NBSIR 77-1402

The National Cancer Institute's

Emergency Virus Isolation

Facility: A Case Study for Use

in Developing A Methodology

of Post-Occupancy Evaluation

George E. Turner

Jacqueline Elder

Arthur I. Rubin

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

December 1977

Final Report

Prepared for Engineering Design Branch

Division of Engineering Services

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Md. 20852


Corrections to NBSIR 77-1402

p. 8 Last paragraph should read:

"Finally, once a decision is made concerning the performance

to be measured, a decision is needed concerning how the

measurements are to be made — the research method used.

It is a step by step..."

p. 30 Delete last three lines (they are repeated on page 31).
NBSIR 77-1402

THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE S

EMERGENCY VIRUS ISOLATION

FACILITY: A CASE STUDY FOR USE

IN DEVELOPING A METHODOLOGY

OF POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

George E. Turner

Jacqueline Elder

Arthur I. Rubin

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

December 1 977

Final Report

Prepared for Engineering Design Branch

Division of Engineering Services

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, MD 20852

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 BUILDING EVALUATION - GENERAL 3

2.1 PAST STUDIES OF EVALUATION 4

3.0 A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION 7

4.0 THE EVALUATION APPROACH 10

5.0 THE EVALUATION FOCUS . 13

5.1 THE PROGRAMMING PROCESS 13

5.2 OPERATION OF THE BUILDING 14

6.0 THE EVALUATION METHOD 16

6.1 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENTATION 16

6.2 INTERVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT 16

6.3 INTERVIEW WITH THE MANAGERS AND OPERATORS 17

6.4 CASUAL OBSERVATIONS 17

7.0 FINDINGS 18

7.1 THE PROGRAMMING PROCESS 18

7.1.1 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 18

7.1.2 INTERVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT 20

7.1.3 INTERVIEW WITH THE MANAGERS AND OPERATORS ..... 21

7.2 OPERATION OF THE BUILDING 21

7.2.1 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 22

7.2.2 INTERVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT 22

7.2.3 INTERVIEW WITH THE MANAGERS AND OPERATORS ..... 25

7.3 SUMMARY 26

l
Page Number

8.0 CONCLUSIONS 28

8.1 ASSUMPTIONS 28

8.2 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS 30

8.3 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS 30

8.4 INFORMATION CONSTRAINTS 30

8.5 CONCLUSIONS OF BUILDING 41 STAFF 31

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 32

10.0 REFERENCES 36

APPENDIX A 37

APPENDIX B 56

li
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

While the authors of this report take complete responsibility

for its contents, it is necessary to mention the assistance provided by others during the period of its development.

We are indebted to colleagues in the Architectural Research Section

and the Sensory Environment Section at the National Bureau of

Standards and at the AIA Research Corporation for their stimulating

thoughts and conversations on the topic of building evaluation.

Mr. A1 Perkins and Mr. Charles Blumberg of the Engineering Design Branch

at the National Institutes of Health provided the valuable services

of information input, meeting coordination, and arranging for the use

of materials.

Sanders and Thomas, Inc., the architects of the building that was

evaluated, were extremely gracious with their time and resources

in giving an historical account of their role in the building

des ign.
J
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report represents an early attempt to develop a generalized

model for building evaluation through the analysis of the predesign programming process and the pos t- construction operation

management of a specific building. The report results from a

concern for how buildings meet community and user needs. The

National Endowment for the Arts responded to the concern by

funding the AIA/Research Corporation (AIA/RC) to plan a post

occupancy evaluation project.

After the initial planning, four federal agencies expressed interest

in participating in the project, the National Institutes of Health

(NIH), the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Army Corps of

Engineers (CORPS).

The participation of the above agencies with diverse missions, but

common environmental problems, provided the basis for defining the

project goals. The long range goal of the project is to provide a

mechanism for evaluating buildings as a part of the Federal design

process. The immediate goal is to provide the beginning of a

methodology for post-occupancy evaluation by examining the process

used to design and construct several buildings.

1
The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) was brought into the project

by the AIA/RC to carry out part of the overall evaluation task.

Following meetings between NBS and AIA/RC, it was decided that NBS

would be the primary evaluator for the NIH and GSA buildings.

(The HUD and Army buildings were examined by a private contractor.)

The evaluation reported herein represents the post occupancy

evaluation of the National Cancer Institute's Emergency Virus

Isolation Facility (Building 41). The facility is a laboratory

building designed to provide an experimental research environment capable

of handling all levels of hazardous work related to virus-cancer

research. The three story, 205 room, 41,350 square feet structure

was designed to accommodate a staff of approximately 120 people

comprised of scientists, technicians, and animal handlers [1].

The body of the report contains; discussion of building evaluation in

general; the approach and method used; the findings resulting from

the method; conclusions drawn from the findings; and recommendations

to NIH. It is intended that the evaluation approach and evaluation

method used in this case study serve as input for developing a methodology

for post-occupancy evaluation that will be a compatible part of the

federal design process.

2
2.0 BUILDING EVALUATION - GENERAL

Building evaluation is the process by which some aspect, event,

or relationship over the life of the building (from planning to

demolition) is compared to a normative standard or set of criteria

for the purpose of determining worth or quality. Evaluation

findings are of primary value to those individuals or groups

responsible for the design, management, or regulation of

buildings. In essence, the findings consist of information or

data necessary for effective decision making.

Because decision making goes on throughout the life of a building,

evaluation can include one or all of a full sequence of events

starting with the decision to build a new building; the planning

and design phase; the construction; and the routine operation of

the building [2],

Evaluative analysis differs from traditional scientific analysis

in its emphasis upon producing value judgements that can be used

for corrective action in the conduct of some set of organized

man-building activities. An evaluation is relevant only when

it results in the implementation of its findings: either in

terms of correction and retrofitting or as input to similar processes

to be undertaken by others. Regardless of its use, evaluation can

3
achieve its potential only if the basis on which decisions were

made can be traced [2],

2.1 PAST STUDIES OF EVALUATION

Most of the important evaluation efforts over the past two decades

have been analyses of residential building types and their immediate

surroundings [3] [4] [5] [6], Many of the early evaluation efforts

resulted from the "social consciousness movement" and programs of

the sixties. This movement, and the federal programs which were

developed in response to it, were aimed at bringing minority groups

into the mainstreams of American life. During that time, housing

received substantial Federal funding, with much of the money contingent

on maximum feasible participation in the planning process by the occupants

(users). The user participation requirement resulted in efforts by

designers and others to determine the needs of housing users.

