Campus Master Plan 2017
Campus Master Plan 2017
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Introduction In 2015 the 84th Texas Legislature authorized an update to the Texas School for the Deaf TSD campus master plan This master plan is an update and continuation of previous well done master planning efforts The master plan benefits from a TSD capital asset improvement program that also includes a facility condition assessment and deferred maintenance construction program All of these facets were authorized by the 83rd Texas Legislature The master plan complements the condition assessment and deferred maintenance construction program to provide long term value for TSD and Texas taxpayers Accordingly the master plan emphasizes providing facilities that support the TSD strategic plan while minimizing facility cost of ownership The master plan summarizes the facility improvements and justification to support the TSD strategic plan The intent of the main body of this update is to summarize the history of TSD facilities TSD strategic mission stakeholder input facility analysis facility needs space demands conceptual plans evidence based justification for improvements design guidelines and an implementation plan Thanks to the TSD and community stakeholders for their contributions in the development of this master plan update
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Introduction In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature authorized an update ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Acknowledgments Greg Abbott Governor Dan Patrick Lieutenant Governor Joe Straus Speaker of the House The Texas 84th Legislature Texas Facilities Commission Robert D Thomas Chair Mike Novak Vice Chair William D Darby Patti Jones Jack W Perry Betty Reinbeck Joseph O Slovacek Texas School for the Deaf Governing Board Eric Hogue President Shawn P Saladin Vice President Angie Wolf Secretary Sha Cowan Ryan D Hutchison Tyran Lee Susan Ridley David Saunders Leadership Team Harvey Hilderbran TFC Executive Director Claire Bugen TSD Superintendent Peter Maass TFC Deputy Executive Director Planning and Real Estate Management Working Group TFC Deputy Executive Director Planning and Real Estate Management TFC Director of Project Management TFC Senior Project Manager TSD Superintendent TSD Support Operations TSD Chief Financial Officer Consultant Team Parkhill Smith Cooper Inc Stakeholder Groups TSD Alumni Staff and Students Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Association City of Austin South Central Waterfront Team South Congress Business Association South Congress Preservation and Improvement District South River City Neighborhood Association Texas Historical Commission Contributors Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Texan by Nature Texas School for the Deaf Foundation
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Acknowledgments Greg Abbott, Governor Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Table of Contents A Executive Summary 1 B Process 10 C History 12 D Stakeholder Engagement 23 E Analysis 28 F Enrollment and Space Modeling 59 G Facility Needs and Conceptual Plans 66 H Design Guidelines 84 I Implementation 102 Appendix 105 January 19 2017
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Table of Contents A Executive Summary ..................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  A
2 F 3 C 2 D Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan 2 J 2 E 4 A 4 B Repurpose ES MS HS admin space to academic use Repurpose existing Transitional housing to special needs New HS commons between Koen and Lewis halls MS HS CTE addition per enrollment change Second central plant Outreach and applied research center Outreach and applied research center housing Site work electrical feed IT infrastructure and parking for outreach and applied research center 4 D 4 A 4 B 4 C 4 D 1 A 2 H Phase 4 4 C 184 Million 2 C Estimated cost of ownership savings due to strategic renewal and space efficiency 1 C 99 Million 3 A 3 B 3 C 3 D 2 G Master plan estimated cost in 2016 dollars Repurpose portions of dorms to create residential learning kitchens Move Interpreters from cottage to ERCOD Toddler Buildings Repurpose Deaf Smith Building to family services and translators New Seeger multipurpose workout room and locker addition Upgrade baseball softball practice facility Expand CTE to north end of Pease Building and create Tech lab Remove portables Demolish cottages old boiler plant and site restoration New Student Center flex learning space Stadium upgrades synthetic turf track upgrade Locate Transitional housing at south end and add two units Site Improvements landscaping sustainability fencing Building Control Network Phase 3 3 B Facility Impact on Learning Decades of research indicate certain facility features have a positive impact on student achievement particularly at risk students These features include acoustics lighting thermal comfort air quality and adequate space Improvements to all of these features are included in the master plan scope The master plan also includes improvements to deaf space design building features 2 L 1 B The success of the Master Plan Update can be measured in the following ways Align facilities with the TSD strategic plan Maximize facility features that have proven to impact learning Guidance for improvements that enhance deaf space design Minimize facility cost of ownership Preserve the heritage of the architecture and the deaf community Blend with and enhance the surrounding community Secure funding for improvements Campus Zoning Campus zoning is enhanced by locating housing adjacent to academic buildings and academic buildings adjacent to core facilities To minimize cross traffic of age groups the age progression of the campus is from north to south with infants at the north end progressing to transitional high school graduates through 21 years of age students at the south end of the campus 2 B Success Measures 2 A 2 B 2 C 2 D 2 E 2 F 2 G 2 H 2 I 2 J 2 K 2 L 3 A Assess and analyze existing facility and site conditions Ongoing stakeholder engagement and feedback in all phases Analysis of TSD strategic plan and programs Enrollment forecasting and space needs modeling Validate evidence based justification for improvements Validate cost estimates and improvement sequencing Validate cost of ownership and long term value modeling Establish design guidelines Measure and celebrate success State wide Outreach Program TSD also provides outreach services to many of the 7 000 deaf and hard of hearing students across Texas that do not attend TSD The staff that serves these students and the districts they attend have their offices on the TSD campus The master plan includes facilities for outreach staff training of visiting students and training of district staff that serve non TSD deaf students 1 A New Toddler Center Repurpose Clinger Gym to practice play gym elem activity center New flex multi purpose theater to replace auditorium Reconfigure Ford photo lab culinary arts to three CTE programs New Central Service Center Site improvements parking roads covered walks accessibility Phase 2 2 I The master plan process for TSD consisted of the following phases 1 A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1 E 1 F 1 F Process Accommodate Increasing Enrollment Trend Based on a continuing enrollment trend the campus will grow from 580 students to over 700 in the next 10 years Enrollment forecasts are based on three methods of analysis all of which indicated similar results This growth will result in the need for additional building space Using evidence based peer metrics the primary need to accommodate a growing student population will be for additional academic space athletic space some residential space and corresponding support space The master plan proposes repurposing campus administration space currently in academic buildings to classrooms to keep students in the appropriate academic building and minimize classroom additions 1 F Align facilities with the TSD Strategic Plan Current space utilization and forecasted enrollment growth Optimize facilities by maximizing the impact on student achievement Stakeholder and leadership input validated with evidence based peer data Improvements based on deaf space design principles Preserve campus zoning for multiple proximities and safety Preserve the heritage of the campus architecture and deaf community Long term facility value for the citizens of Texas Phase 1 1 E Note Solid color denotes new construction Solid color with hatching denotes renovation and repurposing of existing buildings Color dashed outlines denote demolition of existing structures Finally half tone shading denotes site improvements 2 L The TSD Campus Master Plan Update is based on key drivers that define the principles of the planning process 3 A Key Drivers Master Project Schedule and Legend Facility Renewal The majority of existing buildings are in fair to good condition given their age and worthy of preservation Repurposing of some buildings is recommended to make the best use of existing buildings Long term cost of ownership analysis indicated two facilities should be considered for replacement the auditorium and the cottages 2 G The Texas School for the Deaf TSD Campus Master Plan builds on previous planning efforts The TSD Campus Master Plan documents the planning process stakeholder preferences needs for each program evidence based justification strategies for longterm facilities value and implementation This master plan should be considered a living document needing updating and adjustment every few years as conditions change 2 A Executive Summary Executive Summary A2
2-F  3-C  2-D  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  2-J  2-E  4-A  4-B  Repurpose ES MS HS admin space to ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Master Phasing Plan n t s 2 G 1 F 2 J 1 D 2 F 2 E 2 D 4 B 4 A 1 A 4 D 2 H 4 C 2 K 1 C 2 L 2 C 3 D 3 A 2 A 3 C 2 I 3 A 1 F 2 L 2 A 1 B 2 G 1 A 1 E 1 F A3 Executive Summary 3 B 2 B 2 G
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Master Phasing Plan n.t.s.  2-G  1-F 2-J  1-D  2-F  2-E  2-D  4...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Master Plan Improvements by Phase and Location Phase 1 A B C D E Toddlers Building Due to lack of space in the Elementary building the toddler program was moved to the old superintendent s house currently known as the Toddler building The program has outgrown the available space Therefore the toddler program will be relocated to a new addition at the Elementary for proximity to related programs Clinger Gym Built in 1928 Clinger Gym plays a vital role in TSD campus history Code violations and energy efficiency of the building envelope will be addressed in the renewal program Once the issues are resolved the vacated lower levels will be repurposed to an elementary multipurpose activity space and the historic two lane bowling alley will be restored Auditorium Building Due to deaf space deficiencies accessibility deficiencies and failing building systems the auditorium will be replaced with a 750 seat multipurpose flex theater facility This facility can house distance learning performing arts meetings and large groups The U shape configuration will conform to deaf space design guidelines Ford Building Due to the expansion of some Career and Technology CTE programs the existing space will be repurposed and the multipurpose meeting room will be relocated to the new central services building to make room for CTE programs Central Services Building Administrative activities are spread out across the campus depending on available space Admissions and Human Resources are located in temporary trailers that are past their life span Relocating administrative activities to the Central Services building will allow additional classroom space in academic buildings and the removal of temporary trailers Phase 2 A B Koen and Lewis Dorms The current configuration of the dorms does not allow for multiple students to be in the public spaces and still be able to communicate with one another Therefore existing spaces including kitchens will be renovated to improve accessibility improve deaf space layout and create a more home like atmosphere Educational Resource Center on Deafness ERCOD Building The ERCOD building is currently housing the Outreach staff who have outgrown the space and will be moved to the Central Services building in Phase 1 Since the existing cottages will be demolished the Interpreters will be relocated to the vacated ERCOD building C Deaf Smith Center The translators and family services staff currently do not have enough space Therefore the Deaf Smith Center will be repurposed for them The Student Center will be relocated from the Deaf Smith Building to the new Student Center Building B Existing Transitional Housing Due to the needs of transitional students Phase 2 created new transitional housing at the south end of campus by the other transitional housing and transitional classrooms The vacated dorm at the north end of the campus will be repurposed to a special needs dorm D Seeger Gymnasium The campus lacks space and locker rooms to house all TSD athletic and after school programs Therefore an indoor multipurpose athletic space and four lockers rooms will be added to the building C High School Commons Students that live on campus do not have anywhere to socialize do homework or have access to after hours computer labs High School Commons will be located between Koen and Lewis Dorms to serve as daytime and after hours learning and socialization space E J Outdoor Athletic and Physical Education Facility Upgrades The backstop dugouts and batting cages at the baseball softball practice facility will be upgraded for safety and functionality Synthetic turf will be installed at the football field to allow more multipurpose use The existing six lane track will be expanded to eight lanes to accommodate track and field meets and more community use D Middle School High School Addition Due to the growing population of the Middle School High School the addition will create new space to house long term educational space needs F Pease Building Relocating administrative activities to the Central Services building in Phase 1 will allow the Pease building to be repurposed to a flexible Career and Technology lab Information Technology space will remain in its current location Phase 4 I Student Center The Student Center will be relocated from Deaf Smith to the new Student Center Students after school activities will be housed in the Student Center as well as distance learning space K Transitional Housing Due to the forecasted enrollment growth of transitional students to be consistent with the campus zoning plan and to the growing transitional student population a two story housing unit will be added next to other existing transitional housing on campus A Second Central Plant An additional central plant will be needed to supplement the current central plant which will reach capacity in the early phases of the master plan This central plant will support the Outreach and Applied Research Center and other facilities B E Outreach and Applied Research Center and Visitor Housing Deaf students in the state of Texas who do not attend TSD are served by the outreach staff The building will house the Outreach staff deaf space and learning research center Visitor housing will accommodate visiting deaf students families and visiting researchers Phase 3 A Elementary Middle School High School Relocate administrative and mainstream special program rooms to create additional classrooms for the growing student population This list does not include abatement and demolition projects Executive Summary A4
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Master Plan Improvements by Phase and Location Phase 1  A  B  C  D  E ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Master Plan n t s Legend Existing Building Proposed New Building A5 Executive Summary
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Master Plan, n.t.s.  Legend Existing Building  Propose...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan View Looking Southwest Overhead of the South Congress Avenue Entrance Executive Summary A6
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  View Looking Southwest Overhead of the South Congress Avenue Entrance...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan View Overhead of New East Parking Area Looking Northwest Towards Central Services A7 Executive Summary
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  View Overhead of New East Parking Area Looking Northwest Towards Cent...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan View North Down the South Main Pedestrian Mall Executive Summary A8
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  View North Down the South Main Pedestrian Mall Executive Summary   A8...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan View Looking Northeast Towards Multipurpose Building and Theater A9 Executive Summary
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  View Looking Northeast Towards Multipurpose Building and Theater A9  ...
B PROCESS
B  PROCESS
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Process The master plan process for TSD consisted of the following phases Assess and analyze existing facility and site conditions Ongoing stakeholder engagement and feedback in all phases Analysis of TSD strategic plan and programs Enrollment forecasting and space needs modeling Validate evidence based justification for improvements Validate cost estimates and improvement sequencing Validate cost of ownership and long term value modeling Establish design guidelines Measure and celebrate success B11 Process Aligning Facilities with TSD Strategic Plan A key driver for the master planning process is to align facilities with the TSD Strategic Plan The following summarizes concepts from the TSD Strategic Plan and other TSD planning documents that relate to facilities Communications space design technology wayfinding Deaf space design concepts incorporated Data based decision making Facilities that match programs now and future Facilities that accommodate learning and living spaces Interdisciplinary curriculum critical thinking problem solving Proficiency in 21st Century technology skills and tools 1 1 laptop initiative moving toward tablets Assistive technology such as interactive white boards tablets digital science sensors student response systems LCDs and document cameras High quality technology cabling Video phones a primary form of communication Global green grant awarded to TSD Career and Technology space will be needed to comply with the Texas 83rd Legislature s House Bill 5 CTE programs including web technology AV production digital interactive media printing imaging technology computer maintenance gaming technology robotics automation New CTE programs include forensic science construction technology and theater media communication TSD Mission Statement Mission Texas School for the Deaf ensures students learn grow and belong in a language rich environment while supporting students families and professionals through statewide outreach services Core Values Education is a responsibility shared by the students family school and community The development of the whole person socially physically intellectually culturally and emotionally is imperative to a positive identity self worth and lifelong success American Sign Language and English are woven into the fabric of TSD life building healthy Deaf identities and positive self worth An interdisciplinary curriculum that integrates technology in academically engaging learning environments prepares students to become critical thinkers collaborators and decision makers Outreach Services provide resources and support to the state s deaf and hard of hearing students their families and the professionals that serve them Treating students and staff with dignity and respect in an inclusive community that values diverse abilities needs and interests is crucial to creating a healthy and productive environment Vision Statement Texas School for the Deaf aspires to be a premier leader in bilingual education that challenges each student to reach their full potential
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Process  The master plan process for TSD consisted of the following p...
