose of this literature review has b een to give the reader background information about the Legal Information Center. The histor y of the law school was covered, as well as an account of how the LIC was planned and designed. This information puts the LIC in context so that the reader can unders tand the steps taken to create it. An other purpose of this literature review has been to define the different methods of architectural programming so that the AR approach used in planning the LIC can be co mpared to these more traditional programming models. AR is also defined and applications of action research have been discussed. Finally, the literature review discusses the pur pose and significance of conducting a POE. The history of the POE has been outlined and relevant studies were presented.

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Study Design This is a case study that employs multiple mixed methods. Case studies are widely used in other professions, such as medicine, law, and business, and contri bute to a body of knowledge that collectively develops cri tical theories (Swann, 2006 and Fr ancis, 2001). Francis (2001) provides a thorough definition of case study, which is the following: A case study is a well-documented and systema tic examination of th e process, decisionmaking and outcomes of a project, which is und ertaken for the purpose of informing future practice, policy, theory, and/or education (p. 16). This study is also an exploratory study about the efficacy of an action research approach for the planning and designing of a university library project. The study used a multi-method process and triangulation with both qualita tive and quantitative measures to ascertain the validity of the results. The study was divided in to three parts to examine three different aspects of the LIC and its planning process. Together, these three rese arch processes will ascertain the success of the AR method in this setting. First, the CDCP preliminary program was assessed using a content analysis2. The document was written in a descri ptive narrative format and incl uded information gathered during the AR planning partnership between faculty, sta ff, and students of the LCoL and faculty and students of the CDCP. The document, Designe rs, Researchers, Stakeholders: Partners for Planning the Fredric G. Levin College of Law, was written by the CDCP faculty, Hasell, King, and Polhman (2002). Analysis of the CDCP pre liminary program was compared to the Request for Proposals program document created by the UF Facilities Planning and Construction office 2 Content analysis systematically describes and analyzes the form and content of written or spoken material (Sommer & Sommer, 2002). The investigator turns qualitative data into quantitative by expressing data in numbers.

PAGE 48

48 and the final architectural program by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates. The purpose was to determine how much information from the CDCP prelimin ary program is evident in those respective documents. In addition, it was necessary to determ ine if the information was implemented in the final building design of the Legal Information Cent er. The objective of this first phase of the study was to determine whether user satisfaction with the LIC could be attributed to the AR planning process. Second, satisfaction of research participants in both user groups, LIC staff and LCoL students, was analyzed in order to assess the success of the AR planning approach. It was necessary to create two separate surveys for th e two user groups since they use the building differently. The surveys were used to ascertain their satisfaction with the LIC in regards an AR Subjective Assessment Framework based upon human comfort, he alth, safety, psychological security, and pleasure. If the current end-us ers were satisfied, then the project would be considered successful. In addition, if the inform ation presented in the preliminary AR program (users needs, values, and space requirements) was evident in the final building design, then user satisfaction with the LIC could be attr ibuted to those AR planning efforts. Third, in-depth unstructured interviews were conducted with key participants from the planning and designing process for the LIC. Th eir thoughts, accounts, an d opinions contributed to the exploratory portion of this research to analyze the followi ng: 1) the process of the AR method, 2) the success of the AR method, and 3) th eir satisfaction with bo th the process and the final building design. The in-dep th interviews provide a holistic view about the planning and designing process from multiple perspectives. Th e interviews are qualitative and do not produce tangible statistical results. Ho wever, it provides a deeper under standing about the process from the participants experiences. In addition, similarities among indi viduals stories may also be

PAGE 49

49 uncovered to reveal an underlying thread or theme about the proc ess. Figure 3-1 shows the multiple methods of this studys research process. Approval was sought before implementing th e surveys. University of Floridas Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) reviewed the study proposal, th e two surveys, and letters of consent, and they granted permission to conduc t the study. Appendix A is a copy of the UFIRB approval and Appendix B is a copy of the approved letters of consent. Figure 3-1. Research Process of the AR study. Research Setting The newly constructed and renovated Legal Info rmation Center at University of Floridas Levin College of Law was completed in July 20 05. The LIC is located in Holland Hall, a threestory building located in the north west quadrant of the university near the corner of Southwest 2nd Avenue and Village Drive in Gainesville, Flor ida (see Figure 3-2). Originally built in 1968, approximately 70% of Holland Hall was gutted a nd restructured during th e construction of the LIC. The third floor remained intact and is mostly comprised of faculty offices. Figure 3-3 shows Holland Hall under going constr uction and how the third floor re mained. Figure 3-4 is an aerial view of Holland Hall during construction.

PAGE 50

50 Figure 3-2. Site Plan of the Levin College of Law. (Retrieved from http://www.law.ufl.edu/cons truction/siteplans.shtml ). Figure 3-3. Construction and Re novation of Holland Hall (Provide d by University of Floridas College of Law Commu nications Office).

PAGE 51

51 Figure 3-4. Aerial View of Holland Hall duri ng Construction (Provi ded by University of Floridas College of La w Communications Office). The first two floors of the building house th e LIC, the Deans Administrative Suite, two classroom spaces, and the LCoL Communications O ffice. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the floor plans for the first two floors of renovated Holland Hall and the addition to the LIC. The LIC is approximately 100,000 square feet housing over 600,000 volumes, with approximately 50% in the compact book stacks and 50% in open shelves. The entrance to the LIC faces the College of Law courtyard, which is surrounded by Bruton-Geer Hall to the south and by two classroom towers to the east and the west. Figure 3-7 is a photograph of the LCoL courtyard and the main entrance to the LIC.

PAGE 52

52 Figure 3-5. Floor Plan of the First Floor of Holland Hall. (Provided by Ponikvar & Associates and Tsoi/Kobus & Associates) Figure 3-6. Floor Plan of the Second Floor of Holland Hall. (Pr ovided by Ponikvar & Associates and Tsoi/Kobus & Associates).

PAGE 53

53 Figure 3-7. Levin College of La w Courtyard and Legal Informati on Center Entrance. (Retrieved from http://www.law.ufl.edu/construction/photogallery.shtml ). Research Participants Sampling Research Participants for the Surveys Research participants included the LIC st aff and students who currently use the LIC facility. The LIC staff is comprised of twenty -three staff members: f our administrative staff (including the Director and Associ ate Director of the library), eleven public services staff, and eight technical services staff. The surveys were distributed to th e LIC staff via email with a link to the web-based survey. The email was sent once a week for a month reminding them of their option to participate. This method netted 15 responses. Though the library is open to the general pub lic, only LCoL students participated. The student enrollment at the time of the survey was approximately 1,320 and the study sought to obtain 8-10% participation from the student population by convenient sampling. A link was provided on the LIC website that would connect them to the web-based survey. Participation

PAGE 54

54 using this method was very low a nd netted only 10 responses. Ther efore, the researcher set up a table in the LCoL courtyard in front of the LIC entrance, so that passer-bys could take the webbased survey using provided laptops. The law st udents usually arrive for classes between eight and ten oclock in the morning and generally stay on campus until the mid-afternoon. Between classes, they typically study, soci alize, eat lunch, or meet with study groups. The researcher was positioned at this location from 5th of April 2007 to 11th of April 2007, between the hours of nine oclock in the morning to three oclock in the afternoon. This method netted 114 responses, with four respondents that had to be dropped fr om the report due to incomplete surveys. Sampling Key Participants for the In-Depth Interviews Identified key participants in the progra mming and planning pro cess of the LIC were asked to grant an interview with this researcher An email was sent out to a list of these known participants informing them of the research a nd asking if they would ag ree to participate. Appendix H is an example of an email that wa s distributed. The following is a list of the individuals who were emailed: the interim dean at the time of the planning for the LIC, the current LIC Director, the former law library dire ctor, the LIC Associate Di rector, key LIC staff, key LCoL faculty, and a principa l architect from Ponikvar & Associates. Once the participant replied, a date, time, and location was set up for the meeting. Six in-depth unstructured interviews were conducted. Procedures and Instruments Comparison Across the CDCP, FP&C, and TK&A Programs and the LIC Building The research is organized according to the f our departments within the LIC: Collection Services, Media Services, Public Services, and Computing Services. This was the original departmental structure under the supervision of library Director, Betty Taylor. However, after the completion of the preliminary AR program by the CDCP, Taylor reti red and a new Director,

PAGE 55

55 Kathleen Price, took her place. Under Prices direction, the depart ments were restructured into the following: Administration, Public Services, Technical Services, and Technology. Figure 3-8 demonstrates the changes in the departments and their main functions. This study organized data according to the old departmental structure sin ce that is how the preliminary AR program, the RFP, and the final architectural program docum ents are all organize d. Media Services and Computing Services, which is now Technology, will not be investigated in this study since they are not located within the new LIC facility. In addition, thei r function relates more to the technology aspects of the law school clas srooms, rather than the LIC. Figure 3-8. Legal Information Center Departments and How They Changed. Content analysis of the CDCP program wa s executed to establish the user needs and preferences, or items in order to compare them to the other two programming documents and the LIC building. As stated earlier the purpose of the comparison wa s to determine how much of the preliminary program is evident in the RFP, the architectural prog ram by Tsoi/Kobus, and the final building design. Each document was devel oped using a different method, so therefore the

PAGE 56

56 information in each document is presented in a different manner and style. Excerpts from each programming document can be referred to in Appendix C. The CDCP program was written in a descriptiv e narrative format, rather than a traditional program that usually includes a list of spaces with corresponding square footages. Though the CDCP program does include tables of existing an d proposed net and gross square footages, the document states in the Introduction that its main focus is to assist the LCoL stakeholders and the FP&C office as they move forward in th e decision making process for the college. Therefore, the creators of the document kept the information in a narrative format so that it remained accessible to the stakeholders, wh ile at the same time providing detailed documentation of the decisions made during the AR preliminary planning process. This is unique and different from most traditional programming documents and reflects the approach of the AR method. The RFP included information developed dur ing the AR process between the CDCP and LCoL participants, and it also stat es that the design team is require d to verify the contents of the CDCP program. The document also includes the FP&Cs traditional format for programming university campus buildings. Sect ions within the RDP were devoted to the master plan for the College of Law, a space needs assessment, site analysis, programming list of the spaces (gross and net square footages for each specific area), utilities impact analys is, information technology requirements, building codes, university buildin g standards, proposed project schedule, and budgetary funds. The architectural program by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates was different from both the CDCP and the RFP. An Executive Summary at the beginning of the document provided a synopsis of the programming requirements for the whole LCoL and benchmarked the LCoL to

PAGE 57

57 other similar law schools. The programming secti on for the LIC, presented tables of net and gross square footage requirements for each depart ment and space within that department. Some FF&E requirements were included in the tables Following the space requirement tables was a section that included adjacency diagrams for the whole LIC and for each individual department. Appendix D is a chart of the items user needs and preferences, that were recorded after the content analysis of the CDCP preliminary program. By cross checking and tabulating each program and the building to this checklist, a qua ntitative assessment was made of how much of the preliminary AR program was evident in th e other planning documents and in the final building design. The net square footages that are included in each programming document were also compared to the CDCP preliminary program to determine how much of the information from the preliminary AR planning phase tran sformed and changed during each subsequent phase. Measurements of the final building were taken using a laser tape measure and were recorded in order to conduct comparisons between the final building to the programming documents. Staff and Student Satisfaction with the Newly Renovated LIC Two surveys were administered, one for the LIC staff and one for the LCoL students. Each survey had the same purpose but was tailore d to the research participants. The staff surveys assessed each individuals level of satisfaction with th eir personal workspace and the public areas within the LIC. The student survey s assessed their level of satisfaction with the study areas and meeting rooms ant the public areas of the LIC. This study considered and expanded upon th e synthesized habitability framework developed by Preiser (1983) and Vischer ( 1989), among others, for conducting post-occupancy evaluations (Preiser & Vischer, 2005, p. 5). Th eir framework consists of the 1) Technical: health, safety and security perf ormance; 2) Functional: efficiency and work flow performance;

PAGE 58

58 and 3) Behavioral: psychological, social, cultural, and aesthetic performance (Preiser, et. al., 2005, p.5). Technical performance of a building relates to building c odes and life safety standards. Functional performance relates to state-of-the-art knowledge about building types and systems such as guidel ines that are published in Time-Saver Standards: Architectural Design Data (1997) by Crosbie, Callender, Wats on, & Baerman. (Preiser, 2005, p. 5). Behavioral performance relates to the research-based design guidelines, such as social interaction, privacy, sense of community, a nd sense of belonging (Preiser, W. 1988). This study significantly modified the habita bility framework to include the specific contextual goals of the LCoL evaluation and the AR approach. Figure 3-9 outlines this studys Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework. Four categories of building performance dimensions are the basis for determining user satisfaction with the LCoL building design. The dimensions included under Technical and Functional were influenced by Preiser and Vischer. However, the Psychological category is now renamed from Behavioral to reflect the specific contextual focus and process. Ambient was added to the new framework. This category is integral to the LCoL user satisfaction since it is includes dimensions that interior designers used while producing LCoL designs. These ambient dime nsions were selected to capture and reflect the character and values of the organization. Researchers outside the interior design field sometimes overlook ambient dimensions. Ambient dimensions can be found in the appearance of the architectural elements, interior finishes an d materials, as well as the overall architectural language and style of the spaces. By using the AR Subjective Assessment Framework numerous dimensions within each category were evaluated. One of the objectives of this study was to gaug e the user satisfaction for each category, as well as their overall sa tisfaction with the building. Therefore, the

PAGE 59

59 dimensions within each category were tabulated and combined to assess user satisfaction for the respective category. For example, user satisfa ction with the lighting, acoustics, and thermal quality of the LIC were combined to assess Technical satisfaction. Figure 3-9. Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework of User Satisfaction. The survey instrument for both the staff a nd students included modi fied questions from the following resources: A survey developed by the Research Ce nter for Architecture and Urban Design Technology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazi l that assesses users opinions about their working environment (Preiser & Vischer, 2005, pp. 218 225).3 The Center for the Built Environments Occ upant Indoor Environmental Quality survey, which assesses users satisfaction and productivi ty within their working environment. The 3 Readers are encouraged to test these tools in their own settings, and to compare them with methods developed and published elsewhere (Prieser & Vischer, 2005, p. 209). The editors of Assessing Building Performance (2005), Preiser & Vischer included surveys that they had collected from various research ers and added them as an appendix. This quote is from the introduction to the appendix, encouraging other researchers to use the surveys and to share the information with other practioners.

PAGE 60

60 CBE is affiliated with the College of Envir onmental Design at University of California Berkeley (http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/survey.htm ) Refer to Appendix E, which demonstrates how the surveys were developed and which source provided the structure of certain questions. Other survey que stions were developed after thorough consideration of what was included in the programming documents. All of the questions aimed to follow the AR Subjective Assessment Framework as well as, the theoretical framework developed by Preiser and Vischer. In developing the surveys, this study utilized tools that have been tested and demonstrated reliabili ty. However, this study also intended to build upon past research and attempt to discover ways to improve upon it. It was also necessary to modify the survey instruments and add to them in order to answer this case studys research questions. There were 60 questions for the student survey and 67 questions for the staff survey. The staff survey can be referred to in Appendix F and the student survey can be referred to in Appendix G. The web-based survey was created using http://www.SurveyMonkey.com The main objective of the survey was to assess user satisfaction; therefore, the majority of the questions were on a seven-point rating scal e ranging from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied. Open-ended questions were also included to obtain any additional comments that the participants wanted to express. Other in formation obtained includ ed demographics, time spent in the LIC, and type of usage. Particip ants were also asked a series of questions to determine their level of participation in the pl anning and programming process for the LIC. At the end of the survey, participants were asked to check which areas of the LIC were in need of improvement, if any.