Research concerned with user satisfaction in varied housing environments

became one of the established processes for determining user needs.

User satisfaction studies soon became synonymous with housing evaluation

investigations and eventually became the focus of building evaluation

investigations in general. The dilemma resulting from this evolved

association is aptly stated [7] in the following quotation from an

evaluation of a university laboratory building:

". . . the common assumption in today's evaluation studies is that

the user's satisfaction is to be taken as the standard against which

buildings are measured. We would certainly agree that it is time

the design professions took more notice of the needs of the users,

but it is naive to assume that they are the only people whose satisfaction

4
matters. There are many people who do not actually work inside

a building whose attitude or professional duties will influence

the physical conditions faced by the users. In many institutions

the board of trustees approves appropriations for new buildings;

its opinions may carry some weight. The financial vice president

of a university expects a building to meet certain criteria, which

will not necessarily be compatible with the users' criteria. So

will the insurance agent, the fire marshal, the head of the campus

security staff, the chief of the university maintenance staff, the

head of the institution that lends funds, the members of the community

who must look at the building on their way to work. Now it might

be argued that all these criteria are secondary; what really counts

is the user's satisfaction, and his demands should take precedence.

But the matter is not so simple. One may agree, for example, that

a scientific lab should not be built to suit the security staff, but

if the building is so difficult to police that expensive equipment

keeps disappearing, it is the users who will suffer. If a laboratory

that pleases its users is so expensive that money is drained away from

other parts of the university, how are competing values to be reconciled? Obviously, if the viewpoints conflict, any choice be clear

that the definition of a satisfactory building cannot depend on an examination of the users alone. In any case, decisions made by

other groups will influence the way the occupants can use their

building.

The other aspect of the problem is deciding which users are to be

considered. Even the people who actually work inside the building

have different expectations, and their varying demands may conflict.

The head of a department evaluates his building from a point of

view that may diverge from that of other senior professors. Judging

from our experience, he will be more inclined to worry about changes

in types of experiments and therefore in room use or about facilities

for group activities or storage for shared materials. His viewpoint

will undoubtedly diverge from the viewpoint held by junior professionals,

technical staff, secretaries, and so on. How are these divergent viewpoints to be reconciled? Obviously, if the viewpoints conflict, any

choice among them involves a tradeoff, and an evaluation study ought

at least to be able to say that although scientists found this laboratory

highly successful on these grounds, the same characteristics displeased

the technicians for the following reasons."

Fields, et. al. [2] discuss evaluation in terms of what to evaluate.

According to the authors, there are four different bases for evaluating

buildings. The first is the original purpose and/or any changed

5
purpose for which a building was designed. The second is the process

(the development of an architectural program and the organization

of resources for its accomplishment) by which a building is built.

The third is the building itself. This would include (1) physical

performance of the building parts, (2) the effect of their performance

on human performance, (3) the effect of human performance on the

building parts, and (4) human performance as related to the purposes

or goals. The fourth is the operation and maintenance of buildings and

would include administration, personnel, upkeep, financing, etc.

[ 2 ].

The past studies point out the importance of defining both

the nature and the extent of the evaluation. However, there

remains the need for a convenient means by which an evaluation

effort can be defined. One way would be a method for structuring

evaluation around the characteristics, qualities, etc., that are

essential to its performance.

6
3.0 A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION

In order to develop an effective evaluation methodology, a conceptual

framework is needed. Figure 1 depicts a framework that is recommended,

and was used in this project. It is not only useful in helping

to describe the scope of an evaluation, but also in defining informational requirements for making particular decisions. For example,

if decisions concerning a building subsystem are required, information

is necessary concerning the various categories under the "building in use"

with respect to the subsystem.

Figure 1

\ EVALUATION WITH RESPECT

\to S\ OR 5 \ THE THING BEING EVAL- 3 ,\ DATED < w \ >W

w

06 \\

S

W ^E \\

o §

5 HO \

W

E J

< H

O \\

a: ot > w \\ P o w (i, \

ARCHITECTURAL

PROCESS

BUILDING IN USE

BUILDING

PROGRAMMING

BUILDING

DESIGN

BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION

USER

HEALTH

USER

SAFETY

USER

COMFORT

USER

ACTIVITY

SUPPORT

USER

MANAGEMENT

BUILDING

OPERATION

BUILDING SUBSYSTEMS

USER ACTIVITIES

USER-BUILDING

RELATIONSHIPS

7
As was mentioned earlier [2], there are four generic categories of

issues or conflicts that can serve as the focus of an evaluation.

The framework shown in Figure 1 expands these four categories in

a 27 intercept matrix. Each intercept defines two possible issues

for evaluation; therefore, 54 foci for evaluation are obtained.

For example, a building subsystem such as the plumbing can be evaluated in terms of its maintenance cost in the overall building operation.

Alternatively, building operation can be evaluated in terms of plumbing

maintenance costs. While plumbing maintenance cost is the performance

criteria in both instances, the subjective contents of the evaluations

are completely different.

Once the focus of the evaluation is determined, the next important

issue to be addressed is the identification of the particular performance for which measurements will be made. For example, the building

can be evaluated in terms of its performance with respect to reliability

of parts, serviceability, economics of operation, and/or any of numerous

other characteristics. In much the same way, the requirements of users

can be evaluated in terms of efficiency of task performance, aesthetic

satisfaction, etc. Overall user-building performance can be determined

in terms of fire safety, accident safety, and the consequence of

any of the activities being carried out (or not carried out) within

the building.

Finally, once a decision is made concerning the performance to be

measured, a decision is needed concerning how the measurements are

8
planning that is critical to the success of the evaluation effort.

The systematic and logical approach makes evaluation analogous to

research in general.

9
4.0 EVALUATIVE APPROACH

The long term goal of the research program under which the current

project was undertaken, is the development of a mechanism to evaluate

buildings from the standpoint of user requirements. Consequently, the

focus of attention was one which would apply to the design of all

buildings — the programming process. By understanding how the programming process affects the overall effectiveness of buildings (in

terms of responsiveness to the activities of users) significant progress is possible in two areas.

1. Determining where, when and how in the design process, the

activities of users are influenced.

2. Developing a framework for identifying and developing information from users which can be effectively applied in design.