C HISTORY
C  HISTORY
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan History Background History and Understanding Even before the rich history of the TSD institution began the land where the Texas School for the Deaf resides today have served as a crossroads of early Texas history Native American inhabitants including the Tonkawa and later the Comanche and Lipan Apache had been observed in the areas both north and south of the Colorado River and evidence of prior use of the area by Spanish explorers and missionaries is also a possibility as an 18th century mission had been established just northwest of the TSD Campus in present day Zilker Park Furthermore the higher grounds of the TSD Campus had been well documented as a training site for local garrisons of the Confederate States Army This myriad of past historical activity raises a valid concern that prudent efforts must be taken by future design teams in the implementation of this master plan to investigate any cultural deposits within the grounds affected by future development of the campus The campus grounds and architectural heritage of the Texas School for the Deaf has been indelibly shaped through nearly 160 years of vivid architectural vernacular This heritage is broad in its sources from the Second Empire and Neoclassical styles predominant in Texas public architecture from the latter half of the nineteenth century into the first quarter of the twentieth century Though from many vantage points into the campus and thanks in large part to the 1994 1998 expansion of the institution the TSD campus has the air of an institution with a generally contiguous architectural style In truth this is not the case and further very little of the School s architectural fabric predating 1956 survives today Nonetheless particularly amongst alumni Austin historians and residents of the South Congress neighborhood in which TSD resides the general history and architectural fabric of TSD is an invaluable treasure to the city and state at large This report will explore that heritage in depth and analyze the following Understanding the architectural and planning evolution of the TSD campus since 1879 Architectural styles massing and characteristics incorporated onto the campus over its history Identification of buildings of historical age and character that warrant retention and or rehabilitation C13 History Above A later 19th century image of a Comanche warrior and horse see image credits Above Artist s depiction of Texas infantry volunteers of the Confederate Army not unlike those bivouacked on the grounds of the TSD Campus during the Civil War Cannonballs and other artifacts were discovered during construction and demolition of the School s Victorianera buildings see image credits
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  History  Background History and Understanding Even before the rich hi...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Founding History It is speculated that the hilltop portion of the TSD campus had been considered as early as 1839 as a potential home for the State Capitol but President of the Republic Mirabeau B Lamar preferred a site north of the Colorado River as a plausible pretense to drive out the Comanche Indians living there Thus was the prominent quality that the TSD site had then and still has even today overlooking Downtown Austin to the north Building in 1883 designed by Taylor Williams added classroom and study hall wings to the east and west Subsequent renovations and additions completed between 1888 and 1892 designed by Ruffini associate Burt McDonald would transform the main fa ade into its final form capping the mansard belfries with pointed cupolas which created the image of the iconic Mule Ears form as well as adding a fourth floor to the central building and replacing the wood framed stack of porches over the main entry with a white trimmed neoclassical four column frontispiece with second floor promenade In its prior name as the Texas Institution of the Deaf and Dumb established in 1856 the school would eventually find its home on the grounds of the land known as Isaac Decker League No 20 situated south and opposite of the Colorado River from the newly founded capitol city of Austin None of the early buildings on site single story log cabins later replaced by two story wood framed structures built during the Institution s first two decades exist today During the Civil War historical record suggests that Confederate troops bivouacked and trained on the campus grounds this is known due to the salvaged cannonballs found within the wood framing cavities of the 1877 Administration Building during its 1956 demolition that were likely found by builders during original foundation excavation In fact that 1877 two story administration building would be the first permanent edifice built on campus At least the original building and perhaps an 1879 addition were designed in the Second Empire style by noted Austin architect Frederick E Ruffini who had recently moved to the city The building was adorned with partial brick and partial wood clad exterior pronounced quoins a mixture of wood and cast iron railings and trim and Victorian era eaves ancons and window shutters The aforementioned 1879 building addition increased the building height to three stories and added the first iteration of two Second Empire mansard towers to the northeast and northwest corners of the main building fa ade towers similar to John Mills Van Osdel s design for Old Main Buildings at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and the University of Arkansas Further expansion of the Main Left The plan of the TSD Main Building upon completion of renovations and additions designed in 1883 by Taylor Williams developed a network of buildings connected by three stories of promenade galleries that would remain in place until the building s demolition in 1956 Above A view looking southwest towards the expanded Main Building of the Texas Institution for the Deaf and Dumb taken sometime between 1878 and 1883 The twin towers lack the full cupola and the building is missing its wings and fourth floor that would establish its iconic appearance into the 1950s Image courtesy TSD Hovinga Above Portion of a July 1889 topographical plat plan of the City of Austin with a highlight box indicating the grounds of the Institution of the Deaf and Dumb boundaries largely unchanged to this day Image courtesy of Austin History Center In the course of this postbellum development of the Institution other secondary buildings were added to the campus physical plant most notably a stone and quoin clad two story stable building 1883 laundry building not to be confused with the 1925 Laundry Building and vocational trade training buildings None of these buildings remain today Buildings were not situated in any specific organized plan or arrangement other than the main building being situated so that its front fa ade faced north towards Austin and the State Capitol A main drive entry off of South Congress Avenue unchanged even today hooked south toward the Main Building and a Victorian water fountain interposed within a five pointed star of Texas installed by Institution Superintendent W A Kendall in 1887 History C14
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Founding History It is speculated that the hilltop portion of the TSD ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Neoclassical Expansion 1902 1925 Above Final appearance of the Main Building circa 1910 Image courtesy of TSD Hovinga Beginning with the design of a new School Building by Houston architect Olle J Lorehn in 1902 TSD s neoclassical architectural style became solidified with the addition of further buildings on campus The Swedish born Lorehn had completed a range of noted work in Houston including the Houston Post Building and Houston s supposed first skyscraper the original Binz Building The 1902 School Building sited adjacently east of the Main Building was one of the first buildings to introduce an architectural grammar to TSD that resounds today Lorehn designed paired column entry porches on all four facades that were drawn upon the 1892 addition to the Main Building But while Lorehn included metal hip roofs with ridge finials to mimic the wing roofs of the Main Building the prominent north and south facades featured the new element of quoined gables with masonry detailed circular windows at the attic level This architectural form would not be lost on other architects working on the TSD Campus for the next quarter century Above East and west elevations of Kuehne Chasey Giesecke s 1915 Primary Building The use of Roman revival double cross windows at the wing ends of the west elevation were new to the campus Image courtesy of the Texas State Archives Campus Site Plan Circa 1951 n t s Above South Elevation from Lorehn s drawings for the 1902 School Building This building too did not survive the 1956 update when much of the campus was razed for the construction of modernist era facilities Image courtesy of the Texas State Archives C15 History Between 1914 and 1952 a range of buildings would be added to TSD designed mainly by the firms of C H Page Bros and Kuehne Chasey and Giesecke both inescapable firms within the realm of Austin architecture The largest of these was Bertram Giesecke s 1915 Primary Building situated just west of the tee intersection of Newton Street and Gibson Street in the southeastern area of the campus This building though it borrowed the columned entry features of the Main Building and School Building was a more generic revival era building trading first floor rusticated brick coursing for earlier quoin details seen on campus The building was notable as it did introduce a range of vernacular that Barnes Gromatzky Kosarek BGK would draw upon in their 1990s redevelopment of the TSD Campus The same year as the Primary Building Page would also design a two story height brick clad auditorium addition to the School Building Giesecke reformed in 1921 as Giesecke Harris designed further buildings over the next decade including a laundry building a boiler building and a gymnasium with basement known as the Cora Clinger Gymnasium Clinger the northwestern most building on the campus intermixed neoclassical brick and stone detailing with unique polychrome tile header details and featured the novelty of a two lane basement bowling alley
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Neoclassical Expansion  1902-1925  Above  Final appearance of the Main...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Even through and after the Second World War the TSD Campus remained largely the same conglomeration of buildings from its neoclassical era minus a handful of Moderne and early modernist era buildings Interestingly the use of the 500 system of building numbering had begun in the 1940s Little had been done to develop the western areas of the campus other than unimproved athletic fields The Texas School for the Deaf Campus 1902 1956 History C16
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Even through and after the Second World War, the TSD Campus remained l...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Fall of the Mule Ears and Rise of the Modern The Texas School for the Deaf recently renamed by the Legislature in 1949 from its prior official name as the Deaf and Dumb Asylum of Texas was even into the 1950s a campus largely defined by the 50 years of campus architecture built from after the Civil War until the decade after World War I C H Page and Bros had continued to receive design commissions including a sleek Moderne styled Mechanical Building in the 1930s and dormitory work which resulted with the two story International style Emily Lewis Hall completed between 1951 and 1952 at the southern end of the campus But elsewhere existing buildings like the Main Building had not received substantial renovation or life safety improvements in decades and the facilities conditions on the campus were largely regarded by the public the state and in particular by the media as scandalous TSD s authority having jurisdiction at that time the State Board of Education appointed in 1951 a volunteer committee from the Texas Society of Architects to survey the campus and buildings to make recommendations for the improvement of living and learning conditions to students on the campus One of the committee member s quotes in the matter explained conditions best By far the majority of the buildings are not even susceptible to renovation except to salvage stone or brick from them Charles Granger AIA Beginning in 1956 mass swaths of the TSD physical plant were razed including the old Koen Hall dormitory 1901 Lorehn Sayre Hall the Vocational Technology Building built in 1899 architect unknown the School Building and Auditorium old Stable Building now a small gym and repair shop Infirmary and other buildings as well On August 29 1956 a demolition team knocked down the Mule Ear Towers of the Main Building unveiling a bat and pigeon infestation of the two towers Only the Laundry Building Boiler Building Giesecke s 1915 Primary Building and Unit II also known as Building 505 designed by Page in 1912 as a gym and later used for a variety of middle school instruction P E and fine arts education remained The designs developed particularly by Fehr Granger from an education building standpoint represented a clean simple modernist approach much aligned to concepts espoused by such as that of the Sarasota School of Architecture as well as Eero Saarinen Granger in fact had worked in the office of Eero s father Eliel Two clusters of single story classroom units Buildings 545 and 546 set on the higher ground of the TSD site were set in a checker grid of buildings interconnected via a linear grid of breezeways with small courtyards in between Situated in the northwest eastern and southeastern zones of the campus were groupings of single or two story living cottages These low slope roofed brick clad buildings featured the ability for decentralized preparation of food for student resident meals It so happens that Granger and his partner Arthur Fehr were members of the Society s review committee and they would have a profound impact on the total reshaping of the TSD campus and its architecture for the next 15 years Based on the findings of the committee in a 1954 special session of the State Legislature Governor Allan Shivers signed into law funding measures for the first 2 38 million phase of a three phase 6 2 million physical plant overhaul of the campus The dilapidated conditions of the campus entirely overshadowed any predisposition to rehabilitating and preserving any worthwhile architectural heritage and given the modernist era of the day preservation was already a diminished concern Public and political disgust as to the campus condition ensured that very little of the existing campus would survive the coming purge The state commissioned the collaborative teaming of two Austin firms Fehr Granger and Niggli Gustafson both noted design ateliers in the master planning and design of new buildings on the TSD campus Despite the collaboration both planning and design implementation efforts were greatly shaped by Arthur Fehr a UT and Columbia University graduate Fehr Granger had just designed O Henry Junior High School for the Austin ISD and would later design Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Their resulting decentralized design for the TSD campus emphasized unitized construction of some 20 residential cottages 11 classroom building units arranged in checker grid clusters and an assortment of other buildings Cottage design and construction continued in small groups into the late 1950s and during that time Winfred O Gustafson Niggli Gustafson had dissolved in 1958 proceeded with design of an auditorium to replace the 1915 Page addition to the School Building Essentially a large masonry monolith cleft into the side of the Campus west slope it clearly provided verticality to the new modernist assembly of TSD buildings that Fehr Granger s cottages and classroom blocks did not provide Both Gustafson s and Fehr Granger s work utilized a new blend of brick different darker than that used on the original Main Building but altogether different than the cream field and terra cotta red quoin brick that buildings such as Koen the School Building and Laundry Building had Only the 1925 Boiler Building near and southwest of the new Auditorium had a relatively similar brick blend C17 History Above Fehr Granger s October 1954 design for what would become Building 546 The complex remained relatively low profile to the ground with its single story design and thin breezeway roofs Image courtesy of the Austin History Center
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Fall of the Mule Ears and Rise of the Modern The Texas School for the...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Above A 1967 campus development plan showing the decentralized assortment of buildings designed by Fehr Granger Image courtesy of the Austin History Center History C18