PAGE 61

61 In-depth Interviews wi th Key Participants Unstructured interviews explore all the al ternatives in order to pick up information, define areas of importance that might not have been thought of ahead of time, and allow the respondent to take the lead to a greater extent (Sommer, 2002, p. 114) An in-depth interview is a form of an unstructured interview, which allo ws the interviewer to fo llow the respondents answers with a request for more information at an increasing level of depth (Sommer, 2002, p.114). With this technique, stories and experi ences were collected to gain a deeper understanding of the planning proce ss. The sessions lasted approximately thirty to forty-five minutes in the participants private office. The participant was sent an email that briefed them about the research and asked if they would participate (Appendix H). At the beginning of the interview, the research participant was asked to sign a consent form granting permission to taperecord the interview. Only a few questions were asked during the session to keep the participant actively engaged or to clarify a ny points discussed. Examples of some of these questions are the following: Describe the process of working with the group from the College of Design, Construction, and Planning. How did the relationship come about? How did it change? What was your role? Do you remember any times when you felt your ideas were being ignored or you were not able to express them? How did you involve the rest of the staff? How di d you involve the students? How did you select the archit ects? How was the transiti on working going from working with the faculty and students of the CDCP to working with the selected architects? Do you feel that the project with the CDCP was helpful to the final building design? Other questions were not prepared but rather they were an impromptu reaction to what the participant was saying in order to make clarifi cations or to keep the interview flowing while

PAGE 62

62 maintaining the focus and objective of the intervie w. Later, the tape-recording was transcribed and the participant had the option to make any co rrections, changes, or omissions to the final transcript. Limitations This study encountered several limitations. Firs t, it was not possible to contact any of the students that were originally involved in the AR planning pro cess in the year 2000 to discuss their involvement and satisfaction w ith the process. Although, their insights could be valuable to this studys findings the current students still follow similar activities as the students who participated in the planning of the LIC. Theref ore, quality of the findings remains reliable. Second, there were changes among the LIC staff, so it was difficult to find many staff members that were actively involved in the AR planni ng and designing process between the years 2000 2004. However, the job tasks and duties of th e departments and their staff has remained basically the same. Third, due to lack in tim e and resources, a pilot study of the survey instruments was not conducted pr ior to actual implementation. Summary This chapter discussed the case studys research methodology, explaining the multimethod approach to assess user satisfaction with the Legal Information Center and satisfaction with the new AR planning paradigm. The study was divided into three distin ct parts: 1) Content analysis and comparison of the CDCP prelimin ary program, the RFP, the TK&A program, and the final building, 2) Surveys of users to determin e satisfaction with the LI C, and 3) Interviews with key participants to ascertain satisfac tion and assessment with the planning and design process. Details of how research questions were answered have been provided, as well as an explanation of why the methods were chosen. The research setting has been described to provide the reader a context. The met hod for choosing the research partic ipants, the survey instruments,

PAGE 63

63 and an explanation of how they were created has been discussed. In addition, the in-depth interviews have been discussed with an explanati on of how they will be used in the study.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS The purpose of this case study is to determine if action research was a successful tool in the planning of the Legal Information Center on the University of Florida campus. What are the benefits and limitations of employi ng action research methods to crea te new spaces? Is it worth the time and effort? This is a case study--a n evaluation of one build ing that did use action research methods. Its purpose is not to determine concretely if AR should be used in every project. It is to explore how successful it was in this project. In doing th at, the research focused on three questions: first the RFP, the final arch itectural program, and the actual building were compared to determine how much of the users need s in the CDCP preliminary program were carried through; next, user satisfaction with th e LIC was ascertained by conducting surveys; and lastly, in-depth unstructured inte rviews were conducted with key pa rticipants in the AR planning process to learn more about the process and to gauge their level of satisfacti on with the process. Analyzing and Comparing the Preliminary AR Program Research question one : Did the AR approach produce a robust program? Was the information included in the preliminary progr amming document evident in the Request for Proposals (RFP) by the University of Florida s Facilities Construction and Planning office, in the final architectural program by the pr oject architects, and in the final building? If so, how much? This portion of the study focused on ta bulating and comparing how much of the documented programming information (i.e. user n eeds, square footage requirements) from the AR partnership between the CDCP and the LC oL group was evident in the two programming documents, the RFP prepared by UFs Facilities Construction and Planning office and the final architectural program prepared by Tsoi/Kobus & Associates (TK&A). In addition, how much was evident in the final measured building plan s and observed characteri stics in the physical building. As discussed in Chapter 3, the result s of the comparison were tabulated by totaling the

PAGE 65

65 items (users needs) in the preliminary AR progr am to compare them with the other two documents, the final building plans, and the actu al LIC building (Refer to Appendix D). For example, some of the items listed in the CDCP program for th e student meeting areas included data/power access, moveable furniture, and outside views. These items were then compared to the other two documents and the final building to determine if these requests from the users actually became a reality. Table 4-1. Comparisons with the CDCP Programs 110 Items. n RFP % n TK&A % n LIC % Collection Services 21 84.001040.0023 92.00 Public Services: Study Areas 17 89.47421.05 9 47.36 Circulation Desk 24 82.70310.0025 86.00 Reference Desk 22 95.60626.0019 82.60 Book stacks 10 100.00440.0010 100.00 Microfilm area 4 100.004100.004 100.00 Total 98 89.093128.18 90 81.81 n = items from the CDCP preliminary program that are evident RFP = Request for Proposals document by UFs Facilities Planning and Construction office TK&A = Tsoi/Kobus architectur al final architectural program LIC = Legal Information Center building. Using the structure of the CDCP program, or preliminary AR program, as a reference, the results are organized by the main areas of the LI C, Collection Services and Public Services. Collection Services is one area on its own with no sub-areas, while Public Services is comprised of five distinct sub-areas which include the Circulation Desk, the Re ference Desk, the Study Areas, the Book stacks, and the Microfilm Area. Table 4-1 shows how many of the user needs in the CDCP program were found in each area a nd sub-area according to each programming document and in the actual building and final bui lding plans. The program comparison included 110 items from the CDCP preliminary program.

PAGE 66

66 Based upon the results, the RFP included 89% of the items listed in the CDCP program. Most of the items were included in the document verbatim. In addition, the RFP states that the architect must conduct a thorough review of the CDCP during the program verification and master planning phase of the project. In c ontrast, the architectural program created by Tsoi/Kobus only includes 28.18% of the CDCP program items. It was imperative to the study to find out why only a fraction of the informati on from the CDCP was included in the final architectural program by TK&A. Therefore, the architectural project manager was contacted for explanation, who stated the following: Yes, we did refer to the [CDCP] document dur ing the design process. Its biggest use was to prompt us to ask questions about what their real needs were. We also referred back to it to see if the initial t houghts about the project he ld true, or evolved. The design team of the LIC used the actual CDCP document rather th an repeat its contents into their document. Their document, Levin College of Law Final Programming Study included a summary of the gross and net square footages fo r the specific spaces within the LIC, adjacency diagrams, and benchmarking (square footage comp arison to other university law libraries). Unlike the RFP and the CDCP program, which both included a detailed narration of programming requirements as well as a listing of space square footage requirements, the Final Programming Study was comprised mainly of square footages and supportive graphical information. Based upon the project managers comment and the RFPs requirement for the architect to review the CDCP program, it is safe to conclude that the information in the CDCP program was utilized duri ng the design process. Finally, in the researchers observations of th e final building, it was found that 81% of the spaces in the final measured building were the sa me as those requested in the CDCP program. This is a significant finding for this study. Du ring the preliminary planning phase, the CDCP group encouraged the faculty, staff, and students to dream about what they wanted for their new

PAGE 67

67 library facility, as well as for the whole College of Law. This strong verification of what was dreamt (CDCP preliminary program) and what actu ally became a reality should have a positive impact on the satisfaction of the us ers. If the participants in th e planning process represented the users who currently occupy the spac e, it should be possible to test whether or not and how much they are satisfied with the final building. Therefor e, the results from the user satisfaction surveys are necessary to validate this finding. The net square footages (NSF) of each progr am document, the final building plans, and on-site measurements were examined and compared. Table 4-2 shows the NSF listed in each programming document and the measurements of the LIC. In addition, the differences between those measurements and the NSF from the CDCP program are shown. The RFP was 29,212 NSF less than the CDCP program. The TK&A program was 2,697 NSF less than the CDCP program. Based upon the measurements from th e building plans and measurements taken onsite, the LIC is 21,280 NSF less than the CDCP program. Table 4-2. Comparisons of the Net Square F ootages of the Programs and the Building. CDCP NSF NSF RFP DIFFNSF TK&A DIFF NSF LIC DIFF Collection Services 6,775 6,720(55)2,619(4,156) 1,821(4,954) Public Services: Study Areas & Book stacks 56,872 23,930(32,942)54,100(2,772) 34,024(22,848) Circulation Desk & Reserve Room 3,585 3,605203,786201 3,761176 Reference areas 2,075 5,5203,4456,3354,260 8,0505,975 Administrative suite 1,070 1,390320840(230) 1,441371 Total 70,377 41,16529,21267,680 2,697 49,09721,280 CDCP = College of Design, Construc tion & Planning preliminary program DIFF = Difference NSF = Net square footages Note: Items in parenthesis under the DIFF colu mn indicates a negative difference while items not in parenthesis indicate a positive difference.

PAGE 68

68 Based upon these results, the TK&A program in corporated a high percentage (96 %) of the proposed NSF as stated in the CDCP progr am. The RFP incorporated 59% of the NSF proposed by the CDCP program. The final LI C building incorporated 69.8% of the NSF proposed by the CDCP program. Analyzing the data, it is evident that the TK&A program took square footage away from Collection Services (4,156 NSF) and may have re -allocated that space to the Reference Area (4,260 NSF). Another significant difference is th at the CDCP program allocated 2,075 NSF for the Reference Areas. The RFP program increased this to 5,520 NSF, which is 266% more than the CDCP program. The TK&A program increase d this area to 6,335 NSF, which is 305% more than the CDCP program. The final building ended up with 8,050 NSF for the Reference Area, which is 390% more than the CDCP program. However, one of the most significant findings is that the difference in NSF allocation for the Study Areas and Book stacks. The CDCP prog ram stated that 56,872 NSF is needed for the Study Areas and the Book stacks. In contrast, the RFP stated th at 23,930 NSF is needed, which is significantly 42% less th an the CDCP program. In the end, the final LIC ended up with 34,024 NSF in the Study Areas and the Book stacks, whic h is still 60% less than the CDCP program. Changes and differences in the NSF allocation is to be expected, especially since the project went through three planning/designing ph ases with three different groups, the CDCP, UFs FP&C, and the architects TK&A and Poni kvar & Associates. The CDCP group adopted the calculation methods for determining NSF fr om the FP&C office. However, the FP&C may have modified some of the square footages to reflect changes in user needs and requirements or university regulations. The ar chitects utilized benchmarking, as well as expected student enrollment, to determine the NSF by comparing the LIC to other similar university law libraries.

PAGE 69

69 In addition, there was a cha nge in leadership within the College of Law library. Betty Taylor, the former library Director, retired at the beginning of the planning and design process with TK&A. Kathy Price, who had previous experience with law library renovations and construction, became the new Director. Her perspective may have also been a contributing factor to the changes with both the NSF and the incorporation of certain user needs. Furthermore, at the time of the AR partners hip between the CDCP and the LCoL, a budget for the LIC did not exist. One of the main reason s for involving the CDCP was to attract donors and to convince the university to be aware that the need for a new la w library was imminent. Further explanation of these contributing factors to the planning process will be discussed later in this chapter in Exploring the Planni ng Process through In-Depth Un structured Interviews. One important factor to rec ognize about this planning proce ss was the continuum of using the action research process. The plan for th e Legal Information Center went through three distinct planning processes. The process with the CDCP utilized plan-act-observe-reflect. The Facilities Planning and Constructi ons planning process contribu ted to the planning process as well by reflecting upon the CDCP programming document to then plan their RFP, produce it, and then release it to architects to bid on. The architects repeated the same process and took it to the next stage with the final pr oduct. This study contributes to the final stage of the action research process by conducting a POE that ref lects on and evaluates the final building and process. User Satisfaction Surveys Research question two : Did the AR approach capture the needs, values, and preferences of the both user groups, staff and students, in re lation to the LIC? Is there a difference in satisfaction levels betwee n staff and students? This portion of the study used two very sim ilar questionnaires that were tailored to both user groups--LIC staff and LCoL st udents. Appendices F and G include both of the surveys. Of

PAGE 70

70 the 23 staff members of the LIC, 15 responded. A total of 114 law students responded to the student survey with four respondent surveys be ing omitted due to incomplete answers. The surveys assessed their satisfaction with the final building design 18 months after being occupied. Data Analysis Table 4-3. Categories and Dime nsions of the AR Framework. Technical Functional Psychological Ambient Lighting Layout Privacy Interior finishes/style Acoustics Circulation Interact ion Architectural elements Security Wayfinding Sense of place Sense of exposure Fire Safety Furnishings in Sens e of ownership Variety of spaces ADA relation to job task Sense of security Thermal Quality Sense of community The survey data analysis was done to determin e if the two user groups were satisfied with the LIC building. Both of the survey instrument s contained four main categories: technical, functional, psychological and ambient. These ca tegories included dimensi ons used to define them. For instance, technical consisted of questi ons that pertained to th e lighting, acoustics, and thermal quality of the LIC in order to determine if a research participant was satisfied with the technical aspects. Tabl e 4-3 outlines the specific dimensions within the Action Research Subjective Assessment Framework that were included in the surveys. In order to ensure the reliability of the surv ey instrument, the dimensions were tested for inter-item reliability by obtaining alpha ratings using Cronbach s alpha. This test measures reliability of the dimensions in producing consistent results (Blaikie, 2003). An alpha value more than 0.80 indicates consistency among the di mensions, while an alpha rating less than 0.80 is not considered reliable. Ta ble 4-4 shows the results from th e reliability test that was done using SPSS, a statistical software program. All dimensions in each survey were found to show consistency in reporting since all categor ies exceeded the alpha threshold.

PAGE 71

71 Table 4-4. Alpha Ratings of Categories of Dimensions. Categories Staff n Survey Alpha Student n Survey Alpha Technical 12 0.81 90.85 Functional 23 0.94 360.96 Ambient 15 0.96 100.92 Psychological 6 0.89 50.88 Total 56 0.96 550.97 n = number of items tested for each dimension. LIC Staff Demographics & Workspace Descriptors The sample of participants for the staff survey consisted of 15 individuals from the three departments of the LIC: Public Services, Technical Services and Administration. The participants answered a series of demographi c questions (i.e., gender and age). In addition, specific questions about their workspace included the amount of time they have occupied their new workspace, how much time they spend in thei r workspace and what type of workspace they occupy (i.e. personal office, cubicle, etc.) 1 2 months 3 6 months 7 12 months 19+ monthsTime spent in new workspace n=1 n=1 n=2 n=11 Figure 4-1. Time Staff Ha s Occupied New Workspace. Thirteen of the staff was female and two were male. Three of the staff were between the ages of 20-35, five were between the ages of 36-49, and seven were between the ages of 50-65. The staff respondents were also asked to report ho w long they have been working at University of Florida. Nine of the staff have been at the LIC for less than five years, therefore they most

PAGE 72

72 likely did not participate in the pl anning process. Six of the staff have been there for more than five years, including five staff members who have worked ther e for more than twenty years. The amount of time that the staff has occ upied their new workspace is illustrated in Figure 4-1. Based upon their answers, eleven of the staff has been in their new workspace for over a year. Only one has been in their new workspace for 1-2 months. Figure 4-2 illustrates how much time the staff spends in their workspa ce during a typical week. Eleven of the staff members reported that they spend the majority of their work week (over 30 hours) in their workspace. 20 30 hours More than 30 hoursHours staff spends in workspace during a typical week: n=4 n=11 Figure 4-2. Hours Staff Uses Workspace. Of the staff that participated in this survey, only three reported that th ey were involved in the planning process for the LI C (see Figure 4-4). However, ba sed upon the results of how long the staff has been working at the library, only six of the survey respondents would have been working at the LIC at the time of the planning sessions. Three of thos e survey participants reported being a part of th e AR planning process.

PAGE 73

73 Enclosed private office Cubicle with high partitions (5ft or higher) Cubicle with low partitions (less than 5 ft)Staff description of workspace: n=10 n=4 n=1 Figure 4-3. Staff Description of Workspace. LIC Staff Satisfaction: Participation ( Questions 11 21) Pre-liminary programming with the CDCP Planning and programming with the architects Was not involved in the planning processStaff participation in the planning of the Legal Information Center: n=1 n=2 n=11 Figure 4-4. Staff Participati on in the Planning Process. LIC Staff Satisfaction: Technical Dimensions ( Questions 22 31) The survey asked the participants to respond to a series of questi ons about the technical aspects of the building a nd to rate their satisfaction with thes e on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1.00 meaning Very Satisfied to 7.00 meaning Very Dissatisfied. A mean score between 1 2.5 is considered very satisfied. A mean sc ore between 2.6 4.5 is considered moderately satisfied. A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered very unsatisfi ed. Table 4-5 shows the overall results from this portion of the surv ey with the specific dimensions that were

PAGE 74

74 analyzed, including lighting, lightin g control, acoustics, security, fire safety, ADA, and thermal quality. Table 4-5. Staff Satisfaction with Technical Dimensions. Technical n Staff M SD Fire safety 141.791.05 ADA 142.210.89 Thermal: Temperature, humidity, and odors 142.521.25 Security 142.591.32 Lighting: Natural, task, and ambient 142.821.87 Acoustics: Background, privacy, and disruptions 133.541.73 Lighting: Control 143.982.23 Overall 142.760.90 The staff ( n = 14) were very satisfied with fire safety ( M = 1.79, SD = 1.05) and access for the physically disabled, ADA, measures ( M = 2.221, SD = 0.89) for the building. The staff reported ( n = 14) that they are moderately satisfied ( M = 2.59, SD = 1.32) with security in their work area, including security of personal belong ings and storage areas for their department. Another dimension in which the staff (n=14) repor ted being very satisfied with is the thermal quality ( M = 2.52, SD = 1.25) of the building, including temp erature, humidity, and odors. For lighting, the staff ( n = 14) were moderately satisfied with their workspaces natural, task, and ambient lighting ( M = 2.82, SD = 1.87). Two participants commented about the overhead artificial lighting and how it causes glar e. My office has no windows or natural light, and the overhead lighting, which I have no control ove r, causes glare. Two of the four light panels in my office have burned out and so I no longer have to look into lights when Im working at my computer. There was a lot of gl are when all four panels were working. In addition, the staff ( n = 14) reported that they were moderate ly satisfied with the amount of control they have over the lighting in their workspace ( M = 3.98, SD = 2.23).

