California State University Northridge · information gained through on-campus interviews, a...

California State University NorthridgeTeaching, Learning, Office, and Research Space Needs Assessment

REVISED DRAFT | April 2015

Contents

123

45

Introduction

Thematic Summary of Interviews

Instructional Space Utilization Analysis

Faculty Office and Research Space Needs

Strategic Drivers

6 Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification

Appendices

INTRODUCTION

California State University Northridge Teaching, Learning, Office and Research Space Needs Assessment 1.0-1

REVISED DRAFT April 2015

Introduction

OVERVIEW

For the assessment of teaching, learning, faculty office, and research space needs at California State

University Northridge (CSUN) Rickes Associates (RA) was tasked with providing analysis in several

interrelated areas. Following this introduction are five briefing documents detailing these analyses:

Strategic Drivers: An evaluation of key strategic data inputs, including information regarding

historical, current, and projected enrollment, was undertaken. This document contains historical and

current personnel figures and data concerning the University’s space inventory, or Square Footage

Data Base (SFDB). Findings from these data sources are synthesized with overarching qualitative

information gained through on-campus interviews, a detailed evaluation of demand for specialized

instructional spaces, and a review of general-purpose classroom space. These analyses establish a

quantitative basis to support the development of space needs projections for the space types

included within the purview of this study.

Thematic Summary of Interviews: As a companion to the data analysis presented in the

Strategic Drivers document, this text provides a high-level summary of major themes bearing on the

current and future utilization of and need for space at CSUN. University-wide themes accompany

comments and themes specific to trends and influences particular to each of the University’s

colleges.

Instructional Space Utilization Analysis: Specialized instructional spaces (spaces coded as

Teaching Labs and Specialized Instruction in the CSUN space inventory) were reviewed for the

several key target utilization measures of instructional space utilization. Planning guidelines were

subsequently applied to identify current space “gaps” and future needs. The findings from this

analysis inform recommendations by proposing an overall amount of teaching lab space needed.

Application of guidelines for the target measures identified by RA provides credible and defensible

findings to support the planning of future capital projects, and the development of overall space

needs projections. Separately, general-purpose classroom spaces were also reviewed to identify

areas of high and low use, which identifies candidate spaces for exploration of selective

intensification of utilization and/or re-purposing for other functions where needed.

Faculty Office and Research Space Needs: In this document, allocations of two bodies of

space key to faculty life at CSUN are examined: faculty offices and research spaces. Need for these

spaces has become especially acute in recent years, as the number of faculty at CSUN has grown,

while the University simultaneously seeks to attract increasing amounts of sponsored research.

Following a review of current space distribution, metrics for calculation of needs are discussed,

including discipline-specific metrics for projecting research space; these are then applied to

determine overall current and near-term future need for faculty office and research space at CSUN.

Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification: Using the findings of the

analyses of strategic drivers and the results of the instructional space utilization, faculty office, and

research space analyses, RA developed space projections for CSUN in response to provisional

enrollment materials provided. High-level findings from the analysis completed by Research Facilities

Design (RFD) have also been integrated. Projections are presented for each of the space categories

within the purview of this analysis, and use metrics drawn from widely-accepted standards across

North America. The projections are also grounded in RA’s project experience and knowledge of

higher education planning and pedagogical trends. While not intended as prescriptive, these

California State University Northridge Teaching, Learning, Office and Research Space Needs Assessment 1.0-2


projections provide an order-of-magnitude sense of current and future space needs in specific areas

vis-à-vis the context of CSUN.

Collectively, the analyses contained herein yield a comprehensive picture of CSUN’s current and projected

space needs for teaching, learning, and faculty office and research space, grounded in an informed context.

Note: A summary presentation of these analyses and associated workshop was held at CSUN on February

20th, 2015,as part of the University’s “Dialogues with the Provost” event series. Please refer to the workshop

appendix to this report for major discussion points and outcomes from the event.

STRATEGIC DRIVERS

California State University Northridge Teaching, Learning, Office, and Research Space Needs Assessment 2.0-1


Strategic Drivers

OVERVIEW

As part of the Space Needs Assessment for California State University Northridge (CSUN), Rickes

Associates (RA) reviewed space distribution, enrollment, personnel, and space utilization data (including

teaching laboratories, self-directed laboratory spaces, and research spaces) across the institution.

This briefing document is comprised of two major sections that represent the key steps in the analytic

process:

Distribution of Existing Space

Enrollment and Personnel

Subsequent briefing documents provide greater detail concerning RA’s analysis of current utilization of

teaching laboratory spaces at CSUN, as well as details pertaining to current utilization, distribution, and need

for faculty office and research spaces at the University. These additional documents also examine

comparative space needs projections and discuss potential opportunities for optimization and reclamation of

space on the CSUN campus.

Planning Methodology

RA’s approach to campus space planning encompasses both quantitative and qualitative analyses. There

are four steps in RA’s methodology for collecting and analyzing campus space data:

Identify and analyze the quantitative data supplied by CSUN,

Obtain information regarding current space use and future plans by reviewing CSUN’s existing

planning and narrative documents,

Interview selected faculty and administrators regarding space use, and

Interpret all of this data through the qualitative lens of a CSUN-specific perspective.

The end product provides CSUN with key information about how much space is needed, and detail about

how that space could be allocated. The study also identifies planning implications associated with changes in

enrollment and growth in the University’s research enterprise.

Qualitative Drivers Institutional Culture and Interviews

An institution’s unique character and culture must be identified and understood as early as possible in the

process to ensure that the proper analytical methodology is selected, and the resulting recommendations

support institutional planning needs. This customization requires the identification and manipulation of

numerical data, in conjunction with information on current space use and future plans. This qualitative data

can only be obtained by reviewing pertinent planning and narrative documents, and by listening to the people

who oversee and/or occupy the spaces. The insights offered by interviewees concerning how future plans

will change their use of space can be invaluable in the analysis of projected space need and provide a rich

source of detail in assessing space-related relationships and demands unique to the institution.



Institutional Strategic Plans

Understanding the strategic plans an institution has for its future informs the alignment of current and

projected space needs with the institution’s future direction. This information can come from many sources.

Senior administrators often have the broadest perspective on institutional directions, but Strategic Plans,

Strategic Research Plans, prior Master Plans, and Self-Studies are also sources of important information.

Quantitative Drivers Distribution of Existing Space

RA used the Square Footage Data Base (SFDB), provided by CSUN, as the starting point for analyzing the

distribution of existing space. This inventory included a code assigned to each space categorizing it by use

and organizational assignment, in accordance with the space coding rubrics used by the California State

University (CSU) system. This quantitative analysis provides the foundation of the “gap” analysis between

existing distribution of space by organizational unit and overall projections of space need by space category.

The inventory should be viewed with the understanding that space assignments change regularly, so the

database is never entirely up-to-date. Like the campuses they represent, space inventories are dynamic, and

the inventory data detailed in this report reflects a particular snapshot in time.

Instructional Space Utilization

For the purposes of this study, the review of instructional space utilization data quantifies space needs in

detail for teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces, through a detailed analysis of three key

target measures:

Hours of use: the number of hours a space is used each week,

Occupancy rate: the percentage of student seats filled when the space is being used, and

Assignable square feet (ASF) per seat: the average area provided per student seat in a given

instructional space.

Space planning guidelines are applied to each target measure, and the “gap” between existing space totals

and current and projected specialized space needs can be identified. This analysis is detailed further in the

Instructional Space Utilization Analysis Briefing Document.

Enrollment and Staffing Review

A major driver of space need is the number of students who use campus facilities. This study reviews trends

in historic and current enrollment based on both full-time equivalent (FTE) production and student headcount

enrollment data, and an overview of potential projected enrollment in terms of FTE production. Current and

projected enrollment data informs the development of space need projections.

Another major driver of space is the number of academic and non-academic staff who work in and use

campus facilities. The primary source of data for this analysis was the personnel database extract provided

by the University, which included both headcount and FTE.

Space Guidelines

The space planning projections are created by applying space planning guidelines to the drivers described

above. This method produces recommendations of overall space need defined by unit assignment, space

function, and size. RA’s proprietary space guidelines have been developed over time based on extensive

experience with the metrics of the Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI), as well as

best practices from representative public and private post-secondary institutions and systems. RA continually

reviews recommended utilization targets and guidelines in order maintain their currency in light of the rapidly

changing field of higher education in North America.

It is critical to note that the space projections in this study represent a first iteration of campus space needs

and are intended to serve as planning guidelines. In particular, the identification of existing bodies of space



for review in the Space Planning Projections and Opportunity Space Identification section of this report merit

further exploration to determine the feasibility of their selective intensification and/or repurposing. Findings in

this document are not intended to act as program specifications for a specific building or facility.

DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING SPACE

The CSUN Square Footage Data Base (SFDB) lists just over 2.0M ASF in 54 buildings, excluding non-

assignable space. Figure 1 lists space by building in assignable square feet (ASF) for the entire campus,

according to the information provided in the SFDB.



Figure 1: Distribution of Existing ASF Space by Building

At over 157,000 ASF, Jacaranda Hall is the single largest building on the CSUN campus, exceeding

the size of Oviatt Library (133,769 ASF) and Redwood Hall (129,422 ASF). Aside from these three

buildings, all other facilities at CSUN are under 100,000 ASF.

400

590

850

862

1,085

1,313

2,314

2,800

3,390

3,493

6,385

7,867

8,152

9,450

10,247

11,236

15,217

16,200

16,570

17,899

19,440

19,556

20,248

20,937

21,702

22,167

23,447

24,096

24,243

28,511

28,783

29,753

38,155

43,209

43,729

46,224

47,691

49,479

49,599

53,493

55,616

58,723

63,618

64,105

65,689

70,100

81,529

82,850

91,965

97,026

98,910

129,422

133,769

157,365

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

VOLATILE STORAGE A

NAUTILUS CENTER

18212 PLUMMER-CHICANO

ASIAN AMERICAN HOUSE

LAB SCHOOL/CHILD AND FAMILY STUDIES

BLACK HOUSE

PLANETARIUM

NOSKI AUDITORIUM

GREENHOUSE

ATHLETICS OFFICE BLDG.

COOLING TOWER

MATADOR HALL

PLAZA DEL SOL PERFORMANCE HALL (AUDITORIUM)

CHILDREN'S CENTER

WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE AQUATICS

SAGEBRUSH HALL

JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL

SANTA SUSANA HALL

STUDENT HEALTH CENTER

PARKING AND PUBLIC SAFTEY

FUEL CELL SATELLITE PLANT

CITRUS HALL

MONTEREY HALL

UNIVERSITY STUDENT UNION EXPANSION-SOL CENTER

SATELLITE STUDENT UNION

MAGNOLIA HALL

SIERRA CENTER

ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI

ART AND DESIGN CENTER

CENTRAL PLANT

SIERRA HALL TOWER

CORPORATION YARD ADDITION

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL

CYPRESS HALL

LIVE OAK HALL

NORDHOFF HALL

UNIVERSITY HALL

UNIVERSITY STUDENT UNION

MANZANITA HALL

EDUCATION

CHAPARRAL HALL

SEQUOIA HALL

EUCALYPTUS HALL

BAYRAMIAN HALL

JUNIPER HALL

UNIVERSITY VILLAGE APTS

STUDENT RECREATION CENTER

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER

OVIATT LIBRARY ADD

SIERRA HALL

BOOKSTORE/CAFETERIA

REDWOOD HALL

OVIATT LIBRARY

JACARANDA HALL



Volatile Storage A (400 ASF) and the Nautilus Center (590 ASF) are the smallest facilities at CSUN.

Laurel Hall is not identified in SFDB data.

Within the initial purview of this study, roughly 489,000 ASF of space was identified for assessment,

contained within the following categories:

Research Laboratory Service

Research Laboratories

Self-Instructional Computer Laboratories

Self-Instructional Laboratories

Specialized Instructional Support

Specialized Instruction

Teaching Laboratories

Teaching Laboratory Service

Figure 2 details the distribution of these space types, per CSUN’s SFDB.



Figure 2: Distribution of Existing Space (ASF) by Type and Number of Buildings

Building Researc

h

La

bo

rato

ries

Researc

h L

ab

ora

tory

Serv

ice

Self

-In

str

ucti

on

al

Co

mp

ute

r

La

bo

rato

ries

Self

-In

str

ucti

on

al

La

bo

rato

ries

Sp

ecia

lized

Ins

tru

cti

on

Sp

ecia

lized

Ins

tru

cti

on

al S

up

po

rt

Te

ach

ing

La

bo

rato

ries

Te

ach

ing

La

bo

rato

ry

Serv

ice

Gra

nd

To

tal, A

SF

(p

er

SF

DB

)

18212 PLUMMER-CHICANO 850 850

ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI 980 11,845 1,272 14,097

ART AND DESIGN CENTER 479 969 5,136 8,545 6,898 22,027

BOOKSTORE/CAFETERIA 659

CHAPARRAL HALL 12,035 4,738 1,820 9,845 4,125 32,563

CITRUS HALL 2,027 194 1,362 12,682 1,573 17,838

CYPRESS HALL 1,440 5,052 2,048 10,786 1,301 20,627

EDUCATION 13,086 2,252 5,223 186 970 21,717

EUCALYPTUS HALL 10,270 1,183 518 1,115 400 18,071 7,232 38,789

JACARANDA HALL 34,905 2,599 7,593 1,524 5,653 136 36,512 15,582 104,504

JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL 418 1,021 2,948 583 4,970

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL 2,703 534 98 3,822 113 7,270

JUNIPER HALL 558 8,310 850 684 780 5,980 290 17,452

LIVE OAK HALL 9,324 352 308 415 14,840 4,382 29,621

MAGNOLIA HALL 3,709 1,309 352 11,927 3,220 20,517

MANZANITA HALL 394 14,212 6,741 21,347

MONTEREY HALL 1,347 510 1,857

NAUTILUS CENTER 590 590

NORDHOFF HALL 153 156 3,772 407 4,488

OVIATT LIBRARY 10,081 1,450 300 13,127

OVIATT LIBRARY ADD 3,250

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 5,022 5,022

PLANETARIUM 2,017 297 2,314

REDWOOD HALL 1,000 200 9,947 10,592 4,229 25,968

SAGEBRUSH HALL 1,760 1,951 3,711

SEQUOIA HALL 6,519 11,644 1,868 20,031

SIERRA HALL 8,595 442 1,942 3,703 1,959 329 11,339 116 28,425

SIERRA HALL TOWER 164 164

VOLATILE STORAGE A 400 400

WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE

AQUATICS 9,722 114 9,836

Grand Total 96,968 11,766 31,037 9,093 34,215 35,953 209,265 60,529 488,826

Teaching Laboratory facilities are found within 22 buildings at CSUN, while Specialized Instruction

spaces are located in 15 different buildings on campus, and 12 buildings house Research Laboratory

space, per the inventory.

Altogether, roughly 24 percent of assignable space on campus is assigned to one of the categories

within the purview of this analysis (excluding faculty office space, which has been reviewed

separately).

It is understood that space assignments listed in the SFDB may not be current and that ownership

may not be accurately reflected, such as the lack of space belonging to the College of Health and

Human Development within Jacaranda Hall. In addition, the square footage of select spaces falling

within the scope of this analysis may not be accurately reflected, for example, part-time faculty

suites, also belonging to Health and Human Development, located in Laurel Hall.

Many buildings at CSUN house space belonging to more than one of the space types being

reviewed as part of this analysis. For example, Jacaranda and Sierra Halls house spaces belonging

to all categories being reviewed.

Further detail on research spaces in particular can be found in the Faculty Office and Research

Space Needs section of this document.



Faculty Office Space Assessment RA was also tasked with the review and assessment of faculty office space allocations at CSUN, in light of

current and planned faculty growth across the University. Integrated within the broader study of space at the

University, the focused analysis of current office space allocation and future space needs identifies existing

and potential overlaps and synergies between faculty office spaces and the bodies of space being assessed

in the larger study. Further, RA’s analysis provides commentary on changes in work preferences being

fostered by new generations of faculty.

Figure 3 outlines current faculty office space allocations by College. Spaces shown are contained within the

“Other Office” and “Profsnl-Fac” office space categories in the SFDB.

Figure 3: Distribution of Faculty Office Space, by College

College To

tal

Sp

aces

Cu

rren

t

AS

F, p

er

SF

DB

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication 159 21,265

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 151 16,810

Michael D. Eisner College of Education 95 11,186

College of Engineering and Computer Science 115 13,899

College of Health and Human Development 72 9,712

College of Humanities 135 19,206

College of Science & Math 146 18,951

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 159 22,106

Totals 1,032 133,135

The table above excludes office spaces not assigned to individual Colleges, per the SFDB.

Overall, just over 133,000 ASF is identified in the SFDB as faculty office space, in just over 1,000

individual spaces.

Note that SFDB data may not be current or complete; current office assignments may vary from what

is shown. The SFDB should be reviewed further to determine overall accuracy.

In addition, data drawn from the SFDB may not reflect multiple recent and/or ongoing efforts to

create additional faculty office space where needed, for example, Jacaranda Hall. Therefore, counts

as determined by inventory data may differ from number and configuration of spaces observed.

Please refer to the Faculty Office and Research Space Analysis section for additional detail.



Data Reconciliation It is essential to note that the Square Footage Data Base (SFDB) appears to be outdated, and that CSUN is

in the middle of updating its inventory data using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information.

However, as this process is not yet complete, it is understood that the current SFDB data will govern for the

purposes of this analysis. A comparison of space types included within the purview of this analysis is

provided in the following figure.

Figure 4: Comparison of SFDB and GIS Space Data, by Space Type, in ASF

Space Type (per SFDB) AS

F p

er

SF

DB

AS

F p

er

GIS

Delt

a,

SF

DB

less

GIS

Other Office 9,229 10,150 -921

Profsnl-Fac 139,289 139,445 -156

Research Laboratory 96,967 93,204 +3,763

Research Laboratory Service 11,766 10,668 +1,098

Self-Instructional Computer Laboratories 31,037 45,141 -14,104

Self-Instructional Laboratories 9,093 7,466 +1,627

Specialized Instruction 34,215 35,148 -933

Teaching Laboratories 209,265 213,367 -4,102

Teaching Laboratory Service 60,529 59,331 +1,198

Totals 601,390 613,920 -12,530

Overall the GIS data identifies a larger amount of space within the categories reviewed than the SFDB

indicates. However, significant variances within certain categories, for example, Self-Instructional Computer

Laboratories, suggest the need for additional review. The variances may also be generally indicative of shifts

in space usage at CSUN over time.

Research Facilities Design (RFD) Laboratory Space Assessment

As part of the review and assessment of laboratory and research spaces on the CSUN campus, RA engaged

the services of Research Facilities Design (RFD) to provide detailed assessment of a subset of current

teaching labs and research spaces that require medium-to-high service and house medium–to-high hazard

materials and machinery. Please refer to RFD’s report, appended to this document, for more detailed

explanation of service and hazard levels. The table below summarizes spaces reviewed by RFD, organized

by College and building.

Figure 5: Distribution of Space Assessed by RFD, by College and Building

College/Building Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

aces

AS

F p

er

SF

DB


ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI 4 3,574

ART AND DESIGN CENTER 11 7,872

College of Engineering and Computer Sciences 57 54,579

JACARANDA HALL 57 54,579

College of Science and Mathematics 194 117,808


CHAPARRAL HALL 69 29,648

CITRUS HALL 45 16,642

EUCALYPTUS HALL 77 32,038

LIVE OAK HALL 32 17,628

MAGNOLIA HALL 52 19,740




College/Building Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

aces

AS

F p

er

SF

DB

SIERRA HALL 11 6,507

Undefined 1 29

MAGNOLIA HALL 1 29

Grand Total 372 190,369

RFD reviewed roughly 39 percent of the space addressed by this analysis, or a total of 372 individual

spaces, exclusive of faculty office space.

In addition, RFD reviewed approximately 25 spaces in addition to those contained within Figure 5

that do not appear in the SFDB at the present time. Exact square footage of these additional spaces

is not currently known. It is understood that some of these may represent subdivisions of previously

existing spaces, and/or new spaces that have been added over time, for example, the Hazmat

Trailer adjacent to the Art and Design Center.

Please refer to the Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification section of this

report for further detail regarding findings associated with these spaces.

ENROLLMENT

A key impetus for this study stems from strong recent enrollment growth at CSUN, as enrollment is one of

the major drivers of demand for space. Quantification of space needs for any institution requires a review of

enrollment patterns, changes, and projections to provide a sound foundation for analysis. The enrollment

data was provided by CSUN’s Office of Institutional Research.

Headcount

Over the last two decades, California State University Northridge’s enrollment has increased dramatically

from just under 27,000 in Fall 1993 to over 40,000 in Fall 2014, an increase of roughly 49 percent.

Enrollment growth has been particularly strong over the last five years, as the University has seen an

increase of just under 5,000 students (nearly 14 percent over Fall 2010 levels).

Figure 6 details historical headcount enrollment by College, from Fall 1993 to Fall 2014:

In terms of headcount enrollment, the College of Health and Human Development has experienced

the largest percentage gain over the last 20 years, increasing by 152%. It is now the largest College

at CSUN, with a current headcount total of over 7,300 students.

Other Colleges, such as Arts, Media, and Communication, Engineering and Computer Science,

Science and Mathematics, and Social and Behavioral Sciences all also experienced significant

enrollment growth over the same period.

The College of Humanities recorded a gradual decline in enrollment over the 20-year period. The

number of “Other” students at CSUN also declined slightly.