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Above  A 1967 campus development plan showing the decentralized assor...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Redesign Take Two Though modernist construction designed in part by the successor firm of Emerson FehrNewton continued into the 1970s at TSD by the mid 1980s the institution had once again reached a crossroads in both the quality of conditions and the overall future of the South Austin Campus Following the 1966 integration the Texas Blind Deaf and Orphan School in what would later be identified as the TSD East Campus became part of TSD itself The East Campus also known as the old Bull Creek Road Campus would finally be sold away to the City of Austin in 2001 Yet at the South Congress Avenue Campus TSD was now facing the challenges of both older World War I era buildings namely Unit II and the Primary Building suffering from serious educational and life safety deficiencies Fire alarm systems egress routes accessibility and decaying building envelope issues were only some of the problems that had reemerged since the scandal of the early 1950s Further the campus still lacked a sense of place due in large part to the decentralized nature of Fehr Granger s modernist era scheme There was little if any sense of arrival onto campus while old neoclassical buildings remained intertwined with the more recent but squat form architecture of the modernist construction era Fehr s design had in its day been lauded nationally for its forward thinking approach in part due to its design intent so as not to shock arriving students with the feel of a harsh institutional environment that structures like the old Main Building clearly conveyed In an April 1961 issue of Architectural Record Arthur Fehr was quoted as saying We felt it too desirable therefore to provide a design which would be as non institutional as possible In the process the institution had shifted to a total polar opposite in terms of campus feel and was in need of a new Above Following the death of Charles Granger in 1966 Fehr Granger became Fehr Granger Emerson Associates That firm continued work into the 1970s for TSD including the above initial 1968 design for a Library Building designed south of the Laundry Building 509 Through iterations and legislative funding delays the library would be built out in similar appearance to the four elevations above in 1978 Today the building operates as the Business Services Building The design reflected the popular shift of the day in modernist design from the thin less articulated breezeways and awnings of Fehr s earlier classroom and cottage designs to a more austere blend of masonry and heavier articulated precast and cast in place concrete Image courtesy of the Austin History Center C19 History Right Barnes Russell s November 1988 master plan for TSD The plan would bear many similarities to the firm s revised 1990 master plan for the institution which would form the bulwark for campus development and construction through the 1990s Barnes design would like Fehr Granger s design of three decades earlier result in large scale razing of the campus in which by 1998 none of the 1915 era buildings and less than a quarter of the 1956 1960 buildings would survive Image Courtesy of the Texas Facilities Commission overarching architectural identity The State Legislature had on many occasions questioned if the Texas School for the Deaf should even remain at the South Congress Avenue site or not A January 1987 study commissioned by the Austin City Council analyzed just this possibility based on considerations made in the prior biennium Thankfully this was not acted upon and instead the TSD Governing Board proceeded in 1988 with hiring Barnes Russell Architects formerly Barnes Landes Goodman Youngblood to assess the campus physical plant and grounds and develop the first master plan in over 30 years to the institution Barnes Russell s design was much like Fehr Granger s three decades earlier sweeping in its intentions to eliminate the existing buildings that were in poorest condition notably the Primary Building Unit II and Emily Lewis Hall as well as all of the checkerboardpattern classroom buildings and two thirds of the residential cottages Vehicular traffic would be banished from the core of the campus in lieu of new pedestrian malls framed by collections of smaller scale academic residential and student life buildings Though not acted upon immediately the design team now Barnes Architects revisited the master plan in 1990 and developed a design that largely reflects what would be built out over the next decade Gustafson s 1958 Auditorium would be retained and renovated into the terminus at the west end of a courtyard framed between elementary education buildings and administration The Old Laundry Building became the centerpiece to a central ovoid plaza where the building now renovated and stripped of utilitarian additions stands restored today as the TSD Heritage Center Though the master plan called for the near total demolition of all residential cottages the same group of cottages proposed to be saved in the 1988 plan 564 through 570 would in the end escape demolition
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Redesign     Take Two Though modernist construction designed in...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Historic Legend Existing Portable Buildings to be Removed Existing Buildings to Remain Buildings
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Historic Legend Existing Portable Buildings to be Removed Existing Bu...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Historical Campus Review Findings A preliminary report outlining the historical development of the TSD Campus and presence of buildings fifty years of age or older was completed and submitted to the Texas Historical Commission THC for project review in accordance with the Antiquities Code of Texas in late spring 2016 The THC completed their project review that summer and submitted their review findings to TFC on August 1 refer to letter at lower right As outlined in the Master Plan the one building eligible for individual listing in the National Register for Historic Places the Clinger Gymnasium has been identified for rehabilitation and reuse Both the TSD and TFC wish to extend their thanks to the THC in their review and involvement in this planning endeavor and intend to continue that constructive relationship with THC in subsequent implementation of the phases of this Master Plan General Requirements for Archaeological Surveys The following condensed overview of standards have been established by the Texas Historical Commission Design teams are encouraged to visit the THC website for further information at www thc state tx us Survey must be supervised by a qualified professional archaeologist in accordance with THC and CTA requirements Archaeologists must first complete a background literature analysis per specific state resources recommended and or required by the THC The survey and preliminary research must ascertain if deeply buried cultural deposits exist on site requiring deeper subsurface investigation A Texas Archaeological Site Data Form must be completed for any site surveyed and submitted to the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory TARL for record Following completion of shovel tests and soil deposit analysis a survey report shall be submitted to the THC for review and comment Any field notes photographs and artifacts recovered shall be curated in accordance with CTA requirements As a component to that included on this page and the opposite page diagram are requirements for the archaeological surveying of TSD property in the course of future construction which may involve disturbance of buried cultural deposits Archaeological Survey Requirements for Future Work Both the Texas Historical Commission THC and Council of Texas Archaeologists CTA have established minimum guidelines for the archaeological investigation of grounds such as sites of development identified in the Master Plan The campus diagram noted on the opposite page identifies sites where the anticipated project scale and or basement and substructure proposed may result in the disturbance or loss of potential cultural deposits That diagram notes what anticipated level of prior archaeological survey will be necessary in accordance with THC requirements Requirements for any archaeological survey are noted in the bottom right blue highlighted subsection In addition to prior background and geologic research physical site testing will require the execution of shovel tests with the size and scale of most future projects being up to or less than 3 acres in affected area requiring three shovel tests per acre Each shovel test will require point excavation to the depth of Holocene era soil strata on site whose layer depth will likely vary from site to site and thus requires prior geological investigation Sifted or troweled soil in each excavation requires the analysis and reporting by a professional archaeologist in accordance with THC credential standards Final survey reports are to be submitted to the THC for review and must be completed prior to the start of any new construction Should the findings of the survey disclose artifacts or evidence warranting investigation the project site may be subject to additional shovel testing or trenching to establish the scale of the cultural deposit entailed While the process to evaluate the archaeological and long term cultural heritage of the TSD Campus is a multifaceted and in depth process the heritage of the TSD Campus and the history of the area that preceded the institution is a rich one and warrants careful evaluation for the preservation of what may be still unknown facets of Texas deep past August 1 2016 project review letter of findings received by the Texas Historical Commission C21 History
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Historical Campus Review Findings A preliminary report outlining the h...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Archeology Diagram n t s Archeology Diagram Legend Areas where watershed erosion mediation are anticipated affected areas are greater than 2 acres in size and will require only two shovel tests per acre Areas where building construction affects less than or up to 2 acres in size and will require three shovel test per acre History C22
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Archeology Diagram n.t.s  Archeology Diagram Legend Areas where waters...
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT D
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT  D
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Stakeholder Engagement Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Priorities Stakeholder Meeting Staff Students Parents 1 22 2016 Group 1 1 Parking and wayfinding right of way 2 Dorms Apartments living spaces 3 Revisit space in existing buildings and look at new building needs 4 Re evaluate pick up drop off bus areas 5 Universal design deaf friendly space learning environment Stakeholder Meeting Staff Parents Alumni 4 19 2016 Group 1 1 Preserve campus history deaf identity as an icon 2 Centralize administrative services 3 Need curb appeal from South 1st Street 4 Conference center for trainings 5 Collaborate with South Central Waterfront master plan Group 2 1 More learning space utilization of space issues 2 Visual technology smart boards 3 Housing space centralize administration 4 More parking 5 Transitional program for age 18 and up graduates outreach to the graduates in their communities Group 3 1 Instructional space 2 Flexible multipurpose student center kitchen media community social space theater 3 Reassess re purpose dead space utilizing space for growth 4 Deaf friendly design space 5 Security Group 2 1 Parking garage 2 Centralize administrative services 3 More prominent entrance off South Congress Avenue 4 Artificial turf on athletic fields and eight lane track 5 Wayfinding Stakeholder Meeting Staff Parents Alumni South Congress Merchants 5 18 2016 1 Parking garage share with local business area generate revenue 2 TSD Local businesses team for potential partnership with Transitional for workers 3 Renovate Kleberg ERCOD Parent Infant Program 4 Centralize administrative services 5 Meeting rooms flexible spaces 6 School buildings to be less institutional more school spirit 7 Emergency system outside Stakeholder Meeting Staff Parents Alumni Neighbors 9 21 2016 1 Possible egress point at Newman street 2 Upgrading fencing between neighborhood and school 3 Parking 4 Bus pick up drop off safety 5 Track convert six lane to eight lane 6 Re purpose Deaf Smith support services Group 4 1 More classrooms independent living office space 2 Safety and security 3 Technology improve infrastructure 4 Accessibility lighting more space open space door openers 5 Parking Group 5 1 Mixed use space 2 Upgrade learning living environment 3 Parking that accommodates special groups and earns revenue 4 Address arrival focus welcome center identity mule ears 5 Redesign must accommodate the continuum of student services Group 6 1 Space The final frontier 2 Efficiency Think Green 3 Community collaboration 4 School spirit with interior beautification and exterior i e fence 5 Visual PA system Stakeholder Engagement D24
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Stakeholder Engagement  Summary of Stakeholder Meeting Priorities Sta...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Summary of Department Meeting Suggestions Grounds Maintenance Custodial 2 25 2016 1 More restrooms for female staff at Operations Complex Building No 2 2 Artificial turf on athletic fields 3 Sidewalks where cow paths are located 4 Paths for maintenance vehicle access to all buildings 5 Parking Elementary School Staff 3 9 2016 1 More play and playground area 2 Add multipurpose room library needs to be more of a multipurpose room 3 Privacy rooms for video phones 4 Covered walkways to other parts of campus 5 Outdoor learning areas Student Life 2 29 2016 1 Parking 2 More gym space 3 More space for the day students that are currently in Cottage 570 4 Meeting spaces and storage 5 Access for students to computer lab and library after school hours Elementary School Students 5 23 2016 1 Campus safety a More sidewalks stable ground to walk on b More control of entrance gates c Emergency system outside 2 Classroom a Need more space in classroom b More technology ipads c Calming rooms 3 Wayfinding 4 Deaf friendly spaces no columns Career and Technology Education 3 9 2016 1 Meeting space flexibility 2 More space and updated equipment for culinary program 3 Update rooms to properly support current programs 4 Add a laundry area and locker room area 5 Upgrade technology in classrooms High School Staff 3 9 2016 1 Meeting spaces 2 Update lighting 3 Upgrade technology in classrooms 4 Parking 5 Increase size of cafeteria and open up serving lines High School Students 5 23 216 1 Parking 2 Dorm kitchens need to be deaf friendly 3 More classrooms needed 4 More covered walkways on campus 5 Flexible space Middle School Staff 3 11 2016 1 Need another gym add gym divider screens 2 Meeting spaces 3 Parking 4 Safety and security 5 Upgrade science labs and equipment Middle School Students 5 23 2016 1 Middle school dorm more space 2 Flexible classrooms 3 More space needed for day student 4 Wayfinding 5 Parking D25 Stakeholder Engagement Support Services 3 9 2016 1 Calming rooms observation rooms or areas 2 No temporary buildings 3 Safer area for bus loading 4 Playgrounds for special need students 5 Wayfinding Athletics 3 9 2016 1 Artificial turf on athletic fields 2 More gym space and storage 3 Pool depth needs to be increased 4 Need a field house 5 Renovate bowling alley Transitional 3 10 2016 1 Need residential teaching kitchen 2 Calming rooms 3 Location educational living transportation 4 Meeting rooms flexible 5 Computer lab Business Operations 3 10 2016 1 More meeting spaces 2 Covered area for bus loading 3 Centralize administrative services 4 Safe place for kids to ride bikes 5 Less institutional more traditional home life for students
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Summary of Department Meeting Suggestions Grounds Maintenance Custodia...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder Engagement D26
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Stakeholder Meetings  Stakeholder Engagement   D26
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Meeting Summaries Preservation The chart below summarizes stakeholder prioritization of preservation of buildings older than 50 years A web based survey was used to procure feedback from TSD stakeholders The higher the score the more stakeholders indicated it was important to preserve the building The stakeholders were asked to rank these buildings in order of importance This chart summarizes the rankings Based on 314 responses Priority Score Auditorium 3 98 m Clinger 3 84 Cottages 2 71 ERCOD 2 21 Heritage enter 5 49 Old Boiler 1 41 Toddlers 2 59 0 e 1 2 3 Important D27 Stakeholder Engagement 4 5 6 7 More Important Stakeholder Concern and Improvements Needed The tree chart below summarizes the number of times stakeholder groups mentioned the noted concerns improvements This chart is through November 2016
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Meeting Summaries Preservation The chart below summarizes stakeholder ...