PAGE 75

75 Satisfaction with acoustics in their work area included their satisfaction ratings for background noise (voices, noise from air ducts, etc.), acoustical priv acy (ability to have a private conversation, etc.), and acoustical disruptions (loud copier s, other conversations etc.). The staff ( n = 13) were moderately satisfied with the acoustics in their work area ( M = 3.54, SD = 1.73). One participant included these comments: My huge window overlooks the courtyard and is right by the front door. Outside is a nice flat trashcan, just the right size to plop books on while talking on a cell phone. So, the shades (which took awhile to acquire) are c onstantly closed. But I can still hear the conversations in my office. At the Referen ce Desk, students exit the main reading room to have their cell phone conversations in the lobby. So, no matter where I am, I hear onesided conversations. Due to the location of this staff persons office, they are subjected to many acoustical disruptions. In conclusion, all of these technical dimensions were combined to reveal that the staff ( n = 14) were moderately satisfied with the technical aspects of the LIC, with a combined mean score of 2.76 ( SD = 0.90). LIC Staff Satisfaction: Functional Dimensions(Questions 32 48) Table 4-6 shows the results of the staff satis faction with the functi onal dimensions of the LIC. The staff ( n = 14) reported that they were very sa tisfied with most of the dimensions within their work area, including: the si ze and arrangement of their workspace ( M = 1.64, SD = 0.74), their workspace furnishings ( M = 2.32, SD = 1.32), storage within their work area ( M = 2.35, SD = 1.16), their staff meeting room ( M = 1.75, SD = 1.05), the entrance into their workspace area ( M = 1.79, SD = 0.98), and circulation th rough their work area ( M = 2.50, SD = 1.38. Satisfaction with the layout of their workspace is reporte d under Layout: Work area, and includes their satisfaction ratings about the distance between their workspace and other areas

PAGE 76

76 of activity in which they are involved (sorting area, copy ro om, etc.), distance between themselves and their supervisor, distance betw een themselves and their co-workers, and the overall layout with their depart ments work area. The staff ( n = 14) reported being very satisfied with the layout of their work area ( M = 2.03, SD = 1.02). Satisfaction with the lay out of the whole LIC is re ported under Layout: Whole building, and includes their sati sfaction ratings about the locati on of storage areas, meeting rooms, printing/copy areas, toilet rooms, stairways, elevators, and their personal work area. The staff ( n = 14) were satisfied with the buildings layout ( M = 2.18, SD = 0.92). The staff ( n = 14) were also very satisfied with the main entrance to the LIC ( M = 2.14, SD = 1.35), as well as the layout ( M = 2.18, SD = 0.92) and the circulation ( M = 1.79, SD = 0.89) of the whole building Table 4-6. Staff Satisfaction with Functional Dimensions. Functional n Staff M SD Size & arrangement of workspace 141.640.74 Staff meeting room 141.751.05 Circulation: Whole building 141.790.89 Entrance to staff work area 141.790.98 Layout: Work area 142.031.02 Main entrance 142.141.35 Layout: Whole building 142.180.92 Furnishings 142.321.32 Work area storage 142.351.16 Circulation: Staff work area 122.501.38 Wayfinding 142.711.86 OVERALL 142.110.84 In conclusion, all of these functional dimensions were talli ed to determine the staffs overall satisfaction with the func tional dimensions of the LIC and of their workspace. The staff were very satisfied overall with the functional dimensions ( M = 2.11, SD = 0.84).

PAGE 77

77 LIC Staff Satisfaction: Ambient Dime nsions (Questions 49 56) For the ambient aspects of the building, the staff ( n = 14) reported that they were very satisfied. Table 4-7 shows their satisfaction rati ngs for the ambient aspects. Satisfaction with the finishes of their workspace included ratings about the colors, surface materials, flooring materials, furnishings, and overall interior style. The staff ( n = 14) was very satisfied with the interior finishes of their work area ( M = 1.89, SD = 0.88). The staff were also asked to rate the same criteria for the public spaces of the LIC. The staff ( n = 14) was very satisfied with the interior finishes of the public spaces ( M = 2.00, SD = 0.97). Architectural elements included staff satisfaction ratings of some of the more prominent elements of the LIC, the interior atrium at the entrance, the exterior building style, the courtyard, la rge windows and views, and the connection to other buildings. The staff ( n = 14) was very satisfied with these dimensions ( M = 2.14, SD = 1.12). Table 4-7. Staff Satisfacti on with Ambient Dimensions. Ambient n Staff M SD Interior finishes: Staff work area 141.890.88 Interior finishes: Public areas 142.000.97 Architectural elements 142.141.12 Overall 142.010.93 The survey also asked the staff to rate how well the building supports certain ambient dimensions. Table 4-8 shows the overall results fr om this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed. The results of these findings use the same scale. A mean score between 1 2.5 is considered very well s upported. A mean score between 2.6 4.5 is considered moderately supported. A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered very poorly supported. These dimensions were not included in the combined calculation for user

PAGE 78

78 satisfaction with ambient aspects of the building since they do not directly ask for users to rate their satisfaction, but instead ask them to offer their opinion. Exposure represents how well the LIC allo ws for easy supervision of the students without the sense of them f eeling exposed. The staff ( n = 13) reported that the LIC supports this dimension moderately well ( M = 3.00, SD = 2.04). The staff reported that the other ambient dimensions were supported very well. Variety of spaces represen ts how well the LIC supports many different spaces within the library, ranging from open areas to alc oves of semiprivate ac tivity. The staff ( n = 13) reported that the LIC supports ma ny different areas very well ( M = 2.00, SD = 1.16). Intimate areas represents how well the LIC supports area s that have a sense of intimacy within the overall public setting. The staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC suppor ts intimate areas very well ( M = 2.07, SD = 0.98). Reading areas represents how well the LIC supports a wide variety of reading areas to suit the users mood or environment needs. The staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC supports a variety of r eading areas very well ( M = 2.07, SD = 1.41). Understand areas purpose represents how well the LIC supports a clear understanding of the general purpose of each area within the library. The staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC supports this dimension very well ( M = 2.50, SD = 1.09). Finally, Visible staff represents how well the LIC supports visible staff area so th at information, services, and people are brought together. The staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC supports visible staff area s very well ( M = 2.21, SD = 1.52). Overall, the staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC supports th ese ambient dimensions very well ( M = 2.32, SD = 1.05). Question 53 included a quote from the RFP a nd the staff was asked to rate how well the LIC supports the statement. The statement was th e following: The new facility should serve as

PAGE 79

79 [the College of Laws] best foot forward by conveying an impressive and first-class image to current and prospective students, visiting faculty and di stinguished lawyers and justices, alumni and members of the legal community a nd other benefactors. The staff ( n = 14) reported the LIC supports this statement very well ( M = 2.21, SD = 1.25). Table 4-8. Staff Opinion on LIC Ambient dimensions. Ambient n Staff M SD Variety of spaces 132.001.16 Intimate areas 142.070.98 Reading areas 142.071.41 Visible staff 142.211.52 Understanding areas purpose 142.501.09 Exposure 133.002.04 Overall 142.321.05 Question 54 asked the staff to rate how well the LIC symbolically expresses the important values of knowledge and learning. The staff ( n = 14) reported the LIC symbolically expresses these values very well ( M = 2.07, SD = 1.27). LIC Staff Satisfaction: Psychologica l Dimensions(Questions 57 62) For the psychological aspects of the building, the staff ( n = 14) was very satisfied ( M = 2.49, SD = 1.24). Table 4-9 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed. Table 4-9. Staff Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions. Psychological n Staff M SD Sense of community 131.920.95 Sense of ownership 141.931.07 Sense of place 142.071.20 Sense of security 142.291.27 Interact with others 132.861.80 Interact with other departments 142.861.92 Privacy 143.211.84 Overall 142.491.24

PAGE 80

80 The staff ( n = 14) reported that they are moderately satisfied with the privacy of their new work area ( M = 3.21, SD = 1.84) under Privacy. Interact with others represents how satisfied they are with the ease of in teraction with others. The staff ( n = 13) was moderately satisfied ( M = 2.86, SD = 1.80). The staff ( n = 14) was also moderately satisfied with the ease of interaction with other departments ( M = 2.86, SD = 1.92). In contrast, the staff ( n = 14) reported that they were very sati sfied with sense of place ( M = 2.07, SD = 1.20) and sense of security ( M = 2.29, SD = 1.27), sense of ownership ( M = 1.93, SD = 1.07), and sense of community ( M = 1.92, SD = 0.95). Table 4-10. Staff Opinion on LIC Psychological Dimensions. n Staff M SD Share information quickly with co-workers 142.000.96 Productivity 142.000.96 Personal Space 142.291.07 Ability to concentrate 142.361.08 Coordinate tasks with other 142.641.22 Work team projects 142.791.84 Awareness of others tasks 143.711.98 Overall 142.711.31 A series of questions asked for the staff to rate how supportive the LIC was of certain psychological dimensions. The results are show in Table 4-10. The results of these findings use the same scale. A mean score between 1 2.5 is considered very well supported. A mean score between 2.6 4.5 is considered moderate ly supported. A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered very poorly supported. Similar to the ambient dimensions that use this same scale, these psychological dimens ions were not included in the combined calculation for user satisfaction with psychol ogical aspects of the build ing since they do not dire ctly ask for users to rate their satisfaction, bu t instead ask them to offer their opinion.

PAGE 81

81 The staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC supported the following activit ies very well: ability to concentrate when needed ( M = 2.36, SD = 1.08), feeling productive at work ( M = 2.00, SD = 0.96), ability to share informa tion quickly with co-workers ( M = 2.00, SD = 0.96), and the ability to define personal space ( M = 2.29, SD = 1.07). The staff ( n = 14) reported that the LIC supported the following dimensions moderately well: ability to be aware of what others are working on ( M = 3.71, SD = 1.98), ability to work on team projects ( M = 2.79, SD = 1.84), and ability to coordinate tasks with others ( M = 2.64, SD = 1.22). Overall, the staff ( n = 14) is feels that the LIC supports these psychologi cal dimensions moderately well ( M = 2.71, SD = 1.31). LIC Staff Satisfaction: Overa ll (Questions 63 67) In conclusion, the staff were asked to rate their satisfaction with their personal workspace and with the LIC overall. Table 4-11 shows thes e results. Question 65 asked them how satisfied they are with their work environment and the staff ( n = 14) reported that they are very satisfied ( M = 2.07, SD = 0.83). Question 66 asked them how satisfi ed they are with the building overall and the staff ( n = 14) reported that they are very satisfied ( M = 2.36, SD = 0.93). The overall satisfaction ratings for each category, technical functional, ambient and psychological, were combined to calculate an overall average of staff satisfaction with the LIC. The result was very close to the results from question 66 with the staff ( n = 14) reporting that they are very satisfied ( M = 2.40, SD = 0.85). Not only do the means correspond closely, but so do the standard deviations. The staff were asked what areas they thought should be improved within the LIC. Table 4-12 shows these results. Three of the responde nts reported that they would not improve anything in the LIC. None of the respondents w ould change the workstations, the copy room, or improve the circulation. The layout, furnishi ngs, equipment, and aesthetics categories each

PAGE 82

82 received one vote. Five responde nts want to improve the temperat ure in the LIC. The elevators were chosen by four respondents. A nother four respondents chose privacy. Table 4-11. Staff Overall Satisfaction with the LIC. Overall n Staff M SD Staff satisfaction with work environment 142.070.83 Satisfaction with LIC building 142.360.93 Technical 142.760.90 Functional 142.110.84 Ambient 142.220.91 Psychological 142.491.24 Overall combined satisfaction 142.400.85 4-12. Staff Recommendations for LIC Improvements. Improvement Staff n Work Stations 0 Copy room 0 Circulation 0 Aesthetics 1 Layout 1 Furnishings 1 Equipment 1 Meeting rooms 2 Ventilation 2 Lighting 2 Noise levels 2 Toilet rooms 2 Wayfinding 2 Stairways 2 Storage 3 None 3 Elevators 4 Temperature 5 Privacy 4 LIC Student Demographics & LIC Usage The sample of participants for the student survey consisted of 114 law students. The participants answered a series of demographi c questions (i.e., gender and age). In addition,

PAGE 83

83 specific questions (questions 7 9) addressed how often they use the LIC, what activities they participate inside the LIC, and what areas they typically occupy in the LIC. About 45 % ( n = 52) of the students were female and 52% ( n = 60) were male. Most of the students ( n = 107) were between the ages of 2035 (98%). The student respondents were also asked to report how long they have been st udying or working at University of Florida. Table 4-13 shows that there is the range among the students with 35% ( n = 39) having been at UF less than one year, 24% ( n = 27) having been at UF for one to two years, 27% ( n = 30) having been at UF for three to five years and 13% ( n = 14) having been at UF for six to ten years. Table 4-13. Students Years at University of Florida Years n Students % Less than 1 yr 3935.14 1 2 yrs 2724.32 3 5 yrs 3027.03 6 10 yrs 1412.61 Total 11097.37 Less than 5 hours 5 to 10 hours 11 to 25 hours 26 to 35 hours More than 35 hours I never use the libraryDuring a typical week, how much time do you spend working or studing in the LIC? 37.61% n=41 24.77% n=27 24.77% n=27 3.67% n=4 7.34% n=8 1.83% n=2 Figure 4-5. Time Students Spend in the LIC.

PAGE 84

84 The amount of time per week that students ty pically spend in the LIC is illustrated in Figure 4-5. Based upon their answers, 38% ( n = 41) spend less than five hours in the LIC. 25% ( n = 27) spend five to ten hours and another 25% ( n = 27) spend eleven to twenty-five hours a week. Table 4-14 shows those activitie s that the students typically participate in while at the LIC. The number one activity is studying with a response of 95% ( n = 106). The second most popular activity is meeting with peers with a response of 52% ( n = 58) followed by searching for books or research materials with a response of 39% ( n = 44). Table 4-14. Student Ac tivities in the LIC. Activity n Students % Studying 10694.60 Meeting with peers 5851.80 Searching for books/research materials 4439.30 Using computers 3934.80 Taking a break between classes 3531.30 Socializing 2118.80 Returning books 1715.20 Meeting with librarians 32.70 Table 4-15 shows what areas the students us ually use in the LIC. Study carrels is the most popular area with a response of 61% ( n = 68), followed by the OConnell Reading Room (57%) and the private meeting rooms (55%). Table 4-15. Areas Students Typi cally Use in the LIC. Area n Students % Study carrels 6861.3 OConnell Reading Room 6356.8 Private meeting rooms 6155.0 Circulation Desk 2522.5 Tax Graduate study room 1816.2 Reference Desk 1715.3

PAGE 85

85 Table 4-15 continued. Book stacks 1614.4 Other 1210.8 Reference Room 119.9 Administrative office 10.9 Microfilm Area 00.0 LIC Student Satisfaction: Technical Dimensions(Questions 21 28) The survey for the students was similar to the staff survey. It asked the participants to respond to a series of questions about the vari ous aspects of the build ing and to rate their satisfaction with these on a 7-point scale, wi th 1.00 meaning Very Sa tisfied and 7.00 meaning Very Dissatisfied. The satisfac tion ratings are reported in the same format as the staff survey (i.e. very satisfied, moderately satisfied, very dissatisfied). The student survey included three dimens ions under technical, which were lighting, acoustics, and thermal quality. Table 4-16 show s the overall results from this portion of the survey. The students ( n = 106) were very satisfied with th e thermal quality of the building ( M = 2.40, SD = 1.22), however they were only modera tely satisfied w ith the lighting ( M = 2.86, SD = 1.44) and the acoustics ( M = 3.11, SD = 1.41). A few did comment about it being too cold. I ts too cold! If the temperature was a few degrees warmer I would prefer it. One research participant rec ognized the lack of control over the temperature. Once, it was sweltering hot in the Reading Room, and some students complained. Administration personnel came out and said that it was out of their control because the A/C was controlled by UF. If thats the case, its not the best management technique. Many survey participants commented that there was a lack of lighting in the study carrels. Study carrels need indivi dual lights. I think they need to improve the lighting in the study carrels there isnt enough lig hting there. Study carrels are aligned in a way so that lighting isnt ideal for each individual carrel.

