Post Occupancy Evaluation

1. Recreation and Physical Activity Center (RPAC) Department of REC Sports The Ohio State University Post Occupancy Evaluation City and Regional Planning 735 Professor Jack Nasar August 2008 Developed by James Rader

2. DISCLAIMER This report is part of a class project by a student and should not be interpreted as the official position of the Department of City and Regional Planning , Department of Recreational Sports, or any entity of The Ohio State University. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Michael Mitchell and Don Capps for their time and information on facility maintenance issues. I would like to thank Tracy Willcoxon for providing me with the results of the Energy Sustainability audit. I would also like to thank the students, staff, and faculty who took the time to fill out the survey. Finally, I would have known nothing about Post Occupational Evaluations if it were not for the teachings of Jack Nasar. Thank you professor.

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 Features, Spaces, and User Satisfaction Levels 5 Frequency of use/cost of operations 7 Importance and Opinion of Facility 9 Methods 11 References 15 Appendices 16

4. Some current equipment rooms have a water flood bar on the floor that contains water leaks in the room, but hinders easy access when moving items in equipment rooms. Make sure a freight elevator in addition to personnel elevators are available to easily move equipment between floors when needed. Some existing lighting is difficult for replacing or repair as special lift equipment is required. Take into account energy conservation so that retrofits like the MH to T-5 lamp change is not necessary. Allow for more room to work on steam pipes. If it becomes possible to have a parking garage built closer, do so. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A post occupancy evaluation was done for the Recreation and Physical Activity Center (RPAC) facility at The Ohio State University . The building serves as the main focal point for recreational sports activities for the campus. The evaluation was conducted with a combination of a Facility use survey of 10 people using the facility, questions of maintenance staff, and data obtained from a building energy audit. Overall the determination is that this is a very active and successful facility with some areas that can be improved.. Recommendations Fully implement the cost saving recommendations outlined in the Energy Conservation Measures. Appendix A In future buildings, make sure the equipment rooms are of sufficient size and access, to allow for equipment to be moved in/out efficiently.

5. FEATURES , SPACES AND USER SATISFACTION LEVELS Areas of the facility that showed the most satisfaction by the survey participants were the lighting levels, adequate number of trash receptacles, use of the Buck ID to gain entry, stairs, feeling of safety, and the water fountains.

6. One of the frequently heard complaints deal with the lack of locker space and parking. The locker issue is being address as more day lockers have been installed in various locations to off-set this initial problem. Parking is an issue throughout campus as large numbers of convenient spaces are limited .

7. FREQUENCY OF USE/COST OF OPERATIONS All of the users surveyed used the facility at least 2-3 times per week, with many using it almost everyday. Although some occasionally used the elevator, all used the stairs on a regular basis and many used the lockers. Very few came just to socialize or spend time with friends. This heavy usage of being open 18 hours a day and handling 6500-7000 people per day during most of the year is expensive.

8. Because of the heavy building usage and the amount of natural light that enters the building, cost saving measures are being put in place to have some lights turned off during the day and change some light fixtures from Metal Halide to fluorescents. Insulating heating pipes, installing some heat recovery units and changing shower heads from 2 gal/min. to 1.5 gal/min. will have a payback period of 1.2 years and save $200,000 a year in utility costs. Some pumps and motors are very heavy duty in the facility to handle daily use, but are not operating at their optimum efficiency because they are oversized for the application.

9. IMPORTANCE AND OPINION OF FACILITY When comparing user opinion of an activity and how important they thought it was, the Weight and fitness area was the favorite. Other areas that were well liked and/or important were the locker rooms, food service, walking/jogging track, and the aquatic facilities.

10. Golf is by contrast the one thought most unimportant or disliked by the majority of the survey participants. The kitchen and meetings rooms also scored low on both importance and opinion. Almost all the areas showed a similar rating in importance to the user and how they felt about the sport or activity. The one exception to this was the Squash/Racquetball courts. Users gave the area a high opinion rating but a low importance.

11. METHODS Subjects. I placed survey reports at the Welcome desk of the RPAC facility with (2) REC Sports stands placed next to the BUCK ID scanning/entrance area that requested people participate in the survey. Ten were completed in a 24-hour period. A couple of people listed themselves as both staff and a student on the survey. Also, two maintenance personnel were interviewed that had direct involvement with the building since it had been constructed. The third method was obtaining a copy of the Energy Sustainability audit that was recently done on the RPAC facility.

12. Demographics. The two maintenance personnel both work for OSU Facilities Operations and Development. The ten surveys were completed by people that use the facility, and was comprised of an equal mix of male and female.

13. The majority of those that responded were students (see figure below). Their average age was 25 years old. Note: The two staff members who took the survey also listed themselves as students too. Procedure. The surveys were completed by people who use the facility without any direct interaction by myself. Signs, forms, and pencils were all provided and 24 hours later the results were picked up to be tabulated. A walk through of the building with one of the student managers was completed after clearing above procedure with RPAC management. Also, permission to take pictures within the facility was also granted. Maintenance questions were posed in a modified survey as well as email/phone interview. Data was also obtained from the Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) audit for RPAC.

14. Coding. The coding reflects the questions asked about importance of spaces in the facility. A “Very Important” was giving a weight of 10 and an “Important” a 5. The “Not Important” was given a weight of -1. The “Like” had a weight of 10 and the dislike a -10. The Satisfactions were give scales of “Very Dissatisfied”of 1 to “Very Satisfied” of 6. Analysis. In analyzing the data, percentages were used to determine the importance and satisfaction of the facility to the users. Other data was used that showed the frequency of use of various activities.

15. REFERENCES Dverk, Donna P, 1993. Architectural Programming Information Management for Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hershberger, Robert. 1999. Architectural Programming and Predesign Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill OSU Facilities Operations & Development, 2008. Energy Conservation Measures (Summary & Notes) for RPAC. Image Credits: James Rader

16. APPENDICES

17. APPENDIX A