E ANALYSIS
E  ANALYSIS
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Analysis The 2016 facility condition assessment identified deaf space design deficiencies Additional deficiencies have been identified in the master planning process many from stakeholder meetings Below is a summary of some of the current deaf space design deficiencies identified to date General Line of Sight and Transparency Line of sight to see and communicate with other occupants and connect to activities outside space is limited in many locations Examples include between classrooms and corridors around sharp corridor turns from entryways between offices etc Ramps not Stairs It is preferable to navigate level change by ramp instead of stairs so that occupants can communicate via sign language Examples are stairs to the secondary school building and stairs from the natatorium level to the plaza level Flexible Seating Arrangements For the most part seating is flexible but some areas such as the high school lecture hall are not Workspace Islands vs Perimeter Wall Stations Some fixed stations are located on the wall so the occupant has their back to the room Examples are the welding lab and some stations in the building trades lab The high school student kitchens are another example It is preferable for work and learning stations to be located around free standing areas and or islands so users can visually communicate and observe surrounding activities High Contrast Wall colors are not high contrast to ease of reading sign language A good example is the multi purpose room in the Ford Building with tan walls The tan walls make it difficult to distinguish hand signing Classroom Acoustics Are deficient in that background noises are above 40 decibels and reverberation may exceed recommendations Some rooms had more than 50 decibels in background noise More study is needed to quantify reverberation Classroom Lighting Is below recommended foot candle levels and in most cases is direct rather than diffused as recommended Some rooms had lighting levels in the 30 40 foot candle range vs the recommended 55 foot candles Narrow Corridors and Walks many corridors and walks are narrow that may inhibit side by side signing U shaped Room Arrangement Many rooms allowed U shaped furniture arrangement which allows occupants to see each other A few examples of spaces that do not are the science labs high school lecture hall and the auditorium Auditorium Sight Lines The back third of the auditorium seating is difficult to impossible to read sign language from the stage according to occupant data E29 Analysis Sight Line Study of Existing Auditorium Shows how well occupants can read sign language from stage Easy to read Little to more difficult Difficult to cannot read
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Analysis The 2016 facility condition assessment iden...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Zoning Plan n t s Zoning Legend Academic Space Commons Food Service and Cultural Space Administrative and Support Spaces Student Residential Life Space Physical Education Athletics Space Courts and Fields Analysis E30
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Zoning Plan n.t.s.  Zoning Legend Academic Space Commons, Food ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Analysis Existing Facilities 2015 Facility Condition Assessment In 2015 a facility condition assessment FCA was performed on existing facilities to identify improvements needed to renew aging facility systems bring facilities up to current standards and to accommodate the TSD strategic plan This section summarizes existing facilities and the findings of the FCA Summary of Existing Facilities The following summarizes key information about existing facilities and the general findings of the FCA Construction estimates are in 2016 dollars Facility Relative Condition A facility condition index FCI is provided for each building This is the ratio of renovation cost to the cost of a replacement building The higher the percentage the more improvements are needed for the building Replacement and renovation cost estimates include construction cost construction manager cost and architect engineer fees Building Replacement Many planners consider replacement of a building when the FCI exceeds 66 percent For the purposes of the master plan a more detailed economic evaluation was performed for buildings recommended for replacement See these evaluations in later sections Historic and Iconic Building Renewal Buildings with historic or community significance are often renovated with FCIs in excess of 66 percent The Clinger Gym is recommended for renewal even though the FCI exceeds 66 percent due to the architectural and deaf community historical significance and a recommendation from the Texas Historical Commission Bldg Map No Facility Name Year Built Acquired Age Gross Sq Ft Replace SF Replacement Value Repair Renovation Cost Facility Condition Index FCI FCI 1 Guard House Elizabeth 21 2 Operations Complex 23 1 Guard House Elizabeth Security 1997 18 48 417 20 016 4 284 21 2 Operations Complex Office 1992 23 5 315 435 2 312 025 528 874 23 3 TFC Maintenance Maint Shop 1993 22 8 647 313 2 706 511 606 138 22 4 Central Plant Power Plant 1997 18 6 756 1 404 9 485 424 1 372 367 14 5 Trailer 2 Admissions Office 1991 24 2 688 180 483 840 175 425 36 5 Trailer 2 Admissions 6 Ford Building Classroom 1995 20 37 002 404 14 948 808 4 423 936 30 6 Ford Building 8 Pease Central Admin Office 1978 37 15 278 404 6 172 312 1 319 356 21 8 Pease Central Admin 9 Seeger Gym Gymnasium 1975 40 25 741 404 10 399 364 4 659 015 45 9 Seeger Gym 10 Concession Service Center 2001 14 1 427 404 576 508 44 545 8 10 Concession 8 11 Clock tower Clock tower 1997 18 300 000 22 995 8 12 Columbo Pool Gym Pool Gym 1997 18 36 404 566 20 604 664 6 484 172 31 11 Clock Tower 8 14 Davis Auditorium Auditorium 1958 57 12 347 497 6 136 459 4 474 208 73 15 Deaf Smith Center Recreation 1980 35 7 046 404 2 846 584 819 750 29 3 TFC Maintenance 22 14 4 Central Plant 36 30 21 31 14 Davis Auditorium 73 29 15 Deaf Smith Center 16 Cottage 570 Day Students 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 314 078 103 Access M Dormitory 2004 11 6 713 487 3 269 231 365 403 11 18 Cottage 569 Vacant 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 315 244 103 19a SN Boys Dorm Housing 2001 14 4 200 487 2 045 400 432 312 21 18 Cottage 569 16 Cottage 570 17 Access M Consider Replacement Threshold 45 12 Columbo Pool Gym 17 103 11 103 SN Girls Dorm Housing 2001 14 4 200 487 2 045 400 525 811 26 19a SN Boys Dorm 20 Cottage 568 Offices 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 315 244 103 19b SN Girls Dorm 21 Cottage 567 Boys Housing 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 254 764 100 20 Cottage 568 103 22 Cottage 566 Vacant 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 256 181 100 23 100 Cottage 565 Girls Housing 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 256 213 100 21 Cottage 567 24 Cottage 564 Storage 1958 57 4 625 487 2 252 375 2 272 215 101 22 Cottage 566 100 25 Access G Housing 2004 11 6 713 487 3 269 231 365 403 11 23 Cottage 565 100 26 Trailer 3 Human Resources Office 1991 24 2 688 180 483 840 231 832 48 27 Clinger Gym Gymnasium 1928 87 14 045 404 5 674 180 7 138 374 126 28 Toddler Learning Center Classroom 1949 66 1 424 404 575 296 628 617 109 29 ERCOD Residence 1949 66 2 059 487 1 002 733 403 364 40 30 Guard House Congress Security 2002 13 64 417 26 688 945 31 Elementary School Classroom 2001 14 51 470 417 21 462 990 4 976 010 19b 4 21 26 24 Cottage 564 25 Access G 101 11 48 26 Trailer 3 Human Resources 126 27 Clinger Gym 28 Toddler Learning Center 23 29 ERCOD 30 Guard House Congress 109 40 32 Elem MS Girls Dorm Housing 2004 11 8 643 487 4 209 141 739 644 18 33 Health Center Health Center 2004 11 3 759 435 1 635 165 258 842 16 31 Elementary School 34 Cafeteria Central Cafeteria 2001 14 15 310 475 7 272 250 1 121 510 15 35 Business Services Office 1971 44 6 797 435 2 956 695 1 261 315 43 32 Elem MS Girls Dorm 18 37 Heritage Center Museum 1925 90 4 448 435 1 934 880 781 759 40 33 Health Center 16 38 Trailer 1 not in use Vacant 1991 24 1 344 180 241 920 224 287 93 34 Cafeteria Central 15 39 Elem MS Boys Dorm Housing 2004 11 10 939 487 5 327 293 608 097 11 MS Admin HS Classroom 1997 18 89 058 417 37 137 186 8 969 867 24 Lewis Hall Dorm Housing 1997 18 38 078 487 18 543 986 4 910 010 26 44 Koen Hall Dorm Housing 1997 18 38 078 487 18 543 986 5 129 905 28 39 Elem MS Boys Dorm 45 Kleberg Building Classroom 1983 32 19 616 404 7 924 864 3 825 656 48 40 41 43 MS Admin HS 24 Transitional Apartments Housing 1993 22 10 535 487 5 130 545 1 151 548 22 42 Lewis Hall Dorm 26 Boiler Plant old Vacant 1949 66 1 954 435 849 990 1 184 061 139 44 Koen Hall Dorm 28 101 606 9 175 154 95 328 725 40 41 43 42 46 47 507 Transformer building General site work Total TSD E31 Analysis Use 96 533 305 244 322 030 4 23 35 Business Services 43 37 Heritage Center 40 38 Trailer 1 Not In Use 93 11 45 Kleberg Building 35 46 47 Transitional Apartments 507 Boiler Plant Old 48 22 139
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Analysis  Existing Facilities 2015 Facility Condition Assessment In 2...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Facility Condition Index Map n t s Analysis E32
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Facility Condition Index Map n.t.s.  Analysis   E32
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Maintainability A critical component to the long term stewardship of the TSD Campus is to instill a uniform and quality level of maintainability to buildings site work and appurtenances Lessons in the past three decades of campus growth can be taken and applied at TSD The following overview focuses on tactical and strategic recommendations as to the future courses of buildings at TSD In some cases such as landscaping and irrigation maintainability recommendations have also been disbursed to other sections of the master plan as well as technical recommendations included in the technical design guidelines appendix Exterior Building Envelope In a continuation of exterior building systems proposed with the previous master plan and subsequent campus development of the 1990s and 2000s the Master Plan recommends to both the Owner and end user for the continued use of cavity wall construction with full brick and integral color concrete masonry unit CMU masonry exterior veneer on future TSD Buildings This system provides the most effective balance of cleanability durability of 50 years of service life of 50 years or greater and economy of cost over other masonry systems used in state owned buildings such as granite or limestone So much of the prior campus built in the last two plus decades consist of masonry cavity wall construction with a load bearing CMU substrate The Master Plan proposes the introduction of other substrate systems such as insulated concrete form ICF walls that may prove a faster more economical and more easily waterproofed at engaged excavated substrates system in future construction while also providing excellent continuous insulation CI and air and moisture barrier performance In the case of the three existing temporary buildings that exist on the campus the need for building systems and envelopes that are durable and impermeable becomes clear Multiple temporary buildings suffer from varmint infestation an issue that will be addressed upon their demolition Stormwater Considerations There are multiple facets to the need to control and route stormwater on campus as well as the critical task of preventing stormwater infiltration into the interior built environment The design approach taken by prior firms in the roof and stormwater design of buildings built in the 1990s and 2000s is commendable Due to the proliferation of many largecaliper heritage trees including oaks pecans and other species on a campus where the majority of buildings are two stories or less in height and thus lower than the surrounding trees a general design strategy of higher slope roofs and minimized low slope applications will aid in long term maintenance With that the master plan recommends that pitched roofs much like the copper standing seam roofs with exposed gutters and downspouts continue to be the predominant horizontal planar system to future buildings and their envelopes at TSD Low slope roofs if needed should be easily accessible The concern is that tree and leaf debris if unchecked could block internal roof drain inlets whether basketed or not and stain or damage single membrane low slope roof surfaces Further future campus development and requirements established by the State Energy Conservation Office SECO under the State Comptroller Office mandate the incorporation of stormwater capture and cistern technology for capturing the first inch of a rain event There are two predominant active technology assisted approaches to stormwater capture the first flush approach and the static non submersible approach The former approach uses an initial buildup of graywater to essentially flush stormwater plumbing of debris buildup prior to storage while the latter provides above and below grade intakes for stormwater to route to a storage medium that is pumped by an exposed pump unit connected externally to the tank or cistern for reuse Although any pump supported cistern system will require maintenance the exposed pump design has proven to have greater reliability and servicing access over a submersible pump In either case the water can be reused for irrigation purposes on campus The Master Plan recommends the latter system whenever roof systems are not anticipated to receive significant leaf or landscape debris buildup and the former first flush system in areas of the campus where significant leaf and debris buildup is unavoidable commons spaces student residential space and academic learning spaces the Master Plan recommends use of impact resistant water resistant gypsum board on vertical surfaces as an alternative to painted CMU The integral woven or plastic mesh used in these board systems provides improved resistance to minor and moderate impact events Further a combined interior lighting strategy that focuses on the use of LED fixtures for all lighting minimizes or eliminates lighting mounted within hard furrings e g can lights and or uses exposed suspended pendants and even automated motorized winched pendants in high volume spaces is recommended This strategy will go far in reducing lighting maintenance needs and the time cost and mobilization efforts of lighting repairs as well as replacements in high volume spaces As indicated in the bar graph below specific building types which have more intensive use and custodial requirements in turn required a higher degree of maintainability Those buildings highlighted in the campus maintainability diagram located on the opposite page indicate those existing facilities which have a higher cost per square foot to maintain Interior Finishes and Environment Buildings constructed at TSD over the last two plus decades have often consisted of spartan heavily impact resistant surfaces and planes such as painted concrete block and resilient flooring While highly maintainable and serviceable separate considerations in providing a higher quality and less institutional interior environment for students and faculty alike is indeed a priority At the same time maintenance and durability remain a converse concern and reality Where painted and textured gypsum board is being recommended in public and Comparison of Operations Maintenance Costs by Spatial Type Total maintenance cost as calculated per rentable square foot RSF per year 1 75 RSF 2 00 RSF 2 25 RSF 2 50 RSF 2 75 RSF 3 00 RSF 3 25 RSF Administrative Office Space 2 28 RSF Education Classroom Library Space 2 15 RSF General Office Space 1 93 RSF Cafeteria Food Service Space 3 12 RSF Research Space 3 19 RSF Data from International Facility Management Association IFMA Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Research Report 32 2009 Rentable Square Footage is an industry term that is not to be construed as TSD Property being rented or leased in any fashion E33 Analysis
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Maintainability A critical component to the long-term stewardship of t...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Maintainability n t s Maintainability Legend Existing Portable Buildings at or past end of service life Existing buildings whose operations existing systems roof configuration or building envelope require a higher degree of maintainability Existing buildings whose FCI or existing systems will require significant work to effect a serviceable level of maintainability or simply warrant demolition Areas where tree coverage or environment are such that low slope roofs are not recommended Estimation of existing tree coverage on site Analysis E34
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Maintainability n.t.s  Maintainability Legend Existing Portable Buildi...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Sustainability Implementation of the proposed master plan strategy for the Texas School for the Deaf requires an integral focus towards improving the overall ecological building system stormwater and energy use sustainability to the TSD Campus Many of these imperatives are in fact baseline requirements given the recently adopted ASHRAE requirements for state owned buildings established by SECO A range of general issues have been identified within and throughout the TSD Campus which must be addressed in the course of proposed deferred maintenance improvements existing facility renovations and new construction These strategies include the following Building Envelope Improvements Particularly for those buildings in the campus over 30 years of age renovations must focus on implementing a continuous insulating CI strategy for existing facilities and replacing outdated single pane fenestrations with insulated glazing units Stormwater Control Recently analyzed erosion in the Bouldin Creek watershed bounding the northern end of the campus can be largely attributed to significant impermeable surface area across the northern half of the campus with little area between buildings and roadways to the creek basin to retain stormwater for ground recharge Energy Performance Adaptive reuse renovation and continued addressing of deferred maintenance matters will allow the opportunity for the replacement of less efficient fluorescent and HID based lighting systems installation of more sophisticated lighting controls and sensors and replacement of components of the central heating and cooling system Abating Heat Island Effect Much of the public and common circulation space on campus suffers from a general lack of shade and expensive existing covered walkways are few and far between Key areas of the campus require significant numbers of added shade trees or architectural treatment to reduce high albedo and in the process increase the amount of outdoor space that can be used for student or activity use E35 Analysis The following buildings noted in brown in the adjacent diagram require significant improvements or demolition to address sustainability issues A Central Plant Deferred maintenance and system replacement will over time improve energy performance for the entire campus B Kleberg Building HVAC improvements lighting replacement and improvements to improve R U value performance to the building envelope are needed C Old Boiler Building The building warrants demolition as it has no effective HVAC system at present and the antique brick and structural clay tile perimeter wall construction would make it difficult to achieve an effective CI envelope D Auditorium Gustafson s modernist auditorium though large faces similar HVAC general energy use and building envelope performance issues as many of the older buildings on campus E Clinger Gymnasium Unlike the Auditorium the Clinger Gym though it will require significant building envelope improvement would include modernization of the gym s lighting technology and mechanical system to include high efficiency HVAC distribution F ERCOD and Toddler House Similar MPE and building envelope improvements are necessary to make the buildings more sustainable G Cottages Much like the Auditorium the Cottages are old and do not warrant the of cost for building envelope and MPE renovations necessary for the buildings to be more sustainable All cottages are therefore to be demolished allowing for the development of permeable recharge land south of the Bouldin Creek watershed H Temporary Trailers The once temporary trailers have been in a permanent role for too long and need to be removed Wood framed low R U value building envelopes and inefficient DX type air conditioning systems do not make the facilities sustainable elements to the campus Likewise the following site and campus issues have been identified as sustainable solutions that are being incorporated into the master plan as numbered in the attached plan Note that these issues respond to matters such as heat island blooms noted in color from yellow to red on plan and blue hatching denoting surface area that will require service by stormwater cistern collection as required by SECO for state buildings in locations receiving 20 inches or more per year of rainfall These responses include the following 1 South Pedestrian Mall Heat Bloom Shade tree or architectural treatment is recommended to abate the high heat buildup observed in the high traffic pedestrian zone between Ford and Kleberg Buildings 2 Auditorium Heat Island The proposed multipurpose facility and theater affords the opportunity to address erosion stormwater and heat island issues and install permeable or higher reflectivity paving systems north and west of the new facility Increased shade tree solutions are recommended as well 3 Athletics Stormwater Control During the course of performing the work proposed in the master plan for the football baseball softball design solutions are needed to retain more stormwater on the site reduce heat island effect and prevent heavy stormwater runoff to the north 4 Permeable Paving Additional paving for parking needed in the northern half of the TSD Campus should be permeable systems or linked to subgrade storage or geotextile media to reduce runoff risk to the Bouldin Creek watershed 5 Preservation of Commons Space and Heritage Trees Any new parking constructed in high visibility areas of the Campus shall require careful detail to mitigate potential heat island effect maximize on site retention of stormwater and protect existing heritage tree plantings
