Laserfiche WebLink
` INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RECREATION MULTI - PURPOSE BUILDING RFP # (-1 ( ) 9 ' <br /> c S <br /> � I -1- E !' CANNING I � SIJE . AND AI�TFRNATIVE <br /> The overall size and placement of the building was discussed . Looking <br /> at the actual footprint of 74, 000 SF on the site led to a discussion of one <br /> 'i story vs . two . It was decided that a one story scheme was preferable, in <br /> fact required , for the proper interaction between departments to occur. <br /> -- - -i, Through the use of simple graphics we were able to show the User that <br /> a ten acre site was inadequate . The decision was made to purchase an <br /> - - - - - --- _ _ _ additional five acres and the site planning process proceeded until the <br /> ;N final site plan was realized . <br /> See FIGURES 3 and 4. <br /> kkkk <br /> - <br /> 1 J 1 • ' <br /> ! 1 <br /> li ' <br /> ■gpp II 7 <br /> I f <br /> Site Options <br /> FIGURE 3 <br /> t <br /> p�� tip„ e� ° ring! §4@ PIRP ' ' ' - - - _ _ <br /> f y <br /> 1 i t F <br /> OVERALL. BUILDING C0NFiGIJRATIC) N ALTERNATIVE ' AND <br /> INTRA- DEPARTMENTAL INTERACTION DIAGRAMING_; <br /> - --' The use of scaled departmental areas or ' bubbles ' allowed us to quickly <br /> input and site <br /> � const ai �Fl�+�rding to Us�F explore alternative schemes . This effort took only one meeting to reach <br /> input and site constraints <br /> FIGURE 5 concurrence with all participants . <br /> _ See FIGURE 5 . <br /> w�vas°° W=WA7wesi COMMON FACLM rr. s <br /> wM <br /> Oakum" MRWM <br /> 7 m 71' m �. IN iER - DEPARTMENTAI... INTERACTION DIAGRAIVIIW3 <br /> X At this point in the process we scheduled separate meetings with each <br /> department, while maintaining our weekly scheduled meeting to report <br /> m progress and issues with the entire Team . <br /> � � I <br /> A M A i R � x <br /> _ This effort proceeded smoothly as, by now, everyone was used to the <br /> vocabulary of schematic design and the design process . <br /> $P§FPq IFF4RB9`� qFF I F01P9 tR P$PF iR. put See FIGURE b. <br /> PPI Construction Management ♦ Ponikvar & Associates 6 <br />