PAGE 86

86 Table 4-16. Student Satisfaction with the Technical Dimensions. Technical n Students M SD Thermal: Temperature, humidity, and odors 106 2.40 1.22 Lighting: Natural, task, and ambient 107 2.86 1.44 Acoustics: Background, privac y, and disruptions 106 3.11 1.41 Overall 108 2.79 1.06 Satisfaction with acoustics in the LIC is reported under Acoustics: Background, privacy, and disruptions, which includes their satisfaction ratings for b ackground noise (voices, noise from air ducts, etc.), acoustical privacy (ability to have a private conversation, etc.), and acoustical disruptions (loud c opiers, others conversations, etc.). Many of the student participants complained about undergraduate stud ents coming in and being disruptive. The undergrads create disturbances beyond description. This is not a design flaw, however, one participant suggests that a separate area should have been crea ted for them. There should be a small area where only undergrads should be al lowed to study, especially during exam time, rather than a small area where only law students can study. Othe r complaints were made about the meeting rooms. Ive had one experience where my group was asked to be more quiet because our discussion was inhibiting another gr oups study in an adjoining meeting room. The study rooms are very far from sound proof (m aybe they were not designed that way), but hell, come on, you can hear a pen fall in the adjacen t room. Some complain ed that there are not any areas to study without noise, and some complain ed that there needs to be areas where talking and group study is allowed. It woul d be nice if the quiet areas were truly quiet, and there were more areas where small groups could work together without having to rese rve a room. There should be a non-quiet area. I woul d like it if there were areas that were dedicated to talking or taking phone calls and areas dedica ted to complete silence.

PAGE 87

87 In conclusion, all of these technical dimensions were combined to reveal that the students ( n = 108) were moderately satisfied with the technical aspects of the LIC, reporting M = 2.79, SD = 1.06, which is similar to the staffs satisfaction ratings ( M = 2.76, SD = 0.90). LIC Student Satisfaction: Functional Dimensions(Questions 29 44) Table 4-17 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed. The students were very satisfied with five of the functional dimensions that are the following: the layout of th e OConnell Reading Room ( M = 2.48, SD = 1.37), the student meeting rooms ( M = 2.38, SD = 1.21), the circulation through the book stacks ( M = 2.48, SD = 1.21), the main entrance ( M = 2.49, SD = 1.85), and the ability to find and identify major areas in the LIC ( M = 2.45, SD = 1.05). Satisfaction with the lay out of the whole LIC is re ported under Layout: Whole building, which includes their sa tisfaction ratings about the loca tion of storage areas, meeting rooms, printing/copy areas, toilet rooms, stairways, elevators, and their personal work area. The students ( n = 103) were moderately satisfied with the buildings layout ( M = 2.96, SD = 1.25). Satisfaction with the lay out of the study areas and the distance between themselves and others is reported under Layout: Di stance. The students ( n = 103) were moderately satisfied ( M = 3.13, SD = 1.80). The students ( n = 94) were moderately satisfied w ith the layout of the book stacks ( M = 2.57, SD = 1.32). Students ( n = 103) reported that they were moderately satisfied with wayfinding through the LIC ( M = 2.86, SD = 1.14). Students ( n = 103) were moderately satisfi ed with the study carrels ( M = 2.83, SD = 1.54) and the furnishings ( M = 2.78, SD = 1.48). Students ( n = 102) reported that they were moderately satisfied with the seating options and arrangements in the LIC ( M = 2.78, SD = 1.48). One participant did comment, there ought to be a place to relax and lay back with pillows. A

PAGE 88

88 few others commented that the furn iture should be adjustable. Cha ir to study table height is not quite correct. Adjustable chairs are more comfortable than un-adj ustable chairs. I would like adjustable-height chairs in the OConnell Readin g Room. Other comments about the furniture were about lounge type seating. It would be nice if some of th e most comfortable seating (i.e. the armchairs) was located in areas where some conversation was allowed. I like the couches next to be large windows. Love the leather easy chairs. Table 4-17. Student Satisfacti on with Functional Dimensions. Functional n Students M SD Student meeting rooms 1022.381.21 Ability find and identify major areas in the LIC 1032.451.05 Layout: OConnell Reading Room 1002.481.37 Circulation: Bookstacks 992.481.21 Main entrance 1022.491.85 Circulation: Whole building 1022.521.24 Layout: Book stacks 942.571.32 Furnishings 1032.781.26 Seating options & arrangements 1022.781.48 Study carrels 1032.831.54 Wayfinding 1032.861.14 Layout: Whole building 1032.961.25 Layout: Distance 1033.131.80 Overall 1032.720.87 Satisfaction with the amount of circul ation within book stacks is reported under Circulation: Book stacks. The students ( n = 99) were very satisfied ( M = 2.48, SD = 1.21). Their satisfaction with the am ount of circulation to walk and move throughout the whole building is reported under Circulation: Whole bu ilding. The students ( n = 102) were moderately satisfied ( M = 2.52, SD = 1.24, compared to the staff who were very satisfied ( M = 1.79, SD = 0.89). Eighteen participants made comment s about the lack of having a second floor exit. There are a few picture windows that provid e transparency between the second floor of the

PAGE 89

89 library and the hallway to the classrooms on th e other side. Students who have been studying on the second floor of the library have to go downs tairs, exit the library, go up another flight of stairs and re-enter the building to be on the other side of the glass so that they can go to class. I hate that you cant have access to the library from the second floor. Its really annoying to see the hallway you need to get to for class from with in the library but you still have to walk back downstairs, outside, and then go back in side the library. Another comment: It would be extremely useful to have access to the library from the second floor, instead of having to go down to the first floor and then back upstairs to get to the second floor. The floor to ceiling windows between the parts of the second floor that are not a part of the library are frustrating in that you have to go up tw o flights of stairs to get to the areas just on the other side of the panes of glass. A few people did comment about the circulation within the st udy areas and how there was not enough thought put into how the l ack of proper circulation dist urbs those that are studying. To get to the carrels on the second floor, you ha ve to walk past and disturb just about everyone studying on the second floor. The la yout of the OConnell Reading Room isnt very good for the same reasonto use the chairs closest to the windows, you have to walk past everyone since there isnt really a sepa rate walkway other than the space between the study desks. In conclusion, all of these functional dimensions were talli ed to determine the students overall satisfaction with the functional dimensi ons of the LIC and of their workspace. The students ( n = 103) were moderately satisfied with the functional dimensions with a mean score of 2.72 ( SD = 0.87). LIC Student Satisfaction: Ambient Dimensions(Questions 45 51) Table 4-18 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed. Satisfaction with the finishes of LIC is repo rted under Interior finishes: Public areas, which includes their satisfaction ratings about th e colors, surface materials, flooring materials, furnishings, and overall interi or style. The students ( n = 100) were very satisfied with the

PAGE 90

90 interior finishes ( M = 2.36, SD = 1.11). Architectural elemen ts includes student satisfaction ratings of the some of the more prominent elem ents of the LIC, the interior atrium at the entrance, the exterior building st yle, the courtyard, large window s and views, and the connection to other buildings. The students ( n = 100) were very satisfied with these dimensions ( M = 2.46, SD = 1.13). Overall, the students ( n = 100) were very satisfied with the ambient dimensions of the LIC ( M = 2.42, SD = 1.05). A few comments were made to support these results, such as: It seems as if a lot of thought wa s put into creating different secti ons that have different styles. I love this effect. The richly paneled r eading room, with large windows, looks great! Table 4-18. Student Satisfaction with Ambient Dimensions. Ambient n Student M SD Interior finishes: Public areas 1002.361.11 Architectural elements 1002.461.13 Overall 1002.421.05 The survey also asked the students to rate how well the building supports certain ambient dimensions. The reporting of these findings uses the same scale of the staffs opinion of how well the LIC supports ambient dimensions. Table 4-19 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensi ons that were analyzed. Exposure represents how well the LIC allows for easy supervision wit hout the sense of students feeling exposed. The students ( n = 98) reported that the LIC supports this dimension moderately well ( M = 2.53, SD = 1.25). Variety of spaces represents how well the LIC supports many different spaces within the library, ranging from open areas to alcove s of semiprivate activ ity. The students ( n = 100) reported that the LIC supports many different areas moderately well ( M = 2.51, SD = 1.29). Intimate areas represents how well the LIC suppor ts areas that have a se nse of intimacy within the overall public setting. The students ( n = 100) reported that the LIC supports intimate areas

PAGE 91

91 moderately well ( M = 2.51, SD = 1.39). Reading areas represen ts how well the LIC supports a wide variety of reading areas to suit the users mood or environment needs. The students ( n = 100) reported that the LIC supports a vari ety of reading areas moderately well ( M = 2.64, SD = 1.49). Understand areas purpose represents ho w well the LIC supports a clear understanding of the general purpose of each area w ithin the library. The students ( n = 99) reported that the LIC supports this dimension moderately well ( M = 2.72, SD = 1.36). Finally, Visible staff represents how well the LIC suppor ts visible staff area so that information, services, and people are brought together. The students ( n = 99) reported that the LIC supports visible staff areas moderately well ( M = 2.62, SD = 1.30). Overall, the students ( n = 99) reported that the LIC supports these ambient dimensions moderately well ( M = 2.61, SD = 1.17). Question 48 was the same as the staff surv ey question 53, which included the quote from the RFP about whether or not the LIC conve yed best foot forward. The students ( n = 97) reported the LIC supports this statement moderately well ( M = 2.59, SD = 1.28). Table 4-19. Student Opinion LIC Ambient Dimensions. Ambient n Students M SD Variety of spaces 1002.511.29 Intimate areas 1002.511.39 Exposure 982.531.25 Visible staff 992.621.30 Reading areas 1002.641.49 Understanding areas purpose 992.721.36 Overall 992.611.17 Question 49 was the same as the staff survey question 54, which asked to rate how well the LIC symbolically expresses the important values of knowledge and learning. The students ( n = 97) reported the LIC symbolically expr esses these values moderately well ( M = 2.88, SD = 1.42).

PAGE 92

92 LIC Student Satisfaction: Psychologica l Dimensions (Questions 52 56) Table 4-20 shows the overall results from this portion of the survey with the specific dimensions that were analyzed. Overall, the students ( n = 100) were moderately satisfied with the psychological dimensions of the LIC ( M = 2.91, SD = 1.25). Table 4-20. Student Satisfaction with Psychological Dimensions. Psychological n Students M SD Sense of place 1002.711.36 Interact with others 1002.791.36 Privacy 1002.901.56 Sense of community 992.911.60 Sense of security 992.931.66 Ability to block distractions 983.181.78 Sense of ownership 1003.271.66 Overall 1002.911.25 The students ( n = 100) reported that they are moderately satisfied with th e privacy within the LIC ( M = 2.90, SD = 1.56). Interact with others repres ents how satisfied they are with the ease of interaction with others. The students ( n = 100) were moderately satisfied ( M = 2.79, SD = 1.36). The students ( n = 98) were moderately satisfied with their ability to block distractions while studying in the LIC ( M = 3.18, SD = 1.78). The students were moderately satisfied with sense of place ( M = 2.71, SD = 1.36), sense of ownership ( M = 3.27, SD = 1.66), sense of security ( M = 2.93, SD = 1.66), and sense of community ( M = 2.91, SD = 1.60) compared to the staff, who were very satisfied with these psychological dimensions. A series of questions asked for the students to rate how supportive the LIC was of certain psychological dimensions. The results are show in Table 4-21. The results of these findings use the same scale as the staffs opinion of psychol ogical dimensions. A mean score between 1 2.5 is considered very well supported. A mean sc ore between 2.6 4.5 is considered moderately supported. A mean score between 4.6 7.00 is considered very poor ly supported. These

PAGE 93

93 dimensions were not included in the combin ed calculation for user satisfaction with psychological aspects of the building since they do not directly ask for users to rate their satisfaction, but instead ask them to offer their opinion. Table 4-21. Student Opinion LIC Psychological Dimensions. n Students MSD Productivity 992.361.31 Ability to concentrate 992.481.42 Work team projects 1002.691.42 Overall 982.701.31 The students ( n = 99) reported that the LI C supported the following activities very well: ability to concentrate when needed ( M = 2.48, SD = 1.42) and feeling productive at work ( M = 2.36, SD = 1.31). Students ( n = 100) reported that the LIC suppor ted their ability to work on team projects moderately well ( M = 2.69, SD = 1.42). Overall, the LIC supports these psychological dimensions moderately well ( M = 2.70, SD = 1.31). LIC Student Satisfaction: Overall (Questions 57 60) Table 4-22. Student Satis faction with the LIC. Overall n Students M SD Satisfaction with LIC building 1022.59 1.30 Technical 1082.79 1.06 Functional 1032.71 0.87 Ambient 1002.40 1.05 Psychological 1002.91 1.25 Overall combined satisfaction 1072.59 0.98 In conclusion, the student were asked to rate their satisfaction with the LIC overall. Question 59 asked how satisfied they are w ith the building overall and the students ( n = 102) reported that they are moderately satisfied ( M = 2.59, SD = 1.30). Table 4-22 shows these results. The overall satisfaction ratings for each category, technical, functional, ambient and psychological, were combined to calculate an ov erall average of student satisfaction with the

PAGE 94

94 LIC. The result was very close to the re sults from question 59 with the students ( n = 108) reporting that they are moderately satisfied ( M = 2.58, SD = 0.99). The students were also asked to check which areas of the LIC should be improved. Table 4-23 shows the results. Of the respondents, 41% ( n = 43) reported that improvements needed to be done to the toilet rooms. In addition, there we re 12 negative comments a bout the toilet rooms. The library needs more restroom s. I know this is probably impo ssible, but its silly to have dozens and dozens of people studyin g in one place and only have one toilet stall per floor. Another comment: The toilet rooms need much improving. There are too few stalls for the number of people present in the LIC. The toilet rooms are often dirty and smell bad. The urinals are particularly bad. I usually leav e the LIC and go to Bruton-Geer to use the toilet room even though it is older and not as aesthetically pleasing, it is a much better restroom. Table 4-23. Student Re commendations for LIC Improvements. Improvement n Students % Ventilation 21.90 Circulation 76.60 Equipment 87.60 Aesthetics 98.50 Storage 1413.20 Wayfinding 1413.20 Temperature 1514.20 Elevators 1615.10 Stairways 1917.90 Layout 2220.80 Copy room 2220.80 Privacy 2321.70 Lighting 2422.60 Meeting rooms 2422.60 Furnishings 2523.60 Study Carrels 2826.40 Noise levels 3936.80 Toilet rooms 4340.60 The second highest score was for noise levels with 37% ( n = 39) reporting that this needed to be improved. As noted earlier, there were many comme nts about noise disturbance, the need for a

PAGE 95

95 quiet area, and a need for a group study area. Th e third highest score was for the study carrels with 26% ( n = 28) reporting. It was noted earlier that lighting was an issue. Another comment that was made about the study carrels was that "t here isnt enough room to spread out my stuff while using my computer! Only 1.9% ( n = 2) chose ventilation, only 6.6% ( n = 7) chose circulation, 7.6% ( n = 8) chose equipment, and 8.5% ( n = 9) chose aesthetics. Exploring the Planning Process through In-Depth Unstructured Interviews Research Question Three : Are the key participants who were involved in the planning process satisfied with the AR planning and design process? What do they remember from the process and how would they describe the process today? In order to test this, key participants were invited to participate in in-depth intervie ws where they were asked to share their thoughts, opinions, and stories about the planni ng and design process of the LIC. The following section of the findings includes excerpts from the six in-depth interview sessions that were conducted in order tell the story of the planning process. The findings are divided into the following themes: 1) Reasoni ng for the AR partnershi p and how it worked, 2) Value of the AR process, the student design, and the CDCP program document, 3) The design process with the architects and creating the hear t of the LCoL, 4) This process compared to individuals experiences with ot her building projects, and 5) Im portance of participation. The excerpts from the interviews illustrate how AR influenced and affected the design process and the final building design. It re lates how the participants felt about the process, and if they thought it was valuable. In addi tion, four of the participants ha ve had previous experience with other large building projects, and their insights on how the process for the LIC compared to those projects provides a unique perspective. The interview participants names have been omitted. The following are alias names and descriptions of who they are and how they relate to the LIC project: Ms. Jones: She is the former Director of the law library and has b een at the LCoL for a long time. Her insights are of particular value since she was a part of the planning process

PAGE 96

96 for the original library in Holland Hall that wa s built in the 1960s, as well as the planning process for the LIC. Mr. Smith: He was the interim dean of the LCoL at the time when the planning and design for the LIC was underway. Ms. Maxwell: She is the curr ent Director of the LIC who se rved as a consultant during the planning process with the architects. Ho wever, she was not a part of the planning process with the CDCP faculty and students. She does have experien ce with building other law libraries, specifically at a prominen t private law school in the Northeast. Mr. Davis: He is the Associate Director of the LIC and was apart of the planning process with both the CDCP f aculty and students and with the architects. He also has experience with past building projects, specifically with Bruton-Geer. Ms. Amos: She is apart of the LIC staff a nd participated in the planning process with both the CDCP faculty and students and with the architects. Mr. Mars: He was one of the chief architect s involved in the design process for the LIC. He has extensive experience with desi gning higher-educationa l facilities. Reason for the AR partnership and How It Worked Why was there such a need to build a new library? What was wrong with the library in Holland Hall. Ms. Jones explained, Moving [into the Holland Hall law library] the first time it was oh-so expansive and then you get 700 students in the building and not very much space. Soon you realize that its getting cramped and books are stacked on the floor because we had no other place to put them. We were really going all out to make it look pretty bad in the library. And telling them that we were throwing away books because we didnt have space for them. But we had the third floor just lined with books up there on the floor because we had no other place to put them and I didnt want to throw them away. But we really needed a new space; there was no question about that, even w ith all the books that were discarded.