Figure 6: Trends in Total Headcount Enrollment by College Fall 1993 to Fall 2014

Fall 1993 Fall 1995 Fall 2000 Fall 2005 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

Arts, Media, & Communication 3,083 2,634 3,227 4,242 5,036 5,140 5,056 5,278 5,328

Business & Economics 5,242 5,219 5,660 6,443 6,139 6,087 5,890 6,128 6,610

Education 1,181 1,099 1,360 2,189 1,526 1,553 1,524 1,426 1,454

Engineering & Computer Science 2,385 1,855 2,014 2,123 2,813 3,158 3,359 3,901 4,484

Health & Human Development 2,917 3,021 3,153 3,787 5,351 5,871 6,009 6,840 7,342

Humanities 2,643 2,215 3,143 3,417 2,724 2,619 2,418 2,217 2,081

Science & Mathematics 1,793 1,754 1,601 2,036 2,446 2,762 2,732 2,989 3,136

Social & Behavioral Sciences 3,745 3,352 3,680 4,776 5,957 6,378 6,214 6,532 6,742

Other 4,293 3,870 5,228 4,230 3,280 3,343 2,962 2,999 2,954

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000



Figure 7 shows overall recent historical trends in full- and part-time headcount enrollment from Fall 2010 to

Fall 2014.

Figure 7: Trends in Fall Headcount Enrollment Fall 2010 to Fall 2014

Overall, headcount enrollment has grown by almost 14 percent in the last five years (+4,800

students).

Undergraduate full-time enrollment at CSUN has increased by over 6,100 students (27%) over the

last five years, while all other enrollment categories have experienced overall declines in enrollment.

6,8

89

6,2

44

5,6

59

5,4

05

6,0

86

22

,99

1

25

,26

0

25

,46

0 27

,99

3

29

,12

0

2,745 2,838 2,555 2,420 2,336

2,647 2,569 2,490 2,492 2,589

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

Undergraduate Part-Time

Undergraduate Full-Time

Graduate Part-Time

Graduate Full-Time



FTE

Just as Figure 6 compares shifts in headcount population by College between Fall 1993 and Fall 2014,

Figure 8 compares overall trends in FTE production by course registration over the same period.

Figure 8: Trends in Total FTE Fall 1993 to Fall 2014

CSUN has experienced roughly 77% growth in FTE production since Fall 1993.

The largest gains in FTE production over the 20-year time period were experienced by the Colleges

of Science and Mathematics (+141% over Fall 1993 totals, +3,253 FTE), Health and Human

Development (+124%, +2,385 FTE), Engineering and Computer Science (+82%, +869 FTE),

Humanities (+80%, +2,484 FTE), and Arts, Media, and Communication (+80%, +1,925 FTE).


Arts, Media, & Communication 2,393 2,197 2,746 3,214 3,502 3,824 3,784 4,051 4,318

Business & Economics 2,639 2,573 2,715 2,762 2,919 2,854 3,043 2,990 3,113

Education 1,076 1,364 1,921 2,372 1,840 1,688 1,642 1,567 1,599

Engineering & Computer Science 1,059 909 1,006 1,133 1,333 1,436 1,480 1,718 1,928

Health & Human Development 1,924 2,029 2,407 2,744 3,379 3,769 3,526 4,161 4,309

Humanities 2,986 2,889 3,565 4,369 4,653 4,997 4,974 5,264 5,400

Science & Mathematics 2,315 2,830 3,145 3,607 4,271 4,930 4,761 5,442 5,568

Social & Behavioral Sciences 3,783 3,530 4,161 5,260 5,163 5,668 5,505 5,581 5,758

Other 194 39 157 223 373 505 466 514 522

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000



Figure 9 compares overall headcount enrollment and FTE production, from Fall 1993 to Fall 2014.

Figure 9: Trends in Fall Headcount and FTE Fall 1993 to Fall 2014

Total headcount at CSUN grew by 47 percent between Fall 1993 and Fall 2014, while FTE

production grew by 77 percent. This comparison reflects a long trend of overall growth in full-time

enrollment, and relative decreases in part-time enrollment.

Projections

The following table compares historical, current, and projected FTE and headcount enrollment totals, as

provided by CSUN. The figures shown provide a glimpse at the enrollment trend CSUN plans to achieve

over the course of the coming decade.

Figure 10: Trends in Fall Headcount and FTE Fall 2010 to Fall 2024

Projected enrollment figures were provided by CSUN’s Office of Academic Resources and Planning,

in conjunction with the CSUN Office of Institutional Research, and are understood to be preliminary.

Though CSUN has experienced robust enrollment growth in recent years, it is anticipated that

planned enrollment impaction will permit CSUN to gradually reduce its overall enrollment to the

figures shown in Figure 10.

27,28225,019

29,06633,243

35,272 36,911 36,16438,310

40,131

18,369 18,36221,823

25,68527,433

29,671 29,18131,288 32,515

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000


Headcount FTE

35

,27

2

36

,91

1

36

,16

4

38

,31

0

40

,13

1

38

,14

0

38

,08

3

37

,91

4

37

,60

2

36

,84

5

36

,84

5

36

,84

5

36

,84

5

36

,84

5

36

,84

5

27

,43

3

29

,67

1

29

,18

1

31

,28

8

32

,51

5

30

,90

0

30

,85

4

30

,71

7

30

,46

4

29

,85

1

29

,85

1

29

,85

1

29

,85

1

29

,85

1

29

,85

1

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Fall2010

Fall2011

Fall2012

Fall2013

Fall2014

Fall2015

Fall2016

Fall2017

Fall2018

Fall2019

Fall2020

Fall2021

Fall2022

Fall2023

Fall2024

Headcount

FTE



CSUN anticipates that headcount and FTE enrollment will decline by roughly eight percent between

now and Fall 2019. For the sake of this analysis, CSUN figures for years beyond Fall 2019 assume

steady enrollment.

PERSONNEL

Another major component of space demand is driven by the number of current and future employees at an

institution. The need for office space and other types of support space for both instructional and non-

instructional staff must be calculated through a quantification and analysis of staffing levels throughout the

institution. Analysis of University personnel was based on data provided by the University.

Total Personnel 2014

Although there are positions across the University that are not typically associated with the need for office

space, it is essential to review the numbers of all personnel to ensure adequate space. Even those who do

not need an official office impact the use of space on campus, and some need support space to function in

their assigned tasks.

The University provided a number of databases for this analysis. A file containing raw data included the

categories in the following table by division or faculty, excluding vacant positions. The individual colleges are

highlighted.



Figure 11: On-Campus Full- and Part-time Faculty and Staff Fall 2014

Division Fu

ll-T

ime

Pa

rt-T

ime

To

tal

Academic Resources and Planning/Institutional Research 22 19 41

ACF_CTR_IN 1 25 26

Admissions and Records 81 16 97

Central Academic Affairs 9 57 66

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communications 170 489 659

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 112 224 336

College of Education 119 357 476

College of Engineering and Computer Science 94 256 350

College of Health and Human Development 167 494 661

College of Humanities 164 405 569

College of Science and Mathematics 175 514 689

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 200 402 602

Educational Opportunity Program 22 116 138

Faculty Affairs 5 2 7

Faculty Senate 1 1

Performing Arts Center 19 125 144

Provost and VP of Academic Affairs 10 2 12

Research and Graduate Studies 18 4 22

Tseng College of Extended Learning 64 471 535

Undergraduate Studies 35 658 693

University Library 87 204 291

Grand Total 1,462 4,723 6,415

Excluding vacant positions, CSUN employs over 6,400 individuals in a mix of full-time and part-time

positions.

Per personnel data received from the University, 75 percent of those employed are part-time. It is

understood that this can represent a wide variety of employment configurations.

At the time of this report, projected personnel data was not available. However, if it is assumed that

overall personnel totals shift in proportion to overall enrollment figures, it is anticipated that projected

personnel totals will remain roughly level with current totals.

THEMATIC SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS



Thematic Summary of Interviews

PROCESS

In support of the assessment of space needs for teaching, learning, research, and office spaces at California

State University – Northridge (CSUN), Rickes Associates (RA) participated in over 20 interviews, group

discussions, and conference calls with administrators, faculty, and key staff between August and December,

2014. Interviewers gathered information about numerous topics, including:

Current space opportunites and constraints.

Current and projected personnel and enrollment.

Current discipline-specific and College-wide space issues and anticipated needs, especially those

focused on lab, research, and instructional space.

University policies governing space allocation.

A thematic summary of the discussions from these interviews is presented below. It is important to note that

these comments represent a compilation of viewpoints shared in these discussions; while they do not

prescribe any needs for additional or reconfigured space by themselves, they nonetheless provide valuable

context to the data analyses conducted in support of this effort. Current overarching challenges and

constraints are presented first, followed by interview comments specific to the University’s colleges.

COMMON THEMES

Challenges

In recent years, CSUN has grown significantly, putting pressure on current facilities to accommodate

ever greater numbers of students. Though no official enrollment plan exists for CSUN, administrators

foresee a gradual, modest decline in overall enrollment in both the near- and long-term.

Enrollment growth across the University’s colleges has been uneven. Some colleges, such as Health

and Human Development, are growing rapidly in response to market needs; others, such as

Humanities, have experienced more gradual increases.

CSUN is currently in the middle of a major faculty hiring initiative, spurred in part by enrollment

growth as well as by the development of new academic offerings, which are continuing to expand.

CSUN’s facilities are heavily used. Despite construction of multiple buildings in the wake of the 1994

Northridge earthquake, the University is challenged to house its diverse offerings in appropriate,

purpose-built, contemporary space. Lack of space also inhibits the ability of the University to be

responsive and innovative. There is also no swing space available.

While there is a growing demand for space to support the proposed doubling of faculty research,

there has also been a substantial increase in the number of students interested in engaging in

research, including undergraduate students.

Inclusive of academic programs as well as administrative services, providing any additional or

reconfigured space for new or expanded functions has been a long-standing challenge. Repurposing

space at the University has not been coordinated on an institution-wide basis, and has mostly been

limited to small, ad hoc projects. A perception exists that the University is on a “collision course” in

terms of space and space needs, and should engage in a more systemic approach to determining

and fulfilling space requirements.



Limitations

Space Teaching Laboratory Spaces

While the need for specialized spaces across disciplines appears to be increasing, there is also a

desire for shared labs, wherever possible.

The growth of some programs is curtailed due to lack of teaching spaces, e.g., Nursing could grow if

additional simulation labs were available.

Funding of computer labs varies, some from central sources and some from individual departments,

leading to uneven availability.

More students are bringing laptops with them, which is easing some pressures on computer labs,

although there is still a need to provide access to discipline-specific software in some instances.

Research Spaces

The University has been charged with doubling its research capacity -- without the addition of new

research square footage – over the next five years. Whether this is achievable depends on whether

there is an opportunity to re-purpose at least some space. Currently, research space is captured

when a faculty member retires or it is partitioned off from other departmentally-controlled space.

New faculty hires are often more likely to be research-oriented – and seeking more contemporary

research space, as well. There is debate as to whether the availability, or lack of research space has

become a determining factor in the decisions of potential incoming faculty.

Some of CSUN’s Colleges are exploring partnership opportunities for the accommodation of

research with other institutions as well as with corporations, which brings both opportunities and

challenges.

There is no clear sunset provision for vacated research space.

Classroom Space

Classroom quality varies widely across the University’s lecture and seminar spaces.

There is a general sense that additional classrooms are required for the University as a whole.

Faculty Offices

In accordance with contract requirements, each full-time faculty member is to be provided a private

office. However, there are inconsistencies as to whether or not FERPing faculty are required to share

space. The same holds true of part-time faculty office accommodations across the Colleges.

Many offices have been carved out of existing or re-purposed space, which has frequently resulted in

the loss of conference room and lounge areas.

Upon becoming a department chair, the chair also retains his/her faculty office, although it can be

made available for other faculty in the interim.

In select areas, such as the second floor of Redwood, some oversized office spaces could be

considered for sub-dividing.

Ideally, there should be a part-time lecturer suite in each building, especially as full-time faculty ranks

grow and part-time faculty are relocated to make room for them. It is also desirable that departmental

and faculty offices should be in close proximity for efficiency and to promote community. In addition,

all departments should also have some identifiable suite of space.

Informal Learning Space

Informal learning space is not recognized as a space category for budgetary purposes, so square

footage for this space type has not been formally allocated, even though the emphasis on out-of-

class learning has grown.

Most informal interaction occurs in existing spaces or outdoor patio areas.



COLLEGE-SPECIFIC ISSUES

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication General

Demand for the college’s programs is high, especially film production, TV production, and multimedia

production.

Potential growth areas include Game Design and Animation, drawing upon the University’s existing

strengths in Theater Arts, Computer Science, and Music. A Musical Theater major may also be

considered, which would require movement space.

The most significant space needs are probably associated with CTVA, which is experiencing growth

due to the geographic proximity of the television industry.

Teaching and Research Space

The scale of some facilities limits functionality, including lab spaces, review spaces, and

performance spaces.

The pace of technological change may lessen the need for departmental computer labs, especially if

the University would permit at least some departments to implement a laptop requirement. Most

departments have at least one computer lab; Art has the most. It is possible to provide access to

large monitors, without an associated CPU.

The need for research space within the college will likely grow in the future, requiring a range of

space types, but primarily office space. Game creation would likely require some research-related

space, such as motion capture capability. Dedicated research space may be needed to remain

competitive.

Faculty studios are likely coded as “instructional support space” in the inventory.

Faculty Offices

Some faculty offices contain pianos and other specialized equipment due to the diverse nature of the

disciplines represented within the college.


The college experiences “asymmetric and informal utilization” of many of its spaces.

A great deal of student interaction occurs in teaching labs during unscheduled periods, so this use is

not measured and not readily evident.



David Nazarian College of Business and Economics General

6,000 majors are supported by the single building. There is a sense that 6,500 students is the

maximum for the building.

70% of business students are transfer students.

Current graduate programs are small.

The College of Business and Economics has the highest student/faculty ratio at CSUN.

The building is perceived as University space, not School of Business space—“we’re all in this

together.”


The College is less geared to grant-funded research than other units of the University, although more

grants might be pursued if the right incentive system were in place.

The expectation is that there will always be a need for computer labs as CSUN is an open-access

institution.

Ideally, the College would like shared maker space with Computer Science and Engineering.

The sense exists that the current computer labs are tight, but adequate.

The College lack adequate space for its centers, which currently tend to operate out of individual

offices.

Storage space is lacking.

Classroom Space

Frequently use Noski Auditorium.

Two TEAL classrooms under construction; converting a classroom to a case room.

Some lecture courses are taught in lab spaces.

Faculty Offices

Recently created an emeriti office.

Very little variation in office size across the building.


There is no real group study space other than the courtyard area. There are plans to upgrade the

courtyard to include more comfortable seating and other amenities.

Tutoring space is opening this fall.

When not in use, classrooms are left open to serve as study space.

Michael D. Eisner College of Education General

CSUN is the largest producer of teachers for the State of California.

In contrast to other colleges at the University, primary use of many Education spaces occurs during

the evening, rather than the daytime.

Enrollment has been flat in recent years and is expected to remain so in the near-term. Enrollment is

closely tied to hiring trends for the Los Angeles Unified school district.

Education’s location at the periphery of campus is appropriate, given the community-facing nature of

the College.

Space priorities, from greatest to least, include: student space, staff space, faculty offices, and

administrative space.


“Space is not aligned to our instructional technology needs.”

Instructional spaces need reconfigurable furniture and contemporary technologies. Space should

reflect the realities that students will encounter as future employed teachers.



There is a perception that space availability within the College, not funding, may be the primary

factor in limiting the College’s ability to house specialized research.

The College has unique teaching labs, e.g. “Teach Live,” but no easily reconfigurable additional

space to devote to unique technologies such as this.

The College has fee-for-service clinical space, where families bring children for counseling. This

brings with it its own host of issues, including parking and signage issues.

Classroom Space

There is need for storage of teaching materials.

Classrooms need to adequately accommodate differently-abled students, including deaf students.

Faculty Offices

There is inadequate conference and meeting space for Education faculty and students.


There is an open lab, but it does not work particularly well as an informal learning space.

A doctoral student room was created and is considered a locked “lecture room.”

Students tend to gather in the open air lobby and alcoves.

College of Engineering and Computer Science (ECS) General

The College is wholly contained within one shared building, Jacaranda Hall.

ECS has the fifth-largest headcount among CSUN’s eight Colleges.

The College has some space-intensive needs due to the disciplines represented and courses

offered, e.g., capstone courses in Mechanical Engineering.

There is a concern regarding loss of space to Health and Human Development, as that College has

grown.

There is a need for a strategic space vision versus “tactical battles.”


Research space is mostly “found” when a faculty member retires or a portion of existing research

space is carved out.

It is difficult to classify space, as much of it serves multiple uses. Some self-instructional labs, for

example, may also serve instructional needs.

Faculty Offices

The priority is to identify 15 offices, including 10 to accommodate near-term faculty hires.

FERPing faculty now occupy private offices, but are expected to share when their teaching load

drops to half.


There is a need for senior design space for students to work on group projects.

College of Health & Human Development (HHD) General

HHD consists of nine academic units spread across multiple buildings. Ideally, the College would like

to consolidate space where possible to improve adjacencies.

The College has grown rapidly in recent years, becoming the largest at the University.

Growth of the College is a strategic priority and a regional responsibility as HHD at Northridge plays

an important community-facing role for the Los Angeles region.




Adequacy and quantity of lab and research space is a significant concern that is inhibiting the growth

of some programs, such as Nursing, which needs simulation labs.

The lack of dedicated research space has begun to impact faculty hires.

Faculty use student teaching labs when they are not scheduled, or may even seek off-campus

research space.

The expectation is that additional teaching labs will be needed in the near future.

Classroom Space

There is consideration being given to shifting some instruction to Tseng College.

Faculty Offices

The College is short on faculty office space, having recently experienced consecutive years of

double-digit full-time faculty growth, averaging 10 new faculty per year.


The fact that the College is so spread out makes it difficult for students to interact informally.

College of Humanities General

While enrollment within the College is relatively modest compared to some of the other Colleges at

the University, Humanities serves a vital function as a provider of general education courses.

Teaching and Research Spaces

The Language Lab is “the envy of the system” and was funded with a bequest.

An undergraduate research lab is being planned on the first floor in a former office suite.

There is a significant need for advising and tutoring spaces.

Research space is seen as less of an issue for Humanities. Faculty office space suffices in most

cases, although there is a desire for some interdisciplinary work areas.

Classroom Space

The College offers a substantial number of courses with enrollments of 25 to 50, which makes

finding adequate classroom spaces challenging.

Faculty Offices

Additional faculty office space is needed, as double-digit growth is anticipated for the next two years;

half are replacement and half are growth. There is the potential in Sierra Tower for selective

intensification of office spaces, but this ultimately depends upon the way the building is constructed.

Tower offices are oversized, and are frequently used as shared office space for part-time faculty.

Ideally, there should be departmental suites.

A determination needs to be made as to how space will be allocated for part-time faculty and

teaching assistants. Shared space is acceptable, as long as there is access to private space for calls

and meetings.


There is some uncertainty regarding the future of individual houses that are currently overseen by

various academic programs, such as Ethnic Studies programs including Chicano Studies and Asian-

American Studies. A decision needs to be made as to how the functions will be accommodated in

the future and the individual identities maintained.



College of Science and Mathematics General

Eucalyptus and Live Oak are older buildings and expensive to retrofit; significant renovation needs

exist, including electrical power and fume hoods. Accessibility is also an issue.

Ten years ago, there were more Biology majors. Now, Kinesiology has captured many students who

would have formerly entered Biology.

In general, interest in Science and Math is growing.


There is the expectation that all faculty will be engaged in research. Post-doctoral fellows also need

research space. Post-doctoral productivity is negatively impacted when surrounded by students.

Chemistry has reached capacity in its teaching labs.

Biology and Geology are particularly short on teaching labs.

Research labs are commonly used as teaching labs and vice versa.

Physics has been especially successful in obtaining grants.

Five computer labs exist. If labs were centralized, then freed up space could become office space,

some of which is now located within the science labs.

Classroom Space

The College sees a need for large, general-purpose classrooms on campus seating 200+. This

would free up space as well as faculty time.

11% of the College’s courses are either hybrid or online, one of the highest percentages in the

University.

Chaparral has columns in some of the lecture rooms.

Faculty Offices

Emeriti office space was eliminated, although the preference would be to reinstate it.


Some well-liked informal learning space exists in Chaparral, but more is needed.



College of Social & Behavioral Sciences (CSBS) General

One of the largest Colleges at the University, CSBS supports one-fourth of all full-time equivalent

students. College administrators expect enrollment growth to continue at a more gradual rate over

the next decade.

The perception exists that current capacity has been reached and there is no expansion room left.

The current building is also at capacity in terms of power availability and usage.

All disciplines within CSBS are becoming more applied in nature, putting increasing pressure on the

College’s stock of specialized spaces. Boundaries between departments are also blurring as

coursework and research becomes increasingly interdisciplinary.


There is a need for flexible, convertible space that can readily transition from teaching to research.

Currently, some labs are taught from a cart, due to space limitations.

Labs that need to be dedicated should be specifically identified as well as labs that could be shared

between units. For example, there is a desire for a shared GIS lab across disciplines. In addition,

there is increased emphasis on hands-on teaching/research space.

The College has long been in the position of trying to do more with less, space-wise.

Specific needs include a GIS lab, an Anthropology lab where bones can be preserved, and a

Geomorphology lab.

Classroom Space

The College “pioneered” the use of 60 to 80 seat classrooms at the University.

Currently, three-fourths of all classes in the College enroll under 40 students.

Office Space

There are an insufficient number of offices to support new hires. Ideally, divisions would be created

within the College that would then permit the clustering of related departments.

Two entire departments, Africana Studies and Sociology, are located in another building.