The building being evaluated in the present study (NIH-Building 41)

was evaluated by comparing its architectural programming and planning

activities with a generally accepted format (normative standard) for

programming and planning (see Appendix A). The reason for the comparative

form of evaluation was to discover discrepancies between the actual

and normative programming formats and see if these discrepancies could

be correlated with problems found in the current operation of the building.

This type of evaluation is predicated on the assumption that the ability

of the building to support all the human and/or machine activities and

10
processes that it houses is directly related to either the presence

or absence of information specifying its performance and the quality

of such information when present. The information discussed is that

included in an architectural or building program or any other method

used for transmitting building performance requirements, criteria and

directives to the designer.

Two levels of analysis were performed, the first one was concerned

with the presence or absence of a category of information. The second

more detailed, analysis was performed to determine the usefulness and

completeness of user-related information, when it was dealt with

in the program.

If a standard program (see Appendix A) can be defined, any particular

program can be compared with it to determine its comprehensiveness.

It can be assumed that those categories which have no information

were either overlooked or not considered to be significant. It can

then be hypothesized that building performance with respect to the

missing category will probably be deficient in some way. This hypothesis

can then be tested with respect to the operation of the building.

However, even when a general topic (information category) has been

covered in a program, little assurance exists that the information

needed by the architect will be made available in a useful form.

Consequently, the next research concern was to evaluate the quality

and form of the information employed in the program, to determine

11
whether they could be later related to the problems found in the building.

If this connection could be made, then suggestions could be made for

improved procedures to develop user information.

12
5.0 EVALUATIVE FOCUS

The evaluation consisted of two interrelated activities — one

focusing on the programming process, and the other on the operation

of the building.

5.1 THE PROGRAMMING PROCESS

The activities performed initially in this evaluation were directed

toward determining the programming process employed for Building 41

and comparing this process with a "standard program" mentioned earlier.

The informational categories appearing in the standard program were

then compared with those same categories in the actual Program of

Requirements ( POR)

.

The design process used for Building 41 was then examined to identify

user-related issues — that is, to establish relationships between design

activities (decisions) and building user requirements.

Among the issues addressed were:

Information Issues

- Sources of information (e.g., people, reference works)

- Means of developing information (e.g., who asks questions, how?)

- Quantities and forms of information needed

- Identification of necessary user data

13
Design Process Issues

- Location in the process where user data is needed

- Mechanisms necessary to effectively insert user data

into the process

- Modification of the design process (if needed) to avoid and/or

identify and solve user problems

- Development of an effective feedback loop into the process —

using operational data.

5 .2 OPERATION OF THE BUILDING

The next task was to analyze the building from the standpoint of

occupant activities to identify user problems. The problems were

then examined to determine how they were related to the information

developed in the design program. Examples of the issues explored are

provided below:

The original design assumptions

- Building 41 will be used primarily in a maximum safety mode

(high risk)

- Safety problems can be solved by proper building and engineering

des ign

- Safety procedures will not adversely effect user activities

- The research to be conducted in the building is challenging

and has a reasonable expectation of being very important

14
- The functions to be performed by the building are not likely

to be changed

User related problems

- User safety in terms of biological hazards to researchers and

other users of the building

- User activity support in terms of sound and noise, accessibility

and dimensional requirements

- User management in terms of required procedures and space

allocation

- Building operation in terms of subsystem reliability, subsystem

maintainability, and subsystem durability

The findings from the evaluation will address the issues of the program

ming process and assumptions and problems related to the building

operation

.

15
6.0

EVALUATION METHOD

The evaluation method consisted of

(a) An historical analysis of the documentation of the architectural programming and planning phase of the building;

(b) Interviews with the individuals responsible for the design

of the building;

(c) Interviews with the individuals responsible for managing

the operation of the building; and

(d) Informal observations in and around the building.

6.1 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTATION

The historical analysis of the programming documentation included

examination of; correspondence prior to the program; the program of

requirements produced by the programming consultants; and the diagrammatic report and meeting notes of the architects. These documents

are all in the Building 41 file at the Engineering Design Branch, NIH.

6.2 INTERVIEW WITH THE ARCHITECT

A one day interview with the building architects was held at their

offices. The project leader and principal-in-charge reported on

the architectural phase of the project. The questions asked by the project

interviewers concerned the usefulness of the program document in making

design decisions. The remainder of the interview was a free flowing discussion

of the architects' memories of the project.

16
Another day was spent walking through the building with a member of the

architectural team responsible for its design. Neither the discussion

nor the route through the building was formally structured, but rather,

an informal observation and walk through was employed. In general, the

discussion related to the planning and design process for the building

and the current in-use operation of the building as it was observed.

6.3 INTERVIEW WITH MANAGERS AND OPERATORS

The interviews with the managers and operators of the building included

meetings with: the individuals responsible for safety policy and

practices of the professional staff; the administrator in charge of

the support personnel; and the operator and monitor of the building

systems. Each interview lasted about a half an hour. Questions covered

the interviewee's major responsibilities and the ways, if any, the

building conflicted with them. In addition, the interviewee was asked

how the building could better serve his/her needs and if this information

was elicited at the architectural programming phase.

6 .4 CASUAL OBSERVATIONS

Walks through and around the building were made on two separate

occasions. The physical characteristics of the building and

the number and type of staff were observed. Photographs were taken

during these visits and are shown in Appendix B.

17
7.0

FINDINGS

7.1 THE PROGRAMMING PROCESS

The standard information categories as developed in the Standard

Program (Appendix A) were compared with two documents. The first

was the "Program of Requirements (POR) for Emergency Virus Isolation

Facility of the National Cancer Institute", prepared by Pitman-Moore

Division of the Dow Chemical Company, the programming consultants for the

project. The second document was the "Diagrammatic Report for Emergency

Isolation Virus Facility of the National Cancer Institute." It was prepared

by Sanders and Thomas, Inc. the architects-engineers of the building.

7.1.1 Historical Analysis

The program of requirements contained the information in Table 1.

TABLE 1

1 Introduction Statements concerning the need for and

objectives of the facility.

2 Description of A description of the programs or major activities to be housed.

3 Space Directive A listing of square footages required by the

number of rooms, types of rooms, with respect

to each of the programs or major activities.

4 Design Criteria General qualitative statements concerning

the characteristics of the building and a more

specific narrative dealing with the requirements of the building parts.