PAGE 97

97 In addition to not having enough space for the li brary collection, the LIC was not compliant with American Bar Association (ABA) standards. Ms. Jones, the Director at the time, was trying her best to keep the LIC to their standards, but it was impossible. Ms. Amos explained even further that there was not even enough space for students to study. And we had all of this furniture crammed in because the director then wanted us to have this certain number of seat c ounts in order to be ABA comp liant. [The Director] wouldnt let us take away chairs because we needed to maintain a certain number of seat counts. So we had a table here and then three feet aw ay there was another table. Even though two chairs were backed up to each other as if the chairs could be pulled out with people sitting in them in a three-f oot space. That isnt going to happen. We just had all the furniture crammed in there. We had the ri ght number of seats, there was no way they could be occupied, but they were there! Due to lack of space and an influx in the law student population it was clear that a new library was needed, however there was not a budget to s upport this endeavor. The school needed a way to generate interest from donors, to let others know that they were se rious. Therefore, the partnership between the LCoL a nd the CDCP began. Mr. Smith, the interim dean at the time, explained, I think that the components of the story include the fact that it was not ABA compliant and we had accreditation issues. So we very much wanted to build a new library. So the issue was where do you start to build some sort of co nsensus vision and the ability to galvanize folks around wanting to raise money to do that And we had to get everybody to say that this was a good idea because everybody would like a new library whether its alumni, students or faculty. So we st arted meeting with [a key member from the CDCP group and with the Director] looking at what the library could look like And one of the thresholds was that we didnt have any m oney at that point. So what worked very well was to work with the architecture students and give them a project to design th is law school library facility. And then they began by doing all the things that I think an architect would do. Interviewing the users. Analyzing existing uses Analyzing what uses should be scaled to size. Looking at other plans. They ende d up doing plans and models. And during this entire process, we were still doing other thi ngs. But at each phase it was extraordinary helpful to have student plans when we could not yet afford plans. And student models when we did not have models. It was someth ing that we used to generate faculty and student interest and we showed it to alumni and we showed it to donors. The partnership developed to be something that would benefit both grou ps. The CDCP students would be able to work on a real project, st arting with the planning process and moving into

PAGE 98

98 conceptual designs. The LCoL would benefit not only by generating interest among potential donors, but also by discovering what options, they had for the desi gn of the new facility. Mr. Davis, the Assistant Director, explained, The idea was for it to be that a joint effort so that architec ture students had the opportunity to participate in a real li ve planning process. And on one hand, we would get the advantage for the College of Law, to get professi onals to look at the plan here and help us envision what we wanted to do....They all came over and they helped the College of Law by getting focus groups together and bringing their students over to create these focus groups, to get these ideas together of what is was that we wanted. Another goal for the planning process for th e LIC was to make sure that everybody had a chance to give their input to ensure that the ma jority of the users woul d be happy with the final building design. Ms. Jones added, So thats how we got started with that project. That was very interesting to me because we had entirely different goal. [The interim d ean] said that He wanted everybody satisfied in this law school. And that the plan is acceptable and that they had been involved in it. So he gave us instructions about what we were to do about making su re faculty had input, students had input, staff had input. From the very beginning, this was a prime focu s for the partnership. Making sure that users were involved every step of the way. Value of the AR Process, the Student De signs, and the CDCP Program Document How valuable was the AR process? What wa s valuable about it? As mentioned earlier, one of the greatest benefits of the preliminary planning was to gain interest among alumni and other potential donors in contributing funds to the project. Mr. Smith spearheaded the fundraising efforts. People are loyal to their college and want to see it succeed. The issue we had with the accreditation issues was not only are we looking to improve, but we are also looking to avoid being penalized for inadequa te facilities. It was pretty easy to show people that the facilities were inadequate, both in terms of the library and the classrooms. So it was a matter of getting leadership among to the alum ni to say this is a good idea. And then commit to ask other alumnus and come up with a very specific plan over a period of time to raise money and to raise matching money. Our director of development, who is now with the Florida Bar Association, was terrific We had deadlines; we had people faxing

PAGE 99

99 things in three hours before deadlines. We had to reach matching amounts of money. It ended up being $24 million to do the project. A nd we raised that money, true pledges over periods of time and all sorts of creative financing. Ms. Jones explained how some of th at creative financing happened. When it came to fundraising and [Mr. Smith] wa s raising funds from all of our graduates and anybody else he could talk to...hes a true politician having been in the legislature. And he went around to people and he said that lawyers didnt want to contribute. But he would say, Just give us ten dollars and your na me will be on the list. And heres [Mr. Smith] talking to a lawyer who is probabl y making $200,000 dollars a year asking for ten dollars. And nobody had the nerve to give him ju st ten dollars. So he did a wonderful job with fundraising. But he went around to al l these lawyers to raise these funds and explaining with the building. And I kept hi m totally involved with everything that was happening in the meetings with all of the di fferent groups. So he knew what was going on with the decision-making. Not only did Mr. Smiths creative skills in raisi ng the necessary funds for the project work, so did the information that Ms. Jones kept him abr east with about all of th e decisions that were being made. Being able to expl ain to alumni and donors that the new facility was necessary and that they were already starting to plan for it, it was easier for them to commit a larger dollar amount to the project. Another benefit of the AR process was that it exposed the LCoL faculty, students, and staff to what was going to happen with the libra ry, while at the same time it gathered useful information for the design process. Mr. Smith explained, [It] was extremely useful for a number of reas ons. Not only to give us the information, but [it] educated everybody in the building. The wa y the questions were asked and the way the information was acquired so the library st aff and the faculty and all the people who participated learned too. So when it came time to look at the architec tural plans, they had already been exposed to the ideas and the information. Mr. Davis also believed that the planning pro cess with the CDCP introduced everybody to the architectural language and allowed them to feel comfortable talki ng about the building in spatial terms. It also helped them to start thinking about what they would want to accomplish with a new building. The process was constructive and informative.

PAGE 100

100 Made us more conversive, I think. And I thi nk that it probably help ed us better interpret what we thought we needed to the architects. Probably made it easier on them. So that was helpful... And to be forewarned, as it were to make sure that youre thinking in terms of spaces, traffic movement, your place in the building, how many floors you want, how difficult it is to get from place to place, the idea of having big open spaces and quieter study spaces. We knew that we wanted study rooms, and they helped us get an idea of where we might incorporate thos e. Again, I cant say enough about that group of people. At no time did we think, Good lord. Why did we call them? They are in the way. No. They were always available when we wanted them but they never imposed themselves during the project. Maybe thats something to say about the personality of the people. We were very fortunate to get the team that we did. As the planning process progresse d, town-hall style meetings were organized to allow faculty, staff, and students to discuss their opinions, conc erns, and ideas for the LIC in an open forum. Ms. Jones related what they did during this AR planning process and how this was different from the first time they planned the library when th e dean and she were primarily responsible for making the decisions. We met with student groups. They told us what they didnt like about the building and what they did like and what they wanted in the future. And we met with faculty. We had open meetings and said anyone can come to the meetings. Three or four faculty from over at the College of Architecture would facilitate the meetings and then we would invite faculty here from specific subject areas, the teaching faculty, clinical faculty, the students and the staff. And we would say this is what we were going to talk about that day, come and tell us what you think. It worked out very well. Because everybody felt like they had some input into what we were talking about and how the building was going to be designed. And that every step along the way they had input. And this entirely was different from the last time when the dean and I made most of the decisions...well, the architects would make the decisions and we concurred. Mr. Davis shared that the experience was pos itive because the CDCP group was objective and gave them a good starting point. I felt like they were totally objective, because they had no interest in the long-term building plan, other than to help us think about what it was that we wanted to do, so that there was no interest on their part of coming in and actually designing and fini shing the building or making a profit from it. So we felt like th ey were people who did help us think more broadly than what we were thinking before We had no idea where to begin, how we would go with an architect.

PAGE 101

101 Of those who participated in the AR planni ng partnership, they had positive memories and opinions of the process. There were no negativ e experiences relayed to the researcher. After the students and faculty of the CDCP gathered information, the students created conceptual and schematic designs for the LIC. The architectural students focused on the exterior overall structure of a new building or renovation of the existing library, and how it would relate to the other buildings of the LC oL. The interior design students focused on the classrooms, the library, and the moot courtroom designs. Mr. Smith explained in further detail how the models done by the architecture students were helpful. And they were allowed to dream. There were some of these things that clearly we could not afford to do. But, it also provided a context. It also provided very different structural options. We could do it as rebuilding the li brary. We could have another separate building for the library. We coul d be either on the west side, th e east side or the north side. Just the fact that people had been turned l oose to create all thes e different options was useful to us when we ultimately sat down with architects and they were trying to do this for real with their options. Ms. Jones also related her memories about the experience with the student designs. Then the students were encouraged to get t ogether in one of the classes where you design projects, and they had 10 different designs. And the architecture st udents would bring over floor plans and present them. And we w ould set it all up and then invite everybody, students, staff, faculty, come and see what some of the proposals are for the building. And they all thought that that was just great. And they would go around and say, I like this but I dont like that. And we were very pleased with the turnout with the students and faculty both who went over there to critique the designs To me, it was very fascinating because it was entirely different than the first go around. Ms. Jones elaborated on the proce ss and explained that this type of involvement and participation from the faculty, students, and staff of the LCoL continued with the planning and design process with the architects. When somebody would leave, they would go tell somebody else, Go look and see what these architecture students are suggesting a bout the building. You can tell what you like and what you dont like. You know. And the faculty were doing the same thing...and the staff...we got the whole community in the law school was involved. And then the interior design students put their de signs up...they were scattere d around a big classroom...what they were proposing for sections of the buildi ng and what they would look like. And, then

PAGE 102

102 the [architects from Boston] came down with their plans that were much more expanded, much more of an idea of what they are really talking about and what the school is going to look like. And they had faculty and students coming in critiquing their designs, I dont like this. This would be better if you did this. And they would go back and bring back another set. So there was a lot involvement that we didnt have before and that was the instruction that Mr. Smith gave me. Involvement from students, staff and faculty from the beginning was a major goal for the project. Mr. Smith explains that this was imperative in order to ensure that everyone is satisfied. The effort to get people involved was important because one of the things that inevitably happens in the any projects, part icularly a building project, that sometime later when things are going along somebody or some set of peopl e will say, Why didnt we do this! And we would say, We considered that six times! And so its valuable to make sure that you are getting all these id eas out to people even if...there s no way you can get everybody to participate. So I think inevitably, that some people will come back towards the end of the process and say, I have a re ally great idea. And you say, You know, that great idea was seriously considered two or three times. Th at would be a great idea but it just doesnt work in this context. Mr. Smith thought that the whole AR planning process contributed positively to selection process for the architects, as well as providing the architects a good starti ng point from which to work. But is was also helpful when we came to sel ecting architects because there were so many proposals and we had some very good ideas a nd information that had been developed by the students that allowed us to evaluate th eir proposals more eff ectively. We did have people from the University who had been i nvolved in building construction but we had additional information about law libraries and about this law library that we never would have had. That was an additional value. And there was further additional value when it came to the actually doing it because we were able to give all this information to the architects that won the project a nd it was very useful to them. It gave them a baseline. It gave them information that they could use. In addition, the experien ce with the AR process informed th em about what to look for in an architectural firm. Mr. Smith elaborates, I think we learned form the students and the de sign faculty about law schools and libraries. And just because somebody has built a governme nt building does not mean that they know about law schools and about the pa rticular issues that arise in law schools. It was more important to know that somebody had had expe rience with law schools before. I think I was more attentive to that because of the experience. They had experience with law schools and they also, in terms of Tsoi/Kobus in particular, they seemed very attuned to

PAGE 103

103 understanding what we were doing here and what our problems were. They were not just a big company that knew how to build a nd how to design a flashy building. In conclusion, Ms. Jones commented that the process was very positive and she would recommend it to other departments on campus. I think the working with the tw o groups was just wonderful and I would recommend it to any department on the campus. Because if you dont have any background in planning a building and you work with people who have the background, but don t know the subject area it is very good to work it together a nd to come out with a wonderful product. Mr. Davis also had similar sentiments. I would recommend it. If they can do that. I know others may be stretched and have their own schedule and problems...and Im assuming that they cant do it for everyone on campus. But it was just an easy way to get star ted as opposed to being just thrown in. They felt that the process was valuable because it gave them a solid start, as well as, information to what steps to take next and allowed them to feel more in control of the project. The Design Process with the Architects Ms. Jones remembers the sequence of events, And then after that, the architects were hired from Boston. And they came down and held sessions. And we would plan what sessions do you want....well, lets talk about faculty offices today. And I would send out a notice to everybody that the ar chitects are here and we are going to be disc ussing faculty offices. The AR process continued with the design and pla nning efforts of the architects. Participation from the faculty, staff, and students was still a top priority. Mr. Mars discovered early on that the participants in the meetings we re very collaborative and receptive. One of the things that I thought was really interesting was the buy in was so strong. Typically, people are good about whats good for the group is good for the group, as long as I get what I want. And there was pressure initially re-do the faculty offices because they are in pretty bad shape on the third floor. And it became clear that the project budget couldnt stretch to do all of that. So we said, Whats the priority? [And they always said that] the priority is classrooms first [and] the offices can come later. So the offices were seen as a phase two. Thats just another in dication of that people understood what was trying to be done. Now ther e was a limited amount of money so you couldnt do everything but we wanted the right and best thin gs first. And they knew that they needed

PAGE 104

104 to give up some of the creature comforts for th emselves in order to help the College as a whole. The faculty, students, and staff already understood what the situa tion was, understood what could and could not be done. In addition, the ar chitects were given the CDCP preliminary programming document. Mr. Mars saw this to be a very valuable resource. [We used the CDCP preliminary] document th at had been prepared [and it] became very valuable. [It] was clear that there had been spadework done and we did not need to spend a lot of time essentially reinventing the wheel. We were able to pick up from the point where they had left off and validate some of the decisions that had come out of that document. Some of them were validated 100%, some had changed because time had passed and people had changed. But we had a starting point that was somewhere much further up than zero and that helped move the programming al ong more quickly so that we could start to look at what was th e right way to achieve the goal. It was interesting because we had the documen t and the mission statement. And we didnt know what to do with all this stuff and we di dnt know what would take precedent. So we just dove in and got started. And as we dove in, we realized the value of the document as we were going because we would say, What di d they say about that? And go back and use it as a springboard. We saw the value of the document more at th e end of the process more than at the beginning of the process, which was interesting. It was not like oh theres nothing there. No, it was okay we got to talk to these people and find out what they need and we got this as more for backgr ound information. Well, it turned out to be more than background information. It was a way to check and say, This says this and youre saying this. Why did you say this here and why are you saying this now? And whats the right answer? The document served as a way for the designers to check to make sure they were on the right track. They were able to clarify information so that the best decisions were being made during the design process. In addition, the participants had already sp ent time exploring their needs during the AR planning process, which aide d the design process to progress smoothly. I would much rather design for a client that knows their thing. Because were architects were not lawyers, were not scientists. A nd the more that they know, the better the solution is going to be. I neve r go in there thinking that I know more than them. I go in there thinking Im a sponge. Tell me what you want. Show me what you [have]. Tell me what works and doesnt work. And you take all of that information and then try to do the best you can with the money and time available. Thats what design is But first, you got to listen. And the more that they can tell you, th e more it feeds the proces s. If they just sit there and say, We dont know. Just draw someth ing. Somehow, it just wont be quite as good.