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Sustainability Implementation of the proposed master plan strategy for...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Sustainability Diagram n t s Sustainability Diagram Legend EPA recommended bio swale Areas requiring stormwater recapture per SECO req s High risk erosion area Buildings to be demolished Recaptured or erosion controlled green space Existing buildings w significant sustainability challenges Albedo heat island areas HIGH LOW Analysis E36
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Sustainability Diagram n.t.s.  Sustainability Diagram Legend EP...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Topography and Drainage The topographical composition to the Texas School for the Deaf Campus presents multiple challenges in the continued development and maintenance of the institution Perhaps most obvious of these is that some 76 feet of rise fall exists across the campus spanning from a crown east of Koen Hall to a low point situated within the Bouldin Creek ravine along the north campus perimeter A comprehensive range of design solutions including both subgrade storm water sewerages and surface drainage solutions have been incorporated over the course of the modernist and postmodern development of the campus into the early 2000s Concurrently to this however the campus development of the 1990s and 2000s also resulted in a significant increase to the impermeable surface area of the campus with little designed in the form retention catchment or recharge of storm water which may accumulate on campus in a precipitation event Based upon calculations existing campus buildings alone would generate approximately 248 000 gallons of storm water discharge onto the campus in a 1 inch rain event while the core of the campus has a near 1 1 ratio between permeable and impermeable surfaces to receive this water While sumps interceptors and drains collect much of this runoff a large percentage drains to the west but predominantly to the southwest and to the north into the Bouldin Creek watershed which bounds the site from two sides Above A view looking west down Bouldin Creek as it runs south of the site It appears heavy flow from upstream rain events has eroded the embankment beyond the traditional cross section of the creek The erosion is currently undercutting the chain link perimeter fence E37 Analysis This discharge into Bouldin Creek has proven to be a systemic problem across much of the Bouldin Creek Watershed both within and beyond the boundaries of the TSD Campus and is presently being analyzed by both the City of Austin and the EPA Within TSD grounds the greatest problem lies to the southwest where a laydown yard situated west of the Maintenance Complex has provided a discharge conduit for stormwater free of the usual gamut of thicket growth and tree roots that would traditionally prevent erosion of the embankment Regardless of any active or passive stormwater control solutions incorporated in the campus immediate stabilization through naturalization of native vegetation gabions and rock and grade control weirs will be required along this stretch of the creek Similar conditions of lesser severity were observed along the north perimeter of the campus though root footings and plant growth in that area of campus has limited erosion to a lesser degree It is recommended TSD coordinate future efforts with existing resources of the City of Austin Watershed Protection Department On the campus itself three predominant elements in this proposed master plan will greatly improve the impacts of long term stormwater drainage First SECO requirements for state owned buildings as prescribed by Texas Government Code Chapter 447 004 mandate that nearly half of the 125 148 gross square feet in new construction require rainwater harvesting systems to capture the first inch of rainfall upon that structure Installation of capture systems in future buildings will reduce campus stormwater load by 13 400 gallons per event Secondly the proposed master plan includes demolition of 42 192 gross square feet of space with 55 percent of that reduction of roof area coming with the demolition of the existing residential cottages on the northwest end of the campus Removal of the cottages will allow for much increased recharge and retention of stormwater in that campus quadrant rather than becoming runoff into Bouldin Creek Finally additional surface parking proposed throughout campus will include the incorporation of geotextile systems permeable pavers and or interceptors to capture stormwater not for release into storm sewers but for ground recharge Thus future expansion and densification of the TSD Campus will not involve a parallel increase in storm water runoff that could exacerbate on and off campus erosion and watershed quality issues
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Topography and Drainage The topographical composition to the Texas Sch...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Topography Gradation and Drainage Plan n t s Topography and Drainage Legend Erosion risk areas observed High grade areas w low erosion risk due to turf or drainage control Approx path of stormwater surface flow EPA recommended bio swale FEMA established 100 yr flood plain boundary FEMA established 500 yr flood plain boundary Elevation Change Gradient High Ground 537 above sea level Low Ground 461 above sea level Analysis E38
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Topography Gradation and Drainage Plan n.t.s.  Topography and Drainage...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Capitol View Corridor Study Background In 1983 the legal protections for the Capitol View Corridors CVC were established by then State Senator Lloyd Doggett and State Representative Gerald Hill Senate Bill 176 during the 68th Legislative Session These projections can be found as Chapter 3151 of the Texas Government Code The City of Austin has also established Capitol View Corridors some of which differ from the State CVC s However the South Congress Avenue CVC adjacent to the TSD campus is the same on both the State and City plans TSD TSD Capitol View Corridor 6 The images below show the CVC locations CVC number six is on South Congress Avenue adjacent to TSD campus Photo by Flynn Construction Capital View Corridors E39 Analysis Capital View Corridor 6
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Capitol View Corridor Study Background In 1983 the legal protections f...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Aerial image from ArchMap n t s Analysis E40
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Aerial image from ArchMap n.t.s.  Analysis   E40
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Traffic and Parking Analysis Total Vehicles Entry Total Vehicles byby Entry Traffic The TSD campus is served by one north south arterial road South Congress Avenue and one east west feeder road Elizabeth Street TSD encourages most traffic to use the Elizabeth Street entrance in lieu of the South Congress Avenue entrance It appears South Congress Avenue traffic is mainly visitors and parents Parking This survey is for paved surface parking Campus wide parking nears capacity just before and after lunch Overflow parking is sometimes placed in the outfield of the baseball softball practice field Parking spaces are spread across the campus but do not appear to be concentrated in the highest demand areas The highest parking utilization rates were at the southwest and northeast portions of the campus 149 150 116 91 100 74 54 50 41 25 15 90 76 West Elizabeth Elizabeth StreetStreet 47 15 100 98 36 16 15 43 23 21 Congress South Congress Avenue Counts were taken on a Tuesday and Friday as these are historically the highest parking demand days These charts are for Tuesday which was the higher occupancy of the two days Detailed parking data and analysis is found in the Appendix 0 It may be appropriate to add parking spaces at the southwest and northeast portions of the campus for current building use If building use is shifted parking should be shifted accordingly The forecasted 10 year enrollment growth is 23 percent A corresponding increase in parking capacity would be 110 parking spaces 7 8A 8 9A 9 10A 10 11A 11 12A Noon 1 2P 2 3P 3 4P 4 5P 5 6P Total Parking Total Parking 600 500 Occupied Parking Spaces 110 additional parking spaces needed if consistent with forecasted enrollment growth 174 170 Number of Vehicles Counts were taken on a Tuesday and Friday as these days are historically the heaviest traffic days These charts are for Tuesday which was the higher count of the two days Detailed traffic data and analysis is found in the Appendix 200 Capacity 474 400 300 376 388 406 392 307 374 Spaces Occupied 388 422 394 308 200 236 100 0 E41 Analysis 7 8A 8 9A 9 10A 10 11A 11 12A Noon 1 2P 2 3P 3 4P 4 5P 5 6P
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Traffic and Parking Analysis  Total Vehicles Entry Total Vehicles byby...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Existing Traffic Diagram n t s Existing Traffic Legend No Staff 11 15 1 5 16 20 6 10 20 Staff Lot Serves This Building Lot May Potentially Serve This Building Parking Capacity Parking Load Parking Lot Analysis E42
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Existing Traffic Diagram, n.t.s.  Existing Traffic Legend No Staff  11...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Traffic Diagram n t s Proposed Traffic Legend No Staff 11 15 1 5 16 20 Parking Capacity Parking Load 6 10 20 Staff Lot Serves This Building Lot May Potentially Serve This Building E43 Analysis Parking Lot
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Traffic Diagram, n.t.s.  Proposed Traffic Legend No Staff  11...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Pedestrian Flow Diagram n t s Pedestrian Flow Legend Areas of concentrated pedestrian activity Primary and secondary routes of pedestrian flow Areas of pedestrian interaction with nearby vehicular activity Targeted areas for pedestrianfriendly site improvements Analysis E44
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Pedestrian Flow Diagram, n.t.s.  Pedestrian Flow Legend Areas o...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Landscaping Study Open Green Space Inventory Over half of the 62 acre TSD campus is open green space 55 percent and covered in some form of vegetation or pervious groundcover Roughly 18 acres 29 percent is paved with an impervious material such as concrete asphalt or other hardscape material The remaining 10 acres 16 percent of coverage consists of buildings and other structures Heritage Tree Inventory A Heritage Tree is defined as a tree that has a diameter of 24 inches or more measured 4 5 feet above natural grade Only specific tree species are considered to be in the Heritage Tree category These include the Texas Ash Bald Cypress American Elm Cedar Elm Texas Madrone Bigtooth Maple Pecan Walnut and all Oak Trees Of the approximately 450 trees on the TSD campus roughly 200 have a trunk that measures 24 inches or more in diameter A thorough tree survey is necessary to determine the species of these trees to determine the exact number of Heritage Trees on the TSD Campus A field inspection of the trees was performed on the TSD Campus approximately 150 trees were identified as potential Heritage Trees The location of Heritage Trees must be a consideration when planning future campus development and expansion Reference the diagram to the following page that shows the location of potential Heritage Trees on the TSD Campus Open Space Building Impervious Paving Property Line Existing Conditions Open Space Diagram n t s Existing Building Proposed New Building Final Plan Open Space Diagram n t s E45 Analysis
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Landscaping Study Open Green Space Inventory Over half of the 62-acre ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Heritage Tree Diagram n t s Tree Legend Heritage Tree Non Heritage Tree Analysis E46
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Heritage Tree Diagram, n.t.s.  Tree Legend Heritage Tree Non-Heritage ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Neighborhood Land Use Study Neighborhood Planning Area The TSD campus is in the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Planning Area as designated by the City of Austin Planning and Zoning Department Immediately adjacent to the campus and across South Congress Avenue to the east is the Greater South River City Neighborhood Planning Area Neighborhood plans are produced by neighborhood residents and adopted by the City Council The neighborhood plans provide a framework and vision for future neighborhood development including a future land use map Future Land Use During the neighborhood planning process neighbors and staff develop a future land use map FLUM that is a graphical representation of recommendations for future growth patterns throughout the neighborhood It depicts where different types of development should or are preferred to occur The land use plan serves as a blueprint for future development in a neighborhood planning area A FLUM is based on policies and land use principles and is created through the neighborhood planning process FLUMs show the preferred land use patterns the neighborhood is trying to achieve Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Land uses are shown parcel by parcel with different colors corresponding to different uses such as single family residential office or mixed use The City of Austin has a wide range of land use categories The image at right shows the Bouldin Creek and Greater South River City neighborhood planning areas and their combined future land use map each separately adopted by the City Council The future land use map indicates the desire for the neighborhood land use to remain heavily single family residential with clustered multi family development Mixed use and other retail development is preferred to remain densely located to the north between the TSD campus and Lady Bird Lake and along the major corridors of South Congress Avenue and South 1st Street E47 Analysis South River City Neighborhood
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Neighborhood Land Use Study Neighborhood Planning Area The TSD campus ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Wayfinding Plan n t s Wayfinding Diagram Legend Note that translucent clouded areas are noted as zones of the campus either vehicular zones noted in blue and pedestrian zones noted in green where attention to wayfinding implementation will be critical and requires further tactical analysis Major vehicular directional signage stations Major campuswide pedestrian information kiosk Key directional or building identification vehicular signage Pedestrian directional or key building identification signage Key vehicular entry signage points onto campus entries Analysis E48