5 Appendix A site location plan and a glossary of terms.

18
The Diagrammatic Report consisted of the information in Table 2.

TABLE 2

1 Scope of Project What the project would consist of

2 Project Background Relationship to the POR

3 Environmental Impact Relocation of personnel at NIH

4 Site Approval Data approved

5 Siting Arrangement Building siting, parking, future

expansion, service facilities, and

roads are included

6 Design Criteria General, architectural, structural,

mechanical, plumbing, electrical,

and safety criteria are covered

7 Materials, Equipment,

and Systems

Areas included are general, architectural,

structural, mechanical, plumbing, and

e lectr ica 1

8 Funding and Control

Estimate

Budget considerations

9 Schedule Completion dates

10 Appendix Minutes and correspondence from conferences

and field trips.

19
Comparisons with the Standard revealed six missing information

categories. The six missing categories were: 1) the organization

structure and subgoals of the operations and processes housed;

2) requirements or criteria for furnishings and equipment; 3) information

on occupant flow; 4) requirements for information flow; 5) particular

requirements concerning spatial configurations and relationships;

and 6) how the facility will be managed or operated. Two other

categories had partially missing information: 1) requirements or

criteria for the acoustical environment; and 2) requirements based

on the climatic conditions of the Bethesda, Maryland area.

7.1.2 Interview with the Architect

According to the architect, the POR did not provide the information

necessary to start the design of the building. The POR indicated

what the client wanted, but , not in a form useful to the architect.

For example, the POR described laboratory procedures, but not in

design or building performance terms. In other instances, detailed

information was provided and was felt to be too restrictive.

Categories where information was considered insufficient or restrictive

are

*The activities to be performed in given spaces

Configuration of equipment in space

*How furnishings should be placed in spaces

*Re lationships of activities, spaces, equipment, people to one another.

20
Instead of serving the intended purpose, the POR was used as a

starting point for developing the Diagrammatic Report. The Report

(together with accompanying illustrations) represented a preliminary

design for the facility, and specific criteria for design.

7.1.3 Interview With the Managers and Operators

•The discussions with the managers and operators of the building

resulted in findings that were primarily concerned with the

lack of opportunity for managers and operators to participate effectively

in the programming process. It was felt that the recommendations of

managers and operators should not only be elicited, but to also be

given serious consideration in the renovation of existing buildings and

the planning of new ones.

They also felt that there should be a better way of predicting or

planning for the continual changing and expanding needs for laboratory

equipment. In addition, managers and operators believed that they should

have safety training or instruction concerning biohazards research.

7.2 OPERATION OF THE BUILDING

Building 41 was planned as a center for research devoted primarily to

searching for a link between viruses and human cancer. When the

building was being designed, this approach appeared to be a highly

promising one which had to be pursued under conditions which minimized

safety hazards to the researchers, and the community at large. Safety

was the overriding concern in the anticipated operation of the building.

21
7.2.1 Historical Analysis

The two major goals specified for the building by the programmers

were

*A major emphasis on safety from biohazards while employing

the best current practice in fire and safety protection in

the building and research procedures.

^Continuing research and development to improve the methods for

control and containment of biohazards, and to insure continued

updating of the facility.

The primary objective of the building was apparently met — the

safety design was appropriate, as evidenced by the lack of problems

encountered by the staff and the surrounding community since the

building has been in operation. However, while the building is believed

to be capable of housing research at all risk levels (minimal,

low, moderate, high), it has never had to perform at the highest

level. Therefore, safety at the highest risk level is not a

proven fact, but rather conjecture based on professional judgment.

Nevertheless, the building has proven to be an effective model

for the design of other laboratories, where comparable types of

research is conducted.

7.2.2 Interview With the Architect

While the architect has no responsibility for the day-to-day operation

of the building, a walk through the building was helpful in identifying

22
operational characteristics having a relationship to the building

design. The most salient issues addressed are described in tabular

form in Table 3.

23
TABLE 3

Issue Response

Laboratory

Equipment

There was a good deal of equipment stored in corridors and in

niches along corridors. The architect stated that he neither

selected equipment nor sized and designed the laboratories. He

felt that some of these additional and changing equipment needs

could have been anticipated and designed for.

Laboratory

Design

The laboratories were designed on a 5 foot and 10 foot modules

with multiple mechanical service locations. It was not evident

that the flexibility designed into the spaces had ever been taken

advantage of. The spaces and the multiple service locations

appeared to be the same as at the time that they were installed.

New laboratory spaces are being added to the building. The architects response to them was that they appear more attractive

because of the light colors on the walls and furniture. (Another

architect is designing the new spaces)

Surfaces The many cracks in the concrete floors could not be explained

by the architect. He felt that an adequate number of expansion

joints had been designed. In any event, there had never been

any feedback from the client concerning this problem.

Based on experience with previous laboratory building design,

the architects specified sealants and epoxy paint that was ex- pected to be very reliable. From all indications, both the sealed

joints and the epoxy surfaces have held up well.

Maintenance According to the architect, the dirt and trash observed in the

light fixtures in the labs not only reduce the light level but

also indicate a less-than-designed-for maintenance program. (The

light fixtures are sealed from the lab side and must be maintained

from the mechanical floor above)

Emergency shower floor drains appeared dirty and not well maintained.

The architect pointed out that emergency shower floor drains are

no longer being installed in laboratory buildings because they

are culture producing beds.

Ventilation

System

The selection and specification of a particular venturi valve

in the ventilation system along with possible leaks is believed

to have been the cause of excessive noise in the lab spaces. It was observed that all of the original venturi valves are systematically being replaced.

Waste Treatment System

The design for the bio-waste treatment system remains current with

similar systems being designed today.

Landscaping The architects developed a large landscaping program for the building.

It was observed that while the program was implemented, the planting

is not being well maintained.
7.2.3 Interview With the Managers and Operators

Two types of issues were evident from the discussion with those

managing and operating the building. One issue area could be termed

design related, while the other appears to be associated with

procedural and administrative factors.

7. 2. 3.1 Administrative/ Procedural Problems

Various problems were identified which may be attributed to the general

administration of the building. There was a lack of agreement as to who

is responsible for managing the building, and it was pointed out that

research space assignments are made in accordance with program needs

which are not always synonymous with levels of risk. For example, high

risk laboratory areas do not necessarily house high risk activities.

Problems attributable to procedures were focused on the frequent long delays

associated with equipment installation and/or repair—impairing research

effectiveness. In addition, the requirement to shower and change clothes

when leaving and entering work areas was often perceived as unnecessary by

many staff members (This procedure has since been modified).