PAGE 105

105 Now that all of the participants, the building users and the architects, were informed of what their needs and priorities were, they were able to get into more of the specifics of what the building may look like, to discover how all of this inform ation would translate spatially. The open forum discussions continued and, as these meetings progressed, the idea of creating a square, or a heart, for the school became to be important for them. Mr. Smith explained, There was that and there were other options... like developing a square. I remember the architect saying that [the courtyar d] began to feel like the heart of the college, that this was the place were people circulated around with all sorts of different activities. I think we all contributed to that conversa tion. We were down to disc ussing two or three final approaches to this. And I just remember that a couple of the final approaches were to have two buildings lined up....which would not have been terrible, sort of a ma in street feel with things on both sides...and then the other opt ion was to enclose the courtyard so you would have circulation and it would b ecome the heart of the school. So essentially the whole building was dest royed, gutted, and redone for the library and classroom space. And these two towers that so rt of enclose [the courtyard] are classroom space. And one of the thoughts that played in various design ideas from the very beginning was trying to integrate the space more closely so people would be able to go from classes to library to offices more easil y. And putting a building way out there did not translate very well into that idea. This was the biggest decision made in one of the meetings, and Mr. Mars reflected upon how important it was to get that noted in the mee ting minutes so that everyone knew that it was agreed upon. And I remember one of the biggest things that I said was, If we design it this way, we will get less building than we will if we go over here and build a new building. Because its going to be cheaper to do start anew than it is to renovate. And I want everybody to understand that because if somebody is sitti ng here thinking, My goodness, its important that we get the most square footage that we can get. Then this is not the right answer. And without fail, everybody said, No, were willi ng to take less if its the right thing to do. And that was important. To get that not ed in the minutes because there were people who later came in and said, How much coul d we have gotten if we had done that? Well, we would have gotten more. How much more? I don t know how much more, just more. However, we made a decision, an informed decision, that we were willing to give up space for having a qualitative thing happen. This was a difficult decision for all of the partic ipants to make because it was not the easiest solution. They felt that it was the ri ght solution. Mr. Mars elaborated,

PAGE 106

106 We found a real nice quips and the one that co mes to my mind is, Make a community not an architectural statement. And there were se veral comments that talked about that. So instead of looking like at two existing buildings and looking to build a third building to the west, which was what was originally envision ed by the program, we elected to look at how we could use this project to do that, to ma ke a community. And that certainly meant interjecting ourselves into the heart of this and actually trying to create a heart because at that time there were just two linear buildi ngs that did not really elicit a sense of community. That meant that we tear down literally half of the existing original building. We tore it back to the structure and rebuilt the whole eas t half of that existing building that was originally built in 1965 to allow the space to happen in the way that we wanted to do it. And to make the LIC the center focus of that courtyard. We basically did the hardest thing that we could think to do because it was the ri ght thing to do. Both in terms of design it was very hard to design that project because we had to connect two existing buildings which was certainly a lot harder design probl em than coming to the west and building a third building. And saying, Gee, arent we great? Look at the beautiful building. Taking our pictures and goi ng home. But here we left exhausted, everybody was exhausted. It was a very difficult project to do, structurally. Because of the interface of new and the old. It was hard for the users a nd the students because we were right in the middle of their little campus doi ng this renovation because thats where the heart needed to be. We werent over here just quietly building a new building. So it was hard on everybody but when it was done, everybody felt like any other solution would not have been as sufficient as the one that we came up with. But it was hard on everybody. Another major design element that came out of the collaborative meetings was the architectural peak element above the entrance in to the OConnell Reading Room. According to Mr. Mars, quite a few participants wanted the ne w LIC to have the same architectural language as the old Bryant Hall. However, this woul d not work stylistically in context with the surrounding buildings. Therefore, that element was into the interior of th e building incorporated in a different way. Thats why when you go into the LIC and the element that goes into the reading room theres that peak element with the double doors that is actua lly a dimensional abstract of the entrance to the old Bryant Hall, which wa s the original law school. We took the exact dimensions and built it as an abstract. And there are people who go in there that go in there and say, I know that. I know what that is. What is that ? And if they look at the wall where we did the recognition of donors, we have the picture of the original Bryant Hall there.

PAGE 107

107 Specific elements of the building were also discussed by othe rs during the design development phase. They felt that their contri bution to the planning process was not all for naught. They were actually making a difference to the quality of the LIC. Ms. Amos related her experience. And when I would raise a concern, they woul d actually make the changes. Originally, there was just going to be one set of glass doors to come in the front door, and thats what we had before was just one set of doors a nd you were immediately outside. We talked about how that was not a good scen ario. Even the winters here are not Nordic there is still cold air that can come gushing in. And when there would be leaves in the courtyard, they would blow into the library. So it was a combination of mess and cold air. It wasnt so much noticeable in the hot times of the year. So they put a double se t of doors there! Oh, it made me feel like I had made a big impact. However, it was recognized that not everyone pa rticipated in these meetings. Most of the key participants who were interv iewed reported that everyone was invited to participate in the planning process with the architects. However, it was also recognized by some that either not everyone took advantage of the i nvitation or certain groups were not included. Ms. Amos stated that not all of the staff was involved, but that th e design team tried their best to accommodate the needs of all users. That worked fairly well since I was involved with the planning and that I had input. Im not sure about the rest of the staff if they just felt like things were happening and they werent having any involvement and if they were happy with it afterwards. We tried to let them know what we were doing and what th e options were. And we let people choose like we had it down to a few models of chairs an d we let them pick what kind of chair they wanted. Tried to give them so me options as we went. We tried to make the ones that were in cubicles we tried to go w ith as fancy as we could with options, storage options so it wouldnt be just a work surface and two drawers. Mr. Davis stated that mostly staff and faculty were present at the open forum meetings. He speculated that the students did no t participate due to class schedules or possibly, because they were not interested in a building that would be built after they were gone. But it was more staff and faculty that were there. And it may have been a timing thing because some of it was held in the afternoons ...and I think that it was more of a timing issue. You know students are here for three years. And sometimes, I think that when you

PAGE 108

108 are a student, its hard to th ink three years down the road.m ost of them would be gone when the building would actually be finished. In addition, everything about the building project was certainly not perfect. Ms. Maxwell stated there were some aspects of the design process th at they were not involved in. She thinks that because of their lack of involvement in these areas the final design suffered. I think they made some horribl e mistakes in the part of the building that we werent involved in. I didnt have anyt hing to do with classrooms. A nd I had said to them that based upon my experience at NYU where the rolli ng chairs kept rolling out of the building and I said, Do not have non-fixed seating. Well, the most of the seat ing is fixed and half the seating is rolling. And wev e already lost 23 chairs. I w ould have had a dark finish on all of the tables and all of the chairs. And when you go into Ro om 180, youll see first they chose the cheapest of the desk suppliers for the classr ooms and they look cheap, and then they got the lightest color and of course, the students write on that with pencil and ink. And then they bought chairs that have a wh ite frame and pale green seat. Well, the students immediately spilled coffee all over them and they look awful. Comparison to Other Building Projects How did this experience compare to other bu ilding projects that they were involved in? Ms. Jones related her experience with buildi ng the original library within Holland Hall. So no one had any experience in building a new building before. So he decided that he would have a committee. So he appointed a committee of faculty and one of the faculty members served as the chair. And we star ted in on the planning for the new building what we needed. Nobody knew what office space ought to be and how much library space there ought to be and how are you going to arrang e classrooms. This was all brand new to all of us. Well, the faculty started arguing a bout this department ought to have more space and the faculty who were professors ought to have bigger offices than the assistant professor coming in. The archite cts were having a horrible time working with us on it. So the Dean said that he and I would do the pl anning. He would do it for the academic side and I would do it for the library side. And to avoid a lot of problems with the faculty... No, the architects had no patience with these gr oups that wanted to do different things. And the faculty was so divided. How big s hould a faculty office be? Should it have a window...all these types of things. So the way we finally got around all of this. The Dean and I would travel to the arch itects office in Miami. A nd we went down there once a month. We drove to Jacksonville, flew to Mi ami. Spent the day with them going over all these plans and they were making suggestions and we would say yes or no. Come back to Jacksonville, drive to Gainesville. And once in a while, they would come up with and we would distribute them around and the faculty said yes or no. That was the way the original building was designed. The Dean and I did most of that. And so of course, there were lots of complaints.

PAGE 109

109 Because the first time, the architects would sa y, This is the design. How do you like this? This is what the first floor of the library will look like. And this where people are going to come and go. And I didnt see any problem with it, but it was hard for me to visualize what it was going to look like from a floor pla n. And then I didnt s ee any of these things until we actually moved into the library...a nd then I thought, Oh my. We shouldnt have done this. Or I wish I had told them to do that. This [current] process was so different than from the first building because we had eleven different models. And everybody was looking at them and critiquing them. And [before] we didnt have faculty meetings and we didnt involve staff a nd we didnt involve students. Her prior experience with Holland Hall lacked th e collaboration and participation that this process had. She expressed regrets over her d ecisions that affected the final design and now recognizes the value of involvi ng all of the building users in the democratic process. Mr. Mars explained how the LIC project was no t necessarily different for them, just more rigorous. I would say it was not different from what we do typically. It was ju st more rigorous and included a broader range people over a longer period of time because it just seemed so important. Yes, we are doing a large laborat ory building at University Z. The size of the project got cut in half because th eir budget was half of what it needed to be. So we are literally building less than half of th e original program. And it was a little disconcerting for the people that the building was being built for and for them to come to the first meeting and be told, You dont have enough money to build half of this. Which is what we told them. Because we had just done several la boratory buildings for the state university system and we knew what they cost. I was a little surprised that th ere was that big of a disconnect. That there wasnt more work done on finding out how much does a laboratory cost. So we had to back up and it was incumbent upon us as designers to gain their trust because we were telling them something that they didnt want to hear. Mr. Mars recognizes the value of the CDCP prog ram over the program that his firm received for the laboratory building at Univ ersity Z. The CDCP program, though not complete, was at least accurate and thorough due to the AR process.

PAGE 110

110 Mr. Davis related how this process was f reer than a building project that he was involved with at Br uton-Geer Hall. But that process that we participated in w ith the architects it was more time driven because they were already underway. They we re actually designing the plans. And, quite frankly, they said to us, Here is your space. What would you do with it? And then they helped us work out the details. But, with th e project with the [CDCP] that was much freer or open because we didnt have the immediate ti me constraints. They encourage us to think differently and not.you knowthey didnt push us in one direction or another. Mr. Davis values the time and th e lack of pressure that the AR partnership between the LCoL and CDCP allowed them to explore their options. Ms. Maxwell was involved with a law library project at a univer sity (referred to as University X) in the New York City and told her account about that experience. Let me tell you about University X and what they did. I was the director of the law library there. And in New York City, they tell you essentially how tall a bu ilding you can build if youre not trading for air space over another building. So the architects knew that they were going to fill half a city block and they could go 13 stories high. And they filled 13 stories, but when you look at that space now, it s really to me very disappointing. The library, of course, got the subbasement, no windows. Each of the floors is very small. They seem to be crowded. I would disagree with some of the priorities of the choices made of things to go into that building. Because they were planning for the building, that building which was across the street from the cu rrent building, they ne ver really looked at the overall structure of the campus. And the beauty of the cooperative plan that we currently had, was that [the design team] talk ed to everybody. And what we ended up with then was a master plan for future of the law school. Not just indivi dual buildings taken in isolation. What I had a University X was one hour with the architects. And th e two associate deans who were planning the new facility. It wasnt just a library. It was a 13-story building, the library got one floor of it. I found it to be a very unsatisfactory process. They hired a library consultant. And essentially we got the impression that person was there to secondguess everything that the library had told the architects. Considering the space that we got, I think it wa s the best consultant they could have and we did as much as we could. But because the library was not high on the priorities of University X, it never really was able to get space that flowed well together. And one of the things that happened during this process was that the administrative space that the library director and director staff had was tu rned over to one of the Centers at the law school ...And the director of the law library and the administrative staff are now clear across the building outside of the library. Now this is just totally non-functional.

PAGE 111

111 We renovated every summer at University X. There were lots of projects and very expensive wasteful projects. For example, one year they would put in study rooms. The next year they would throw away all of that study room furniture and turn that space into offices. You cant even imagine how much that university wastes. I keep saying to people, If I had the budget of what University X wastes, it would be larger than our larger our current library budget. But thats th e difference between a $50,000 dollar tuition and a $7,000 dollar tuition. Ms. Maxwell had a very negative experience while employed with University X. The process was dictated by a small group of stakeholders, th e consultant, and by the architects. The users had no control, no ownership, and limited say in th e design process. Therefore, she concludes that the final design is totally non-functional. In addition, she notes that this university has a much larger budget than LCoL and that LIC is a much better design than the law library that was designed at University X. Importance of Participan ts Input and Involvement The participants noted th e value of everybodys involvement. Ms. Jones observed. Because with involving everybody nobody co mplained! Everybody was complimenting the beautiful entrance to the library and the great improvements that were made in the whole building. So I think it worked out. I would recommend it to anybody even if you were just building a house. You need informa tion in order to work with the architects to know how to build a house. Or anything else. Mr. Mars concurred that building a consensus am ong the participants leads to a more successful project. And the reason that we carried through wa s because we had good buy in with everybody. Gave people a chance to talk. We had foru ms, we built a consensus. Not everybody got what he or she wanted, but everybody had a ch ance to talk and have themselves heard. And that whole process was very much necessary in order for us to feel like when we got done that nobody could say, I didnt get a chan ce to talk. Everybody had a chance. And I think, if its successful as I think it is, it is because of that. We had lots of buy in from students, faculty, and staff. Mr. Smith added that a democratic process like the AR partnership brin gs people together and builds a closer community.

PAGE 112

112 Projects like this do bring people together. When you have a particular goal in mind, there can be a major achievement that everybody can look at. And I think with the alumni, students, faculty...it did bring pe ople closer together. And it was so clearly needed and so clearly a galvanizing force to say, If we can do this, it will make it a better place and we will all benefit. It did bring people together. Summary This chapter presented the finding from the three different methods: verification of the preliminary AR program, user satis faction surveys, and in-depth unstructured interviews with the key participants. The researcher concludes that the preliminary AR program was utilized during the planning and designing process for the LIC. A significant number of the users needs were evident in the final LIC building. The results from the surveys demonstrate the staff is very satisfied and the students are moderately sa tisfied with LIC based upon the technical, function, ambient, and psychological dimensions. Lastly, the key participants related that they were satisfied with the planning process and that user participation in the planning process is of value in order to have a successful bu ilding project, as well as raise th e necessary funds and interest to make the project a reality.

PAGE 113

113 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Discussion This case study used a multi-method approach with both qualitative and quantitative measures to explore the success of the AR planni ng methods for the Legal Information Center at University of Floridas Levin College of Law. Verification of the preliminary AR program created during the partnership between the Coll ege of Design, Construction and Planning and the College of Law revealed that a majority of the users needs were implem ented into the design of the final building. The user satisfaction surveys re vealed that some unresolved issues exist, but the majority of staff were very satisfied and th e students were moderately satisfied with the final results. The in-depth unstructured interviews re vealed that key particip ants in the planning and designing of the LIC were satisfied with the proc ess and valued the participatory approach. AR was a valuable process for the College of Law in gaining a collective vision for the LIC from different users and user groups, which lead to satisfaction among those groups. The AR preliminary program also assisted the LCoL in raising funds for the project by showing potential donors all of the spadework that had already b een done and how committed the college was to building a high quality facility. Not only do these findings support th e success of the AR planning partnership, but it may prove to be a viable option for stakeholders who will be planning future facilities that have ju st as much complexity as the LIC. Comparison and Verification of the Preliminary CDCP Program The discussion of the findings for the comparison of the CDCP program to the RFP, the Tsoi/Kobus architectural program, and the fina l building design was presented in Chapter 4, along with the findings. The resear cher decided that this was the best course of action in order for the reader to have a better understanding of th e user satisfaction survey findings and of the

PAGE 114

114 key participant interviews. The discussion of the findings clarif ied the content of the programs and explained how much of the CDCP program items were found in the programs and in the final building design and why. One document that was not discussed and is relevant to uncovering the value of the AR process was the proposal the Ponikvar & Associ ates submitted, along with their partners Tsoi.Kobus & Associates. In the document di stributed to the LCoL Facilities Planning committee, a list of key team members was provid ed along with a descrip tion of their job task through each phase of the project, pre-de sign, schematic design, design development, construction documents, and construction administrati on. The interesting part of the document is a section about the design charette process. Their objective of conducting charrettes was to identify the project goals, verify the CDCP and FP&C programs, review site plans and alternatives, review bui lding configuration and alternativ es, produce adjacency diagrams and schematic plans. During these ch arettes, they proposed to work closely with the College of Law representatives to develop a common vision about the project goals and design preferences. In addition, they proposed organizi ng tours of other newly constructed benchmark law schools for the College of Law representatives to get an id ea of what is currently being done at other universities. They also proposed organizing student focus groups to investigate likes and dislikes about the existing law library so th at they can develop strategies to improve the facility to best suit students needs. These proposals and stra tegies of the design team suited the LCoL Facilities Planning committees vision of how the pr ocess should proceed for the LIC project. If the LCoL representatives had not participated the AR preliminary planning, they may not have known the true value of this process and recognized that this approach would involve them in the design decision making and allow them to participate on all levels.