There is virtually no space for out-of-class informal interaction. It would be ideal if such space were

interdisciplinary. One of the challenges is that the space guidelines do not acknowledge such

spaces.

Tseng College: Graduate, International, and Mid-Career Education General

The College rents its space, which accommodates administrators and four classrooms.

A new building will be completed for the College in 2016, but the perception is that it will be

inadequate.

The College is self-supporting through tuition and is known as being “service-centric.”

Classroom Space

Tseng “trades” with the University to obtain access to needed classroom space. The new building

will have 8 classrooms.

Most classes are offered after 5 p.m., although there are some intensive classes offered during the

day. Classes tend to be small.

Ideally, the College would like to increase on-line and weekend offerings.

Faculty/Staff Offices

At present, office space supports 70 staff.

The new building for Tseng will have a shared suite for part-time faculty.



Conclusion

The broad viewpoints shared in these interviews and summarized here provided valuable context for

identifying perceived space needs and desires within each of CSUN’s Colleges. In some cases this includes

“pinch points” where additional space, or different kinds of space, may be needed. The result is a composite

“snapshot” of various interrelated perspectives reflecting key issues confronting CSUN as it considers its

need for laboratory, research, and office space vis-à-vis recent enrollment growth and ongoing programmatic

changes.

INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE UTILIZATION ANALYSIS



Instructional Space Utilization Analysis

OVERVIEW

As a key component of this study of space needs at CSUN, a detailed utilization analysis of CSUN’s 164

formally scheduled teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces was completed, based on Fall

2014 course data and an inventory of instructional spaces provided by CSUN. This analysis was undertaken

in order to understand challenges and opportunities relating to space and scheduling within the body of

teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces at CSUN.

A general review of utilization of the 214 general-purpose classroom and seminar spaces at CSUN that were

formally scheduled during Fall 2014 was also completed. The goal was to identify variances in hours of use

and therefore identify candidates for potential intensification of use and/or selective repurposing for other

functions.

The process and findings for CSUN’s teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces are

presented first, followed by the review of general-purpose lecture and seminar spaces. Finally, calculations

of need related to self-instructional computer lab spaces are presented.

TEACHING LABORATORIES AND SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SPACES:

APPROACH

A “specialized instructional space,” as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is

used primarily for formally or regularly scheduled classes requiring special-purpose equipment or a specific

configuration for student participation, experimentation, observations, or practice in an academic discipline.

Such a space is designed for or furnished with equipment to serve the needs of a particular discipline for

group instruction, limiting the room’s use by other disciplines. Although NCES refers to these spaces as

“laboratory facilities,” the more descriptive term “specialized instructional space” is used to encompass

studios and other spaces not commonly referred to as laboratories. This terminology should be understood

with caution, however, as this analysis encompasses the spaces within the CSUN Square Footage Data

Base (SFDB) that the California State University system identifies as teaching laboratories as well as those it

deems as “specialized instruction.”

Rickes Associates (RA) analyzed data based on discipline, and findings in this section are grouped

accordingly. As a first step, course data was “scrubbed” to eliminate courses held off-site, zero enrollment,

and the potential duplication of cross-registered courses. The following instructional space utilization metrics

and guidelines were employed to inform recommendations for the overall needed capacity distribution of

teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces.

Utilization The average number of hours a space is formally scheduled as related to the official scheduling window.

An institution’s scheduling window is the block of time within which it is reasonable and possible to schedule

all or most courses during a week. The weekly room hour utilization rate is the percent of the weekly

scheduling window during which that space is scheduled for instruction.

A perfect "match" between available space capacities and course section enrollments cannot always be

made in every time period. Capacity, course enrollment, seat configuration, technology, and other amenities

impact demand and availability. A target weekly hour utilization rate of 50 percent of the weekly scheduling

window for teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces allows for set up and break down as

well as independent student use outside of scheduled instruction.



Occupancy The average percentage of stations filled when the space is formally scheduled.

The occupancy rate is the percent of stations occupied when a room is scheduled for instruction. Teaching

laboratories and specialized instructional spaces should ideally have an 80 percent fill rate, given the

configuration of such spaces and their greater relative capital cost. The average occupancy rate will include

lower and higher occupancy rates on a room-by-room and course-by-course basis.

Capacity The average area provided per student in a given space based on assignable square footage and the number of stations.

The amount of space allocated to each student in a teaching laboratory space varies widely. For example,

specialized spaces such as computer labs typically require 30 to 40 ASF per station while a Dance Studio

may need 100 ASF/person.

The data sets used to conduct this analysis are constructed from various campus sources and include:

Fall 2014 course data (core data set)

Course scheduling window for day and evening courses

Assignable square footage and station count for each instructional space

TEACHING LABORATORY AND SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SPACES:

FINDINGS

A weekly hour utilization guideline of 50 percent of the daytime weekly scheduling window was applied to

allow experiments, materials, and equipment to be set up and taken down, and to permit students to use

these spaces for coursework outside of scheduled instruction. Guideline station occupancy for specialized

instructional spaces is 80 percent, abstracted from the ideas of the relatively high expense and specific

configuration required for the various functions that they serve. These figures contrast with metrics used to

evaluate general-purpose classrooms, due to their relatively higher capital and operating costs, as well as

course-specific amenities.

The following table summarizes the distribution of formally-scheduled teaching laboratories and specialized

instructional spaces at CSUN in Fall 2014.



Figure 1: Current Teaching Laboratories and Specialized Instructional Spaces, Fall 2014

Building Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

aces

Sta

tio

ns

Are

a (

pe

r

SF

DB

)

AS

F/s

tati

on

ART AND DESIGN CENTER EXPANSION 12 376 10,246 27.3

ART AND DESIGN CENTER 9 301 8,557 28.4

CHAPARRAL HALL 12 317 10,775 34.0

CITRUS HALL 6 118 5,461 46.3

CYPRESS HALL 10 326 7,382 22.6

EDUCATION 5 132 4,890 37.0

EUCALYPTUS HALL 13 461 14,164 30.7

JACARANDA HALL 29 946 35,616 37.6

JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL 1 60 1,283 21.4

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL 3 90 4,269 47.4

JUNIPER HALL 5 242 6,185 25.6

LIVE OAK HALL 8 224 8,484 37.9

MAGNOLIA HALL 8 156 8,366 53.6

MANZANITA HALL 12 410 9,851 24.0

MONTEREY HALL 2 62 1,192 19.2

NORDHOFF HALL 2 87 3,177 36.5

OVIATT LIBRARY 1 32 1,000 31.3

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 2 55 3,203 58.2

REDWOOD HALL 3 85 4,530 53.3

SAGEBRUSH HALL 3 156 1,951 12.5

SEQUOIA HALL 7 180 8,981 49.9

SIERRA HALL 9 228 7,377 32.4

WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE AQUATICS 2 45 5,260 116.9

Totals 164 5,089 172,200 33.8

The largest concentration of teaching labs and specialized instructional spaces analyzed within the

purview of this study is in Jacaranda Hall. The 29 spaces in Jacaranda constitute nearly 18 percent

of all formally-scheduled teaching lab spaces during Fall 2014.

Jeanne Chisholm Hall and the Performing Arts Center both contain one teaching lab or specialized

instructional space each.

In terms of square footage per seat, the Western Center for Adaptive Aquatics displays the highest

ratio, at 116.9 ASF/station. On average, the spaces reviewed in this analysis have a ratio of just

under 34 ASF/station. However, care should be taken with this figure, as it necessarily encompasses

spaces that are tailored to the needs of a wide variety of disciplines.

Utilization The 164 specialized instructional spaces at CSUN had an average hour utilization of 38 percent of the

daytime weekly scheduling window, which was identified as extending from 8:00 AM to 6:45 PM, Monday

through Thursday, and 8:00 AM to 4:45 PM on Friday, a total of 51.75 available hours. This is below the

daytime target of 50 percent weekly hour utilization. Several Music spaces in Cypress Hall, two lab spaces

belonging to Geology in Live Oak Hall, and several spaces in the Education building showed weekly hour

utilization significantly below the target rate. However, it is also important to note that this low formal use may

mask the need for unscheduled informal use of these spaces, for practice time, project work, and other

functions. In contrast, numerous spaces had an average utilization exceeding the recommended target of 50

percent daytime hour utilization. This body of spaces encompasses a diverse set of rooms, including several

Biology teaching laboratories in Chaparral Hall, Drawing and Studio Art spaces in the Art and Design Center,

and some studio spaces belonging to Radio, Television and Film within Manzanita Hall, among others.

Detail regarding the weekly hour utilization of individual spaces within the purview of this analysis can be

found in the Appendix.



Occupancy Average daytime station occupancy for teaching laboratory and specialized instructional spaces at CSUN

was 76 percent, just below the 80 percent guideline. Rooms with low station occupancy rates either have too

many stations relative to lab sizes or too few students, depending upon perspective. The intent would be to

have a better alignment of course enrollments to room capacities so as to avoid the investment of capital

resources in under-occupied labs.

Daytime station occupancies for some rooms were at or over 100 percent occupancy, such as Art and

Design Center 402 and 407, used for animation and graphic design courses, respectively; Chaparral Hall

5235 and 5332, used respectively for general biology labs and ecology courses; Eucalyptus Hall 2211, used

for human anatomy courses; Eucalyptus 2302, used for introductory chemistry courses; Jacaranda Hall

1105, 1538, 1592, and 2214, used for computer science courses; and Western Center for Adaptive Aquatics

126, used for various aquatic therapy courses.

In addition to high room occupancies listed above, it should be noted that other factors appear to indicate

that the stated average of 76 percent occupancy across the spaces evaluated may in fact understate actual

occupancy rates. For example, a comparison of room capacities between the CSUN Square Footage Data

Base (SFDB) and those listed in Fall 2014 course data revealed significant variances in some spaces. In

virtually all instances where listed capacities in the two sources differed, the capacity listed in current course

data was higher than that of the SFDB.

Given that it is understood that the SFDB requires significant updates to make it current, these discrepancies

appear to indicate that room capacities have been increased in recent years. In some instances, room

capacities listed in course data were roughly double, or even triple, the capacities understood to be out-of-

date from the SFDB. This likely points to practices that may be in place within certain spaces and disciplines

of assigning two or more students to a station during a given course, where there was originally only one. It

is assumed that these practices are one outcome of attempts in recent years to maximize use of teaching lab

and specialized instructional spaces at CSUN to counteract the effects of significant enrollment growth and

the lack of available funding for new buildings on campus. Thus, while the overall average occupancy rate is

nearly in line with recommended targets, it is important to understand that this seems to reflect an

intensification of seat occupancy that may ultimately be undesirable. A more comprehensive review of room

capacities may indicate that some spaces are significantly over-occupied when in use.

Capacity As previously noted, it appears that the capacities of many teaching lab spaces at CSUN have been adjusted

upward over time in order to account for increases in section sizes stemming from enrollment growth in

conjunction with insufficient facilities to accommodate that growth. As such, many of the spaces evaluated as

part of this analysis are more than 10 ASF below their guideline station size. The effects of this intensification

of use can be witnessed in many disciplines, from disciplines within the College of Science and Math (such

as Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) to those in the College of Arts, Media, and Communication (such as

Graphic Design).

A detailed summary by room and building of the metrics of utilization, occupancy, and capacity as related to

associated guidelines for the 214 specialized instructional spaces is presented in the Appendix.

Space Needs

While the existing number of teaching lab and specialized spaces at CSUN appears to exceed the number

that is needed overall, based on current utilization, the needed capacities and recommended square footage

differs significantly from that which currently exists. Using the target guidelines of 50 percent weekly hour

utilization and 80 percent average station occupancy across disciplines, and applying discipline-specific

multipliers per student station, current quantities and square footages are compared against calculated

projected space needs in the following figure.



To establish calculated current space need, each specialized instructional space was assigned a discipline

and associated guideline multiplier based on information about courses held within that space. While it is

understood that many lab-based disciplines support multiple types of labs, an effort was made to distinguish

the particular function and academic focus of each lab space to the extent possible based on this

information.

Please note that the names reflected in the following figure pertain to course offerings that occurred within

the spaces in question during the Fall 2014 semester, and do not necessarily reflect names of CSUN’s

academic departments or programs. For example, while biochemistry and organic chemistry are both subject

areas offered by the Department of Chemistry, the lab needs for these areas are distinct from each other and

are thus differentiated in the analysis.



Figure 2A: Current Teaching Laboratories and Specialized Instructional Spaces vs. Calculated Needs, Fall 2014

Room Discipline Cu

rren

t

Nu

mb

er

of

Ro

om

s

Cu

rren

t

AS

F (

pe

r

SF

DB

)

Calc

ula

ted

Ro

om

s

Need

ed

Calc

ula

ted

AS

F

Need

ed

Delt

a,

Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

aces

Anthropology 2 895 2 1,920 0

Art 2 2,240 2 3,840 0

Art (computer labs) 6 4,740 8 7,680 +2

Art History 3 1,951 4 7,680 +1

Biochemistry 4 3,416 4 7,040 0

Biology 13 11,704 11 15,840 -2

Biology (computer labs) 1 930 1 1,440 0

Business 5 6,185 6 12,160 +1

Cinema and Television Arts 4 5,530 6 9,600 +2

Cinema and Television Arts (computer labs) 2 1,230 2 1,920 0

Chemistry 8 9,171 8 11,520 0

Civil Engineering 2 2,544 2 5,600 0

Communication 5 2,783 3 3,840 -2

Computer Science 8 11,444 7 9,920 -1

Construction Drawing/Drafting 1 594 1 1,440 0

Drama 3 5,540 3 5,760 0

Drawing 2 1,836 3 5,760 +1

Education 5 4,890 3 3,520 -2

Electrical Engineering 6 6,966 6 16,000 0

Electrical Engineering (computer labs) 2 2,110 1 1,600 -1

Fashion Design 3 4,224 3 5,760 0

Food Science 3 3,338 3 5,760 0

Foreign Language 1 2,140 1 960 0

Genetics 2 1,780 2 2,880 0

Geography 2 1,973 2 2,880 0

Geology 4 4,340 4 10,080 0

Graphic Design 4 3,454 4 8,640 0

Interior Design 1 1,419 2 2,880 +1

Journalism 4 2,340 5 7,040 +1

Kinesiology 3 4,530 2 5,120 -1

Kinesiology (Aquatic Therapy) 2 5,260 2 5,600 0

Liberal Arts & Humanities 3 3,129 3 3,200 0

Manufacturing Engineering 2 2,622 2 4,480 0

Mathematics 1 896 1 1,280 0

Mechanical Engineering 1 643 1 1,920 0

Mechanical Engineering (computer labs) 1 541 1 960 0

Microbiology 6 5,556 6 8,640 0

Music 10 7,382 8 12,960 -2

Nursing 2 3,074 2 5,120 0

Nursing (computer labs) 1 669 1 1,280 0

Organic Chemistry 3 3,913 3 5,760 0

Painting 1 1,004 1 1,440 0

Photography 3 1,843 3 5,280 0

Physical Therapy 4 5,692 3 4,800 -1

Physics 5 5,544 5 10,560 0

Psychology 4 3,414 4 5,440 0

Sociology 1 1,095 1 960 0

Studio Art 3 3,686 3 4,800 0

Totals 164 172,200 161 270,560 -3

Current and calculated need square footages do not include additional space for lab support. In the

case of calculated need, overall need for support space can be estimated by adding 30% to the total

of calculated area needed, which reflect the ideal target goal.



In many cases, contemporary teaching laboratory spaces for the disciplines listed would require

more square footage than currently exists. In addition, the previously mentioned practice of

increasing room capacities suggests a need for larger lab spaces in many disciplines.

Utilization rates in numerous areas suggest the need for additional teaching laboratory spaces, such

as Cinema and Television Arts spaces and Art-related computer labs. However, these needs are

counterbalanced by low formal utilization within certain spaces in particular disciplines, such as

Communication and Education.

Overall, it appears that CSUN requires three fewer teaching lab and specialized instructional spaces

than it currently has, but the functions contained within require significantly more square footage

(nearly 100,000 ASF, or an increase of 57 percent) than currently exists.

It is important to note that this calculation of need is predicated on formal utilization only, as well as

limited information about factors such as configuration and specialized equipment within each space,

which may impact overall utilization rates. It is understood that specialized spaces in many

disciplines are relied upon heavily during unscheduled hours in order to facilitate project work,

practice and rehearsal activities, use of specialized equipment, and other uses. Please refer to the

Self-Instructional Computer Laboratories section of this document for further consideration of these

uses. Nevertheless, areas of low utilization should be investigated further to determine whether any

opportunities exist for intensification of use or selective repurposing.

Further detail regarding potential re-purposing of low-use teaching laboratory space can be found in

the Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification section of this report.

Virtualization

It is understood that CSUN may consider virtualization of some lower-division general education courses in

the natural sciences, some of which have multiple sections and require significant quantities of teaching lab

space. RA was tasked with providing an estimate of potential space ramifications of virtualizing roughly 15

percent of all course sections offered within CSUN’s teaching lab and specialized instructional spaces in Fall

2014. Demand for space produced by courses as listed in Fall 2014 course data was hypothetically adjusted

to reflect a reduction in need, if the virtualization of lower-division general education lab courses were

implemented. The following figure summarizes shifts in need associated with this potential change.



Figure 2B: Current and Calculated Needs vs. Needs Associated With Virtualization, Fall 2014

Compared to calculated current need as delineated in the previous figure, which identified a need for

fewer spaces overall but greater square footage, the virtualization of some lower-division general

education lab courses further reduces the need for both the number of spaces and the calculated

need for square footage.

It should be noted that the square footage and number of spaces identified is an abstract calculated

need. Further exploration of course virtualization by discipline will identify the specific spaces on the

CSUN campus that could potentially be made available if these changes were put in place.

Summary

On average, CSUN’s 164 teaching laboratory and specialized instructional spaces were scheduled for 38

percent of the daytime scheduling window. While average hour utilization is an important metric for

determining how effectively instructional space is being used, the value of devoting space to given disciplines

is ultimately a matter of their programmatic role within the institution. As some rooms are required to support

specific or unique academic program needs, they will, by necessity, exhibit chronically low use.

While the calculation of need based on utilization guidelines suggests that CSUN requires several additional

spaces in certain disciplines, this is counterbalanced by a calculated need for potentially several fewer

spaces in others. It is recommended that CSUN review use and function of teaching lab spaces within

individual disciplines to determine these space needs in greater detail. In conjunction with the review of

various lab spaces by Research Facilities Design (RFD), this analysis provides CSUN with valuable

information regarding the current use of the University’s body of lab spaces. Please refer to the Space Needs

Projections and Opportunity Space Identification section of this document, and the draft RFD report in the

Appendix, for further detail.

248,480 ASF(148 spaces)

270,560 ASF (161 spaces)

172,200 ASF (164 spaces)

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Revised Calculated Need (Virtualization)

Calculated Need

Current



GENERAL-PURPOSE CLASSROOMS

Though outside the purview of the overall analysis of particular space needs at CSUN, RA conducted a

cursory review of utilization of the University’s pool of general purpose classroom spaces, including spaces

identified as lecture and seminar in the SFDB). Spaces were reviewed to determine overall hours of use, and

thereby identify any particular “opportunity spaces” that could be considered for intensification of use and/or

repurposing for other functions. These spaces were reviewed individually and by building. Characteristics of

the spaces reviewed are summarized below.

In contrast to recommended guidelines for teaching laboratory spaces, RA recommends a target weekly

room hour utilization guideline of 67 to 70 percent for general-purpose classrooms. This provides the

scheduling flexibility to better match courses to classrooms, permits maintenance access, and allows for ad

hoc room uses, such as special events. However, it must be noted that a perfect "match" between available

classroom capacities and course section enrollments cannot always be made in every time period.

Classroom capacity, course enrollment, seat configuration, technology, and other amenities impact demand

and availability.

The following table summarizes distribution of formally-scheduled general-purpose classrooms, defined in

the SFDB as lecture and seminar spaces, during Fall 2014.

Figure 3: General-Purpose Classrooms by Building

The 214 general-purpose classrooms at CSUN that were formally scheduled during Fall 2014 are

found in 19 buildings across campus. These rooms housed 2,678 courses, and 10,149 student

seats. Overall, the square footage of the rooms reviewed totals 161,708 ASF.

Of the 214 rooms in question, over half are in just three buildings: Jerome Richfield Hall (32 rooms),

Juniper Hall (28 rooms), and Sierra Hall (54 rooms).

The Art and Design Center, Noski Auditorium, and the Performing Arts Center each hold one

general-purpose classroom.

1

7

12

4

9

4

21

3228

6

13

2 31 1

5 47

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er

of

Cla

ssro

om

s



Figure 4: Average Hours of Use in General-Purpose Classrooms by Building

During the daytime scheduling window, average hours of use by building for formally-scheduled

general-purpose classroom spaces vary widely by building, from a low of 20% in Cypress Hall’s four

rooms, to a high of 71% in Jerome Richfield Hall’s 32 rooms.

Other buildings whose general-purpose classrooms show particularly low use, on average, include

the Art and Design Center (30%, one room), Monterey Hall (29%, two rooms) and Nordhoff Hall

(31%, three rooms).

Please note that the figures shown do not include utilization generated by courses associated with

Tseng College. While many of Tseng’s course offerings take place in the evening, some (such as the

Intensive English Program, or IEP) require lecture room space during daytime hours.

The following figure summarizes use of the 214 spaces included in this analysis by day of the week.

30%

69%

58%

20%

58%

45%

63%

71%

50%

60%

66%

29% 31%

70%

61%64%

56%59% 58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Pe

rce

nt

Ho

urs

of

Use



Figure 5: General-Purpose Classroom Use by Day of Week

At CSUN, peak general-purpose classroom use occurs between 9:00 AM and 3:15 PM, Monday

through Thursday. Within this timeframe, highest use occurs at 11:00 AM on Tuesdays. At this time,

195 of the 214 spaces within the purview of this analysis are in simultaneous use. 11:00 AM is also

the busiest time across all other days of the week.