7. 2. 3.

2

Design-Related Problems

A variety of problems were identified which may be attributable

to the features, location and usage of the building. The problems

were no-t related to health risks, but rather were focused on the

characteristics and quality of the physical surroundings which in

turn led to feelings of isolation on the one hand, and discomfort on

the other.

25
With respect to space, general cleaning in the laboratory suites

is hampered by excesses of equipment in the laboratories and corridors.

Also, insufficient locker space was set aside for a capacity work force

to store clothing and other personal articles for clothing changes

necessary when entering and leaving the high risk areas.

7 .3 SUMMARY

Occupants of Building 41 commonly feel isolated from their colleagues

in the same building, and more so from activities going on elsewhere on the NIH site.

With respect to those who share occupancy in the building, each

laboratory (for safety purposes) functions as a virtual isolation

chamber. The building design makes it very difficult for one

researcher to casually visit a colleague. The building does not

contain many common spaces which might be used as a place to meet

and discuss matters of mutual concern. A "sense of community"

within the building therefore does not exist. Furthermore, the

building itself is located away from the other primary research

facilities of NIH. As a result, it is difficult for occupants

of Building 41 to attend seminars, lectures and other activities

frequently occurring at the NIH complex.

The design of the building for maximum safety resulted in a very

"hard" environment — acoustically and visually. The hard surfaces,

desirable for cleaning, resulted in major noise problems. One

26
factor contributing to the undesirable noise situation (also a

safety factor) was the number of hourly air changes — 48. As a

result, the working environment consisted of high levels of fan,

air conditioning and other equipment noise reflected throughout the

building by the hard surfaces. The interior of the building had many

of the qualities of a reverberation room (e.g., the sound decayed quite

slowly) thereby creating a very unsatisfactory working space. The grey

and green institutional colors applied to the hard glossy surfaces made

the building seem cold and sterile. The collection of debris in the

sealed light fixtures in the laboratories, and the aging and wear of

equipment and furniture contribute the image of an undesirable

environment

.

27
8.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis of the programming documents, the greatest concern

addressed was the safety to researchers and the community at large.

The building is considered to be highly successful with respect to

safety from biohazards. On the other hand the problems with the building

can be traced to basic assumptions, planning constraints, design

constraints, and the absence of important information in the program.

The programs of research conducted in Building 41, and the safety

precautions followed, differ considerably from those envisaged when

the building was designed. A number of factors have influenced this outcome .

8.1 ASSUMPTIONS

-The primary activity conducted in the building would be research

on a possible link between viruses and human cancer — a high risk

level program.

-While viral research played an important role during the early

years of the facility, more recently other programs have been housed

in Building 41. Later programs did not pose equipment risks — nor

were their potential payoffs as exciting.

-The safety problem is one amendable to hardware solutions primarily

with procedural factors playing a secondary role.

28
-The discussion with NIH operations personnel indicated that

"the proficiency of the individual" in following appropriate procedures

was the key to safety. Following in priority order was the primary

containment equipment (laboratory equipment) — with the characteristics

of the building playing largely a backup and "insurance" function. They

emphasized the need for formal courses and training aids as a critical

safety measure — especially for researchers newly introduced to performing hazardous research. Carelessness was a primary problem to be

overcome

.

While the building (and operating systems) met the safety design goals for

high risk research it is unclear whether lower risk research (levels

1, 2, 3) is optimally performed in the building as it is now used.

That is, if it were known earlier that many spaces in the facility

would house research at a variety of risk levels, would the same

design (building, equipment and subsystems) have been employed?

-Once the safety of the building (and its occupants) is assured —

no major problems are anticipated which would imperil the success of a

research program.

-There have been problems associated with the environmental quality

provided by the building — and the safety procedures instituted. We

noted earlier that there were complaints due to the noise and illumination

characteristics of the building, the perceived isolation of the occupants

and the procedures that had to be followed to ensure safety.

29
8 .

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Two factors were of predominant importance in the design of the building —

time and budget. While all building design is responsive to these

factors, they were of particular importance in the present instance.

The architect had only 16 weeks to prepare the required construction

documents for a building with requirements that were unique in many

ways. Furthermore, the budget was the continual yardstick employed

to evaluate the extent of the work.

8.3 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

The architect's freedom to plan and design the building was restricted

in several ways. Consultants supplied the design of individual laboratories,

and the configuration of equipment. The client selected the furniture,

equipment, and the site upon which the building was to be constructed.

The Program of Requirements (POR) was presented to the architects by the

National Cancer Institute as the formal document representing their

needs and requirements in a new laboratory building.

8.4 INFORMATION CONSTRAINTS

The problems identified as "man/building" and human problems (e.g.,

sense of isolation) suggest that the procedures used to develop the

initial design information should be examined. For example, user requirements were identified by researchers who were at the time working in

an entirely different environment from the one they would be occupying

30
initial design information should be examined. For example, user requirements were identified by researchers who were at the time working in

an entirely different environment from the one they would be occupying

later. Their primary goal was to ensure that the planned research

could be performed safely. There was no reason for them to anticipate

that the new environment could be a relatively "hostile" one. On the other

hand, if the environment being designed were examined by someone with

experience with isolated facilities (e.g., radar stations in Alaska;

underground weapons and communications centers), the problems later

encountered might have been anticipated. That is, a careful examination

of the working space and procedural constraints placed on those working

in the building would have highlighted the isolation problem and even

the psychophysical ones (noise and illumination).

8 .5 CONCLUSIONS OF BUILDING 41 STAFF

: i

: . } nt}.\ \ f; | ; f • f.

•'

Not surprisingly, the conclusions of the operators and managers interviewed,

focused on operational and management issues -- not design factors. They

are summarized below:

*There should be a better way of predicting or anticipating equipment

needs in laboratory buildings.

*The building operators and maintainers should be more familiar with

the research projects in the building to anticipate building system or

subsystem impacts.

*The building operators and maintainers should have safety training

or knowledge concerning biohazards research.

31
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Information concerning organization structure and facility operation

was commonly touched on during interviews, yet, was not given sufficient

attention in the design program. The lack of acoustical criteria for

the research environment has evidently resulted in costly renovations.

Similarly, the absence of criteria for furnishings, equipment, and

laboratory room geometry seems to have resulted in equipment crowding

and continual laboratory rearranging. The topics of occupant flow,

information flow, and climatic conditions were not touched on in the

interviews

It is clear that certain of the missing information categories

relate to problem areas identified in the interviews. Other problem

areas related to categories where information was available but inadequate.