PAGE 115

115 User Satisfaction with the LIC as Assessed by the Surveys The findings from the user satisfaction surveys were also very interesting. The staff and the students use the LIC in different ways and o ccupy different spaces within the LIC. The staff reported being very satisfied with their sense of ownership in the build ing, while the students were moderately satisfied. This could be attributed to the fact that the most of the staff has individual offices within the LI C while the students do not. It would be in teresting to compare the general law student population to the graduate tax law students since the latter group has a designated study space and lounge on the second fl oor of the LIC. Figure 5-1 and 5-2 show these respective spaces. Since these students ha ve their own study area and lounge, they may report a higher satisfact ion with the LIC and with their sense of ownership of the LIC. Figure 5-1. Graduate Tax Student Study Area

PAGE 116

116 Figure 5-2. Graduate Tax Student Lounge Area In the new LIC, the staff has a new administrativ e suite, which consists of private offices, cubicles, a kitchen/cafe, a staff meeting room, and a book sorting ar ea. The administrators (the Director, Associate Director, and su pport staff) are in this area, as well as, the technical services staff. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show some of the areas in the administra tive suite. These areas provide a sense of ownership, as well as, ex terior views and natural light. These were dimensions that that staff was very satisfied within their work area. Figure 5-3. Staff Kitchen and Cafe

PAGE 117

117 Figure 5-4. Directors Private Office. Since some of the staff members participated in the planning process, their satisfaction with sense of ownership could also be higher than the students, since the current student research participants (RP) that were surveyed were not part of the LIC planning process. However, the former students who participat ed in the planning process, provided a solid representation for the future law students since the current student RPs are moderately satisfied with the final LIC. It appear s impossible to please all of the users; therefore, a moderate satisfaction rating from the student s is considered to be a succe ssful result of the planning and designing process. One of the most significant findings from th e user satisfaction surveys was the student dissatisfaction with the layout of the second floor of the LIC. At the interior atrium near the main entrance to the LIC, there is a stairway that leads up to the second floor book stacks and

PAGE 118

118 study areas. At the top of the stairs are large picture windows to the nort h and south that provide interior views. To the north (figure 5-5), one can see part of the study spaces and book stacks of the LIC. To the south (figure 5-6), one can see the entrance hallway to the second floor of Holland Hall, which leads to classrooms and admi nistrative offices. The LIC is not accessible from the hallway on the second floor. In or der to access the classrooms and offices on the second floor, one must exit the LIC through the main entrance on the first floor, use the exterior stairs that are located in the courtyard, and then re-enter Holland Hall. Students found this to be inconvenient and frus trating. However, from a staff librarians point of view, it is a means for security of th e LICs books, materials, and equipment. If a second entrance to the library was provided at this location, then it would have to be monitored and controlled requiring more staff and security measures. However, if the windows were not transparent but still allowed for natural light to penetrate the LIC interior students would be less aware that their classroom was on th e other side. It is a no-win s ituation for the designers. The designers wanted to allow for natural light, but they probably were aware that this visual transparency would aggravate the library patrons. This is an issue that affects the students and not the staff because of the differences in the way the two groups use the building. The staff primarily occupies the work area s on the first floor, while the students use the study carrels and tables, most of which are on the second floor. Another significant finding from the surveys was student dissatisfaction with the toilet rooms. According to student RPs comments, there are too few toilets to accommodate the number of students. There is one toilet room per gender, per floor This may be due to several contributing factors, such as, space limitations location of plumbing walls, and budget. In addition, the architects did meet the codes for the correct amount of toilet st alls per the facilitys

PAGE 119

119 occupancy, however the student RPs are reques ting that the design should have exceeded the code requirements. Another popular issue heard fr om quite a few male students pertained to the cleanliness of the waterless urinals. This may be due to lack of proper janitorial maintenance and building commissioning may be a strategy to solve the problem. Figure 5-5. View to the North at the Top of the Atrium Stairs. Figure 5-6. View to the South at the Top of the Atrium Stairs.

PAGE 120

120 Acoustics and noise distractions were an issu e that arose for both staff and students. According to some of the staff, their workspace does not provide enough acoustical privacy. Often, they overhear conversations taking place both inside the LI C near the Circulation Desk and immediately outside in the courtyard. This is probably an issue for the two staff members whose workspace is directly behind the Circulation Desk. Figure 5-7 shows these two semiprivate offices. The walls of these offices do not go all the way to the cei ling so they are still subject to noise from patrons who are in the entrance atrium. Figure 5-7. Circulation Desk and Two Collection Staff Member Offices. This noise issue may also affect staff memb ers whose private offices are adjacent to the courtyard. The courtyard is cons tantly bustling with activity, es pecially between class times, and since the new addition for the LIC is a glass en velope sound transmits more easily than it would with a brick building. Once agai n, it proves to be a no-win situa tion for the designers. Either provide natural light and views w ith some noise distractions or provide offices with little or no natural light but with comp lete acoustical privacy.

PAGE 121

121 Another noise issue came from the law student s complaints that the undergraduates were too noisy and distracting. However, the LIC is a public institution that welcomes not only other University of Florida students but also other me mbers of the community. This is not directly related to the design of the LIC, but it could be solved by providing diffe rent zones, such as, quiet zones, group study zones, a nd law student-only zones. This was not an issue that was discussed in any of the three pr ogramming documents, therefore it could be a problem that has only started to surface with this new building. The LIC does provide a variety of spaces, so creating different zones could be a viable option that the library ad ministration could facilitate. Students also suggested that an area where food and drinks are allowed would better suit their needs. Across the courtyard in Bruton-Geer, a student center exists where there is snack bar and tables. Casual observations of the student life at LCoL reveal ed that this area is lively with student activity, ranging from soci alizing to quiet individual st udy. However, the space is not particularly attractive, nor inviting. Perhaps by providing a cafe in the LIC would improve the student life and encourage them to use the facility more. It could also be a strategy to increase profits for the LCoL by selling drinks and snacks. However, from a staffs point of view, this becomes an issue of security, monitoring, and main tenance. If this idea was to be explored further, certain strategies would have to be im plemented in order to satisfy both user groups. The food and drink would have to be limited to one small area within th e library. Students commented that they loved the lounge chairs Figures 5-8 shows how the students use the lounge chairs that are provided in the new facility. The students wa nt to be comfortable at their school. The LIC provides an opportunity for that, but perhaps more can be done to facilitate their comfort needs by providing a cafe area with lounge chairs and tables. The cafe could

PAGE 122

122 become a place for impromptu group study sessions or a place for students to relax while studying and enjoying a nice frothy cappuccino. Figure 5-8. Students Using the Lounge Seating in the LIC. Overall, the staff and students main compla ints were in regards to factors that are restricted by codes and/or univers ity regulations, such as toilets, elevators, a nd noise distractions from undergraduate students. Factors that are attributed to the design of the building (i.e. wayfinding, circulation, and aesthet ics) were mostly satisfying to both user groups. In addition, both user groups found the ambient dimensions very satisfying. This category was added to the assessment framework to determine how design deci sions affect users sa tisfaction. This study found that these dimensions are important. Aest hetic appeal and design elements that reflect user values have a considerable affect on users overall satisf action with a building.

PAGE 123

123 Analyzing the In-Depth Interv iews with Key Participants It is evident from the in-depth interviews, that the planning process overall was successful and a good experience. This section will discuss the important findings that were discovered from the interviews based upon the themes that were developed. The theme, Reasoning for the AR Process and How It Worked, revealed that the library book collection was overflowing, there was an in flux in the student population, and that the LCoL was threatened with the possibility of losing their ABA accreditation due to the inadequacy of the law library. The AR partne rship between the LCoL and the CDCP had three main goals: to generate ideas and interest am ong the LCoL community and potential donors, to allow CDCP students the opportunity to work on a real project, a nd to allow everyone a chance to voice their opini ons and concerns to ensure user satisfaction. Value of the AR Process demonstrated that the process was valuable. Under the guidance of the CDCP group who utilized the AR methodology, participati on in the democratic planning process was achieved by inviting the faculty, staff, a nd students to meetings and planning sessions. The interim dean at the time of the AR partnership used the preliminary AR program to generate interest among the donors, which lead to a dditional funding to build the two classroom towers that flank the east and west si des of the LCoL courtyar d. In addition, the FP&C office used the information in the CDCP pr ogram to generate the RFP that was sent out the A/E firms. Moreover, the efforts that began with the AR partnership were then carried over to the planning/design process with the architect s, which was revealed in the Design Process with the Architects. The architect who was in terviewed commented often that there was good buy-in with the particip ants, and they understood that they needed to give up some of the creature comforts for themselves in order to help the college as a whole. An attitude and a clear common goal was formed among the different user gr oups of the LCoL. It was also evident that

PAGE 124

124 the CDCP programming document was a useful tool for the architects. Often, they referred to it to verify not only what was disc overed during the preliminary AR planning process, but to also verify what they were doing during the design proce ss. It also served as a solid starting point for the architects so that they did not have to fo cus on what the problems were, but instead focused on how to solve the problems. Some of the more interesting findings that em erged from the in-depth interviews with the key participants were revealed du ring the Comparison to Other Bu ilding Projects. Some of the interview participants had a means of compari ng the planning process for the LIC to another building project in which they had been involved. Ms. Jones had been the Director of the LCoL library when Holland Hall was originally bu ilt in 1968. The dean at the time and she were primarily responsible to represen t the LCoL. In her accounts of that experience, she recalls complaints from the faculty and staff after the building was completed. She realized that this was due to the lack of participation from users. In comparing that experience to the experience with the AR planning process, she concluded that inclusion of the building users in the planning process was an enormous benefit to creating a facility that supports th eir activities and satisfies their needs and preferences. Ms. Maxwell had an experience with anot her university law library and recounts how she had only one hour with the architects. Si nce she was allowed very little input during the planning process, she concluded that the fi nal product is non-functional because the administrative staff is now on the other side of th e building and not even w ithin the library. The design team of that project igno red the users opinions and need s. She too believed that the collaborative planning process for the LIC contributed to a successful design.

PAGE 125

125 It was clear that the participants valued the participation proce ss of the AR planning approach in the Importance of the Participants Input and Involv ement. They were aware that it is impossible to give everybody everything that they want, but at least they were able to speak their mind and offer their opinions. In conclusi on, the key participants responses and accounts of the planning process proved interesting by no t only explaining how th e process unfolded, but also it also revealed their values and opini ons of the process and the final building design. Action Research as a Planning and Design Approach Based upon the interview with the former Dir ector of the law library, it became evident that the original law library within Holland Hall utilized agreement-based programming techniques. The former direct or and the dean at the time were primarily responsible for communicating the users needs and preferences. The dean communicated the needs of the faculty and administrative staff of the College of Law, while the former director communicated the needs of the staff and students for the la w library. Based upon the results, this method proved to be ineffective in satisfying the needs of the users. The former director remembers the faculty complaining immediately after the completion of the project. Theref ore, the interim dean at the time of planning for the LIC knew that an integrated and collaborative approach was required in order to give everyone a chance to voice their opinions so that they would most likely be satisfied with the final building design. On the other hand, a knowledge-based (k-b) programming method could have been used to identify the LCoLs design problems. This me thod requires systematic research methods and statistical output. Closed-ended surveys would have been admini stered to gauge the needs and preferences of the staff, students, and staff. Systematic observati ons of how the students used the space would have been conducted. Structured inte rviews with staff would have revealed what activities they perform and how they need the space to support them.

PAGE 126

126 When data is collected in this manner, th e output includes desc riptive statistics and compares the results across different user groups. Most designers and users find this information somewhat interesting but not very useful. Statistics do not rea lly point to a design solution or create an image that designers or stakeholders can easily access. In addition, once the report is completed and distributed, it is th e designers responsibility to tu rn the statistic al information into functional spaces. When th e stakeholders receive the report, they rarely reflect on the report, critique it, or make suggestions since the information is presented in a way that is not particularly easy to comprehend. The k-b method is similar to most met hods in social science research. The real testing of the results are not performed until much later when the building is completed and only then do the users begin to re ally understand whether or not their needs have been realized. Action research attempts to solve this problem by addressing the issues at the beginning of the process by involving users in a manner in which they feel comfortable contributing to planning and designing deci sions. In addition, the CDCP program was constructed in a descriptive narrative format so that it would be acc essible to all of the stakeholders (i.e. users, potential donors, alumni university officials) and to project architects and designers. The action research approach relates most closely to value-based (v-b) programming. Similar to the Hershbergers de scription of v-b programming a nd how this approach borrows methods from the k-b approac h, the action research preliminary planning team interviewed building users and conducted systematic observat ions. The CDCP team of faculty and students from the Interior Design department develope d a survey interview instrument to collect information from 50 respondents. (Hasell, et. al., 2001, p. 12). The observations of the user activities were used to suppor t the findings from the interv iews and to gain a broader

PAGE 127

127 understanding about each group and department. In addition, the CDCP team attended LCoL faculty and staff meetings where plans for the new facility were discussed. All of this information was then compiled into overview stat ements, which give a clear picture about each user group or department (Hase ll, et al., 2001, p. 12). The descri ptive and narrative information contained in the preliminary program aimed to be more accessible to designers by providing more detailed overview of how the LIC should take form to support the users needs and preferences and the College of Laws collective vision. The AR approach differs from the v-b approach in that it not only is the process about revealing the users needs preferences, and vision, but it also aspires to bring about change. The continual and cyclical process of AR forces the participants to observe what they have just planned and acted upon, reflect upon what is working and what is not, and then re-plan to make the situation even better. The development of the programming documents and the design for the LIC went through a series of AR cycles until a final plan was constructed. Th is case study observed and refl ected upon the final results to determine that the project and the process was successful. Further Discussion on Other Discoveries The purpose of the POE is to evaluate whether a facility meets the intended organizational goals and user-occupant needs (L ackney, 2004, p.3). It is a way to learn from the past so that future design decisions are be tter informed. POEs can also inform future planning methods. They can inform facility mana gers about what changes need to done to be made to improve the facility, as well as inform de signers about what changes need to be done in their design practice. Users, as well, can be info rmed about the value of their facility, which in turn can evoke a sense of pride if the facility is successful or spark a revo lution for change if the facility is unsuccessful. The mo st common form of a building eval uation is to look primarily at the observable conditions of the physical struct ure and building systems. (Lackney, 2004, p.3)

PAGE 128

128 However, this approach does not reveal the ad equacy of how the faci lity is serving the community. This case study explored how well a law school library served its community based upon the AR Subjective Assessment Framework which included four categories (technical, functional, ambient, and psychol ogical) that were developed a nd modified for the contextual purpose of this study. As mentioned earlier, the POE should not only ev aluate the building, but also the process. It is useful to have knowledge about whether a facil ity is successful or not in serving the needs of the users and the organization and why. It w ould also be valuable to know how this was achieved. Who was involved? How was the info rmation gathered? How was the information organized and disseminated? How was the inform ation utilized and synthesized? In this study, the process was found to be successf ul and satisfactory to the key pa rticipants in the process. This may be due to the wide range of user participation throughout not only in the planning phase but also during the design phase. Neverthele ss, the process is criti cal. The stakeholders took responsibility for their facility rather than rely ing on the architects to be the experts. Ed Tsoi, the chief architect from Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, stated the following during a presentation that he made at a conven tion for stakeholders of law libraries. You shape the way the architect sees the pr oblem. How the design team communicates with and how you communicate with them is criti cal in terms of determ ining the outcome. You should not expect that the designers are co nversing with all of th e subtleties of what you are dealing with. You have to be able to communicate it and communicate it clearly. (Tsoi, 2006) Communication is critical. The AR process started the collaborative process, and the preliminary AR program began to communicate the needs of the users and the law school to the design team. The planning and design process in volved many voices, not just one voice. Tsoi stated,

PAGE 129

129 There are times when I know that the consultants would love to have one voice. But Im actually a proponent of many voices. I think the richness of those who are interested in developing one part of a law school or another, needs to be heard. From the information divulged from the interview participants, it was clear that faculty, staff, and students were involved in th e planning process. As it wa s revealed in the in-depth interviews, it was imperative to the interim dean that everyb ody is satisfied. Therefore, everyone needed the opportunity to communicate their ideas. In addition, it was imperative th at the right design team wa s chosen for the project. Ferguson, the Senior Project Mana ger of the LIC from UFs FP&C office, states that this decision is very important because they need be able to work collaboratively not only with the users and stakeholders of the faci lity, but also the facilitys proj ect manager, contractor, code and permitting officials, etc. The selection of th e architect should not be based solely on their impressive resume of similar facility t ypes (Ferguson, 2003, p. 19). Ferguson explains, [T]he design team [needs to be able] to translate complex design components from a narrative program and concept to a set of cons truction documents free of errors, omissions, and conflicts, code compliant and absent of flaws that make end users wonder later if anyone actually thought about what was drawn. (Ferguson, 2003, p.19) All of the work during the AR preliminary program ming process could have been lost if a design team did not understand the culture of the LCoL and their desire for the project to be collaborative. It could have also been lost if the design team comple tely ignored the CDCP program. However, it was utilized according to the one of the chief architects and the architectural project manager of the LIC. In addition, Ferguson stated that the CDCP program was largely a benefit in intang ible ways (Ferguson, 2007). It wa s a catalyst for getting LCoL to think and dream, it helped demonstrate to A/E applicants that the LC oL was serious and had taken time to study user needs, and it partially helped the LCoL in warding off the threat of losing accreditation by the ABA (Ferguson, 2007).