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Wayfinding Plan n.t.s.  Wayfinding Diagram Legend Note...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Utilities Chilled Heating Water Distribution Currently 19 of the 40 permanent buildings are served by the central plant located inside the Elizabeth Street entrance This is equivalent to 422 000 square feet of the current 533 209 square feet of campus buildings The central plant houses two water cooler chillers that were refabricated in 2015 as well as three natural gas boilers that were installed in 2016 A third chiller is included in the plant but has not been refabricated at this time It is anticipated that new cooling towers will be installed in 2017 Primary distribution for heating and chilled water throughout the campus comes primarily via a utility tunnel that is located below the main south campus mall which then branches off to adjacent buildings Removable pavers allow for maintenance access to the piping Each building served has the ability to be isolated from the campus loop for repair This utility artery does not extend north past the existing Davis Auditorium and the master plan does not recommend extension of that artery to serve the northernmost campus Domestic Water and Sewer Like electrical service the existing 10 inch main service from the south of the campus on West Elizabeth Street is sufficient both to present and proposed future facility growth domestic water needs Campus expansion from the late 1950s into the 2000s produced a domestic water service loop system that broadly follows the path of the campus loop drive excluding the athletics field to the west Excepting the concern mentioned below regarding the area northeast of the Elementary School significant water utility infrastructural work is not anticipated in the time cycle of the master plan Likewise both building wastewater and storm water sewerage infrastructure is considered sufficient for present and proposed master plan growth of the campus In relation to issues raised in the Topography and Drainage section of the Master Plan it is recommended that further tactical investigation is undertaken during the course of future erosion and watershed stabilization efforts to the north and south boundaries of the Bouldin Creek as a total of 10 known storm sewer outlets discharge into this watershed The central plant currently has the capacity to serve the new proposed facilities indicated in the master plan without a need for expansion Certain proposed buildings like the new Central Services Building will require direct buried heating and chilled water service extended from the main tunnel Conversely the proposed renovations to the Cora Clinger Gymnasium are such that a tunnel or direct buried extension is not considered cost effective at this stage of campus development Packaged stand alone systems are recommended as a near term solution rather than long term In Phase 4 the zone formerly occupied by the Cottages located in the northwestern zone of campus will receive a future facilities expansion When that development occurs such facility expansion will require a new northern central plant that will serve regional facilities too distant from the existing plant and could then be piped to the Clinger Gym Concerns Proposed Toddler Building and classroom expansion to the existing Elementary School will result in sizeable costs in the relocation of electrical service domestic water gas fiber optic storm water and waste water utilities that are routed under the existing northeastern stretch of the campus loop drive This relocation is unavoidable due to the programmatic and synergistic demands of locating needed facility growth and these costs have been factored into the preliminary cost schedule of the master plan Future expansions are recommended to locate these utilities along a new route clear of any proposed expansion so that this reroute is a one time occurrence Electrical Existing electrical service infrastructure into the campus consists of a 12 47 KV overhead riser pole feeding from public utility service along W Elizabeth Street along the south campus perimeter which then distributes via three feeders from a pad mounted switch near the tee intersection of the Elizabeth Gate Drive and South Campus Loop These feeders distribute to a mixed network of 13 substations each equipped with primary switch transformer and secondary distribution There is a mix of both exterior free standing vaultset and indoor substations used throughout campus with some serving single and others serving multiple buildings Another concern is of the current configuration of having only one primary electrical feed into the campus If a catastrophic event were to occur that compromised the overhead electrical feed at the West Elizabeth Street Gate the campus could be without power for an extended period of time if the utility were unable to make timely repairs Austin Energy maintains an overhead electrical primary system along South 1st Street that provides a possible second fee location to the campus However this is the same system that provides the current feed to the campus along West Elizabeth Street If the current overhead electrical feed were compromised a secondary feed along South 1st Street could potentially keep the campus operational during repairs Unfortunately if the overhead system along South 1st Street were comprised neither electrical feed would be able to provide uninterrupted power to the campus until repairs were complete The existing riser pole distribution is more than sufficient to serve proposed facility and infrastructure growth on campus which is expected to increase load by approximately 30 amps Further the additional facility construction is projected to increase substation network needs by an additional three or four units Enclosed preliminary project costs anticipate the likelihood that some projects such as expansion of the Seeger Gym or additions to the Kleberg Building will require relocation of existing substations serving those areas E49 Analysis Similar to the electrical system the only domestic water connection is provided at the West Elizabeth Street Gate There is a 16 inch water main that is routed parallel to South Congress Avenue along the east side of the Avenue Just north of the South Congress Avenue entry gate the water main changes to a 12 inch and changes location to the west side of the Avenue This would provide an adequate location to install a new 10 inch connection to the existing campus water loop giving a redundant location for domestic water access Additionally the Building Control Network BCN is aging and has limited capacity to increase the amount of monitoring devices that it can support It is recommended to install new fiber optic mains that have the capability to incorporate these new devices and prevent any overload on the network that could have any potential downtime
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Utilities Chilled Heating Water Distribution Currently, 19 of the 40 p...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Utilities Diagram n t s Legend A B C D E Existing Central Plant Building Clinger Gymnasium to use stand alone systems until a future NE Central Plant becomes a reality Zone of campus served by direct buried heating and chilled water service Zone of campus served by main utility tunnel or direct buried branches of that tunnel Area of concern requiring relocation of Loop Network of campus utilities Utilities Diagram Legend Existing Central Plant Main utility tunnel or main domestic water service Main utility tunnel or main Direct buried heating and domestic water service cooling Example water of direct buried heating and cooling water Multi utility common loop route around campus Area identified for Phase 4 Campus Development these facilities will require a stand alone central plant Zone of campus served by main utility tunnel or branch from tunnel Existing electrical substation node Zone of campus served by direct buried heating and cooling water Main electrical service onto campus to primary feeder node Analysis E50
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Utilities Diagram n.t.s.  Legend A B C D E  Existing Central Plant Bui...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Accessibility The massive building expansion that emerged from the 1990 campus master plan for TSD attempted to simultaneously address the myriad problems that TSD had faced for decades with accessibility Facility expansion resulting from the master plan was implemented in the midst of a statewide evolution in barrier free design culminating first in the nationwide adoption of civil statutes including the Americans with Disabilities Act t Guidelines ADAAG in 1992 followed in 1994 by Texas Government Code Chapter 469 better known in the industry as the Texas Accessibility Standards TAS This timeline is mentioned as much of the TSD campus expansion came about as adoption and enforcement with TAS in particular of these laws came to bear Since then and concurrent to the 2015 campus assessment review of the entirety of the TSD campus has allowed a look beyond individual building compliance with TAS and the holistic analysis of the effectiveness of campus accessibility on a strategic scale One of the greatest challenges to providing a barrier free environment at TSD is the terrain As noted by the shadowed red dashed line on the opposite page plan much of the primary north south pedestrian mall sits astride The Spine a notable steep slope best described as an urban ridge For decades it has provided an opportunity for multiple buildings such as Ford Pease Seeger and others to be built into the steep slope of the spine and connect lower floors with the western grade of the campus and conversely connect upper floors to the central mall to the east However for students traversing between the two grades for example during class changes between athletics focused classes and other academic classes many of the collections of stairs and ramps that traverse The Spine are less than practical Some ramp sets though meeting TAS requirements would take a student many minutes to ascend in the limited time of a class change Other routes such as the stairs between the Ford and Pease Buildings have no accessible route to them These buildings when analyzed individually may indeed meet TAS requirements but their design in concert may hinder students faculty and visitors from effectively transiting the campus in areas beset with challenging topography It is proposed that common spaces and building entries to new facilities and additions scheduled along The Spine include easily accessible lobbies with broad expansive linesof sight that connect to building elevators that can rapidly transport persons of need from one grade to another during class hours As noted in the subsequent phasing plan and master plan multiple additions and new construction are proposed along The Spine which could afford the opportunity to incorporate elevator nodes such as these In addition to The Spine a number of accessible route issues have been identified in the opposite page diagram Special care must be given to future campus expansion near major on campus roads such as the loop and consider more predominant crossing features such as elevated crosswalks in lieu of corner perimeter ramps along the rights of way Accessibility Diagram Issue Legend 1 Accessible sidewalks and intersection ramps needed along roadways 2 Better pedestrian warning features are needed at the campus mall terminus to the Elizabeth Gate T intersection 3 No spine traversing pedestrian route located between Central Plant and Ford 4 Permanent pedestrian service vehicle access needed between tennis courts and football field 5 Ramps at the Kleberg west entrance onto the campus mall do not meet TAS requirements and need to be reconfigured 6 Stairway between Ford and Pease is attractive but has no ramp elevator or lift option 7 Only stair access exists between Pease and Seeger to traverse from lower grade up to campus mall 8 Heavily used cow paths observed between high school residential and academic areas warranting concrete TAS accessible paths 9 Steep slope northwest of the Auditorium is a challenging location to situate effective ramps to traverse between the campus mall and lower buildings such as Deaf Smith and Special Needs 10 Permanent pedestrian service vehicle access needed from the east loop road onto the Elementary School mall 11 Accessible route northeast of Clinger is not TAS compliant 12 Additional permanent pedestrian routes needed to traverse from upper buildings down to the northwest loop road Narrow walkways and ramps on campus do not allow for deaf friendly accessibility E51 Analysis
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Accessibility The massive building expansion that emerged from the 199...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Accessibility Plan n t s Zoning Legend Areas of Concern as noted by keynote on opposite page Cow Paths Worn walkway routes in turf or dirt that require TAS compliant concrete walks Unpaved Vehicular Paths Larger worn paths used by campus service vehicles that require permanent paving The Spine Zone west of the main campus mall where steep grade change produces obstacles to developing effective accessible routes Analysis E52
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Accessibility Plan n.t.s.  Zoning Legend Areas of Concern  as n...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Safety and Security In the present day and unfortunate range of circumstances that dictate safety and security considerations in the educational environment it goes without saying that safety and security improvements are necessary on and around the TSD Campus This need is even more paramount and constant given that students of varying ages live on campus through the week Resulting in part with recommendations which came out of the February 2016 Campus Facility Assessment a number of site and infrastructural improvements are recommended below which will further equip the campus for the protective rigors of public education in the 21st Century The following text overviews general proposals for improvements that will aid in strategically providing a safer and more secure living and learning environment for TSD students faculty and staff Perimeter Fencing Currently the TSD Campus perimeter has a various types of perimeter fencing construction divided into three categories Painted tubular steel and masonry The more architecturally articulated system of stone capped modular brick clad posts and square tubular steel picket frames bounds much of the northeastern campus perimeter along South Congress Avenue and Nellie Street most of Nellie is tubular steel only at a single north man gate along South 1st Street and at the Newton Street north firefighter s gate and man gate Galvanized chain link fencing This system is utilized along much of Newton Street along both watershed boundaries to Bouldin Creek and with the exception of the aforementioned north man gate along South 1st Street Most of this fencing is 5 feet in height though a 7 foot high barbed wire topped fence is used along South Congress Avenue and South 1st Street at the creek boundaries CMU Masonry Split faced CMU is used along the Elizabeth Street boundaries that flank the south vehicular entrance The height of the fencing along Newton Street and South 1st Street raises concerns as to its deterrent effectiveness while a secondary consideration is the continued efforts of instilling an architecturally uniform and pleasing aesthetic appearance to the campus Thus it is recommended that over the near and long term period of plan implementation that fencing be replaced along these two thoroughfares with 7 feet height tubular steel and masonry fencing Designers working on this future project must ensure any fencing design is coordinated with regional first responders and the authorities having jurisdiction to ensure sufficient access onto campus for emergency vehicles which may necessitate supplemental man gates or knock down segments of fencing for vehicles Furthermore additional consideration should be made as to potential additional fencing along or near the south boundary of the proposed Bouldin Creek Watershed Trail as presently under consideration in the South Central Waterfront SCW Vision Framework Plan The parallel efforts of the SCW plan introduces a secure pedestrian route into the northern perimeter of the TSD campus which will symbiotically benefit campus security efforts along a perimeter that has long been an naturally obscure and overlooked boundary This trail has many positive benefits in its connective potential between TSD and the surrounding community but it also provides a more discreet sheltered entry onto campus for visitors which from a safety and security standpoint must be taken into consideration E53 Analysis Vehicular Entrances Presently TSD maintains two primary vehicular entries and one auxiliary entry at the corner turn intersection of Newton and Nellie Streets which is traditionally locked and closed The southern Elizabeth Street entrance is responsible for the majority of the vehicular ingress and egress to campus whereas the South Congress Avenue entrance though visually and ceremonially the predominant entry point onto the TSD Campus is often closed at off hours weekends and between semesters Both entry points have one notable drawback that has been noted and is recommended for action in the master plan Both entries have staffed gatehouses of more temporary construction that are side curb situated to each entrance This configuration reduces the guard s field of view and the opposite side of the drive at both entries could be totally cut off from the guard s field of vision as well as approach access if the lane closest to the booth is occupied by a larger vehicle such as a delivery truck or SUV Thus it is recommended both entries convert to centerline staffed gatehouses set on an island dividing both entry drives In the case of the Elizabeth Street entrance where traffic and congestion occurs it is recommended to move the gatehouse north to allow additional stack space between the gate and Elizabeth Street Electronic Door Hardware As currently included in the ongoing Deferred Maintenance improvements package to the TSD Campus integration of touchpad based electronic door lock system will provide the dual benefits of reducing the tracking and maintenance of a master or grand master keying system as well as providing a more accurate electronic record of entry and egress to TSD Buildings by authorized students and personnel This system will include the installation of card readers and touchpad stations at key entry points to campus buildings Though not in place at the time of assessment efforts associated with this master plan these systems will soon be installed and will provide a valuable layer of access security to the TSD Campus Exterior Lighting In the February 2016 Facility Assessment Report a number of TSD buildings were identified as being deficient in providing any or basic minimal footcandle levels of exterior lighting at key egress points In addition many campus key pedestrian routes and vehicular intersections lack sufficient exterior lighting Particularly at pedestrian routes with stairs or ramps this raises concerns of safety and liability for anyone walking these routes Many of these lighting issues are being addressed in the gamut of Deferred Maintenance improvements underway at the time of issuing this master plan document Conversely a significant increase in exterior lighting may conflict with night sky goals in the use of outdoor lighting that is not designed with effective hoods or uplight control baffles While these requirements may not be applicable on state property good stewardship and livability concerns demand that any new exterior egress and pedestrian lighting whether lamp poles or path lighting comply with best practices regarding light pollution Future design teams should maintain this philosophy in the development of the campus as a response to this master plan Surveillance Systems Further investigation and strategy development will be necessary to ensure that key access points activity areas and perimeters to the TSD Campus are effectively documented by security camera Numerous man gates lengths of campus perimeter and pedestrianpredominant and vehicular predominant zones lack coverage by camera While the size and perimeter of the campus is impressive the campus perimeter alone is 2 85 miles in length a practical but thorough system of camera implementation is necessary if not for deterrence at least for documentation of events which may occur Texas School Safety and Security Texas Education Code 37 108 requires school districts to implement a multi hazard emergency operations plan This is typically developed using a safety and security audit tool One useful tool to meet this requirement is developed by the Texas School Safety Center The 2016 facility condition assessment used many of the facility related criteria in the Texas School Safety Center tool is recommended A full safety and security audit using this or a similar tool is recommended
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Safety and Security In the present-day and unfortunate range of circum...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Safety and Security Plan n t s Safety and Security Diagram Legend Existing pedestrian personnel gate Proposed new gatehouse Proposed new visitor pedestrian gate Chain link fencing Tube steel masonry CMU masonry wall Vehicular entry point Wood picket fence Chain link maint d by others Existing well lit pedestrian routes Deficiently lit ped rtes Existing vehicular lamp post Area where vehicular lamp post needed Analysis E54