The conclusion drawn is that missing programmatic information is

an important issue in building design or evaluation, and equally important

is the quality of the information present. The interview with the architects

pointed out that merely stating what is expected or required in a

building will not guarantee an adequate solution in the final construction.

For information to have an impact on a design of a building, it must

both be present, and in a form that can be readily incorporated in

the design process. Perhaps a key issue is the need to develop a process

which will enable clients, users and architects to be more explicit

in stating (and meeting) user requirements.

32
The two most salient points made during the walk-through of the

building with the architect were; (1) the flexibility that the architect

designed for is not in evidence of having been needed; and (2) building

maintenance played a leading role in certain design decisions. This

suggests that; (1) a more detailed understanding of the use of the

term "flexible space" is needed by the various participants in the

planning process; and (2) unless there is an agreement on the part

of both designers and building operators as to the extent of maintenance

or any other issue in an organizations' procedures, faulty or wrong

decisions can be made. Therefore, both the quantity and quality of

the programatic information are essential to design decisions.

Because numerous buildings constitute the large volumes of space

required to house the activities of NIH it is important that these

buildings are both designed and managed in such a way as to most

effectively support their enclosed operations. While it is not

currently possible to accurately correlate workdays lost, task

efficiency, etc. with building design, it has been well established

that buildings do affect the activities of their occupants.

In order that new and existing buildings be designed and operated

to respond to the activities housed, criteria must be established

in terms of both human habitability and building performance.

The effort of this evaluation has been to identify those categories in

which design criteria are required and to use them as the basis of

analysis of a building in operation.

33

f
The evaluative process used for the Building 41 could easily be

expanded and developed as a general building evaluation methodology.

In other words, the process of evaluation can be standardized even

though the performance being judged will vary with respect to design

criteria. Therefore, it is recommended that work toward the

development of a general methodology be continued.

In addition, consideration of an evaluation methodology as part of

a total project analysis package is recommended. Because evaluation

is an integral part of a process that includes feasibility analysis,

economic analysis, site analysis, and operation and building programming,

it must be related to all parts. The objective of a project analysis

package would be to develop a process model for describing the

relationships between parts and the resources and constraints of the context.

To meet the objective the following approaches should be taken:

1. A continuation of the interviews with user groups in Building 41 to

provide guidelines for the quality of the information necessary in

program documents.

2. Exploration of approaches to improve the interaction between

architects, users and clients that will result in identifying

all information necessary to ensure a responsiveness to the needs

of all building users.

3. Development of a building programming approach at NIH that links user

requirements to all phases of the architectural process over time.

34
4. Development of a feedback mechanism so that information concerning

building operation can be incorporated in new building design

and the operation of existing buildings.

These approaches make it possible to systematically

the objective. All four comprise a total research

any one can be developed independent of the others.

progress toward

project, however,

35
10 . REFERENCES

[1] Sanders and Thomas, Inc. "Project Report: Emergency Virus

Isolation Facility." Pottstown, Pa." STV Incorporated, n.d.

[2] Fields, Herman H. and others. Evaluation of Hospital Design - A Holistic Approach . Boston, Mass.: Tufts-New England Medical

Center, 1971.

[3] Fried, Marc and Gleicher, P. " Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction in an Urban Slum . " Journal of the American Institute of

Planners , XXVII (November 1961), 4.

[4] Cooper, Clare. Some Social Implications of House and Site Plan at

Easter Hill Village: A Case Study . Berkeley, Calif.: University

of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 1965.

[5] Van der Ryn, S. and Silverstein, M. Dorms at Berkeley: An Environmental Analysis. New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories,

1967.

[6] Brolin, Brent C. and Zeisel, John. "Massing Housing: Social Research and Design." The Architectural Forum , July /August, 1968,

pp. 66-71.

[7] Gutman, Robert and Westergaard, Barbara. "Building Evaluation,

User Satisfaction, and Design." Designing for Human Behavior:

Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences . Edited by Jon Lang,

Charles Burnette, Walter Moleski, and David Vachon. Stroudsburg,

Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., 1974.

36
APPENDIX A

Defining the Standard Program

As a process, architectural programming is the gathering, analyzing,

evaluating, organizing, and presenting of information necessary for

building design [1], The program, as a product, is a device for

transmitting specific types and categories of information, primarily

to the building designer. The program for a specific building can

be evaluated with respect to the comprehensiveness of its information

content if a standard for information comprehensiveness can be defined.

In order to begin to define the standard, a review of the programming

literature was undertaken. From the review, it was determined that

the publications on the subject are either general or specific with

respect to a building type. Those that are general for all buildings

assume that, at a certain level of categorizing, the required information

classes are the same regardless of what activity the building houses.

The literature dealing with specific building types tends to be detailed

in the area of the functions of activity housed.

Obviously, the two approaches are evidence of the differing concerns and

audiences involved. However, both tend to be similar at certain levels

of information categories and the only real difference is in terms

of the level being discussed. The two primary information categories

common to all of the literature are; (1) information concerning the

operations and processes housed; and (2) information concerning the

building or its parts. These primary categories are supported by

37
secondary categories dealing with either the context or the constraints

by which they are to be considered.

For illustrative purposes, several examples of program information

content are presented in Figures 1A to 8A. Additional examples may

be found in the bibliographic citations. It is important to mention

that the specific building type examples are for hospitals or health

facilities rather than research laboratories. The literature search

did not reveal publications dealing specifically with programming or

planning research laboratory buildings. Instead, they occurred as

spaces within either medical or education buildings. The literature

on medical and health facilities related to the operations in Building

41 and was therefore selected for consideration.

On the following three pages, the two general information categories

mentioned earlier and the programming literature reviewed are synthesized into first level or general information categories that represent

a standard program format.

Additional levels of breakdown of each of the categories gives increasingly

more specificity to the information. However, since the interviews and

observations are designed to elicit only general information, it was

not deemed necessary to reduce the categories any further.

The information groupings as given represent a standard for the types

of information necessary in the design of either a laboratory or health

service building.