Peak evening use occurs at 7:00 PM on Tuesdays, at which time 110 of the 214 courses within this

analysis are formally scheduled.

The following table displays hours of use vis-à-vis the daytime scheduling window for all 214 formally

scheduled general-purpose classroom spaces at CSUN.

7:00

AM

7:30

AM

8:00

AM

8:30

AM

9:00

AM

9:30

AM

10:0

0 A

M

10:3

0 A

M

11:0

0 A

M

11:3

0 A

M

12:0

0 P

M

12:3

0 P

M

1:00

PM

1:30

PM

2:00

PM

2:30

PM

3:00

PM

3:30

PM

4:00

PM

4:30

PM

5:00

PM

5:30

PM

6:00

PM

6:30

PM

7:00

PM

7:30

PM

8:00

PM

8:30

PM

9:00

PM

9:30

PM

10:0

0 P

M

Num

ber

of C

ours

e M

eetin

gs

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

214

214

214

214

214

EVENINGPEAK 9:00 AM - 3:15 PM Monday- Thursday



Figure 6: Hour Utilization, General-Purpose Classrooms, Fall 2014

3%

5%

5%

5%

10%

10%

12%

13%

16%

18%

19%

19%

23%

25%

26%

28%

29%

30%

30%

34%

35%

35%

36%

37%

38%

40%

42%

43%

44%

44%

45%

45%

45%

46%

46%

47%

47%

47%

47%

47%

47%

47%

48%

48%

48%

49%

49%

49%

50%

50%

50%

51%

52%

52%

52%

53%

53%

53%

53%

53%

54%

54%

54%

55%

55%

55%

55%

55%

55%

56%

56%

56%

56%

56%

56%

56%

57%

57%

57%

57%

58%

58%

58%

58%

58%

58%

58%

58%

59%

59%

59%

59%

59%

59%

59%

59%

59%

60%

60%

60%

61%

61%

61%

61%

61%

61%

61%

62%

62%

62%

63%

63%

63%

63%

63%

63%

64%

64%

64%

64%

64%

64%

64%

64%

64%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

66%

66%

66%

66%

66%

67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

67%

68%

68%

69%

69%

69%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

70%

71%

71%

71%

71%

71%

72%

72%

72%

72%

72%

73%

73%

73%

73%

73%

74%

74%

74%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

76%

76%

76%

76%

77%

77%

78%

79%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

81%

81%

81%

81%

82%

86%

86%

86%

86%

86%

88%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cypress 215

Eucalyptus 2223

Monterey 304

Sierra 320

Juniper 2232

Cypress 103

Sierra 104

Manzanita 212

Nordhoff 104

Sequoia 210

Sierra 290

Juniper 2208

Cypress 266

Nordhoff 111

Sierra 103

Jacaranda 1552

Sierra 322

Art and Design Center 331

Manzanita 213

Juniper 1230

Redwood 153

Sierra 288

Sierra 190

Manzanita 100

Chaparral 5209

Juniper 2230

Juniper 1133

Juniper 1206

Redwood 151

Cypress 111

Juniper 1117

Juniper 1131

Sequoia 104

Sierra 150

Sierra 152

Juniper 1107

Live Oak 1117

Chaparral 5118

Juniper 2206

Juniper 1119

Juniper 1210

Education 1125

Juniper 1204

Live Oak 1124

Jerome Richfield Hall 247

Eucalyptus 2221

Education 1127

Chaparral 5123

Sagebrush 108

Juniper 1228

Sierra 224

Sierra 302

Chaparral 5119

Juniper 1127

Jacaranda 3508

Juniper 1208

Education 1126

Sagebrush 100

Monterey 101

Nordhoff 209

Sierra 225

Sierra 285

Sierra 160

Sierra 268

Sierra 305

Juniper 1103

Education 1123

Juniper 1236

Sierra 266

Eucalyptus 2227

Juniper 1234

Chaparral 5208

Sierra 221

Live Oak 1127


Jacaranda 1593

Sierra 312

Chaparral 5117

Juniper 1121

Sierra 279

Juniper 1129

Education 1121


Education 1122

Chaparral 5127

Juniper 1125

Sequoia 103

Manzanita 112


Chaparral 5126

Jacaranda 2528

Juniper 1123

Juniper 1240

Sierra 108

Sierra 149

Jacaranda 2524

Sierra 286

Jacaranda 1553

Sagebrush 110

Jacaranda 3516

Jacaranda 1610

Sierra 309

Jacaranda 3502

Juniper 1202

Sierra 310

Performing Arts Center 181

Sierra 264

Sagebrush 101

Sierra 151

Bayramian 314

Chaparral 5114


Sierra 186


Sierra 153

Sierra 307

Juniper 1232

Jacaranda 1555

Jacaranda 3504

Sierra 290

Education 1130

Sierra 182

Sierra 102


Sierra 284

Jacaranda 3510



Sierra 203

Sierra 287

Juniper 1212

Sierra 106

Sierra 192

Jacaranda 100

Sierra 276

Jacaranda 1600

Chaparral 5124

Sierra 234


Sierra 321

Jacaranda 3520

Sierra 207

Bayramian 316


Live Oak 1219

Bayramian 312


Sierra 205

Live Oak 1125

Sierra 184

Sierra 148

Bayramian 315




Noski Auditorium 101

Sierra 120

Bayramian 304




Eucalyptus 2132

Jacaranda 3514

Sequoia 101

Education 1117

Sierra 267

Live Oak 1231

Sequoia 102

Bayramian 310

Jacaranda 1563

Juniper 1238

Education 1129

Jacaranda 1551

Sequoia 100

Sierra 154

Redwood 155

Sierra 198

Sierra 265

Bayramian 313

Sequoia 109

Jacaranda 1609

Manzanita 111

Jacaranda 2522


Manzanita 115



Sierra 280

Sierra 314





Manzanita 124

Chaparral 5125

Manzanita 113

Sierra 155


Manzanita 101




Manzanita 130

Jacaranda 2520


Sierra 270

Redwood 104

Chaparral 5122


Manzanita 114

Manzanita 122


Manzanita 103

Redwood 157

Target guideline: 67% of schedulingwindow



On average, general-purpose classrooms at CSUN are scheduled 59 percent of the available weekly

daytime scheduling window. This is slightly below the target measure of 67 percent.

Percent hours of use ranges from a low of 3 percent in Cypress Hall 215 to a high of 88 percent in

Redwood Hall 157.

Rooms with particularly low use should be reviewed for configuration, appropriateness of use, and

other potential contributing factors. Low-use spaces may also present an opportunity for selective

intensification of use and/or repurposing of space for other functions. Please refer to the Space

Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification section of this report for further detail.

Using the metrics previously discussed for target utilization of general-purpose classroom space, an

overall demand for 187 spaces can be identified, reflecting Fall 2014 course scheduling patterns.

This is 27 fewer spaces than the 214 spaces used for credit-bearing course instruction in Fall 2014,

and suggests that some square footage may be “harvestable” from the pool of general-purpose

instructional spaces for intensification of use or repurposing. This should be explored in further detail.

It is important to note that this review of classroom hour use does not include utilization generated by

the courses offered by Tseng College. Significantly, Tseng currently requires between 20 and 30

rooms during peak times on campus for offerings associated with its Intensive English Program

(IEP). A new building for Tseng courses is currently under construction; however, it is understood

that some rooms on campus will still be needed during daytime hours to accommodate Tseng

offerings, even after the building is complete.

As previously indicated, the Art and Design Center (30%, one room), Cypress Hall (20%, four

rooms), Monterey Hall (29%, two rooms) and Nordhoff Hall (31%, three rooms) show notably low

use. This finding may merit further exploration to determine why rooms in these buildings show

lower-than-average use.

Summary

The review of hours of use for the 214 general-purpose classrooms scheduled during Fall 2014 identified a

need for 187 spaces, presuming scheduling is more uniformly distributed across the day and the week.

Within the body of classrooms reviewed, a number of rooms displayed particularly low use and may be

viable candidates for repurposing. Please refer to the Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space

Identification section of this document for more detail.

It should also be noted that a significant number of general-purpose spaces were formally scheduled for

fewer hours per week than the target guideline. This would imply the ability to schedule these spaces more

intensively and selectively relieve pressure on those spaces that are scheduled at rates that exceed the

target rate. It is also worth noting that certain times of day (for example, early morning hours between 8:00

AM and 9:30 AM) may present options for accommodation of additional scheduling. It is understood that

revisions to CSUN’s scheduling model have resulted in lighter use in the morning on some days of the week.

If projected enrollment at CSUN undergoes the gradual, slight decrease that has been projected by CSUN, it

can be assumed that the University will not require additional general-purpose classroom square footage in

the future. However, qualitative issues facing the University’s existing stock of general-purpose classrooms

(such as configuration, technology, or size) may arise and should be reviewed in greater detail.

SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTER LABORATORIES

The following table compares current self-instructional computer labs overseen by CSUN’s eight Colleges.

Total stations, inclusive of station counts within teaching and research laboratories, as well as other spaces

for which information was provided in a file from Academic Affairs, are presented alongside total stations,

number of spaces, and total square footage contained within self-instructional lab spaces, as drawn from the

SFDB for comparison. Please note:

Figures under “Total, All” represent all lab spaces by College -- teaching, research, and self-

instructional -- whose computer counts were provided. Spaces and stations belonging to or housed



within other entities (e.g., Tseng College, Developmental Mathematics, and the Library) are excluded

for the purposes of this comparison.

Computer lab information provided by Academic Affairs included several space categories and

details regarding access that either do not align or are not recorded within the SFDB. To facilitate

comparison between overall totals by space type and spaces classified as self-instructional computer

laboratories alone, data regarding self-instructional laboratories was drawn from the SFDB, with the

understanding that this information should be reviewed for accuracy. In comparing the two data

sources it appears that some previously self-instructional computer lab spaces at CSUN may have

been adapted for use as formally-scheduled teaching labs over time.

Figure 7: Current Self-Instructional Computer Labs, by College

College To

tal, A

ll

Self

-

Ins

tru

cti

on

al

Co

mp

ute

r

La

bs

Spaces Stations Spaces Stations ASF

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication 22 443 1 24 969

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 8 277 8 235 8,310

Michael D. Eisner College of Education 9 232 7 151 5,641

College of Engineering and Computer Science 22 650 8 174 7,593

College of Health and Human Development 5 109 2 48 1,347

College of Humanities 6 138 3 57 2,703

College of Science and Mathematics 13 337 5 83 2,532

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 11 222 3 48 1,942

96 2,408 37 820 31,037

Calculation of self-instructional computer lab space at universities presents a unique challenge, influenced

strongly by the rapid pace of wide-ranging technological change that is transforming the way that students

study and work, individually and together. Campus technology surveys across the country commonly

observe that computer lab use, whether discipline-specific or open to general use, does not necessarily shift

in inverse proportion to increasing use of virtual software libraries (such as CSUN’s myCSUN platform) and

the near-ubiquity of laptop and tablet technologies on many campuses and within certain disciplines (such as

Business, for example).

Instead, the computer lab, whether discipline-specific or available for general use, fills a greater role as a

place to “land,” as well as a place where specialized computing can be done and other services are

available, such as printing and media production. These spaces also commonly act as an important quasi-

social venue for group project work and other collaborative endeavors.

These trends can be observed in CSUN’s 2014 Annual Information Technology Survey Report of Students,

Faculty, and Staff. In the survey, 78 percent of student respondents indicated that they used university-

provided computer labs (whether discipline-specific/ formally-scheduled spaces or general use). Of this

group, over one third, or 37 percent, indicated that the capability of these spaces to provide an environment

where they can focus was the primary reason for their use of these spaces. Another 21 percent indicated

that their primary reason for use of computer lab spaces on campus was access to specialized software. A

third segment of those who use labs on campus (13%) prioritized computer labs as convenient spaces to

meet with others, either socially or as a study group. A fourth group (18%) answered that they primarily use

the computer labs on campus for other reasons, most prominently printing assignments.

In considering the calculation of need for self-instructional computer laboratory spaces, it is important to note:

The need for self-instructional computer labs may differ strongly between disciplines, or between

campuses, given influences as diverse as course offerings, technological capabilities, and student



demographics. Thus, the prescription of guidelines in an area with such variability necessarily

requires a certain degree of abstraction.

Current data regarding logins and utilization of individual self-instructional lab spaces at CSUN is

not readily available, given the way that logins are currently recorded on the University’s network.

Despite the way in which these spaces have been traditionally viewed at CSUN, it is understood

that they are a collective resource, and therefore could – and ideally, should -- be shared between

disciplines. This becomes increasingly possible with the advent of cloud-based software platforms,

which can permit discipline-specific work to occur outside of discipline-specific space.

Many higher education space planning guidelines, such as those employed by the State of New

York, the California State University system, and the Council of Ontario Universities specifically do

not provide guidelines on a space per student basis for this function. Similarly, the Council of

Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) does not prescribe a guideline for these types of

spaces alone, instead combining them in an overarching guideline for all open lab types on a given

campus of 5 ASF/FTE.

From the CEFPI guideline for all open labs, an approximation of calculated need for general-use or self-

instructional computer labs of 1.5 ASF/FTE can be generated, reflective of several broad assumptions

regarding hours of operation and typical lab size, vis-à-vis student FTE figures (reflective of course

registration in each College). These assumptions can be adjusted with greater specificity depending on

particular opportunities and constraints. Applying a multiplier of 1.5 ASF/FTE at CSUN assumes:

An average of just over two hours per student FTE of weekly access to self-instructional computer

laboratories, recognizing that some students may have substantially higher needs while others, such

as those with laptops, may require little or no time in a self-instructional computer lab.

60 hours of weekly operation, or 12 hours per day, Monday through Friday. While the hours of

operation may vary from space to space, it is understood that, in general, self-instructional computer

lab spaces are typically open for extended periods. Weekend hours can also be included if there is

appropriate monitoring so that the spaces can be made available for use.

An average lab size of 25 stations. Across all 96 spaces identified as computer labs in the data

provided by Academic Affairs, regardless of discipline-specific or self-instructional use, the average

station count per lab space was 25. It is assumed that this capacity is a desirable target, so it was

retained here. Alternatively, larger clusters could be considered, depending upon departmental and

institutional preferences.

Figure 8: Calculated Need for Self-Instructional Computer Laboratories, vs. Current Totals

College Fa

ll 2

014

FT

E

Cu

rren

t

Sp

aces,

pe

r S

FD

B

Calc

ula

ted

Need

fo

r

Sp

aces

Delt

a,

Sp

aces

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication 4,318 1 6 5

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 3,113 8 5 -3

Michael D. Eisner College of Education 1,599 7 2 -5

College of Engineering and Computer Science 1,928 8 3 -5

College of Health and Human Development 4,309 2 6 4

College of Humanities 5,400 3 8 5

College of Science and Mathematics 5,568 5 8 3

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 5,758 3 9 6

Totals 31,993 37 48 11

Using the assumptions outlined above, several Colleges (Arts, Media, and Communication, Health

and Human Development, Humanities, Science and Mathematics, and Social and Behavioral

Sciences) appear to need more self-instructional computer lab spaces than they currently have.

However, the delta between current spaces and current need should be viewed as the most robust

recommendation. Some of the generated hours of need could be accommodated in existing,



formally-scheduled computer labs and instructional spaces, such as classrooms containing drop-

down monitors, when not in use. For example, while there is a calculated need for additional self-

instructional computer labs in Arts, Media, and Communication, these additional hours of use may be

able to be distributed between the teaching labs located in the Art and Design Center when not in

use, such as AC 401, AC 402, AC 403, AC 404, and/or AC 407. Therefore, the additional quantities

of spaces calculated may be reduced or eliminated by ensuring access to formally-scheduled spaces

when not in use. Further, as indicated in interviews with College representatives, the need for open

lab spaces may decrease further if some programs are permitted to implement a laptop requirement.

This approach must be tempered, however, against calculated need for teaching lab spaces within

particular disciplines as identified in the Teaching Laboratories and Specialized Instructional Spaces

section of this document.

Some Colleges show a calculated need for fewer self-instructional computer labs (Business and

Economics, Education, and Engineering and Computer Science). This may align with some

programmatic initiatives within these colleges; for example, Education representatives noted in

interviews a desire to shift to a more mobile lab model than currently exists.

Within certain Colleges there may be a genuine need for additional self-instructional computer lab

spaces, and this should be investigated further. For example, the Colleges of Health and Human

Development and Social and Behavioral Sciences both display significant discrepancies between

existing and calculated need. In the instance of Health and Human Development, this discrepancy is

corroborated by interviews held with College representatives, in which the lack of open labs for

students within the College was noted.

Computer lab facilities provided by Oviatt Library play a significant role in supporting collaborative

work as well as individual research projects. In addition to their central location, these facilities may

be able to provide an expanded role in accommodating the activities that the self-instructional

computer laboratories overseen by individual Colleges currently house.

Aside from the Library, other opportunities to provide shared self-instructional computer laboratory

spaces may be possible at points on campus that are mutually convenient to students from different

Colleges (for example, Sierra or Jacaranda Halls).

The following table explores the possibility that all calculated need for additional self-instructional computer

lab space could be accommodated within teaching laboratories or other similarly equipped spaces once

made available, modifying previously calculated need per College, as a non-capital alternative to providing

additional self-instructional computer lab space.

Figure 9: Need for Self-Instructional Computer Laboratories vs. Current Totals, Assuming Distribution of

Calculated Need in Other Spaces

College Cu

rren

t

Sp

aces,

pe

r S

FD

B

Cu

rren

t

AS

F

Revis

ed

Calc

ula

ted

Need

fo

r

Sp

aces

Delt

a,

Sp

aces

Revis

ed

Calc

ula

ted

AS

F

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication 1 969 1 0 1,000

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 8 8,310 8 0 7,919

Michael D. Eisner College of Education 7 5,641 2 -5 2,232

College of Engineering and Computer Science 8 7,593 5 -3 5,413

College of Health and Human Development 2 1,347 2 0 2,000

College of Humanities 3 2,703 2 -1 2,496

College of Science and Mathematics 5 2,532 4 -1 3,800

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 1,942 3 0 3,000

Totals 37 31,037 27 -10 27,860

This scenario assumes that additional self-instructional computer laboratory spaces would not be

created at CSUN, and that other technological changes, such as the implementation of laptop

requirements and further expansion of use of virtual software platforms, would occur. This would



provide a revised calculated square footage need, compared against current space quantities and

totals.

While the number of spaces needed stays even in certain areas (Social and Behavioral Sciences, for

example) and decreases in other areas (for example, Science and Mathematics), the overall square

footage required increases, suggesting a need for fewer, more appropriately sized self-instructional

computer lab spaces.

If this approach is pursued further, it appears that modest overall space savings may result. These

savings are primarily concentrated within the Colleges of Education and Engineering and Computer

Science, and total approximately 3,200 ASF.

The Colleges of Education and Engineering and Computer Science appear to have significantly

more self-instructional computer labs than are warranted using the aforementioned metrics. This

should be tested further to determine whether these colleges have a greater need for computer labs

beyond those suggested by the metrics. It is also possible that the open lab function that these

spaces serve can be accommodated in other spaces overseen by the Colleges, such as teaching

laboratories, research space, or other dedicated computer lab spaces.



Summary

The calculation of need for self-instructional computer labs hinges on numerous factors, from technological

change to campus culture and policy. A recent technology survey at CSUN underlines the popularity of these

spaces, even as virtual computing technologies expand. With the application of a broad planning guideline to

determine calculated need, it appears that modest space savings may be achievable in specific Colleges.

However, this contrasts with a calculated need for additional space in other Colleges. More intensive usage

of computer-based teaching labs may mitigate overall need, and this should be investigated further. Other

avenues, such as the potential for shared, appropriately-sized self-instructional computer labs that are

shared between Colleges, merit exploration.

FACULTY OFFICE AND RESEARCH SPACE NEEDS



Faculty Office and Research Space Needs

OVERVIEW

As part of its review and analysis of space needs on the California State University Northridge (CSUN)

campus, Rickes Associates was tasked with reviewing current faculty work space allocations, encompassing

both office space and research spaces. Given the nature of academic inquiry across disciplines, office and

research spaces are often located adjacent to each other, intertwined, or even one and the same.

Challenges facing one space type are often reflected in the issues facing the other, warranting a combined

review of these space types.

Further, the need for comprehensive review of these space types on the Northridge campus is multifaceted:

The number of faculty continues to grow at CSUN, in response to significant enrollment growth, and

the development of new academic programs.

In particular, the number of full-time faculty in many of the University’s academic divisions is

expected to grow.

California State University regulations mandate the availability of a private office for each full-time

faculty member.

Led by President Dianne Harrison, one of the chief priorities of the University at present is facilitating

growth in its research enterprise. Specifically, Harrison recently set a goal to double sponsored

research activity at CSUN. Though not traditionally research-focused, CSUN’s push into research

mirrors larger national trends to integrate basic and applied research with teaching, which has

historically been at the center of CSUN’s mission as an institution.

The lack of capital funding available from the State of California for construction on the state’s

university campuses has significantly impacted CSUN’s ability to construct new spaces of all types.

Within faculty office spaces, this has led to incremental solutions, funded from various sources, that

provide for the selective realignment of walls within specific areas of buildings to create additional

offices, as well as the repurposing of spaces formerly used for other purposes for faculty office and

research space.

The following sections review current office and research space allocations, detailing allocations and

pertinent details by College, based on space, personnel, and grant funding information provided by the

University, respectively. This approach permits broad comparison across Colleges as well as the

identification of relative positioning with regards to each unit’s space situation.