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Safety and Security Plan n.t.s.  Safety and Security Diagram Le...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan E55 Analysis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Soccer Field X Tennis Courts X Outdoor Natatorium Indoor Natatorium X X X X X X 3 X 2 2 2 X 2 2 X 2 X X X X X X 2 X X X X 2 X X X X X X 2 3 X X 2 X 2 Track Field X Softball Field Baseball Field State School for the Deaf Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Gymnasium Lacrosse Girls Soccer Hockey Boys Soccer Golf Cheerleading Wrestling Tennis Swimming Track Field Cross Country Softball Baseball Boys Basketball Girls Basketball Volleyball State School for the Deaf Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Football The peer institution comparative tables at right are based upon surveys completed of athletics programs at each institution as identified from each school s website and an analysis based on publiclyavailable aerial photography of each institution s athletics facilities present within their contiguous campus If that institution did not have facilities present on site or utilized facilities from another entity it was counted as not having facilities for that program Football Stadium Athletic and Physical Education Facilities Athletic and Physical Education Programs X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Institution has facility for this program Appears to use football field Appears to only be practice Uses baseball field Shares facilities at adjacent campus
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  E55   Analysis                                                       ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Athletic and Physical Education Facilities Plan n t s Putting Green and Track Facilities Tennis Center Football Stadium and Track Baseball and Softball Athletics and P E Facilities Legend Athletics Courts and Fields After School Play Area Analysis E56
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Athletic and Physical Education Facilities Plan n.t.s.  Putting...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Community Activity Diagram Key located on following page Community Analysis Overview and Dynamics The Texas School for the Deaf Campus resides within one of the more vibrant and dynamicallyshifting regions of the City of Austin a reality which the institution must realize respond and relate to in its ongoing development The campus is surrounded by a blend of active commercial single family and multi family development that is a melting pot of new and old construction differing sociocultural demographics and varying age groups Perhaps it is not too bold to say that some of those people with the greatest pride and vested interest in their community and likewise among the most outspoken reside in this area of the city Further the South Congress Avenue region continues to progress through a transformative period as different and allied forces continue to pursue the further development of the area into a more livable and sustainable environment It is therefore very important to understand these dynamics and incorporate a functional elasticity into the TSD Master Plan which allows for the continued responsiveness over time to continued development in this area of Austin All of these elements point to both the South Congress District being a crucial element to the Austin metropolitan area and likewise TSD is a crucial element of the South Congress District LADY A BA RT ON SP RIN GS BIRD B LAKE B RD T ID S R E IV R B S A E BOULDIN E CREEK R D C RES D SC O NG S 1S T SA VE ST NEIGBORHOOD In the course of reviewing parallel ongoing planning efforts in nearby areas of the community and meeting with community and institutional stakeholders the following four factors or groups were identified as key foci to sustain the Texas School for the Deaf as an engaged partner and presence within the community They include The Austin Deaf Community Regional neighborhood associations and districts Regional businesses and commercial interests Ongoing and enhanced community use of facilities A strong spirit of partnership and involvement already exists between TSD and these groups while further strengthening of these organizational relationships will undoubtedly benefit the School enhance pride and community investment within the immediate community This section explores what dynamics are occurring at present related to the above four factors groups and what planning and design responses TSD should incorporate in response to those dynamics The Austin Deaf Community A proud and vibrant group the long time presence of TSD in Austin has resulted in creating what is likely the largest deaf community in Texas Austin has become a regional and national leader in the realm of deaf owned businesses With many involved with or alumni of TSD it is only natural that the resources and activities at TSD often provide synergy and a location for events Particularly for TSD Alumni elements of campus and institutional heritage such as the preservation of disused campus facilities such as the Cora Clinger Gymnasium and its lower floor bowling alley or continued operation of the Heritage Center and on campus library remain of paramount importance Maintaining continued access for alumni and their families to these facilities has been voiced as a concern even in the present day necessities of campus security Finally new facilities proposed in the master plan such as gym and athletics improvements or student life and activity facilities should be designed not only with the students faculty and staff of TSD in mind but also the involved participation of the Austin Deaf Community who takes a vested interest in events held at those facilities E57 Analysis G E F SOUTH RIVER CITY N
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Community Activity Diagram  Key located on following page   Community ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Community Analysis restaurant standpoint has been indigenously developed local businesses which naturally cater to Austin s independent and unique culture Mixed use multi family development has also proliferated along South Congress Avenue The effects of this have strained vehicular and parking resources of the immediate arterial roadways and those few nearby parking resources as well as limited residential side streets and thoroughfares which have been granted permits for public parking The potential exists that should TSD be able to extend the presence and expanded public use of its on campus athletic and cultural facilities that these could be successfully marketed to the public as a popular venue given their proximity to dozens of Austin s most popular restaurants and shops Community Activity Diagram Key Diagram to the left The following is a review of the keyed activities noted in the opposite diagram of the immediate Austin community that surrounds TSD A B C D E F G Palmer Events Center and the Long Center for the Performing Arts at Butler Park Elements in consideration for the South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan call for a long term transition from large footprint more corporate aligned development between TSD and Lady Bird Lake to more mixed use open spacefriendly development The same South Central Waterfront plan mentioned in B above also proposes a public urban creek Canopy Walk which follows Bouldin Creek through the north edge of the TSD Campus The South Congress Avenue entrance to the TSD Campus though large and visible has functionally become a secondary entry that is closed much of the time The Elizabeth Street Gate has become a vital entry and egress point into campus Decentralized commercial development over the past 15 years has transformed this stretch of South Congress Avenue into a cultural mecca of Austin Shops and restaurants continued development and mixed use activity continue to be built along this arterial thoroughfare Less prominent than South Congress Avenue but nonetheless busy commercial activity on South 1st Street has made this area beginning south of W Gibson St a vibrant area with shops cafes and food truck venues prominently seen A rendering of the proposed elevated linear park trail envisioned in the ongoing South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan for the northern boundaries of the TSD Campus over Bouldin Creek Image courtesy of The City of Austin the U S EPA and CMG Landscape Architects Ongoing and Enhanced Community Use of Facilities TSD already partners with over 50 regional for profit and not for profit partners school districts and other community partners for their use of TSD athletics indoor student life and cultural facilities TSD recognizes this as an unrealized potentially larger source of revenue and outreach to the surrounding community That being said increasing community use of TSD facilities and resources cannot be solved solely by facility planning solutions In addition to improved on campus and public campus perimeter wayfinding and facility improvements proposed to athletics cultural and student life facilities it is proposed to TSD Administration that increased marketing social media interface and direct engagement with the surrounding community will result in a marked increase in public use of facilities Regional Neighborhood Associations and Districts The TSD Campus is bounded by two of Austin s most active neighborhood organizations to the north and west lies the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood while to the east of South Congress Avenue lies the Greater South River City Neighborhood which is represented by three key associations South River City Citizens SRCC South Austin Commercial Alliance SACA and Area Merchants These groups were contacted through the course of this master planning exercise to gain insight and input most notably through stakeholder engagement events Through these stakeholder engagement activities the most common point of feedback received from neighborhood representatives is how little daily engagement occurs between TSD and the surrounding businesses and community While much of this detachment is unavoidable due to the functional nature of an education institution and the otherwise largely residential and commercial activities that surround TSD it is hoped that interface opportunities identified in this master plan and allied efforts such as the South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan may lift the veil that inadvertently exists That being said both neighborhood associations support efforts proposed in this master plan such as continued campus development proposed safety and security improvements sustainability initiatives and the stabilization and qualitative improvement to the Bouldin Creek watershed as it bounds the TSD Campus Regional Businesses and Commercial Districts One area of sweeping change in the community that surrounds the TSD Campus since the 1991 Master Plan has been the influx of commercial and mixed use development along South Congress Avenue and to a lesser degree similar development along the South 1st Street corridor Interestingly this development begins on both thoroughfares approximately at the intersecting bounds of the TSD Campus and from there continues south The common denominator to these developments at least from the retail and Disused buildings and properties along South Congress Avenue have seen a massive rebirth in the past 15 years as adaptive reuse and mixed use development have transformed the drag into one of the most vibrant areas of Austin Analysis E58
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Community Analysis restaurant standpoint, has been indigenously-develo...
ENROLLMENT SPACE MODELING F
ENROLLMENT   SPACE MODELING  F
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Enrollment and Space Modeling Enrollment Trends and Forecasts TSD Student Locations The image below shows the home districts of TSD students The home district location is based on 2015 16 Public Education Information Management System PEIMS data provided from the Texas Education Agency TEA The TEA database included 530 K12 students and does not include students more than 18 years of age Due to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act FERPA requirements districts with one to five deaf hard of hearing students have the same designation TEA categorizes deaf hard of hearing as deaf hard of hearing For the sake of this the master plan these students will be categorized as deaf hard of hearing Non TSD Deaf and Hard of Hearing Student Locations The image below shows the home districts of students designated deaf or hard of hearing in the TEA 2015 16 PEIMS database Due to FERPA requirements districts with one to five deaf hard of hearing students have the same designation The TEA database includes more than 7 000 deaf hard of hearing students More than 7 000 students Enrollment Space Modeling F60
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Enrollment and Space Modeling Enrollment Trends and Forecasts  TSD St...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Enrollment Trends and Forecasts TSD Enrollment History and Trends TSD enrollment has trended upward for the last 10 years as indicated on the chart below While there have been yearly increases and declines within the upward trend the overall 10 year trend has a statistical correlation of 94 which is considered strong Combined Forecasts The chart below shows both the Continuing Trend Model and the Cohort Survival Method As the chart indicates the models result in similar forecasts Cohort Survival Model Enrollment Forecast Two methods were used to forecast TSD enrollment preschool through transitional The first method is a continuing trend The continuing trend forecast uses statistical analysis of the past 10 years of enrollment The chart above shows historic TSD enrollment and forecasts enrollment using the continuing trend While there is no guarantee the trend will continue the 10 year trend statistically strong as noted above The second forecast method used was cohort survival This method uses the percentage of students who previously progressing from one grade to the next to establish a survival rate This method also provides forecasts by grade level This method has proven reliable for school district enrollment forecasts for decades but is not guaranteed Grade Level Bubbles The table to the right summarizes the cohort survival forecast for each grade level The highlighted grade levels indicate two grade level bubbles moving through the district These bubbles if continued will result in rises and falls in space efficiency F61 Enrollment Space Modeling TSD Enrollment Correlation with Texas Enrollment Over the last 10 years the correlation between TSD enrollment and Texas public school enrollment has been 84 which is considered statistically moderate Texas public school enrollment is forecasted to grow 1 5 percent per year through 2022 by the U S Department of Education This Texas public school student growth rate is consistent with the forecasted TSD growth to the left
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Enrollment Trends and Forecasts TSD Enrollment History and Trends TSD ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Enrollment Trends and Forecasts Combined Method Forecast The red line on the chart to the right illustrates the total student forecast using the average of the continuing trend and cohort survival methods The green background depicts the standard deviation to model high and low forecasts Cohort Survival Visualization The cohort survival method for subgroups is the basis of building square footage demand modeling for each subgroup indicated below Historic enrollment growth in Early Childhood Education ECE Special Programs and Transitional may have been limited due to space limitations Enrollment in these programs may increase with more capacity History Forecast Special Needs Transitional 9 12 6 8 PK 5 ECE Enrollment Space Modeling F62
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Enrollment Trends and Forecasts Combined Method Forecast The red line ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan District Space Demand Modeling Schools for the Deaf Benchmarking The chart below shows how TSD total building square feet compares to deaf school facilities in other states Of the 19 state schools for the deaf from which data was collected 13 featured resident students like TSD The chart below summarizes building space square feet per student for these 13 schools Since the enrollment of these schools varied from 76 to 616 it would not be good practice to use an average of these schools for space demand modeling Thus a statistical analysis was performed on the data to develop a predictive tool for modeling square footage demand The image below is the scatter plot of these 13 schools The red dot is TSD and shows that TSD current square footage is below the peer trend line The correlation of the trend line is 82 which is considered strong Texas Public Schools Benchmarking Using the statistical analysis of more than 200 Texas school districts the academic campuses of TSD were modeled This comparison did not include residential facilities or special purpose spaces specific to TSD This comparison is based on current enrollment and shows how many square feet TSD would have if consistent with Texas districts of similar enrollment This comparison includes a 20 percent square foot adjustment for deaf space design principles The correlation of the analysis for Texas districts is 98 which is considered strong Current TSD academic space Texas District Peers 263 400 square feet 249 600 square feet Difference 13 800 square feet F63 Enrollment Space Modeling Total Building Space Demand Model The intent of this model is to provide portfolio wide space guidance Using the continuing enrollment trend and predictive formula from peers the space building square feet demand was developed The chart below shows the current building space compared to the building square feet TSD would have if consistent with peers given a continuing enrollment trend blue The orange line represents the total building square feet for the proposed master plan See the Cost of Ownership modeling in Section I Design Guidelines 184 Million Note Dips in total square foot model correspond with net reduction of building space when older buildings are removed estimated 30 year cost of ownership savings by keeping total building square footage below peers and strategic renewal