PAGE 130

130 Recommendations for Designers and Stakeholders Reflection in action and re flection on action lead to action research. This comparatively recent evolution of methodology of research in the soci al science field has lead to significant elements that could be a ssimilated into the design practice. (Swann, 2002, p.50) Implementing AR into the planning and desi gn process is something that could come easily to designers. Most designers can universal ly accept that design is about problem solving. A problem arises and it is th e designers job to analyze th e problem, research solutions, synthesize the information, execute a solution, pr oduce a solution, and evaluate the solution. The design process is a cyclical, so th at if the solution does not alleviate the problem then the process can begin again to discover a bette r answer. Figure 5-1 illustrates this process, which is similar to the AR model of diagnosis, planning, implemen tation, and analysis, or more simply, plan-actobserve-reflect. Action research has been described as a pr ogram for change in a social situation, and this is an equally valid description for de sign (Swann, 2002, p.56). However, AR may require more work, time, and effort than what ma ny designers would accept into their current professional paradigm. Theoretically, designe rs would support AR, but few would actually make the effort to involve all of the users, gather all of their information, and synthesize it (Swann, 2002, p.57). A strategy that may solve this pr oblem is for the client to hire a planning consultant who works collaboratively with the st akeholders, the users, and the design team. By hiring a consultant, there is also less risk of there being a conflict of interest. If the same design office is working on both the progr am and the design for a large-scale project similar to the LIC, there may be an inclinati on for the programming team to influence decisions that may not be the best solution for the clie nt and instead benefit the aesthetic design.

PAGE 131

131 Moreover, if an outside consulta nt is not used, there is less fact-checking between the two teams. Figure 5-7. The Design Process (adapted from Swann, 2007, p.55) When the architectural team was chosen fo r the LIC project, the two firms, Ponikvar & Associates and Tsoi/Kobus & Associates, formed a partnership. Ponikvar & Associates acted as the lead architect while library-planning expe rts from Tsoi/Kobus served as consultants. Tsoi/Kobus was responsible fo r the programming and schema tic design, and then Ponikvar started where they left off and continued the de sign process into the construction documents and administration phases. This strategy allows the planning team to keep the clients best interest at the forefront. It minimizes conflict and ethical implications. The two teams must be willing to work together and the lead architect must be open to criticism from the consultants and accept their corrections in order to provide the users w ith the most functional and pleasing space. It may take extra time and steps to perform then action research approach; however, this case study and evaluation indicates that the implementing action research met hods is worth the extra effort, especially for a building that will have to last for at least thirty to forty years. In addition, the client has to take responsib ility. In the case for the LIC, the LCoL interim dean realized from the beginning the importance of involving the whole community in the process. The CDCP assist ed the LCoL by getting the ball rolling, having the community

PAGE 132

132 generate ideas, inviting all users to participate, and gathering all necessary information. It was discovered from the in-depth interviews with key pa rticipants that this pr eliminary step inspired the LIC users to be active in the process and to feel comfortable talking about space and what it means to them. The LCoL may be a special case, just because of the awareness of the stakeholders in the project. They were aware that architecture matters. Dean Jerry of the LCoL stated the following: At the risk of stating the obvi ous, architecture matters. The nature of space in which we work, teach, and study is important. The desi gn of our surroundings affects our attitudes, moods, self-esteem, efficiency, and sense of community. For our students, space makes a difference in the quality of the learning experi ence. It is possible to teach and learn in deficient space, but it is ea sier to teach and learn when both faculty and students are comfortable, happy and not distracted by th e inconveniences and annoyances of a poorly designed environment. Inadequate space preven ts us from achieving all of which we are capable, thereby diminishing our productiv ity, creativity, and accomplishments. If deficient space limits our future, then good space can expand it. Ultimately, the space around us helps define who we are and what we can achieve (Jerry, 2004, p. 86). If the client knows why it is important to have good space (meaning space that suits the users needs and values), then they will be able to de mand this from their design team. However, they must communicate their needs and values to the designer clearly. The AR approach can contribute to this process by i nvolving all of the users, analyzing the problem, evaluating solutions, and generating a narr ative of the problem (i.e. a preliminary program) for the designers. This program would not just include the traditional list of space requirements with their respective gro ss square footage and net square footag e suggestions. It would include items that reflect the users needs and values. It could even include the information that is rooted in a habitability framework, similar to the one used by this studys surveys to evaluate user satisfaction of technical, functional, ambient, and psychologi cal. Since, an evaluation of the design problem at the beginning of the planning process is simila r to an evaluation of a newly built facility, then why not incorporate the same means of analysis to both evaluations? Once the

PAGE 133

133 design team receives this detailed program, they are then obligated to work with the client/users and to continue with them in the AR pr ocess of plan-act-observe-reflect. AR can prove to be a valuable methodology for the design profession as a whole. By conducting POEs and by evaluating ones work syst ematically, the information could provide a learning resource in the way that case studies have contributed to the establishment of a culture of dissemination and learning in the busine ss world (Swann, 2002, p.60). Communicating the evaluation of the design to the public, could positively contribute to the profession by elevating the importance of design. By involving users, co nsumers, and the general public in the process of the design, they are in turn being educated about the mysterie s of the design process and could gain appreciation for the profession. Recommendations for Future Research This study contributes to th e body of knowledge that exists on university law library design and to the body of knowledge that exis ts on AR methodology in the planning and designing of public facilities. However, there is al ways a need for future research especially due to the growth of the internet in this Informa tion Age. The role of the library may change drastically. Who knows? Books may become obso lete. What will become of the library? How will user needs change? Future research about action research a nd how it relates to the design and planning process is greatly needed. Th ere are practitioners currently using this method and publishing articles about their projects. Howe ver, there is little evidence of formal research about AR in the planning process. This study was a case study about one library facility. It would be interesting to conduct a study that involved a formal compar ison between a similar facility that used a different planning and design process. Investigation of other librari es would be valuable in order to learn how the new LCoL facility compares to ot her institutions. It would also be valuable to

PAGE 134

134 compare the results of this research, specifi cally user satisfaction with the LIC and key participants evaluation of the planning process, to other prog ramming methods and to examine further the validity of arch itectural programming methods. Conclusion The school district mentioned in the scenario (see Intr oduction in Chapter 1) could benefit from using the AR planning approach to plan and design their new facility. The superintendent could involve th e teachers, students, parents, and the community in numerous ways. An open forum discussion about the ne w school would allow everyone to voice their complaints and offer their opinions and ideas on how to improve it. A survey could be administered to gauge the students, teachers, an d staffs current level of satisfaction with the school and what they would want to improve. Most likely, an educational design consultant could be hired to facilitate design workshops wh ere the teachers, students, and parents actually get to actively participate in the process. They c ould draw, write, or talk a bout their ideas. This process could assist the school in raising funds for the project, just as it did for the LCoL. Then a design team would be hired to act upon these ideas and implement them into the design. Once the building is complete and the teac hers and students have a chance to settle in, an evaluation of the process and how it has changed the space and it improved the users ability to teach and learn would be conducted. From this evaluation, it may not be surprising to discover that there is a stronger sense of community and a higher level of learning. The teachers are proud of where they work and there has been a boost in morale. The students are able to concentrate better and they are enjoying thei r new school. The parents are proud of their childrens school and to have been apart of the planning process for it. The surrounding community is pleased that they were involved as well because they were able to voice their concerns and have now received a new attr active building in thei r neighborhood, which has

PAGE 135

135 boosted their property value. AR is a cyclical process that can positively affect the success of any organization or community. By evaluating their work, figuring out a solution, implementing the plan, and then observing the repercussions, imp rovements are made to benefit the group as a whole. If it does not work, then the process ca n start over again to fi x it. However, with inclusion of all those who will be affected, problems can be avoided.

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONA L REVIEW BOARD APRROVAL LETTER

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX B CONSENT FORMS

PAGE 138

138

PAGE 139

139

PAGE 140

140 APPENDIX C EXCERPTS FROM THE PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS College of Design, Construction and Planning Preliminary Action Research Program:

PAGE 141

141

PAGE 142

142 University of Floridas Facilities Planning & Constructions Request for Proposals Excerpt:

PAGE 143

143 Tsoi/Kobus & Associates Fi nal Architectural Program:

PAGE 144

144 APPENDIX D PROGRAM VERIFICATION CHECKLISTS

PAGE 145

145

PAGE 146

146

PAGE 147

147

PAGE 148

148

PAGE 149

149

PAGE 150

150

PAGE 151

151

PAGE 152

152

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX E SURVEY QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT CBE = Center for the Built Environment sample survey (http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/RESEARCH/survey.htm ) Univ of Sao Paulo = University of Sao Paulo survey

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155

PAGE 156

156 APPENDIX F STAFF USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS

PAGE 157

157

PAGE 158

158

PAGE 159

159

PAGE 160

160

PAGE 161

161

PAGE 162

162

PAGE 163

163

PAGE 164

164

PAGE 165

165

PAGE 166

166

PAGE 167

167

PAGE 168

168

PAGE 169

169

PAGE 170

170

PAGE 171

171 APPENDIX G STUDENT USER SATISFACTION SURVEYS

PAGE 172

172

PAGE 173

173

PAGE 174

174

PAGE 175

175

PAGE 176

176

PAGE 177

177

PAGE 178

178

PAGE 179

179

PAGE 180

180

PAGE 181

181

PAGE 182

182

PAGE 183

183

PAGE 184

184

PAGE 185

185 APPENDIX H EMAIL TO KEY PARTICIPANTS FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Dear _____________, Thank you for participating in th e recent survey about your sa tisfaction with the new Legal Information Center. I would like to conduct an in terview to learn more about your participation in the planning process. It would take appr oximately 30 minutes, the session would be tape recorded so that it can be transcribed. Once a tr anscript of the interview is completed, I would send it to you so that you can edit or omit in formation. This interview is voluntary and you will not be compensated. Your responses would be used anonymously in my thesis and your information would be kept confidential. Y ou would also sign an IRB permission letter. If you would like to participate (which I would greatly appreciate !!), I am available to conduct the interview either May 14th or 15th. Are you available then ? If not, please let me know when would be a good date and time. Thank you once again for your participation and I look forward to hearing from you! Jennifer C Lamar

PAGE 186

186 LIST OF REFERENCES History of the Harvard Law School library. (2005). Retrieved January 12, 2006 from http://www.law.harvard.edu/librar y/about/history/special_history.php Leadership in energy and environmental design (2007). Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 Message from the director. (2005). Retrieved January 12, 2006 from http://www.law.ufl.edu/lic/about.shtml UF law facilities expansion and renovation complete (2005). Retrieved January 12, 2006 from http://www.law.ufl.edu/expansion. Workplace Matters (2006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration. Ahlers Sr., G. (2002). The history of law school libraries in the United States: From laboratory to cyberspace Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., Inc. Axelroth, J. (2004). The law lib rary: New models & frameworks In Y. Boyer, L. Mak, J. Henderson & G. Seer (Eds.), The law library 2004: Skills, strategies, & solutions (pp. 7). New York, NY: Practic ing Law Institute. Beam, A. (2004, May 4). After bu ildup, MIT center is a letdown. Boston Globe Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/globe /living/articl ies/2004/05/04 Bloch, R. H., & Hesse, C. (Eds.). (1995). Future libraries Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Blumenthal, R. (2005, May 14). College libra ries set aside books in a digital age. New York Times. Boog, B. (2002). The emancipatory character of ac tion research, its histor y and the present state of the art. Journal of Community and App lied Social Psychology, 3(6).

PAGE 187

187 Budd, C. (2000). Narrative research in design pr actice: Capturing mental models of work environments. Journal of Interior Design, 26 (2) Carlson, S. (2005). Thoughtful design keeps new libraries relevant. Chronicle of Higher Education, (Sept 30), B1. Ching, F. (1996). Architecture: Form, Space, and Order. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Crawford, W., & Gorman, M. (1995). Future libraries: Dreams, madness & reality Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Crosbie, M. (2004, June 23). Gehry at MIT. Architecture Week. Retrieved from http://www.architecturew eek.com/2004/0623/design_1-1.html. Crosbie, M., Callender, J. H., Watson, D., & Baerman, D. (1997). Time Saver Standards: Architectural Design Data New York City, NY: Mc-Grall-Hill. Dabek, F. (2004, May 7). Masterpiece or junkpile? Stata opens its doors. The Tech Retrieved from http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N25/25stata.25n.html. Danner, R. A. (2003). Law school lib raries. In M. A. Drake (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Second ed.) (pp. 1503). New Yor k, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Duffy, M., Bailey, S., Beck, B., & Barker, D.G. (1986). Preferences in nursing home designA comparison of residents, administrators, and designers. Environment and Behavior, 30, p. 246-257. Francis, M. (2001). A case study method for landscape architecture. Landscape Journal, 20(1) p. 15-29. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Canada: Optimal Books.

PAGE 188

188 Greenwood, D., Whyte, W., and Hark avy, I. (1993). Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations, 46(2) p. 175-192. Hasell, M., King, J., & Pohlman, R. Designers, researchers, stakeh olders: Partners for planning the Fredric G. Levin college of law. Unpublished manuscript. Hershberger, R. (1999). Architectural programming and predesign manager New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill. Horgen, T., & Sheridan, S. (1996). Post-occupa ncy evaluation of facilities: A participatory approach to programming and design. Facilities, 14 (7/8) Jerry, R. (2004). A brief exploration of space: Some observations on law school architecture. University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 36 p. 85-93. Lackney, J. (2001). The state of post-occupancy evaluati on in the practice of educational design Paper presented at the Environmenta l Design Research Association, EDRA 32, Edinburg, Scotland. Lackney, J. and Zajfen, P. (2005). Post-occupa ncy evaluations of pub lic libraries: Lessons learned from three case studies. Library Administration and Management, 19(1) p.1625.. Marans, R., & Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1982) Measuring overall arch itectural quality: A component of building evaluation. Environment and Behavior, 14 (6), p. 652. McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006). Action Research: Living Theory London: Sage Publications. Preiser, W., Rabinowitz, H., & White, E. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.

PAGE 189

189 Preiser, W., & Vischer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Assessing building performance (1st ed.). Burlington, MA: Elservier Butererworth-Heinemann. Preiser, W., Visher, J., & White, E. (Eds.). (1991). Design intervention: Toward a more humane architecture New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Sanoff, H. (2002). Schools designed with community participation Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Shill, H. and Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a bett er place: Physical improvements in academic libraries, 1995 2002. College and Research Libraries, 64 (6), p. 431. Sommer, R. (1983). Social design: Creating buildings with people in mind Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Sommer, R. and So mmer, B. (2002). Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Swann, C. (2002). Action Research and the Practice of Design. Design Issues, 18(2). Thompson, G. (1989). Planning and design of library buildings (3rd ed.). London, England: Butterworth Architecture. Tse, M. (1999, June 4). Famous architecture: Unique buildings echo MITs innovative style. The Tech. Retrieved from http://www-tech.mit. edu/V119/N27/MIT_architectur.27f.html. Tsoi, E. (2006). Careful what you dream Seattle: Bricks and Bytes Conference. Vischer, J. C. & Marcus, C. C. (2006). Eval uating evaluations: Anal ysis of housing design awards program. Places, 3, p. 66-86. Whyte, W. (1991). Participatory Action Research London: Sage Publications.

PAGE 190

190 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer Lamar was born in Greenwich, Connect icut in 1977. When she was four years old, her family moved to Houston, Texas during the oil boom and this is where she now calls home. As a young girl, she was always interested in the arts, both the perfor ming and visual arts. She was either dancing, acting, or roaming the ga lleries at the Menill Museum. She received her Bachelor of Science from Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York in 1999 with a major in Theater and a minor in English. During her studies there, she also spent a semester abroad in London studying with the Shakespeare Pr ogramme. It was during this time that she began to discover her passion for set desi gn, interior design, and architecture. After working in Boston for five years, sh e decided to pursue her dream and began her graduate work on University of Florida in Gain esville. There she disc overed her interest in educational design and the importance of the pla nning process in relation to the final product. Dr. M. Jo Hasell approached her in fall of 2005 with the idea of conducting a post-occupancy evaluation of the Legal Information Center to in vestigate the planning pro cess and she gratefully accepted the challenge. Jennifer is now working as a consultant with Fielding Nair International, an educational design firm, as an Associate Desi gner. She hopes to use her knowledge and skills to help improve the quality of life and learning for teache rs and students around the world.