FACULTY OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS

The following figure identifies office quantities and assignable square footages (ASF) associated with each of

the University’s colleges, per CSUN’s existing Square Footage Data Base (SFDB).

Figure 1: Office and Square Footages, by College, Per SFDB

College Off

ices

AS

F


David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 151 16,810

Michael D. Eisner College of Education 95 11,186



College of Humanities 135 19,206

College of Science & Math 146 18,951


Totals 1,033 133,135

The totals above include all spaces within each college coded to the “Profsnl-Fac” office space type

categories found within the SFDB by the University in June, 2014.

This data may not represent the current entirety of spaces allocated for faculty use, and overall

space allocations may be current, particularly in facilities where recent renovations have taken place,

or where buildings are occupied by multiple Colleges.

For example, SFDB data in Jacaranda Hall did not reflect current occupancy of any spaces by the

College of Health and Human Development, instead identifying all space in the building as occupied

by the College of Engineering and Computer Science. However, walkthroughs confirmed many

faculty offices in Jacaranda occupied by College of Health and Human Development faculty. To

mitigate this discrepancy, additional information clarifying current office allocations was provided,

and should be confirmed for overall accuracy.

The SFDB does not currently include Laurel Hall, so that the square footage associated with part-

time faculty suites in Laurel that are overseen by the College of Health and Human Development

(HHD) cannot be quantified at the present time. However, other part-time faculty office

accommodations, such as those within Nordhoff Hall, for example, are included.

As indicated in the Strategic Drivers section of this document, RA strongly recommends that the

SFDB be reviewed in conjunction with Geographic Information System (GIS) data developed for

each building on the CSUN campus to determine accuracy in ownership, coding, and square

footage.

The SFDB does not identify any of the office space occupied by the Tseng College of Extended

Learning as faculty office space.

One particularly large space (809 ASF) coded as a faculty office in Manzanita Hall has been

removed from the analysis, and should be reviewed for accuracy.

The following table illustrates minimum, maximum, and average faculty office sizes in ASF by College, based

on information drawn from the SFDB.



Figure 2: Faculty Office ASF by College, Per SFDB

Across the 1,033 offices identified for inclusion in this analysis, the average office sizes range from

111 ASF in the College of Business and Economics, to 142 ASF in the College of Humanities. It is

understood that the generous office sizes in Sierra Tower are reflected in Humanities’ comparatively

high average office size.

In most instances, the largest faculty office size in each college is around 300 ASF, and the smallest

is roughly 100 ASF. However, several colleges appear to have a small number of unusually small or

large faculty offices, which should be confirmed for accuracy, and to determine whether any further

opportunities exist to intensify office space usage. It is understood that the current configuration of

office spaces in some buildings, such as Sierra Tower, coupled with current financial realities, makes

reconfiguration of office spaces an expensive proposition.

The median office size in a majority of the colleges at CSUN is 110 ASF.

The office counts for each College include primarily private offices, whereas others may be shared.

The following table compares current office space totals against current (Fall 2014) and projected (Fall 2015)

faculty figures, to establish overall space needed within the University’s footprint to accommodate said

growth.

85

110

110

110

67

50

110

57

486

300

466

308

290

276

288

313

138

111

118

123

128

142

130

139

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics

Michael D. Eisner College of Education

College of Engineering and Computer Science

College of Health and Human Development

College of Humanities

College of Science & Mathematics

College of Social & Behavioral Sciences

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Min Max Average



Figure 3: Faculty Office Space and Faculty Populations, 2014 and 2015

Fa

ll 2

014

Fa

ll 2

015

College To

tal

Sp

aces

Cu

rren

t

AS

F, p

er

SF

DB

FT

Fa

cu

lty

PT

Fa

cu

lty

Off

ices

rem

ain

ing

for

PT

2015 F

T

Fa

cu

lty

Off

ices

rem

ain

ing

for

PT

Po

ten

tial

Ad

dit

ion

al

AS

F

Need

ed

, F

T

Fa

cu

lty

ON

LY

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication 159 21,265 115 260 45 131 29 +1,760

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 151 16,810 81 115 70 89 62 +880

Michael D. Eisner College of Education 95 11,186 73 208 22 75 20 +220

College of Engineering and Computer Science 77 8,311 64 155 13 75 2 +1,210

College of Health and Human Development 110 15,300 124 285 0 142 0 +1,980

College of Humanities 135 19,206 121 284 14 132 3 +1,210

College of Science & Mathematics 146 18,951 124 133 22 146 0 +2,420

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 159 22,106 148 165 11 158 1 +1,100

Totals 1,032 133,135 850 1,605 235 948 155 +10,780

Current allocations of office space, both in quantity and square footage, should be reviewed to

determine accuracy.

Part-time office accommodations vary considerably across the University, both in terms of space

provided as well as numbers of part-time faculty assigned to individual spaces. It appears that need

for part-time faculty space has become particularly acute in several Colleges, notably the College of

Health and Human Development and the College of Science and Mathematics.

Applying a standard multiplier of 110 ASF per full-time faculty office against planned growth in full-

time faculty, the overall amount of space that needs to be “harvested” to accommodate full-time

growth can be established. However, this should be viewed as a minimum amount needed, as the

calculation excludes space needed to accommodate part-time faculty members, emeriti, or visiting

faculty, as well as any associated support space, including conference rooms, storage, and shared

work areas.

An alternate methodology for generating overall University-wide faculty office space needs exists in

the form of applying a median multiplier to current and projected populations of FTE faculty, inclusive

of full-time and part-time personnel, across disciplines. However, given the finely-grained College-

level focus of this analysis, this approach was not pursued. Please refer to Space Needs Projections

and Opportunity Space Identification section of this report for further detail regarding overall need for

faculty office spaces.

During the interview process, CSUN college administrators were almost universal in agreeing that

there generally appeared to be sufficient office space available to accommodate the next year of

planned growth in full-time faculty numbers.

However, many expressed concern about the University’s continued ability to absorb full-time faculty

growth beyond 2015.

A third common theme included plans to use space currently occupied by part-time faculty to absorb

the full-time faculty growth.

While the office space need at present is acute, future need at CSUN may decrease if enrollment

trends follow provisional enrollment projections, which show a gradual decline in enrollment over the

next decade. Please refer to the Strategic Drivers section of this document for further information on

enrollment data.

Per SFDB data, it appears that the College of Health and Human Development, and the Colleges of

Behavioral and Social Sciences, Humanities, and Science and Mathematics will either reach or

exceed the total number of faculty offices available by 2015.



According to the SFDB and current personnel data, there are roughly 235 faculty office spaces

available at the University to house the current part-time population of just over 1,600 individuals,

equating to ratio of just under seven part-time faculty per available office across the University. This

figure does not include part-time accommodations in Laurel Hall, due to Laurel’s absence from the

SFDB. Within individual colleges, the ratio of part-time faculty to space varied considerably, but

should be viewed with caution in light of concerns relating to the accuracy of the SFDB. Pending

review of current part-time office allocations, current ratios of part-time faculty to available space can

be identified with greater precision. From that point, appropriate ratios for part-time faculty vis-à-vis

space—which may vary by college depending on course load, college culture, external work

obligations, and other factors—can be determined.

Regardless of the accuracy of the SFDB data, it is important that the University prioritize the creation

of new full and part-time faculty offices, either through renovation or new construction, vis-à-vis any

potential opportunities for policy changes that would allow limited hoteling, space sharing, or other

methods that would permit further intensification of use.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Ensure accuracy of supporting inventory data, including keying of office space inventory to faculty

type (full-time, part-time, FERP, emeriti, etc).

Investigate current faculty office space allocations to determine whether opportunities exist for

selective intensification. For example, 14 of 25 offices on the second floor of Redwood Hall, as listed

in the SFDB, exceed the recommended guideline of 110 ASF in size. Of those, seven are 180 ASF.

Refine part-time faculty accommodation policy to ensure equity within and across disciplines, to the

extent possible. Given the limitations CSUN faces in providing faculty office space, it appears to be

rapidly becoming true that the University will not be able to guarantee part-time faculty space within

the umbrella of a particular College.

Consider changes to full-time faculty office policy to permit selective intensification, for example,

reuse of offices belonging to faculty on leave.

Clarify policy regarding office-sharing vis-à-vis FERP faculty across the institution.



RESEARCH SPACE ANALYSIS

As part of the analysis of space needs across various space types at CSUN, RA was tasked with reviewing

current office and research space allocations on campus, alongside research expenditures associated with

each College. Information regarding research expenditures was provided by the Office of Research and

Graduate Studies, while the inventory data was provided by Facilities.

Sponsored research across CSUN’s many disciplines has grown in recent years, and is being spurred to

grow even further by the University’s leadership, which set a goal to double overall research activity (to $50

million) at CSUN. Sponsored research activities at CSUN during the 2013/14 academic year totaled just over

$28 million, including awards to each of CSUN’s eight Colleges, as well as staff grants and grants to

endeavors related to Academic Affairs. These awards are summarized below.

Figure 4: Sponsored Research by College/Unit, 2013/14

College/Unit Am

ou

nt

Aw

ard

ed

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication $145,854

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics $843,603

Michael D. Eisner College of Education $6,151,513

College of Engineering and Computer Science $2,353,764

College of Health and Human Development $945,845

College of Humanities $171,932

College of Science & Mathematics $10,146,136

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences $1,748,840

Academic Affairs $537,031

Other $ 79,926

Staff $4,976,877

Grand Total $28,101,321

Altogether, CSUN’s eight Colleges were awarded $22,507,487 in the 2013/14 academic year.

Of the eight Colleges, the awards to the College of Science and Mathematics represent just under

half of all monies awarded to CSUN’s eight Colleges.

Current space allocations were reviewed by College to compare alongside sponsored research totals. First,

current research space quantities in the SFDB were reviewed, with the understanding that this data requires

updating. The SFDB identifies just under 97,000 ASF of research space, and over 11,000 of research

support space, across multiple buildings at CSUN.

Per the Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual (FICM), research space is formally defined as “a space

used for laboratory experimentation, research, or training in research methods; professional research and

observation; or structured creative activity within a specific program or for sponsored research (whether

sponsored with federal, state, private, or institutional funds), while research service space is defined “a space

that directly serves one or more research/nonclass laboratories as an extension of the activities in those

spaces.” It is understood that research service space may be able to serve as research space in some

capacities. For example, shared instrumentation labs, that support multiple disciplines, could be used for

occasional instruction.



Allocations of these types of space are summarized in the following figure.

Figure 5: Research Spaces by College and Building

Space Type, College, and Building Sp

aces

AS

F

Research Lab 209 96,968

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communications 3 1,459

Art & Design Center Expansion 2 980

Art & Design Center 1 479

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics 5 558

Juniper Hall 5 558

Michael Eisner College of Education 46 13,086

Education Building 46 13,086


Jacaranda Hall 30 34,905


Redwood Hall 1 1,000


Chaparral Hall 28 12,035

Citrus Hall 6 2,027

Magnolia Hall 10 3709

Eucalyptus Hall 22 10,270

Live Oak Hall 19 9,324


Sierra Hall 39 8,595

Research Lab Service 53 11,766

Michael Eisner College of Education 10 2,252

Education Building 10 2252


Jacaranda Hall 8 2599

College of Health and Human Development 1 200

Redwood Hall 1 200


Chaparral Hall 21 4,738


Live Oak Hall 3 352

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 442

Sierra Hall 3 442

It is understood the SFDB data is not current and should be reviewed for accuracy. Further it

appears that some research spaces at CSUN either serve multiple purposes, or have been re-

purposed for other uses in recent years, in light of enrollment growth and pressure on the

University’s facilities.

According to the SFDB, the bulk of formal research space at CSUN is overseen by the Colleges of

Science and Mathematics, and Engineering and Computer Science.

Comparing grant funding and current research space totals by College provides a preliminary,

though incomplete, sense of the current “footprint” of research activity at CSUN as a whole. It is key

to emphasize that this comparison represents an initial effort to approach quantification of space

associated with research at CSUN. In most instances the total of spaces shown above reflects a

combination of office and formal research spaces.

However, it is understood that the above table does not necessarily reflect the full extent of space

impacted by sponsored research activities. Space used in support of the 2013/14 research

expenditures data may include spaces in other categories, ranging from conference rooms to

storage and social amenity spaces on campus, for example.



Conversely, not all sponsored research requires dedicated space, further complicating comparison of

space totals and sponsored research amounts. At present the SFDB limits comparison between

space available and space used.

In terms of square footage, Jacaranda Hall and Sierra Hall appear to have the most space occupied

by grant-funded activities at present.

Research Space Guidelines

As CSUN grows beyond its original mission as a teaching-based comprehensive university to encompass a

more research-intensive focus, a framework for guiding allocation of research space is needed. The goal of

doubling current sponsored research activity, coupled with the absence of capital funding to support

expansion, means the University faces significant challenges to ensuring the availability and adequacy of

contemporary research space.

The calculation of research space needs is necessarily complex, given the diverse and specialized nature of

the functions housed within research spaces. Overarching research space needs are typically developed in

one of two ways: either by applying discipline-specific square footage multipliers to research dollar amounts

(typically $100,000 increments) by discipline; or by identifying an appropriate per-faculty space multiplier

across disciplines. Given the college-specific focus of this analysis and the diversity of research efforts being

encouraged at CSUN, it was determined that the first method would provide a closer approximation of need.

The following table identifies discipline-specific research space multipliers used in the calculation, drawn

from broad industry trends and space allocations at a wide selection of leading institutions.

Figure 7: Research Space Multiplier Ranges per $100,000, by Discipline

The following figure compares 2013/14 sponsored research activity against calculated current need per

$100,000, using the discipline-specific square footage allowances identified above.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Social Sciences

Natural and Physical Sciences

Health Sciences

Engineering

Business, Humanities, Education

Art

Axis Title

30-90 ASF

25-75 ASF

300-400 ASF

300-400 ASF

400-600 ASF

200-300 ASF



Figure 8: Calculated Current Research Space Need, by College

College 2013/1

4

Researc

h

Aw

ard

s

Researc

h

La

b S

pa

ce

Mu

ltip

lier

Ran

ge

pe

r

$100,0

00

Calc

ula

ted

Cu

rren

t

Need

AS

F

Ran

ge

Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication $145,854 30-90 44-131

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics $843,603 25-75 211-633

Michael D. Eisner College of Education $6,151,513 25-75 1,538-4,614

College of Engineering and Computer Science $2,353,764 200-300 4,708-7,061

College of Health and Human Development $945,845 300-400 2,838-3,783

College of Humanities $171,932 25-75 43-129

College of Science and Mathematics $10,146,136 400-600 40,585-60,877

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences $1,748,840 300-400 5,247-6,995

Totals $22,587,407 55,214-84,223

Compared to the total amount of formal research space identified in the SFDB, it appears that

slightly less space is needed at present, though the needed distribution of space between Colleges

differs significantly from what currently exists.

Assuming the proportion of research monies garnered by CSUN’s various divisions remain roughly

proportional, the University can anticipate a rough need for approximately 200 ASF of research

space per $100,000 of sponsored research funding in the future, across all disciplines.

In other words, if the goal of achieving $50 million in sponsored research activity is reached, this

results in an overall need for between 120,000-190,000 ASF of research space. This greatly exceeds

the amount of space that is currently identified for research in the CSUN inventory.

The majority of current need (just over 70%) is driven by a significant calculated need in the College

of Science and Mathematics.

Note that the needs reflected herein represent general overarching calculations. Detailed needs for

individual disciplines would necessarily be developed during the detailed programming phase of

individual building projects.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Review supporting data to ensure accuracy, particularly space coding. During the review of research

spaces in the inventory it appears that numerous spaces may have been re-purposed in recent years

to serve non-research functions, or multiple functions in addition to research space.

Review current and anticipated research space allocations by College, to provide more detail

regarding the funded research “footprint.”

Please refer to Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification section of this

document for further detail on potential sites for additional research space on campus.



SUMMARY

Together, the analyses of faculty office space and research space identify significant needs for additional

space at CSUN. Forces bearing on the need for these spaces are multifaceted, ranging from the shifting

work preferences of a new generation of faculty, to the ever-increasing competition for research funding, and

expectations for the integration of research with the curriculum of many disciplines. Each of these underlines

the importance of appropriate provision of space in these areas. To the extent possible, given financial and

spatial constraints, CSUN’s ability to respond to these needs will undoubtedly enrich the institution as a

whole.

SPACE NEEDS PROJECTIONS AND OPPORTUNITY SPACE IDENTIFICATION



Space Needs Projections and Opportunity Space Identification

OVERVIEW

The following sections provide a high-level summary of findings for individual space types within the purview

of this analysis, followed by space needs projections associated with each major space type. The final

section identifies opportunity spaces across campus, drawn from multiple sources, that merit exploration to

determine whether they can wholly or partially accommodate calculated needs.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This section provides major findings and recommendations regarding the analyses of various space types

performed in support of this study. A summary of these themes was included as part of RA’s presentation of

findings during the University’s “Dialogues with the Provost” event on February 20th, 2015. Please refer to the

workshop appendix to this report for further detail.

Faculty Offices

To accommodate current and projected needs, additional faculty office space is needed.

There appear to be some potential locations at CSUN (e.g., Redwood, Sagebrush, and Sierra Tower)

where office distribution can be densified, but doing so must be weighed against costs of

reconfiguring space. Individual academic units may have already identified potential spaces for

renovation.

As full-time faculty numbers increase, spaces formerly devoted to part-time faculty are being

reassigned. Ideally, each building should have a dedicated part-time faculty suite. Ratios of part-time

faculty to office space vary considerably across campus and should be reviewed to determine

whether a policy can be established setting appropriate ratio(s).

Accommodations for FERP and emeritus faculty vary across campus. Policy for assignment and

sharing of these spaces should be reviewed. Enforcement of clear policy by CSUN administration

regarding accommodations for these faculty groups across disciplines will aid Colleges in prudent

allocation of office space.

Research

Significantly more research space is needed at present than is currently available on campus. The

delta between the amount of dedicated research space available, and that which is needed, will only

grow as more research activity is encouraged at the University. The goal of doubling in research

activity may be compromised if additional space is not designated for these activities. This goal gains

import in light of the arrival of a new generation of faculty, many of whom are more likely to be

research-oriented and seeking appropriate space.

In addition to hindering growth in the University’s research enterprise, the lack of contemporary

research space may limit CSUN’s ability to attract and retain faculty.

Based on proportions of current research funding and broadly applicable multipliers for research

space based on discipline, the major need is for additional research space for faculty in the College

of Science and Mathematics. If research should expand in the remaining Colleges, a number of

them, including the College of Health and Human Development, will be strongly challenged to

accommodate appropriate and contemporary research spaces within their current envelopes.

It is understood that research takes place in other settings aside from formally designated research

space within the context of a university campus. It is also understood that some research endeavors

do not require any dedicated space. The development of a detailed catalog of spaces tied to

research activity at CSUN, linking information such as personnel, grant funding, and grant

timeframes, etc., would help identify the overall “footprint” of research at the University with greater

precision. The development of this catalog would require the coordination of inputs from multiple



sources, encompassing Facilities, the Managers of Academic Resources (MARs) of each College,

the Office of Human Resources, and the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects.

Current “sunset” provisions for vacated research space on the CSUN campus should be clarified.

Instructional

Though not formally included in the space analyzed, general-purpose instructional spaces have been

reviewed broadly to determine overall current demand. Based on this assessment, it appears that

CSUN may have more general-purpose classroom space than it currently needs. Given that

enrollment is not expected to grow further, there may not be increased demand for this type of space,

and some spaces could be identified for selective repurposing. However, this finding is tempered by

understanding of Tseng College’s use of CSUN’s classroom stock during daytime hours.

Nevertheless, the current stock of classroom spaces should be investigated in greater detail to

determine which rooms could come off-line should a determination to “harvest” space from the

general-purpose classroom pool be made. Excluding demand created by Tseng courses, some

rooms within the current general-purpose classroom pool appeared to be lightly used during Fall

2014.

The overall number of teaching laboratories and specialized instructional spaces at CSUN appears to

be appropriate, though demand is uneven across disciplines. Utilization of lab spaces within

particular disciplines, such as Cinema and Television Arts, may warrant construction of additional

space, while those in certain others, such as Computer Science, may present an opportunity for

renovation of space and/or consolidation of space in order to accommodate additional functions.

While the overall number of teaching laboratory spaces appears roughly adequate, it must be noted

that many disciplines would require more square footage to achieve the creation of contemporary lab

spaces. Technology, configuration, accessibility, and capacity of lab spaces present limitations in

certain disciplines in terms of experiments that can be conducted, how many students can be

accommodated, etc. Further, in comparing Square Footage Data Base (SFDB) and current course

data, it appears that room capacities have been adjusted upwards in many instances over time, likely

as a way of responding to enrollment growth and the demand for access to courses. The extent that

this limits functionality within the spaces where it has occurred should be investigated further, to

determine if additional space would ideally be needed to accommodate the increased student load.

Alternately, some opportunities may exist in course scheduling practice to lessen demand for these

specialized spaces by scheduling more intensively during off-peak hours.

Based on limits to the information provided by the Square Footage Data Base and from Research

Facilities Design’s survey of lab space on campus, it appears that space function has migrated over

time in certain instances, wherein graduate student spaces are now housed in former teaching lab

spaces, etc. These instances should be investigated to determine if any of these spaces could be

made available to accommodate teaching lab or lab support functions.

Opportunities to share teaching laboratory spaces between departments and/or Colleges, and even

other institutions, may exist and should be explored further and officially encouraged, as a way of

mitigating need for dedicated discipline-specific specialized space.