38
INFORMATION CATEGORIES REPRESENTING A STANDARD PROGRAM FORMAT

1.0 INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES HOUSED .

1.1 Organizational goals

1.2 Occupant categories

1.3 Occupant activities

1.4 Machine operations

2.0 INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTEXT OR CONSTRAINTS OF THE OPERATIONS

AND PROCESSES

2.1 Organizational structure and subgoals

2.2 Role of occupant categories within organization structure

2.3 Types of activities performed by occupant categories

2.4 Numbers of occupants per category

2.3

Nature of various occupant activities

2.6 Role of the activities within the organization structure

2.7 Number and types of people per activity

2.8 Air, radiant, and sonic environment

2.9 Furnishings and equipment

2.10 Power and community requirements

2.11 Spatial requirements and relationships

2.12 Occupant flow

2.13 Material and equipment flow

2.14 Information flow

2.15 Similar operation and process critical issues

2.16 Convenience, health, and/or safety requirements or standards

2.17 Codes and land use restrictions

39
2.18 Area and regional integration requirements

2.19 Growth and change requirements

3.0 INFORMATION CONCERNING THE BUILDING OR ITS PARTS

3.1 Total Building

3.2 Structure

3.3 Exterior and interior enclosures

3.4 Interior spaces

3.5 Hardware and special equipment

3.6 Plumbing and HVAC equipment

3.7 Equipment and furnishings

3.8 Electrical and communications equipment

4.0 INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTEXT OR CONSTRAINTS OF THE BUILDING

OR ITS PARTS

4.1 The clients or architects design philosophy

4.2 Budget requirements

4.3 Codes and land use restrictions

4.4 Building standards

4.5 Topography and climate

4.6 Orientation and adjacencies

4.7 Transportation and utilities interface

4.8 Area and regional integration

4.9 Spatial configurations and relationships

4.10 Similar building or parts types critical issues

4.11 Alteration expectancies

4.12 Design and construction scheduling

4.13 Facility operation

40
Figures 1A to 8A are examples of program information categories commonly

found in the literature.

SOURCE

:

Figure 1A. OPERATION AND BUILDING PROGRAMMING

AIA HANDBOOK OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE, CHAPTER 20, 1963.

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMING

Functional Requirements

Space Requirements

Equipment and Furnishings

Personnel Requirements

Financing Requirements

Organizational Requirements

Maintenance Requirements

BUILDING PROGRAMMING

Basic Philosophy

Site and Climatic Requirements

Space Requirements and Relationships

Occupancy Requirements

Bud geting

Financing

Design and Construction Scheduling

41
Figure 2A. INFORMATION OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM.

SOURCE: HARRIGAN AND WARD

FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Facility Units

User Categories

Furnishing Allocations

Facility Management Plan

Alteration Expectancies

User Activity Descriptions

SOCIOCULTURAL CHARACTER

Cultural Phenomena

Social Organization

Effects of Non-implementation

USER ACTIVITY SUPPORT

Furnishings and Hardware Design Criteria

Furnishings, Hardware, and User Placement

Ambient Environmental Criteria

Convenience, Safety, and Security

SURFACES

User Effects Possibilities

Color, Texture, and Pattern

Durability and Maintainability

42
CIRCULATION

Information Flow

User Flow

Equipment and Material Flow

Movement Priorities

Circulation Pattern Summary

SPATIAL CONFIGURATIONS AND ARRANGEMENTS

Space Requirements

Unit Adjacencies

Candidate Spatial Configurations and

Arrangements

LOCATION

Area and Regional Integration

Facility Orientations and Adjacencies

Transportation Interface

43
Figure 3A. ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING.

SOURCE: ARCHITECTURAL LICENSE SEMINARS, 1974.

SITE CONDITIONS

Climate

Topography and Drainage

Geology and Soils

SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ARCHITECTURAL

PROGRAMMING

Introduction

Territoriality and Dominance

Spatial Considerations

Perception and Cognition

Groups and Roles

ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPTS

Introduction

Organizational Values

Organization and Design

Organizational Factors

Organizational Patterns

44
FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF

BUILDING TYPES

Introduction

Housing

Schools

Churches

Hospitals

Shopping Centers

Hotels

Theaters

Parking Facilities

PROGRAMMING AND BASIC SPACE DETERMINATIONS

Introduction

The Purpose of Programming

The Programming Process

Program Instrument

Determination of Space Needs

Estimating Space Needs

SCHEDULING OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Design Scheduling

Construction Scheduling

45
CODES AND LAND USE RESTRICTIONS

Zoning Ordinances

Building Related Codes

Fire Zones

Occupancy

Types of Construction

Fire Resistance

Fire Safety

Code Requirements

Legal Restrictions on Land Use

BUDGET ANALYSIS AND COST ESTIMATING

Project Budget Analysis

Estimating Construction Costs

Variable Cost Influences

General Office Costs

Project Overhead Costs

46
Figure 4A. TYPICAL TRADITION ARCHITECTURAL FACT

CATEGORIES OF PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS. SOURCE:

WHITE, 1972.

SIMILAR PROJECTS AND CRITICAL ISSUES

CLIENT

FINANACIAL

BUILDING CODES

PLANNING BY RELATED ORGANIZATIONS

FUNCTION

SITE

CLIMATE

GROWTH AND CHANGE

47
Figure 5A. THE ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM. SOURCE: MANUAL OF HOSPITAL

PLANNING PROCEDURES, 1959.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT AND OF THE PLANNING TEAM

A STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM

SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY NEEDS, THE FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM AND THE LONG-RANGE PLAN

OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED HOSPITAL ORGANIZATION (IF NOT DETAILED IN THE FUNCTIONAL

PROGRAM)

A PROJECT BUDGET, BOTH IN DOLLARS AND IN GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR THE HOSPITAL

STATEMENT OF PLANNING PROCEDURES AND A TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE

INFORMATION ON THE BUILDING SITE AND ITS IMPROVEMENTS

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS

THE DETAILED BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HOSPITAL

Inpatient services

Patient units, according to medical specialities, obstetrical an

nursery, pediatric, medical, surgical, psychiatric Patient units,

according to acuity levels: intensive care, self-help care, chronic

care, convalescent care

Outpatient services

Emergency services

Outpatient clinics, according to medical specialities and subspecialities

including dental service

Home care and community health programs

Employee health services

48
Adjunct medical services

Operative treatment: operating, anesthesia, recovery, delivery,

labor, cystoscopy shock treatment rooms

Radiological services: x-ray diagnosis and therapy, radioisotopes,

teletherapy

Clincial laboratories: pathology, biochemistry, serology, blood

bank, basal metabolism, electrocardiography, electroencephalograph,

morgue, autopsy

Rehabilitative therapy: physical, occupational, diversional

Paramedical services

Administrative services: administration of all activities,

reception and information, admitting, cashier and credit,

accounting, purchasing, personnel, public relations

Operational services: communications, receiving and dispatching

of supplies, central stores, central sterile supply, laundry,

housekeeping, plant engineering and maintenance, plant security

Specialized services; dietary, pharmacy, medical records, library,

social services, chaplaincy, personal services as barber and beauty

shop

Housing and related facilities not in the main building

Facilities for education and its housing

SPECIFICATION OF MATERIALS

MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS

EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

49
Figure 6A. FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. SOURCE: HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT

AND EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES

OPERATIONS AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS

LOCATION, COMMUNICATION, AND TRAFFIC

COMPONENTS, CONFIGURATIONS, AND AREA

CONSIDERATIONS

FIXED EQUIPMENT AND MECHANICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

WORKLOAD AND WORKFLOW CONSIDERATIONS

STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS

50
Figure 7A. MAIN DETERMINANTS OF THE SIZE AND CHARACTER

OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES. SOURCE: WHEELER, 1964

HOSPITAL BEDS

OPERATING SUITE

DELIVERY SUITE

EMERGENCY SUITE

ADJUNCT DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT FACILITIES

THE SERVICES DEPARTMENTS

ADMINISTRATION

AMBULANT PATIENT SERVICES

HOUSING FOR STAFF

OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES

ESTIMATED PERSONNEL

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT

SITE REQUIREMENTS

51
Figure 8A. PLANNING PROCESS CHECKLIST.

SOURCE: ALLEN AND KAROLYI, 1976.

PREPLANNING SCHEDULE

DETERMINATION OF COMMUNITY NEED FOR HEALTH CARE

EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS (INCLUDING SEISMIC

HAZARDS AND OTHER POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS).

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF SERVICE AREA.

STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES RELATED TO COMMUNITY

NEEDS.

CAPITAL FINANCING PLAN.

OPERATIONAL PROGRAM TO MEET GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.

MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS A FRAMEWORK, INCLUDING GROSS

DEPARTMENTAL AREA ALLOCATIONS, SCHEMATIC PLANS, AND

CONSTRUCTION STAGING.

COST ANALYSIS.

DETAILED SPACE PROGRAM OF FIRST STAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION.

EQUIPMENT LIST.

DESIGN OF FIRST STAGE.

CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST STAGE.

52
REFERENCES

[1] White, Edward T. Introduction to Architectural Programming . Tucson,

Arizona: Architectural Media, 1972.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: LITERATURE BASIS FOR THE STANDARD PROGRAM

Allen Rex W. and von Karolyi, Ilona. Hospital Planning Handbook . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice . Edited by Robert J. Piper,

Washington, D.C.: The American Institute of Architects, 1964.

Architectural Programming. Los Angeles, Calif.: Architectural License

Seminars, 1974.

Davis, Gerald, and Ellis, Sandra. Programming of Buildings: Seminar

Course in Programming of Buildings . Vancouver, British Columbia: The

Environmental Analysis, 1969.

Evans, Benjamin H. "Architectural Programming Practices." Building

Research , April 1969, pp. 12-15.

Garrett, Raymond. Hospitals - A Systems Approach . Philadelphia: Auerbach

Publishers, Inc. , 1973.

Harrell, George T. Planning Medical Center Facilities . University Park,

Penn.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1974.

Harrigan, J.E. and Ward, W.S. Human Factors Information Taxonomy . San Luis Obispo, Ca.: School of Architecture and Environmental Design,

California Polytechnic State University, N.D.

Horowitz, Harold. "The Programs the Thing." American Institute of

Architects Journal , May 1967, pp. 94-100.

Hospital Outpatient and Emergency Activities: Functional Programming Guidelines . No. 1725-0011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Hudenburg, Roy. Planning the Community Hospital . New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Co. , 1967

Manual of Hospital Planning Procedures . Chicago, 111.: American Hospital

Association, 1959.

Michaud, Scott A. "Programming: No Longer an Intuitive Process in Health

Facilities Planning," Hospital Forum , July 1973.

Mills, Alden B., ed. Functional Planning of General Hospitals. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969.

Milly, George H. and Pocinki, Leon S., Simulation Model for the Evaluation

of an Ambulatory Health Care Delivery System . Vol. I., Rockville, Md.:

National Center for Health Services Research and Development, Health Services

and Mental Health Administration, June 1971.

54
Pena, William M. and John W. Focke. Problem Seeking: New Directions in

Architectural Programming . Houston: Caudill Rowlett Scott, Architects,

Planners, Engineers, 1969.

Wheeler, E. Todd. Hospital Design and Function . New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Co. , 1964.

White, Edward T. Introduction to Architectural Programming . Tucson,

Arizona: Architectural Media, 1972.

55
APPENDIX B

Photo Inventory of Building 41

Building 41 faces a large grass covered lawn where a street had originally

been intended.

56
Directly inside the main entrance is a small administrative

cubicles and private offices off of both sides of a corridor

area with clerical

57
Long corridors separate the laboratory suites and ring the perimenter of

the building.

58
59
Corridors and niches within the

equipment storage.

laboratory suites are used for

60
61
In response to space needs, new laboratory spaces are being added.

62
The building mechanical space is almost the size of one story of habitable

space

.

Because of biohazards, light fixtures in the laboratories must be serviced

from the mechanical space above.

63
The waste treatment

new research labs.

system remains current with those being installed in

64
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

• NBSIR 77-1402

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE'S EMERGENCY VIRUS ISOLATION

FACILITY: A CASE STUDY FOR USE IN DEVELOPING A METHODOLOGY

OF POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

5. Publication Date December 1977

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

G.E. Turner J. Elder A. I. Rubin

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS J

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Engineering Design Branch

Division of Engineering Services

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland 20852

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

The National Cancer Institute's Emergency Virus Isolation Facility is a laboratory

building designed to provide an experimental research environment for all levels of

hazardous work related to virus-cancer research. This report represents an attempt

to develop a generalizable model for building evaluation through the analysis of the

pre-design programming process and the pos t- cons true ti on operation management of the

facility.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Architectural analysis; Architectural evaluation; Architectural process;

Architectural research; Building evaluation; Building research; Man and environment

relations; Pos t- cons true tion evaluation; People and buildings

18. AVAILABILITY ^Unlllimited

1 I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. 03

1 I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74
.