Self-Instructional

Need for self-instructional spaces vary among colleges, given variations in programmatic focus. The

amount of space devoted to this function varies widely between Colleges as well. The extent to which

these open lab spaces are needed, when programmatic imperatives require students to bring their

own technology (e.g., laptop requirements) and cloud-based software platforms (such as myCSUN)

are expanding, may present opportunities to reclaim some space for other uses.

Utilization of these spaces is difficult to gauge. Given how access to the CSUN computer network is

currently recorded, it is not possible to tally individual logins within specific labs in a particular

timeframe.

The application of a broad planning guideline permits approximation of overall need for self-

instructional computer labs. Various non-capital approaches to accommodating may be explored,



from more intensive use of teaching labs for open use when not scheduled, to potential sharing of

self-instructional computer labs between Colleges where mutually convenient.



SUMMARY, SPACE NEEDS PROJECTIONS

This section summarizes calculated needs for each major space type included within the purview of this

analysis. The following figure groups the space types by area.

Figure 1: Overall Space Projections, By Analysis

Space Type Cu

rren

t

AS

F (

pe

r

SF

DB

)

Calc

ula

ted

Cu

rren

t

Need

AS

F

Delt

a,

AS

F

Co

mm

en

ts

Offices

Faculty Office Spaces 133,135 143,915 +10,780

Significant current

faculty growth; reflects

full-time need only

Research

Research Laboratories 96,968 55,214-84,223 -12,745-41,754 Growth in research

enterprise will require

additional space;

review SFDB Research Laboratory Service 11,766 16,564-25,267 +4.798-13,501

Instructional

General-Purpose

Instructional Spaces

(Lecture and Seminar) 161,708 140,000 Approx. -20,000

Potential for space

yield based on hour

utilization

Teaching Laboratories

and Specialized Instructional Spaces 243,480 270,560 +27,080 Number of labs stays

flat; needed square

footage grows Teaching Laboratory Service

and Specialized Instructional Support 96,482 81,168 -15,314

Self-Instructional

Self-Instructional

Computer Laboratories 31,037 27,860 -3,177 Potential for fewer lab

spaces Self-Instructional Laboratories 9,093 9,093 0

Totals 783,669 744,374-782,086 -1,583-39,295

Compared to existing space totals, overall calculated current space need totals remain flat, or decline

slightly. However, the distribution of space needed changes significantly. Increased space need in

some areas, such as faculty offices and teaching laboratories, is counterbalanced by calculated need

for less research space.

Need for research space, and corresponding service and support space, will grow as CSUN’s

research enterprise grows. While more space may not necessarily be needed at present in the

aggregate, the needs for each College should be reviewed, as they vary significantly. SFDB data

should also be reviewed for accuracy.

For each additional $100,000 of sponsored research activity that requires associated space,

approximately 200 ASF will be needed, in the aggregate. The stated goal of $50 million in yearly

sponsored research generates a calculated need for between 30,000 and 90,000 ASF of additional

research space. The actual amount of additional space needed will depend strongly on the types of

research being accommodated. Please refer to the Faculty Office and Research Space Needs

section of this document for further detail.

Constituting the vast majority of space coded as self-instructional, a broad planning guideline for self-

instructional computer laboratories has been provided. Non-computer-based self-instructional labs

comprise a small amount of space on the CSUN campus, per the SFDB. Given the small amount of

this space on campus, and the eclectic functions accommodated in these spaces, need for non-

computer-based space has been maintained, and should be explored on a College-by-College basis

to determine associated needs.



OPPORTUNITY SPACE IDENTIFICATION

Potential Opportunities

In parallel with the identification of space needs projections, RA identified several bodies of space on the

CSUN campus, through interview findings and walkthroughs that merit further exploration for potential re-

purposing and/or intensification of use. These are summarized in the following figure by building. Square

footages are shown as rounded in this figure, as the extent of some areas cannot be precisely identified given

limitations in the SFDB.

Figure 2: Opportunity Spaces Identified Through Interviews and Walkthroughs

Building Cu

rren

t

Fu

nc

tio

n(s

)

Flo

ors

AS

F

Bookstore/Cafeteria Tseng College spaces 1,2 9,200

Education Administration Family Counseling Clinic, Liberal Studies 1 8,500

Jacaranda Hall Computer science labs 2 7,200

Redwood Hall Offices 2 3,200

Redwood Hall Locker Rooms 1 15,400

Sagebrush Hall Visual Arts Resource Center 2 1,800

Sequoia Hall IT Administration suite 2 9,200

Totals 54,500

These square footages represent a rough approximation of square footages understood to be

available in these spaces; each requires further exploration to determine feasibility for other uses.

Spaces in the Bookstore/Cafeteria shown are limited to spaces currently occupied by Tseng College

administrative spaces, with the understanding that some of these functions will relocate once the new

Extended Learning building is complete. Careful consideration of the renovation of these spaces may

reduce the footprint of Tseng-related services that remain.

The Education Administration building houses spaces devoted to credentialing, Liberal Studies, and

the Mitchell Family Counseling Clinic. If these functions were to be relocated elsewhere, a significant

amount of space can be recaptured for other uses. However, it is worth noting that the Education

Credential Office, housed within the Education Administration building, has been recently renovated.

The sizing of lab spaces on the second floor of Jacaranda Hall (in particular, rooms 2210, 2211,

2214, 2215, and 2217) may permit greater potential efficiency, with the added benefit of more

desirable room configurations. However, reconfiguration must be balanced against current usage (for

example, 2214 was scheduled for over 23 hours per week during Fall 2014).

The generous sizing of some offices on the second floor of Redwood Hall may permit intensification

for additional faculty space or other purposes.

The square footage of locker room spaces on the first floor of Redwood Hall is shown here in its

entirety, with the understanding that some spaces within this total are underutilized and can be

repurposed. The body of locker room spaces within Redwood should be reviewed to determine

where space can be recaptured.

Should the collection of the Visual Arts Resource Center be relocated to the Library or elsewhere, its

space may be reusable for other functions, such as additional faculty office space.

If relocated, the IT administrative offices on the second floor of Sequoia Hall could yield almost

10,000 ASF of space for other purposes. Given Sequoia’s central location on campus and the growth

of the College of Health and Human Development within the same building, this shift may ease

pressure in other areas.

The square footage identified as opportunity space, if together in one building, would constitute the

15th-largest building on campus, just larger than Education.



Please note that all square footages are derived from the CSUN SFDB and should be reviewed for

accuracy.

Other Opportunities

Low-Use Teaching Laboratories The analysis of specialized instructional spaces and teaching laboratories, detailed in the previous section of

this report, reviewed formally-scheduled credit-bearing course usage during the Fall 2014 semester. Of the

spaces reviewed, 26 of the spaces were scheduled for fewer than 10 hours per week, during the daytime

scheduling window. These spaces were also either lightly scheduled or unscheduled during the evening

scheduling window. These spaces are summarized below.

Figure 3: Low Scheduled-Use Teaching Lab Spaces at CSUN, Fall 2014

While RA recommends that the low use of

these spaces be reviewed to identify potential

efficiencies that may be gained, it is understood

that other factors may limit the potential for these

spaces to be repurposed, such as the presence of

specialized equipment or a unique room

configuration.

Together, these low-use lab spaces equal

just less than 25,000 ASF, spread across 14

buildings.

This list does not include other spaces that

may have formerly served as teaching labs, but

have now been either formally or informally

repurposed for other uses, such as graduate

student space or research space.

Virtualization of some lower-division general

education lab courses in the natural sciences

would lessen overall demand for teaching lab

spaces.

Building

Ro

om

AS

F

Perc

en

t

Weekly

Ho

urs

Sch

ed

ule

d

Art and Design Center 333 570 14%

Chaparral Hall 5230 895 13%



Cypress Hall 119 617 0%




Education 2117 1,440 5%

Education 2119 750 11%

Education 2121A 750 11%

Jeanne Chisholm Hall 228 1,283 12%

Jacaranda Hall 1607 1,124 14%



Juniper Hall 1105 750 12%

Live Oak Hall 1100 1,036 11%

Live Oak Hall 1210 1,120 10%

Live Oak Hall 1212 1,176 14%

Monterey Hall 4307 1,156 11%

Monterey Hall 341 510 15%

Manzanita Hall 215 463 5%

Redwood Hall 178 1,420 16%

Sierra Hall 278B 498 18%

Sequoia Hall 134 952 14%

Experimental Theatre 365 1,499 6%

Totals 26 24,657



General-Purpose Classrooms Demand

In addition to the detailed assessment of teaching laboratory utilization at CSUN, RA reviewed the

university’s body of general-purpose instructional spaces to determine overall hours of use vis-à-vis CSUN’s

daytime scheduling window. Compared to a current total of 214 classrooms, a review of demand determined

a need for approximately 187 rooms (27 fewer rooms). These needs should be explored further; multiplying

the average size of a classroom in the original total of 214 (755 ASF) against the delta of 27 rooms suggests

a potential yield of a significant amount of square footage—just over 20,000 ASF.

Low-Use Rooms

Some of the rooms in the general-purpose pool were utilized at low rates. The following collection of spaces

was scheduled for a quarter of available hours or less. As such, they may merit further exploration to

determine whether any are potential candidates for either more intensive scheduling, or selective repurposing

for other functions.

Figure 4: Low Scheduled-Use General-Purpose Instructional Spaces at CSUN,

Fall 2014

Of all rooms used for general-purpose instruction

during Fall 2014, the least used, in terms of formally-

scheduled hours, appears to be Cypress Hall, room

215.

For further detail, please refer to the Instructional

Space Utilization Analysis section of this document.

Non-Scheduled Instructional Spaces Another body of spaces that should be reviewed to determine potential for repurposing are spaces identified

as instructional and lab spaces within the SFDB that are not shown as formally scheduled during Fall 2014.

Spaces coded as Lecture, Seminar, Specialized Instruction, and Teaching Lab space are shown. As the

SFDB is not current, it is understood that the usage of these spaces may have evolved over time, and that

some may no longer be available for consideration. Given some of the square footages represented, it is also

probable that some of these spaces are miscoded as instructional, when in reality they may be office or

support space. Regardless, these spaces are summarized below.

Building Ro

om

AS

F

Perc

en

t W

eekly

Ho

urs

Sch

ed

ule

d




Eucalyptus Hall 2223 560 5%



Manzanita Hall 212 414 13%

Monterey Hall 304 502 5%

Nordhoff Hall 104 459 16%

Nordhoff Hall 111 936 25%

Sequoia Hall 210 321 18%

Sierra Hall 104 620 12%



Totals 14 7,614



Figure 5: Non-Scheduled Spaces Coded as Instructional, per SFDB and Fall 2014 Course Data

Altogether, the spaces coded as instructional but

not shown as scheduled in Fall 2014 total 178,

representing 93,700 ASF per the SFDB. Please note

that coding and square footage totals should be

reviewed for accuracy.

The non-scheduled Teaching Lab space (63,440

ASF) represents roughly 30 percent of all space at

CSUN identified in this category.

If all of the spaces coded as instructional but not

formally scheduled were contained in one building at

CSUN, the resulting building would be the 6th largest,

slightly smaller than Sierra Hall.

Space Type and Building Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

aces

AS

F

Lecture 9 7,075

BAYRAMIAN HALL 1 929

CYPRESS HALL 1 792

EDUCATION 2 860

JUNIPER HALL 1 480

LAB SCHOOL/CHILD AND FAMILY STUDIES 2 1,085

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 1 2,480

SAGEBRUSH HALL 1 449

Seminar 7 2,817

ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI 1 604

CHAPARRAL HALL 1 600

JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL 1 717

JUNIPER HALL 3 480

MANZANITA HALL 1 416

Specialized Instruction 38 20,368


CYPRESS HALL 1 667

EDUCATION 1 186

EUCALYPTUS HALL 1 400


JEROME RICHFIELD HALL 1 534

JUNIPER HALL 1 684

LIVE OAK HALL 3 415

MAGNOLIA HALL 4 424

MANZANITA HALL 1 394

NAUTILUS CENTER 1 590

SIERRA HALL 11 1,959

SIERRA HALL TOWER 1 164

WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE AQUATICS 4 4,202

Teaching Laboratories 124 63,440

ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI 4 1,599


CITRUS HALL 21 7,221

CYPRESS HALL 6 3,404

EDUCATION 1 220

EUCALYPTUS HALL 6 3,907


JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL 7 1,665

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL 2 1,693

JUNIPER HALL 14 5,230

LIVE OAK HALL 6 6,356

MAGNOLIA HALL 12 4,446

MANZANITA HALL 9 4,361

NORDHOFF HALL 1 595

OVIATT LIBRARY 1 450

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 2 1,819

REDWOOD HALL 15 6,062

SEQUOIA HALL 3 2,663

SIERRA HALL 7 4,359

Totals 178 93,700



RFD Analysis Through its coding of capacity to handle relative hazard levels, the review of lab spaces conducted by

Research Facilities Design (RFD) as part of this study also highlights potential candidates for review and

potential repurposing. Altogether, RFD reviewed roughly 400 spaces at CSUN, totaling over 190,000 ASF as

part of this analysis. Each space reviewed was given a rating, according to serve needed and potential

hazard; please refer to the RFD report, appended to this report, for greater detail regarding the rating system.

The following table summarizes spaces identified by RFD as underutilized, by building.

Figure 6: Underutilized Spaces per RFD Analysis

The spaces identified as underutilized by RFD

represent a variety of space types, including teaching labs,

research labs, and support spaces. Please refer to the

RFD report for further detail about the analysis that was

undertaken, as well as overarching findings.

Summary

The areas described previously are summarized in the following figure.

Figure 7: “Opportunity Space,” All Categories

Areas

AS

F

Opportunity Spaces 54,500

Low-Scheduled Teaching Laboratory Spaces 24,567

General-Purpose Classrooms (Demand) 20,385

Non-Scheduled Spaces Coded as Instructional 93,700

Underutilized Laboratory and Research Spaces Reviewed by RFD 40,208

Totals 233,360

Together, the total amount of space to be reviewed constitutes just over 10 percent of CSUN’s total

assignable square footage, per the SFDB.

Sharing space between disciplines should be encouraged and pursued, to increase efficiency,

enhance community, and break down disciplinary “silos” between Colleges where possible.

It is understood that the space identified in this exercise may not address the full extent of current

and anticipated needs at CSUN, particularly in terms of faculty office space, research space, and

teaching laboratory spaces. Nevertheless, the analysis presented herein provides a guide to

identifying bodies of space that may be able to relieve some of the space-related pressure CSUN

currently experiences, due to enrollment and faculty growth, the expansion of existing programs, the

development of new programs, a push for expanded research activity, and the lack of capital funding

available from the State of California.

Building Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

aces

AS

F

Citrus Hall 6 2,668

Chaparral Hall 2 612


Jacaranda Hall 5 14,520

Live Oak Hall 18 7,786

Magnolia Hall 10 2,907

Totals 59 40,208



CONCLUSION

CSUN today is at an exciting and significant crossroads, transitioning away from its founding role as a locally-

focused teaching institution toward a future encompassing growing research activity and broader regional,

national, and international areas of focus. At the same time, CSUN faces significant pressure, both spatial

and fiscal, to manage its own evolution as a large, nationally significant hybrid teaching and research

institution. Founded upon analysis of current strategic data inputs (including enrollment, personnel, course

data, and inventory review), this report is intended to provide CSUN with appropriate leverage to maximize

use of its own physical plant, through the identification of space need and availability, and related discussion

of the policies that govern provision of space at the university. While the fate of crucial questions, such as

projected enrollment and the availability of capital funding for building projects on campus, remain

unanswered at this time, this report provides a baseline from which CSUN can act in ensuring space on

campus is used as appropriately, effectively, and responsibly as possible.

APPENDICES

Specialized Instructional Spaces -- Day

California State University, Northridge

Laboratory Space Study

Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

61% INTRO ART PROCESS

61% ART PROCESS LAB


65% ART PROCESS LAB

35% VIS ART AND CHILD


72% ART PROCESS LAB


63% ART PROCESS LAB

57% ART E CHLDHD LAB

57% ART EARLY CHILDHD

61% CHILDRENS ART


70% ART PROCESS LAB


74% ART PROCESS LAB


ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI AC210 1,120 46 24.3 64% 62%

78% CHILDRENS ART

42% TEACH 2-D ART


89% ART PROCESS LAB

67% CHILDRENS ART LAB

67% CHILDRENS ART

78% CHILDRENS ART LAB


108% VIDEO/DIGITAL ART

81% MOTION GRAPHICS

85% DIGITAL PHOTO

58% SENIOR PROJECTS

92% CORE ART STUDIO

69% VIDEO VISUAL ART

ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI AC401 702 26 27.0 82% 48%

96% ANIMATION IIB

112% ANIMATION DRAWING

85% ANIMATION III

108% ANIMATION IIA

123% ANIMATION I

112% ANIMATION I


100% INTRO WEB ART

93% CORE ART STUDIO

107% ART MEDIA VIS

100% ART MEDIA VIS

104% ART MEDIA VIS

93% ART MEDIA VIS


73% WEB DESIGN

90% GRAPHIC DES PROD

100% CORE ART STUDIO

57% COMPUTER PUB DES

43% ADV TYPOGRAPHY

90% COMPUTER PUB DES

87% WEB DESIGN


117% GRAPHIC DESIGN I

100% ADV TYPOGRAPHY

92% GRAPHIC DESGN III

117% GRAPHIC DESIGN II

108% INTRO TO TYPE

121% GRAPHIC DESIGN I

121% GRAPHIC DESIGN II

58% GRAPHIC DESGN III


Page 1 of 24Specialized Intructional Spaces|DAY

DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

107% SENIOR PROJECTS

80% GRAPHICS SEMINAR

90% PACKAGING DESIGN

107% SENIOR PROJ LAB


70% BEGIN 2D DESIGN

73% BEGIN 2D DESIGN

78% BEGIN 2D DESIGN

75% BEGIN 2D DESIGN

75% BEGIN 2D DESIGN

48% BEGIN 2D DESIGN


97% DRAWING I

130% DRAW 3/FIGURE DRW

100% DRAWING II/ANATMY

90% DRAWING I

97% DRAWING I

100% DRAWING I

90% DRAWING I

90% DRAWING I


97% DRAWING I

103% DRAWING I

90% DRAWING I

97% DRAWING I

100% DRAWING I

93% DRAWING I

100% DRAWING I


83% PAINTING I

67% PAINT II: REP IMG

43% ADV STD CTM PAINT

93% PAINTING I

60% PAINT II:ABSTRACT


ART & DESIGN CTR EXPANSI Total 10,246 376 27.3 81% 55%

40% SENIOR PROJECTS

40% SENIOR PROJ LAB

66% COLOR THEORY

80% SENIOR PROJ LAB

80% SENIOR PROJECTS

57% ART IMMERSION VA

57% ART IMMERS VA LAB

6% FIELD EXP SEMINAR


ART AND DESIGN CENTER AC313 1,040 35 29.7 48% 32%

83% 3-D COMP ANIMATN

90% GAME ANIMATION

90% COMPUTER GRAPHICS

72% 3-D COMP ANIMATN

93% VISUAL EFFECTS

ART AND DESIGN CENTER AC330 969 29 33.4 86% 46%

50% PHOTOGRAPHY III

38% ADV WEB DESIGN


83% PHOTOGRAPHY I

78% PHOTOGRAPHY I

80% PHOTOGRAPHY I

75% PHOTOGRAPHY I

73% PHOTOGRAPHY I

73% PHOTOGRAPHY I



DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

59% STU PROB: PHOTO

66% AD PHOTOGRAPHY I

38% AD PHOTOGRAPHY II

66% COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY

59% STU PRB PAINTING

53% PHOTOGRAPHY II


70% PERSPECTIVE

100% ILLUST MAT & TECH

53% ILLUSTRATION II

103% BEGIN 2D DESIGN

100% WATER COLOR

60% DRAW III COMP


32% STU PRB IN CERAM

65% CERAMICS III

62% INTRO TO CERAMICS




91% BEGIN 3D DESIGN

88% BEGIN 3D DESIGN

88% BEGIN 3D DESIGN

88% BEGIN 3D DESIGN

79% BEGIN 3D DESIGN

76% BEGIN 3D DESIGN

85% BEGIN 3D DESIGN


69% SCULPTURE I

49% SCULPTURE II

51% AD STU PROB/SCLPT


ART AND DESIGN CENTER Total 8,557 301 28.4 67% 44%

50% BIO CONCEPTS LAB

100% SCIENCE FOR LIFE

100% GEN BIOLOGY LAB


96% GEN BIOLOGY LAB

96% GEN BIOLOGY LAB


96% GEN BIOLOGY LAB

38% BIO CONCEPTS LAB

CHAPARRAL HALL CR5227 895 24 37.3 87% 39%

100% INTRO BIOLOGY LAB


















DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

83% BIOL PRIN II LAB

















96% GEN BIOLOGY LAB

88% GEN BIOLOGY LAB







96% GEN BIOLOGY LAB






88% BIOL PRIN I LAB

92% BIOL PRIN I LAB

100% BIOL PRIN I LAB

96% BIOL PRIN I LAB


96% BIOL PRIN I LAB

96% BIOL PRIN I LAB

96% BIOL PRIN I LAB


96% BIOL PRIN I LAB


92% BIOL PRIN I LAB






35% DSGN+ANLY EXP LAB

40% BIOMETRY

40% BIOMETRY LAB


76% FLD STD: VERTEBR

76% VERT BIOL LAB

76% VERT BIOL

48% GRADUATE PROSEMAR



DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

108% PARASITOLOGY

108% PARASITOLOGY LAB

108% ANIMAL HISTOLOGY

108% ANIMAL HIST LAB

100% PRIN OF ECOLOGY

100% PRINC ECOLOGY LAB

100% PRINC ECOLOGY

71% DSGN+ANLY EXPRMNT


54% GRADUATE PROSEMAR

67% FLD ST-ANML BEHAV

104% ANIMAL BEHAVIOR


29% SEM IN GENETICS

71% CELL/TISSUE CUL

71% CELL/TISSUE LAB

71% PRIN NEURO LAB

89% PRIN OF NEUROPHYS


21% TOPICS STEM CELLS

54% COMPTR MODEL BIOL

54% COMP MOD BIOL LAB

96% HEMATOLOGY

96% HEMATOLOGY LAB

100% REC DNA TECHNIQUE

100% REC DNA TECH LAB


CHAPARRAL HALL Total 10,775 317 34.0 86% 40%

83% BIOCHEM I LAB

44% BIOCHEM I LAB

89% PRIN BIOCHEM LAB

100% PRIN BIOCHEM LAB

100% INTRO BIOCHEM LAB



CITRUS HALL CS3122 658 18 36.6 87% 38%

71% CELL BIOLOGY LAB

96% LAB EXP HUM PHYS









CITRUS HALL CS3209 878 24 36.6 91% 48%

115% SCIENCE FOR LIFE

95% ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY

95% ANIMAL PHYS LAB

70% INTRO MOL BIO RES

30% SEM IN BIOTECH

CITRUS HALL CS3214 728 20 36.4 81% 38%

80% UG RSRCH MICROBIO

75% EMBRYOLOGY

75% EMBRYOLOGY LAB

CITRUS HALL CS3219 868 20 43.4 77% 19%

100% CHEM ANLYS I LAB



CITRUS HALL CS3305 1,145 18 63.6 98% 33%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

78% PHYS CHEM I LAB

67% CHEM ANLYS II LAB

50% CHEM ANLYS II LAB

67% PHYS CHEM I LAB

CITRUS HALL CS3306 1,184 18 65.8 65% 33%

CITRUS HALL Total 5,461 118 46.3 85% 35%

104% BEGINNING GUITAR

63% INSTRU MTHD/PRACT

58% INST MTHD/PRC LAB

67% ALEXNDR TECHNIQUE

88% MT IMPROVISATION

63% STRINGS

67% WOODWINDS

100% MUS THER PRACTIC

88% FUNCT MUS SK THER

88% FUNCT MU THER LAB

83% THER ORIENTATION

8% MUSIC INTERNSHIP

71% GUITAR SIGHTREAD

CYPRESS HALL CY108 880 24 36.7 73% 42%

94% MUS LIT FOR CHILD

94% MUS LIT CHILD LAB





78% MUS LIT CHILD LAB

63% EARLY FIELD XP MU

CYPRESS HALL CY110 902 32 28.2 64% 24%

0% Non-scheduled DAY

CYPRESS HALL CY119 617 35 17.6 0% 0%

63% JAZZ ARRANGING I

57% IMPROVISATION I

113% MUSCNSHP V JAZZ

117% MUS V - JAZZ LAB

CYPRESS HALL CY120 554 30 18.5 88% 11%

93% UNDST WLD CULTRS MUS

53% FIELD BAND TECHQ

63% HARMONY I

80% HARMONY I

73% BEGINNING COMP

63% TONAL COUNTPOINT

70% HARMONY I

43% WIND LIT

40% VOCAL LITERATURE

50% MUSICAL ANALYSIS

90% UNDST WLD CULTRS MUS

28% RSRCH TECHNIC

CYPRESS HALL CY217 727 40 18.2 62% 53%

41% MUSIC CHILD

103% FUND MUSIC TECH

103% FUND MUS TEC LAB

87% FUND MUSIC TECH

87% FUND MUS TEC LAB

69% MUSIC TECH II

69% MUSIC TECH II

64% RECORDING

64% RECORDING LAB

CYPRESS HALL CY238 700 39 17.9 76% 31%

35% COLLAB PIANO

65% PNO PED RES PRAC

65% PNO PED PRAC LAB

105% ACCOMP PRACTICUM

CYPRESS HALL CY239 782 20 39.1 68% 12%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

66% KEYBD MSHIP I

78% KEYBD MSHIP III

91% KEYBD MSHIP IIIAJ

63% KEYBD MSHIP III

69% KEYBRD STL LATIN

59% KEYBD MSHIP I

75% KEYBD MSHIP I

69% KEYBD MSHIP III

94% FIRST YEAR PIANO

CYPRESS HALL CY240 805 32 25.2 74% 29%

51% MUSICIANSHIP III

51% MUSICNSHP III LAB

CYPRESS HALL CY265 711 39 18.2 51% 5%

74% MUSICIANSHIP I

74% MUSICNSHIP I LAB

17% VOCAL TECHNIQUE

34% RSRCH TECHNIC

69% MUSICIANSHIP I

71% MUSICNSHIP I LAB

23% VOCAL TECHNIQUE

11% VOCAL TECHNIQUE

CYPRESS HALL CY270 704 35 20.1 47% 25%

CYPRESS HALL Total 7,382 326 22.6 66% 23%



90% METH TCH SCIENCE

90% MTH TCH SCI LAB

115% SEM IN SECOND EDU

EDUCATION ED2103 750 20 37.5 74% 16%

50% PROG EVAL & ASSM'T

EDUCATION ED2117 1,440 34 42.4 50% 5%

77% CLINICAL RESEARCH

77% CLINICAL RESEARCH

EDUCATION ED2119 750 26 28.8 77% 11%

20% QUANT INQUIRY II

80% ENTREPRENEURSHIP

EDUCATION ED2121A 750 25 30.0 50% 11%

100% COMPUTERS IN INST


89% CMPTRSMATH SCITCH


EDUCATION ED2121B 1,200 27 44.4 93% 21%

EDUCATION Total 4,890 132 37.0 74% 13%

60% GEOL PLNT ERTH L








75% COMM + THE SEXES

88% MOTOR DEVELOPMENT

42% APPR UNIV WRTNG B





EUCALYPTUS HALL EH2028 924 48 19.3 74% 72%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

85% ASTRONOMY LAB

94% ASTRONOMY LAB

96% ASTRONOMY LAB

94% ASTRONOMY LAB

92% ASTRONOMY LAB

88% ASTRONOMY LAB

90% ASTRONOMY LAB

94% ASTRONOMY LAB

96% ASTRONOMY LAB

90% CURRENT ASTR LAB

EUCALYPTUS HALL EH2104 1,120 48 23.3 92% 48%

108% MECHANICS LAB

129% MECHANICS LAB

113% MECHANICS LAB

96% GEN PHYS LAB

117% GEN PHYS LAB

63% GEN PHYS LAB

88% GEN PHYS LAB

108% MECHANICS LAB

100% MECHANICS LAB

117% MECHANICS LAB

113% MECHANICS LAB

96% GEN PHYS LAB

88% GEN PHYS LAB

92% GEN PHYS LAB

92% GEN PHYS LAB

113% MECHANICS LAB

125% MECHANICS LAB

104% MECHANICS LAB


75% MICROB ECOL LAB

75% MICROBIAL ECOLOGY

67% SEM IN EVOLUTION

33% BACT GENETICS

33% BACT GENETICS LAB

75% FLD STDY-MICR ECO


115% LAB STDS HUM ANAT

110% COMP ANATOMY LB

120% FUNCT HUM ANT LAB





120% FUNCT HUM ANT LAB








DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

92% PRINCIPLS OF CHEM

81% INTRO ORG CHEM



83% GEN CHEMISTRY I

92% INTRO CHEM I

23% PROTEIN STR FUNCT




96% INTRO CHEM II



49% PRIN BIOCHEMISTRY


41% ORG CHEM I

68% OCHEM II PR SOLV

44% ORG CHEM I

85% GEN CHEMISTRY II

51% PRIN BIOCHEMISTRY


77% CHEM IN ACTION

83% ORG CHEM I

43% ORG CHEM I

41% ORG CHEM I

88% GEN CHEMISTRY II

73% ORG CHEM I

75% CHEM ANALYSIS I

79% GEN CHEMISTRY I

84% ORG CHEM I

39% ORG CHEM I

EUCALYPTUS HALL EH2228 686 75 9.1 67% 55%

100% INTRO CHEM II LAB



100% INTRO CHEM I LAB




100% GEN CHEM II LAB

96% GEN CHEM II LAB







96% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

96% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB


75% ORG CHEM I LAB

79% ORG CHEM I LAB

67% ORG CHEM I LAB

71% INTRO O CHEM LAB





DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

96% GEN CHEM I LAB

96% GEN CHEM I LAB

96% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB

100% GEN CHEM I LAB


100% CHEM IN ACTION LAB

96% CHEM IN ACTION LAB

100% PRINCPL CHEM LAB

96% PRINCPL CHEM LAB


EUCALYPTUS HALL Total 14,164 461 30.7 84% 48%

80% DIGITAL ELECTRNCS

107% ELEC MCHN+ENR CON

87% PROB SYS ELEC ENG

33% FAULT ANALYSIS

97% MICROPROC SYSTEMS

70% VERILOG & SV

JACARANDA HALL JD1102 960 30 32.0 79% 29%

90% ALGRTH/PROG LAB

81% INTRO ALGRTH/PROG

81% ALGRTH/PROG LAB


90% ALGRTH/PROG LAB


103% ALGRTH/PROG LAB


103% COMPTRS/IMPCT-USE









JACARANDA HALL JD1105 1,400 40 35.0 106% 44%













87% STRUCT STEEL DES

100% REINF CONCR DES

100% CIVIL SR DSN I

100% CIVIL SR DSN I LAB

70% SIOL MEC TEC LAB

70% SOIL MECH TECH

123% ENGR DYNAMICS

103% CIVIL SR DSN I


77% CIVIL SR DSN I




DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

81% PROG FOR MECH ENG

91% INTR ENGINEERING LAB

69% FUND CAM

84% MECH ENGR INTRO

81% M ENG INTRO LAB

56% CAD/CAM ADV T LAB

78% MECH ENGR INTRO

78% M ENG INTRO LAB

84% NUM AN ENG SYS I

103% FACILITIES PLN & DSN

81% CAD/CAM SYS LAB


70% ENGR MAT LAB

90% ENGR MAT LAB

105% ENGR MAT LAB

95% ENGR MAT LAB

90% ENGR MAT LAB

85% ENGR MAT LAB

130% PRIN MTLS ENGR


144% WEB ENGR I

100% CIT FUNDAMENTALS

100% CIT FUND LAB


96% CIT FUND LAB

144% WEB ENGR I LAB

128% OP SYS MANAG

128% OP SYS MANAG LAB


112% CIT FUND LAB

112% INTEGRATIVE PROG

100% INTG PROG LAB


100% CIT FUND LAB


42% ELEC ENG FUND LAB






48% CONST SITE SURVY

48% CONST STE SRVY LB

65% COMP APPL CIVIL

65% COMP APPL CIVIL

81% COMP APPL CIVIL

81% COMP APPL CIVIL


121% INT MECH&ELEC INS

88% CONST DRWG

88% CONST DRWG LAB

83% STATIC STRNG MAT

38% FNDML CONST MGMT

38% FDM CNST MGMT LAB

JACARANDA HALL JD1565E 594 24 24.8 76% 24%

75% ELECTRON II LAB

80% ELECTRONICS I LAB




28% APPL ANAT LAB

30% APPL ANAT LAB




DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

89% GAIT ANALYSIS

43% GAIT ANALYSIS LAB

43% MUS SKEL PRAC III

43% MUSC SKEL III LAB

89% PT MGMT I

89% MED IMAGING

89% MED SCREENING

40% ELECTROTHER LAB

46% APPL PHYS LAB

46% APPL PHYS LAB

89% APPL BIOMECH I

43% APPL BIOMEC I LAB


109% MECH ENGR INTRO

109% M ENG INTRO LAB





113% COMP AIDED DESIGN

113% COMP AID DESN LAB

113% COMP AID ANL&DSN

113% COMP AID A&D LAB

113% COMP AID ANL&DSN

113% COMP AID A&D LAB






44% THEO DIG SYS LAB

38% THEO DIG SYS LAB


28% MICROPROC SYS LAB

38% DIGITAL ELECT LAB

15% DIGITAL ELECT LAB


64% THERMAL FLUIDS LAB

80% MECH MEASUREMENTS

80% MECH MSRMNTS LAB

64% MECHATRONICS LAB

80% MECH MEASUREMENTS

80% MECH MSRMNTS LAB

88% SR DSN IN M E


60% HUM-COMP INTERACT

28% MULTIMEDIA SYSTEM

81% GRAPH USRS INTRFC


89% PROF PRAC I

43% MUSC SKEL II LAB

40% MUSC SKEL II LAB

83% ELECTROTHER


89% PROF PRACTI II

89% ORTHOT & PROSTH

46% ORTHO & PROST LAB

43% NEURO MGMT I LAB

23% PT IN INTERNATIONAL SETTING

43% EBPT I

83% NEURO MGMT I





DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

50% INTRO PROFNURSLAB

55% CLINICAL ADV NURS


33% FUND CONTROL LAB

83% INTRO ELEC ENGR

83% INTRO ELEC ENGR LAB

83% INTRO ELEC ENGR

83% INTRO ELEC ENGR LAB

100% NUM METHODS IN EE

123% FUND CONTROL SYS

103% THEO DIGITAL SYST

110% ELEC POWER SYST

87% LINEAR SYSTEMS II

63% ACT MICROWAVE CKT


63% ELEC ENGR FUND

105% THEO DIGITAL SYST

80% LINEAR SYSTEMS I

78% COMPUTING EE

78% COMPUTING EE LAB

63% NUM METHODS IN EE

55% REAL TIME DSP

55% REAL-TIME DSP LAB

38% DISTR ENERGY GEN


125% SR DESIGN PROJECT

90% SR DESIGN LAB

65% SR DESIGN LAB

65% SOFTWARE ENGR LAB

63% SOFTWARE ENGR LAB


117% COMP ARCH ASSEM


113% DATA STRUCTURES LAB





125% DATA STRCT/PR DSG







83% OPRTNG SYSTMS LAB

104% OPRTNG SYSTMS LAB


100% BIOSTATISTICS LAB


104% ISSUES ADULTHOOD



100% COMPUTER APP HSCI






DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

86% EFFECTIVE COMM

83% INTRO PROFNURSING

83% DYN NSG LEAD

81% NSG SYS ISS/ETH

83% LEAD NSG LAB

89% HLT ASSMT S CARE

83% HLTH ASSESMNT LAB

78% PROF NURSING

81% BASIC PATHOPHYS

75% PHARM SELFCARE AG

72% ADULTAGED MEDSURG

64% PRIN NSG RES

78% DYN NSG LEAD

78% LEAD NSG LAB

83% COM HLTH NSG


JACARANDA HALL Total 35,616 946 37.6 82% 34%

70% EARLY SPCH INTRVT

62% SPCH & LANG DEVELOP

JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL JC228 1,283 60 21.4 66% 11%

JEANNE CHISHOLM HALL Total 1,283 60 21.4 66% 11%

84% APPR UNIV WRITING

80% APPR UNIV WRTNG A







76% MULTIGEN LITERACY



56% ADV RHET/COMP

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL JR248 900 25 36.0 80% 59%

60% SPANISH PHONETICS

50% INTER ITALIAN I

23% READINGS/FREN BUS

100% ELEM SPAN I

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL JR316 2,140 30 71.3 58% 21%

46% COLLCOMP: TH/PED

46% COLL COMP FIELD

20% SR HONORS TUTORL

51% SOCIAL GOSPEL

34% CRTIV WRTNG STDIS

69% 19TH-CEN WMN NOV

100% COMICS

57% SR SEM NARR WRTNG

31% JUN HONRS TUTR I

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL JR319 1,229 35 35.1 50% 40%

JEROME RICHFIELD HALL Total 4,269 90 47.4 64% 40%

65% GATEWAY EXP LAB

65% GATEWAY EXP LAB

65% GATEWAY EXP LAB

65% GATEWAY EXP LAB

65% GATEWAY EXP LAB

JUNIPER HALL JH1105 750 26 28.8 65% 12%

96% CONCPT AMER ENTRP

JUNIPER HALL JH2125 1,570 54 29.1 96% 5%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

111% INTRO MAN ACCTG

105% INTRO MAN ACCTG

86% INTRO MAN ACCTG

100% INTRO FIN ACCTG

100% INTRO FIN ACCTG

41% COST MEAS ANAL

93% ADV FIN ACCOUNTING

85% SOCIO THEORY II

67% ADV STUDIES TAX

51% COST MEAS ANAL

66% MATH METHODS BUS

64% INTER FIN ACCT III

88% PRICE THEORY

47% AUDITING PRINCIPL

JUNIPER HALL JH2204 1,280 73 17.5 79% 69%

93% INFO SYS FOR BUS




JUNIPER HALL JH2212 1,230 44 28.0 93% 20%

27% ADVANCED TOPICS

76% INVESTMENTS I

80% INVESTMENTS I

96% INTR ECONOMETRICS

56% FINANCIAL MGMT

53% FUTURES + OPTIONS

31% FIXED INCOME

80% INVESTMENTS I

JUNIPER HALL JH2228 1,355 45 30.1 62% 39%

JUNIPER HALL Total 6,185 242 25.6 76% 29%

71% EXP PHYSICS I

LIVE OAK HALL LO1100 1,036 24 43.2 71% 11%

104% ELEC + MAG LAB

121% ELEC + MAG LAB

96% ELEC + MAG LAB

104% ELEC + MAG LAB

104% ELEC + MAG LAB

96% ELEC + MAG LAB

104% ELEC + MAG LAB

113% ELEC + MAG LAB

108% ELEC + MAG LAB

113% ELEC + MAG LAB

117% ELEC + MAG LAB

LIVE OAK HALL LO1102 1,120 24 46.7 107% 54%

104% GEN PHYS LAB

104% GEN PHYS LAB

96% GEN PHYS LAB

100% GEN PHYS LAB

100% GEN PHYS LAB

100% GEN PHYS LAB

104% GEN PHYS LAB

92% GEN PHYS LAB

LIVE OAK HALL LO1107 1,120 24 46.7 100% 39%

23% FUND OF PALEO LAB

56% FUND OF PALEO

73% WORLD OCEAN LAB

71% WORLD OCEAN LAB

33% FUND OF PALEO LAB

LIVE OAK HALL LO1205 1,120 48 23.3 51% 26%

100% MINERALOGY

100% MINERALOGY LAB

LIVE OAK HALL LO1210 1,120 24 46.7 100% 10%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

79% SED GEOLOGY LAB

67% SP TOP SED PETROL

79% SED GEOLOGY

LIVE OAK HALL LO1212 1,176 24 49.0 75% 14%

46% SP TOP IGN PETROL

50% HYDROGEOLOGY

71% APPLD GEOPHYS LAB

71% APPLIED GEOPHYSIC

67% LIT SEMINAR

42% RESEARCH DESIGN

46% ANLY GEOCHEMISTRY

LIVE OAK HALL LO1221 896 24 37.3 56% 28%

78% MATH BUS APPL LAB

72% COLLEGEALGEBRALAB







94% DEVELOP MATH II


84% PRE-CALCULUS LAB




100% TRIGONOMETRY LAB


88% CALCULUS I LAB

94% CALCULUS I LAB



LIVE OAK HALL LO1317 896 32 28.0 83% 41%

LIVE OAK HALL Total 8,484 224 37.9 81% 28%

108% MARINE BIOLOGY

108% MARINE BIOL LAB

108% FLD STDY-MAR BIO

58% LIFE IN SEA LAB

58% ICHTHYOLOGY LAB

58% ICHTHYOLOGY

54% PHYCOLOGY

63% LIFE IN SEA LAB

54% PHYCOLOGY LAB

46% SEM IN ECOLOGY

54% PHYCOLOGY

58% FLD STDY-ICHTHYLG

MAGNOLIA HALL MG4111 885 24 36.9 69% 56%

83% PRIN MICROBIO LAB




MAGNOLIA HALL MG4207 885 18 49.2 82% 44%





MAGNOLIA HALL MG4209 840 24 35.0 66% 44%

89% MICROBIAL PHYS

89% MICROB PHYS LAB

106% INTRO MICRO LAB

83% INTRO MICRO LAB

MAGNOLIA HALL MG4211 877 18 48.7 92% 36%

100% MED MICROBIOL LAB

100% MED MICROBIOL LAB

MAGNOLIA HALL MG4213 966 18 53.7 100% 21%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

94% ORG CHEM I LAB

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

100% ORG CHEM I LAB

MAGNOLIA HALL MG4305 1,386 18 77.0 99% 44%

100% ORG CHEM II LAB


94% ORG CHEM II LAB







MAGNOLIA HALL MG4306 1,371 18 76.2 99% 49%

83% SYNTHESIS

MAGNOLIA HALL MG4307 1,156 18 64.2 83% 11%

MAGNOLIA HALL Total 8,366 156 53.6 84% 38%

53% TV NEWS TECH

57% ADV TV NEWS

60% WR PROD ED TV NEWS

67% TV NEWS TECH


67% TV NEWS TECH


67% LONG FORM JOUR

MANZANITA HALL MZ150E 800 30 26.7 62% 48%

88% DIR TV DRA/COMEDY

83% SINGLCAM VID PROD

83% FUND AUDIO PROD

71% DIR TV DRA/COMEDY

96% SENIOR FILM PROJ

83% SINGLCAM VID PROD

MANZANITA HALL MZ160A 615 24 25.6 84% 49%

68% ADV FILM SOUND

80% FUND FILM PROD

72% FUND FILM PROD

88% FLM DIR

88% INTRMED FILM PROD

84% FLM DIR

80% FLM DIR

88% INTRMED FILM PROD

MANZANITA HALL MZ170 1,900 25 76.0 81% 73%

40% ADV VID PROD & ED

40% FUND VIDEO PROD

40% FUND VIDEO PROD

40% FUND VIDEO PROD

40% FUND VIDEO PROD



MANZANITA HALL MZ180 2,175 50 43.5 40% 74%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

27% NEW MEDIA

41% WRTG RPT ETHICS II

27% EDITING

39% WRTG RPT ETHICS II

39% GRAPHICS

39% GRAPHICS

51% BRDCAST NEWS PRAC

37% EDITING

39% GRAPHICS

39% RPTG FOR BROADCST

39% PHOTOJOURNALISM

31% MUSLIMS AND MEDIA

MANZANITA HALL MZ211 540 51 10.6 38% 66%

70% FORENSICS


16% PERF ENSEMBLE

104% NARRATIVE IN PERF

100% COMMUNITY PERFORM

100% POETRY IN PERF


84% MULTIMEDIA PROD

88% INTRACTV MULTIMED

72% MULTIMEDIA DESIGN

80% MULTIMEDIA DESIGN

92% COMP FOR MULTIMED

80% COMP FOR MULTIMED


63% DIGITAL EDIT

70% DIGITAL EDIT

67% DIGITAL EDIT

70% ADV FILM EDITING


100% WRTG, RPTG & ETH I


95% WRTG EDIT FOR PR


100% WRIT REP & ETHICS


100% INVEST REPORTING

100% WRTG EDIT FOR PR






97% JUV DELINQUENCY

44% FREEDOM OF PRESS

69% PRIN PUBLIC REL

20% NETWORK PRACTICES

66% SLJ NEWS ENVIRONM

36% INTRO DGTL FLMKNG

71% MASS COMM

43% CLASSIC FLM MKRS

101% FLM AS LITERATURE

69% FORM+IDEA HUMAN

51% HEALTH ADMIN

64% MATH METHODS BUS



DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

80% ARGUMENTATION

80% ARGUMENTATION LAB

83% FUND PUB SPKING

83% FUND PUB SPK LAB

93% POLITICAL RHET

83% ARGUMENTATION


93% FUND PUB SPKING


87% RHET DISCOURSE

83% ARGUMENTATION


70% SI ENGL 113A

60% SI MATH 140


73% WRITING 4 INDUSTRY

60% APP FITNESS LAB

87% FUND PUB SPKING



MANZANITA HALL Total 9,851 410 24.0 64% 51%

112% COMP APP IN CD

119% DIAGNOS IN COM DI

112% AUDITRY HABILTATN

112% PHON ARTIC DIS

100% AUDITRY HABILTATN

73% LANG DISORDERS I

92% VOICE DISORD

MONTEREY HALL MH334 682 26 26.2 103% 29%

83% ADV ARTICPHON DIS

83% SPEECH SCIENCE

86% SPEECH SCIENCE

MONTEREY HALL MH341 510 36 14.2 84% 15%

MONTEREY HALL Total 1,192 62 19.2 96% 22%

95% TRADIT MUSICS US

100% HIP HOP MUSIC

29% AFRICAN MUS ENS

50% DISCOVERY PLAYERS

55% TAIKO DRUM ENSEM

36% DISCOVERY PLAYERS

36% CHOR COND/ARRANG

36% CHOR COND/ARR LAB

43% BEGIN GUITAR

NORDHOFF HALL NH106 840 42 20.0 53% 35%

67% ACTORS AND ACTING



51% ACTING FUNDAMNTLS

53% MOVEMENT I

53% VOICE/SPEECH I

42% DRA LANG ART LAB

42% DRA SEC LANG ART


53% CREATIVE DRAMA

53% CR DRAMA LAB

47% ADVANCED ACTING

NORDHOFF HALL NH214 2,337 45 51.9 57% 63%

NORDHOFF HALL Total 3,177 87 36.5 55% 49%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

78% FRESHMAN SEMINAR








69% AM COLL ST &ENV

OVIATT LIBRARY OV001 1,000 32 31.3 76% 44%

OVIATT LIBRARY Total 1,000 32 31.3 76% 44%

83% MGT TECHNIQUE-TH

113% MAP WORLD THE DRA

50% INT SCE/PROP TECH

83% PRIN STAGE DESIGN

107% CULT/HIST PERSPEC

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TH361 1,704 30 56.8 87% 28%

80% FUND COSTUME TECH

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TH365 1,499 25 60.0 80% 6%

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Total 3,203 55 58.2 86% 17%

56% INJURY PREV CR

32% PREV EVAL CLIN EX

84% P&C ATH INJ LAB

80% P&C ATH INJ LAB

56% THER EX

56% THER EX LAB

56% L E EVAL TECH

56% L E EVAL TECH LAB

80% P&C ATH INJ LAB

84% P&C ATH INJ LAB

REDWOOD HALL RE172 1,060 25 42.4 64% 38%

120% APPL MOT BEH PRIN





REDWOOD HALL RE178 1,420 20 71.0 109% 16%

35% ASSESS TECH PE

38% RES METH + DESIGN

80% QUANT BIOMECH

80% QUANT BIOMECH

35% SEM EXER PHYSIO

95% QUANT BIOMECH

35% ASSESS TECH PE L

REDWOOD HALL RE276 2,050 40 51.3 57% 32%

REDWOOD HALL Total 4,530 85 53.3 68% 28%

96% WORLDARTWESTTRAD

18% EXHIBITION DESIGN

94% WORLDARTASIA

102% WORLDARTASIA

96% WORLDARTASIA

80% PHYSIO OF EXERCIS


100% WORLDARTAOA

55% HIST CHINESE ART



61% HIST GREEK ART


78% STRATG MKG HL DES

SAGEBRUSH HALL SG103 512 49 10.4 79% 69%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

31% UNIVERSITYWRITING

45% SI CH S 113A

18% DEVELOP MATH II

100% WORLDARTAOA

45% RAISE GPA

47% HLTH CARE ETHICS

73% SHORT STORY

69% INTERCULT COM

65% 19&20THCENTURYART

63% HIST BAROQUE ART


59% FINC PLAN + REINB

72% HIST GRAPHIC ARTS

48% RESEARCH DESIGN

53% DEVELOP MATH I

67% DEVELOP MATH II

64% DEVELOP MATH II

60% MATH BUS APPL LAB

53% PLAN PRG REC EXP (L)

72% HLTH INFOR SYSTEM

53% PLAN PROG REC EXP

76% PUB HLTH ISSUES

48% INTRO REC THER

34% ADV NUTR MACRO

79% CALCULUS I

72% PUB HLTH ISSUES


SAGEBRUSH HALL Total 1,951 156 12.5 66% 63%

56% INTRO FOOD SCI L


68% MED NUT THPY II


SEQUOIA HALL SQ112 941 25 37.6 59% 19%

56% ACAD INTERNSHIP

40% FOOD CHEM+ANLY LB

40% FOOD CHEM+ANLY

68% FD PROD DEV & QA

SEQUOIA HALL SQ134 952 25 38.1 51% 18%

68% HIST INTR ARCH I

92% LIGHT & MECH SYS

96% LIGHT & MECH LAB

96% BLDG CDS SYS DET

104% INTERIOR DES II

88% DRAFT INTER DESGN

52% ID MAT STD & SPEC

52% ID STD & SPEC LAB

84% INTRO INTERIOR DS

84% INTRO INT DES LAB

96% BLD CDS SYS LAB

SEQUOIA HALL SQ201 1,445 25 57.8 83% 58%

8% COMP APP ID

36% INTERIOR DESIGN I

96% INTERIOR DSN III

84% HIST INT ARCH II

72% SR COMP ID STUDIO

SEQUOIA HALL SQ215 1,419 25 56.8 59% 47%

64% TEXTILES LAB

80% FASHION INDUSTRY

80% FASHION INDUSTRY

64% TEXTILES LAB

76% TEX PRODUCT LAB

SEQUOIA HALL SQ230 973 25 38.9 73% 23%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

64% APPAREL CONST I

64% APPRL CONST I LAB

96% FASHION VMD LAB

48% APP DES DRAPING

52% APP DES DRAP LAB

84% FASHION MERCH

108% APPAREL ANYLS LAB

76% EVAL AP QUAL LAB

108% APPAREL ANALYSIS

76% ANLYS EVAL AP QUA

104% APPRL + HUMN BEHV

SEQUOIA HALL SQ241 1,769 25 70.8 80% 42%

77% METHODS I LAB

57% CNTP ISS FDS/NUTR

57% CNTP FDS/NUTR LAB

83% METHODS I LAB

90% METHODS I LAB






53% APPAREL DSGN: CAD

53% APPRL DSN:CAD LAB

70% FASHION MRCH LAB

7% COMP APP ID LAB

SEQUOIA HALL SQ246 1,482 30 49.4 61% 60%

SEQUOIA HALL Total 8,981 180 49.9 69% 38%

96% INTRO GIS

96% INTRO GIS LAB

100% MAPS AND GRAPHICS

100% MAPS + GRAPHCS LB

96% INTRO GIS LAB

63% WEBGIS

46% SPECIAL TOPICS

92% THE GEOG CRAFT

100% ADVANCED GIS

100% ADVANCED GIS LAB

83% GIS AUTO CUSTOM

83% GIS AUTO CUST LAB

SIERRA HALL SH107 1,095 24 45.6 88% 40%

100% GEOMORPHOL LAB

29% INTERNSHIP

67% RESEARCH DESIGN

104% GEOMORPHOLOGY

50% FLUVIAL GEOMORPH

50% FLUVIL GEOMR LAB

50% ATMOSPHERE LAB

96% ATMOSPHERE LAB

SIERRA HALL SH164 1,049 24 43.7 68% 32%

100% PHYSICAL GEOG LAB

67% ENVIN HAZARDS LAB




SIERRA HALL SH170 924 24 38.5 92% 27%

67% HUM BEG+SOC ENV

67% SOC WEL POL SER

54% ADV FIELD I

71% ADV PRAC URB FAM

50% FOUND FLD EDU I

71% SWRK THEOR PRA II

67% SWRK THEORY PRA I

SIERRA HALL SH272 397 24 16.5 64% 31%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

42% FIELD WORK

111% URB DESIGN

63% URBAN PROBS SEM

SIERRA HALL SH278B 498 19 26.2 72% 14%

58% MODEL UN I

58% MODEL UN I LAB

91% PRIN METH POL SCI

18% ADV QUANT METH

45% QUAN URB RES METH

88% PRIN METH POL SCI

73% LAB STAT METH

42% QUAN URB RES METH

SIERRA HALL SH303 1,187 33 36.0 59% 33%

96% LAB STAT METH

92% LAB STAT METH

96% PSY RES METH LAB



96% LAB STAT METH

92% LAB STAT METH

96% LAB STAT METH

92% LAB STAT METH

96% LAB STAT METH

92% LAB STAT METH



96% LAB STAT METH

96% LAB STAT METH

96% LAB STAT METH



SIERRA HALL SH341 892 25 35.7 95% 60%

76% ADV INQ NEURO SEM



60% LATENT VAR SEM

96% LAB STAT METH

96% LAB STAT METH

92% LAB STAT METH

92% ADV INQ METH SEM

60% ADV INQ METH SEM

56% ADV INQ NEURO SEM


SIERRA HALL SH374 721 25 28.8 83% 35%

93% PERF CULTSTUD CRT

23% GRAD PROSEM


80% ADV INQ CLIN SEM



73% APPR UNIV WRTNG B


40% ADV FIELD I


67% HUM BEG+SOC ENV

47% FOUND FLD EDU I


53% SWRK THEORY PRA I

40% FOUND FLD EDU I

50% LATENT VAR ANALYS


40% CAREER RESOURCES

SIERRA HALL SH391 614 30 20.5 65% 64%

SIERRA HALL Total 7,377 228 32.4 77% 37%


DRAFT January 2015



Building Room

Room

ASF

#

Seats ASF/ST

%

Seats

%

Hours Title

36% ADAP AQU EXERCISE



88% ADA/THER AQUATICS








WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE AQUATICS BC126 3,040 25 121.6 43% 35%


115% ADP TH EX PR APP







WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE AQUATICS BC140 2,220 20 111.0 117% 26%

WESTERN CENTER FOR ADAPTIVE AQUATICS Total 5,260 45 116.9 70% 31%

Grand Total 172,200 5,089 33.8 76% 38%


DRAFT January 2015

Workshop -- February 20, 2015

California State University Northridge

Teaching, Learning, Office, and Reasearch Space Needs Assessment 1



Dialogues with the Provost:

Teaching, Learning, Office and Research Needs Assessment

February 20th, 2015

Workshop Structure

As part of the Teaching, Learning, Office, and Research Space Needs Assessment conducted at California

State University Northridge, an iteractive workshop was held as part of the University’s regular “Dialogues

with the Provost” event series on February 20th, 2015. During this event, Rickes Associates (RA)

representatives presented summary findings of the study to faculty and staff representatives in order to solicit

reactions and additional input. The presentation of findings and recommendations was followed by table

discussions, in which the participants at each table were assigned one of the four space types analyzed

during this study:

Faculty offices,

Classrooms,

Teaching labs,

Self-instructional computer labs.

Those seated at each table were then asked, in a round robin approach, to address four aspects of their

assigned space type:

Perceptions,

Practices,

Policies, and

Planning processes.

The various report-outs from each table have been synthesized here both by space type and aspect for ease

of reference. Comments made during the opening presentation and discussion have also been summarized

here.

General Observations

The reflexive response is “not enough space.” The reality is that space availability and allocation

varies from college-to-college. Quality varies, as well.

No formal policy for space allocation exists. Instead, there is siloization across all space types.

When there are space issues, the tendency is to attempt to solve it at the department level.

Space sharing is done grudgingly, even within colleges. There is also a tendency to “space bank”

due to a fear around losing space, and then not being able to recover it later if needed again. Lack of

clear policies also influences this behavior.

Even if policies exist, they can be subject to personal interpretations. There need to be clear policies

in place along with opportunities to incentivize as well as the means to consistently enforce the

policies. Policies should also reflect the fact that space needs may vary by department or college.

Space should be used efficiently and effectively, including multi-purpose uses of spaces, where

possible.

Consider a baseline allocation of space by college, with additional space allotted, as needed.

Solutions to space challenges need to be addressed from within the university.

Incremental interventions will help change institutional culture around space, both in terms of policies

as well as in practice.




Faculty Offices

Perceptions

Not enough offices exist

Inconsistent provision of offices, e.g., FERP, PT faculty

Cross-college inequalities

Strong sense of ownership: “once yours, always yours”

Lack of available offices for new faculty hires

Expectation that new FT faculty will receive 110 square foot CSU standard office

PT faculty share/rotate through offices

Availability of PT faculty offices varies by college

FERPs should share office space as transition out

Expectation of continued space from FERPs retirees; no consistent policy

A perk of a low-salaried tenure position is a single office

Staff offices and storage space (not addressed by the study) are also issues

Practices

Maintenance of Square Footage Data Base (SFDB)

Unclear how office space is assigned; windowed offices desirable

Are some (limited) instances of faculty members with two offices

Offices not provided equitably, e.g., FERP, PT faculty

Shared bullpen office suites for PT faculty

SBS, HUM conduct an annual space walk to review space use and needs

Occasionally need to relocate PT faculty to keep departments contiguous

Some look for non-college space for faculty in other buildings

The number of PT faculty sharing office varies by college, and ranges from 2 to12

FERPs share in some colleges, not in others

Retired faculty (vs. emeriti) tend not to keep offices, but difficult to “separate”

Contract allows for keeping office by emeriti if space available

PT offices

o HUM: two desks, two computers, two file cabinets

o BUS: one desk, one computer, one file cabinet; coordinate use by schedule

There is also a permanent single emeriti office with computers, locked storage,

lounge area

o SBS, AMC, HHD: larger offices accommodate more stations

o SM: renovations include locking cabinets so PT can keep belongings on site

To address office shortage:

o repurpose space

o more PT faculty share

o convert closets

o reassign administrative offices

o convert two large offices to three -- but costly

Policies

Need a way to ensure compliance/enforcement of consistent office assignments, but unclear who

should be responsible for doing so

Policies should be written rather than relying on institutional memory

There is no specific policy for providing office space to PT faculty; PT faculty must have a place to

meet with students because they are required to hold office hours (one office hour per class hour)

There is a 110 square foot minimum office size endorsed by Board of Trustees (single office)




Each Dean is responsible for enforcing college policies/practices with assistance from MARs/ADs

depending on college

More centralized university policies could help manage expectations

Planning Process

Metrics and formulas are unclear and/or their application is inconsistent across disciplines

A siloed vs. shared approach to planning exists

Evidence-driven decision-making needed

“Outside the box” vs. “inside the box” thinking

Unable to hire an individual unless space has been identified for that person

Deans/MARs “pick battles;” often bigger fires to deal with

Space figures into ALL aspects of planning

Limits on how funding may be used

Must be nimble to respond to immediate needs; lack of capital resources and spending limit long-

term planning initiatives

Sierra Hall replacement also limits other succeeding moves

Lack of swing space impacts ability to accommodate even smaller building upgrades/projects

Tseng space availability:

o Parking implications for faculty/ staff

o Short-term but no long-term plan.

o No commitment from the state

Teaching Labs

Perceptions

Adequate: equipment, space, laptop usage areas

Inadequate: software, databases, size, interactive video

Wide variations in size and quality of space exists between new and old buildings

Labs are more important for the sciences

Space for arts is not interchangeable

Perception exists that health safety only matters in sciences, but is a concern for Art, as well

Classes can run 8am to 10pm, Monday through Saturday, without time for students to do own work

Practices

College MAR and departments assign spaces

History dictates practices

Negotiate with other colleges/universities for space

Collaboration by necessity

Some rooms kept locked to retain use

Labs require more space per FTE

Time needed to set up and tear down labs

Repurposing is only way to increase space

Labs can change within but not between colleges

Some lab space is online/hybrid

New spaces are always more expensive than initially perceived

Labs are used during unscheduled periods for project work, so need to avoid overscheduling

Policies

No official policies exist for assigning space

History dictates space assignments

Mismatch between policies and practices, which leads to low usage vulnerability




Discipline-specific oversight within some departments

“The way we’ve always done it”

Access varies; locked vs. open spaces

Staffing/supervision policies

ADA/environmental policies

Departments responsible for damage/ loss

Funding responsibility for updates varies

Management of keys/accountability

Need to justify lab ownership

Planning Process

Faculty hiring drives strategies

Thinking constrained based on physical reality

Reactive rather than proactive processes

Grounded in existing space utilization practices

Constrains growth and ability to adapt quickly

Need to repurpose some existing space

Short- and long-term space assessments needed

Space analysis should be ongoing to plan classes more effectively

Technology changes affect space and money: without additional space, it is hard to upgrade, try new

technologies

Virtual labs save space, but there is still an associated cost

Lack of renovated space hinders growth in curriculum and enrollment

Research Space

Perceptions

inadequate in terms of amount and function

Perception of lack of clarity: what is being done, what are the drivers

Lack of initial investment into research on campus

Opportunity to pause now, since limiting numbers of students

Status quo is the most comfortable, but is it the best?

Lacking adequate technical support; e.g., there are multiple users of space

Who “owns” space?

Reticent to give up space or change status quo

Practices

Space factors into the hiring process

Contingent on grant receipt

Need varies across colleges and within disciplines

Existing practices need to be reexamined

Start cannibalizing instructional space to meet need

College-level allocation based on need

Need metrics for PI to maintain usable space if between grants

Need to track space use over time

Lack of space limits ability to grow programs

Not always possible to share space, e.g., hoods, contamination issues, etc.

Policies

Policies should be program-independent while also reflecting institutional culture




Need to be college/department discussions on who is responsible for oversight of research space

o Consider a permanent campus-wide space committee, with faculty, senate, and staff

representatives

Planning Process

Should ask during faculty interviews re: research needs other than space

Any academic planning process needs to include discussion of space; should be built into college

planning process – but a big challenge to change that mindset

Need short- and long-term space allocation goals at university level

External funding and space need to be considered in light of reduced state funding

Self-Instructional Computer Labs

Perceptions

Unfair/uneven allocation of labs now as some departments get them and some don’t; should be

allocated at college and not department level

Departments tend to “own” lab and may not necessarily share with other departments; sharing

across colleges rare

Need to differentiate labs with computers vs. “open computer labs”

Different disciplines have different software requirements, so need to explore ways to virtualize to

laptops; concern that Cloud unable to handle the traffic

Consider eliminating desktop computers to free up desk space

Lab use is unclear; students may be using the spaces to study or socialize

Too many computer labs on campus

If students required to have a computer, would reduce need for labs

Practices

Labs are rarely shared, partially due to dedicated software

Lab “need” largely dictated by software needs; can be addressed to some extent by the Cloud, but

not completely so

Assignment of labs has been historically ad hoc,not strategically planned

Departments share within colleges; cross-college sharing is rare and difficult

New space for labs needs to be repurposed from something else

Students do not have equal access to lab spaces

Labs provide an opportunity for graduate students to get together; informal use of space should not

be perceived as low/no use

Policies

Access to labs unclear: who can access and when; lab hours vary and depend in part upon funding

for lab supervision

No written policy to incentivize release/increase based upon space use

Deans and department chairs oversee use

Planning Process

Lab availability factors into research planning

Proposals for external funding assume availability of space; some space funding could be covered

under indirect costs

Faculty tend to say there is no need, but once funded, there is

Computer labs make up about 5% of total campus square footage; only small gains if space

repurposed, but still useful

Ten Jewel AvenueAttleboro, MA 02703T 617.364.4444www.RickesAssociates.com

Ten Jewel AvenueAttleboro, MA 02703T 617.364.4444www.rickesassociates.com

Date post:	05-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

California State University Northridge · information gained through on-campus interviews, a...

Documents