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan District Space Demand Modeling Schools for the Deaf Benchmarking The c...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Academic Campus Space Demand Modeling The chart below summarizes the current space utilization and the forecasted 10 year utilization The 10 year forecast assumes the enrollment growth indicated previously Campus Space Utilization The following chart summarizes the current and projected space utilization rate at each academic campus These utilization rates are for academic classrooms and labs Utilization rates were determined by comparing capacity of each space to actual enrollment of each space For the elementary this was done on a home room basis For secondary schools this was done on a period by period basis for each room This model assumes capacity of elementary rooms at 90 percent utilization and 75 percent for middle high school These multipliers allow for scheduling and grade enrollment variations Deaf Space Considerations Deaf space design guidelines recommend a smaller number of students per classroom and U shaped seating arrangements This results in lower space utilization rates than traditional school buildings Conceptual modeling indicates a deaf space campus would require 20 25 percent more space than a tradition campus Early Childhood Education ECE There are currently three occupied classrooms An additional three classrooms are needed to accommodate peak loads in the next ten years Elementary ES The elementary is currently near capacity and enrollment forecasts indicate moderate growth in the next ten years To accommodate this growth three additional classrooms will be needed This could be accomplished by moving middle school high school special needs rooms to the middle school high school building Additional capacity could be realized at the elementary by moving counseling or auditory suites to a central services building High School HS and Career Technology Education CTE The high school and CTE space was evaluated together as high school students utilize both facilities If program offerings do not change the current facilities will be near capacity in ten years based on forecasted growth Given recent statutory changes by the 83rd Legislature reference Section 28 00222 Subchapter A Chapter 28 of the Texas Education Code in requirements for career based education it is anticipated additional CTE spaces will be needed Middle School MS The middle school is forecast to experience fluctuations in enrollment due to bubbles working their way through TSD The bubbles are forecast to enter middle school in 2021 The bubbles are forecasted to move on to high school in 2023 24 Since the middle school and high school are in the same building consideration should be given to shifting room uses in the middle school high school to accommodate these bubbles Capacity ECE Elementary Middle School High School Academic Buildings CTE Cafeteria Indoor Athletic Space Athletic Elementary Dressing Library Rooms Core Space MS HS Library ES MS ES MS Boys Dorm Girls Dorm HS Boys Dorm HS Girls Dorm SN Boys Dorm Student Housing SN Girls Dorm Transitional Transitional Boys Dorm Girls Dorm Pease HR ERCOD Elementary Central Counselor Admin in Area HS Business Admissions Building Administration Enrollment Space Modeling F64
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Academic Campus Space Demand Modeling The chart below summarizes the c...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Cafeteria The current cafeteria dining area is 2 750 square feet Using Council of Educational Facility Planners CEFPI guideline of 10 14 square feet per student the capacity of the dining room is between 200 and 275 students Using this capacity the dining space would serve the projected 10 year enrollment of the elementary and middle school student body if they dined separately The high school enrollment is projected to reach 255 in 10 years which would be tight in this space if the high school dined separately from other age groups For this cafeteria to serve projected student enrollment the elementary middle school and high school will need to dine separately This space will not be adequate to house a combined middle school and high school student body Indoor Physical Education and Athletic Space Data from districts across the state indicates districts with 500 to 1 000 enrollment typically have four to five major indoor athletic spaces including play gyms practice gyms competition gyms and indoor workout rooms This count does not include weight rooms or pools TSD currently has three gyms so one or two additional gym or indoor workout spaces could be justified to be consistent with school districts of similar enrollment Locker Rooms Both the number of locker rooms and size of locker rooms was analyzed The number of locker rooms is typically based on peak load of seasonal activities and physical education There are currently four locker rooms available other than the two locker rooms that serve the natatorium The locker rooms that serve the natatorium are not available for TSD Gym use because the required second egress would be through the pool area which is not safe in the event the pool is unattended Based on the peak load of seasonal sports four additional locker rooms appear appropriate to be consistent with peer benchmarks Libraries Elementary library stack reading area is 1 520 square feet Using the Texas Education Agency library space guide 1 400 square feet plus 4 square feet for each student above 100 campus enrollment the current library stack area is adequate Using the projected enrollment of 186 the library should be 1 744 square feet The library would be 13 percent under sized for projected enrollment The middle school high school library is 2 848 square feet Using the same TEA guideline as above the middle school high school library should be 2 192 square feet for current enrollment and 2 624 for the combined middle school high school projected enrollment of 406 Based on this guide the middle school high school library is adequate for current and forecasted 10 year growth Consideration should be given to how the trend of decentralizing libraries will impact space utilization F65 Enrollment Space Modeling Student Housing The chart on the previous page summarizes the 2016 utilization rate and 10 year forecasted utilization Capacity is based on double occupancy for all residential buildings except special needs which is based on single occupancy Administration Space The chart shows current utilization rate and the 10 year forecasted rate assuming the administrative staff grows at the same rate as forecasted enrollment Benchmark for utilization is the mid range of several benchmarks including General Services Administration Building Owners and Managers Association and International Facility Managers Association The benchmarks ranged from 170 square feet per occupant to 300 square feet per occupant A mid range of 235 square feet per occupant was used as the benchmark Usable square feet per occupant includes all interior space in the administrative area except walls mechanical rooms stairs and elevators Many of these office areas are in self sustained small areas of 1 300 to 2 500 square feet In such a small area the square feet per occupant tends to be higher due to fewer occupants sharing common facilities such as restrooms meeting rooms workrooms copy rooms reception areas and break rooms Consolidating these self sustained areas in one common purpose built facility improved space efficiency 4 percent
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Cafeteria The current cafeteria dining area is 2,750 square feet. Usi...
G FACILITY NEEDS CONCEPTUAL PLANS
G  FACILITY NEEDS   CONCEPTUAL PLANS
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Facility Needs Conceptual Plans Phase 1 Toddlers Building Due to lack of space in the Elementary building the toddler program was moved to the old superintendent s house currently known as the Toddler building The program has outgrown the available space Therefore the toddler program will be relocated to a new addition at the Elementary for proximity to related programs Ford Building Due to the expansion of some Career and Technology CTE programs the existing space will be repurposed and the multipurpose meeting room will be relocated to the new central services building to make room for CTE programs A D Clinger Gym Built in 1928 Clinger Gym plays a vital role in TSD campus history Code violations and energy efficiency of the building envelope will be addressed in the renewal program Once the issues are resolved the vacated lower levels will be repurposed to an elementary multipurpose activity space and the historic two lane bowling alley will be restored Central Services Building Administrative activities are spread out across the campus depending on available space Admissions and Human Resources are located in temporary trailers that are past their life span Relocating administrative activities to the Central Services building will allow additional classroom space in academic buildings and the removal of temporary trailers B E Auditorium Building Due to deaf space deficiencies accessibility deficiencies and failing building systems the auditorium will be replaced with a 750 seat multipurpose flex theater facility This facility can house distance learning performing arts meetings and large groups The U shape configuration will conform to deaf space design guidelines C Note Solid color denotes new construction Solid color with hatching denotes renovation and repurposing of existing buildings Dashed outlines denote demolition of existing structures Finally half tone shading denotes site improvements Phase 1 1 A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1 E 1 F New Toddler Center Repurpose Clinger Gym to practice play gym elem activity center New flex multi purpose theater to replace auditorium Reconfigure Ford photo lab culinary arts to three CTE programs New Central Service Center Site improvements parking roads covered walks accessibility This list does not include abatement and demolition projects G67 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Facility Needs   Conceptual Plans Phase 1 Toddlers Building  Due to l...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 1 Work Plan n t s 1 F 1 A 1 D 1 C 1 B 1 F 1 A 1 E 1 F Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G68
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 1 Work Plan n.t.s.  1-F  1-A  1-D  1-C  1-B  1-F 1-A  1-E  1-F  ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 2 Koen and Lewis Dorms The current configuration of the dorms does not allow for multiple students to be in the public spaces and still be able to communicate with one another Therefore existing spaces including kitchens will be renovated to improve accessibility improve deaf space layout and create a more homelike atmosphere Seeger Gymnasium The campus lacks space and locker rooms to house all TSD athletic and after school programs Therefore an indoor multipurpose athletic space and four lockers rooms will be added to the building Student Center The Student Center will be relocated from Deaf Smith to the new Student Center Students after school activities will be housed in the Student Center as well as distance learning space A D I Education Resource Center on Deafness ERCOD Building The ERCOD building is currently housing the Outreach staff who have outgrown the space and will be moved to the Central Services building in Phase 1 Since the existing cottages will be demolished the Interpreters will be relocated to the vacated ERCOD building Outdoor Athletic and PE Facility Upgrades The backstop dugouts and batting cages at the baseball softball practice facility will be upgraded for safety and functionality Synthetic turf will be installed at the football field to allow more multipurpose use The existing six lane track will be expanded to eight lanes to accommodate track and field meets and more community use Transitional Housing Due to the forecasted enrollment growth of transitional students to be consistent with the campus zoning plan and to the growing transitional student population a two story housing unit will be added next to other existing transitional housing on campus B E J K Deaf Smith Center The translators and family services staff currently do not have enough space Therefore the Deaf Smith Center will be repurposed for them The Student Center will be relocated from the Deaf Smith Building to the new Student Center Building Pease Building Relocating administrative activities to the Central Services building in Phase 1 will allow the Pease building to be repurposed to a flexible Career and Technology lab Information Technology space will remain in its current location C F Note Solid color denotes new construction Solid color with hatching denotes renovation and repurposing of existing buildings Dashed outlines denote demolition of existing structures Finally half tone shading denotes site improvements Phase 2 2 A 2 B 2 C 2 D 2 E 2 F 2 G 2 H 2 I 2 J 2 K 2 L Repurpose portions of dorms to create learning kitchens Move Interpreters from cottage to ERCOD Toddler Buildings Repurpose Deaf Smith Building to family services and translators New Seeger multipurpose workout room and locker addition Upgrade baseball softball practice facility Expand CTE to north end of Pease Building and create Tech lab Remove portables Demolish cottages old boiler plant and site restoration New Student Center flex learning space Stadium upgrades synthetic turf track upgrade Locate Transitional housing at south end and add two units Site Improvements landscaping sustainability fencing Building Control Network This list does not include abatement and demolition projects G69 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 2 Koen and Lewis Dorms  The current configuration of the dorms d...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 2 Work Plan n t s 2 G 2 J 2 F 2 E 2 D 2 H 2 C 2 K 2 L 2 G 2 I 2 A 2 L 2 A 2 B 2 G Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G70
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 2 Work Plan n.t.s.  2-G  2-J 2-F  2-E  2-D  2-H 2-C  2-K 2-L  2-...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 3 Elementary Middle School High School Relocate administrative and mainstream special program rooms to create additional classrooms for the growing student population Middle School and High School Addition Due to the growing population of the Middle School High School the addition will create new space to house long term educational space needs A D Existing Transition Housing Due to the needs of transitional students Phase 2 created new transitional housing at the south end of campus by the other transitional housing and transitional classrooms The vacated dorm at the north end of the campus will be repurposed to a special needs dorm B High School Commons Students that live on campus do not have anywhere to socialize do homework or have access to after hours computer labs High School Commons will be located between Koen and Lewis Dorms to serve as daytime and after hours learning and socialization space C Note Solid color denotes new construction Solid color with hatching denotes renovation and repurposing of existing buildings Dashed outlines denote demolition of existing structures Phase 3 3 A 3 B 3 C 3 D Repurpose ES MS HS admin space to academic use Repurpose existing Transitional housing to special needs New HS commons between Koen and Lewis halls MS HS CTE addition per enrollment change This list does not include abatement and demolition projects G71 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 3 Elementary Middle School  High School  Relocate administrative...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 3 Work Plan n t s 3 D 3 A 3 C 3 B 3 A Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G72
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 3 Work Plan n.t.s.  3-D 3-A 3-C  3-B 3-A  Facility Needs   Conce...
A 3 A 1 A Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan 1 B Second Central Plant Phase 4 4 D Second central plant Outreach and applied research center Outreach and applied research center housing Site work electrical feed IT infrastructure and parking for outreach and applied research center 4 C 4 A 4 B 4 C 4 D 1 A 2 H B 2 G Deaf students in the state of Texas who do not attend TSD are served by the outreach staff The building will house the Outreach staff deaf space and learning research center Visitor housing will accommodate visiting deaf students families and visiting researchers Note Solid color denotes new construction and half tone shading denotes site improvements Dashed outlines denote demolition of existing structures 3 B A Outreach and Applied Research Center 2 B An additional central plant will be needed to supplement the current central plant which will reach capacity in the early phases of the master plan This central plant will support the Outreach and Applied Research Center and other facilities 4 B Phase 4 This list does not include abatement and demolition projects G73 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
A  3-A  1-A  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan 1-B  Second Central Plant  Phase 4  4-D  Second central p...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 4 Work Plan n t s 4 A 4 B 4 D 4 C Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G74
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Phase 4 Work Plan n.t.s.  4-A  4-B 4-D 4-C  Facility Needs   Conceptua...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Master Plan n t s Legend Existing Building Proposed New Building G75 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Master Plan, n.t.s.  Legend Existing Building  Propose...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Central Services Building Elementary Toddler Center View Looking Southwest Overhead of the South Congress Avenue Entrance Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G76
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Central Services Building  Elementary  Toddler Center  View Looking S...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Student Center Theater Central Services Building View Overhead of New East Parking Area Looking Northwest Towards Central Services G77 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Student Center  Theater  Central Services Building  View Overhead of ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Middle School High School Ford Building View North Down the South Main Pedestrian Mall Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G78
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Middle School High School  Ford Building  View North Down the South M...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Outreach Theater Softball Baseball View Looking Northeast Towards Multipurpose Building and Theater G79 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Outreach Theater  Softball Baseball  View Looking Northeast Towards M...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Renewal Optimization Strategic renewal can reduce long term cost of ownership which improves long term value for building owners managers and Texas tax payers Strategies utilized in the master plan to reduce long term cost of ownership were Renovate or replace economic analysis of older buildings Time cycles of renewal Space efficiency in conjunction with renewal efforts Renovation Peer Model Renovating all buildings as they are and adding new building space to match peer schools for the deaf Then replacing the auditorium and cottages in 20 years when they would be 80 plus years old Master Plan replaces the auditorium and cottages now Adds new building space but keeps total building square footage below peers The chart to the right compares 30 year cost of ownership of two models Cost of ownership models include initial construction cost future renewal adaptation interest and maintenance Renewal and adaptation models are based on a tool developed by the Association of Physical Plant Administrators that has proven reliable in decades of use This tool has been validated with the statistical analysis of 38 facility assessments by 11 consulting firms Thirty years was selected to include common bond terms and the first renewal cycle of most building systems materials Assumptions for this model were 3 percent bond interest 5 percent inflation and 6 per square foot for building maintenance What Impacts Cost of Ownership Many focus on initial construction cost as a means to control costs Initial construction cost represents 10 20 percent of the total cost of ownership Maintenance bond interest energy life cycles quality renewal and adaption represent the other 80 90 percent of total cost of ownership The goal of cost of ownership optimization is to reduce the long term total cost Experience indicates strategic renewal and building space efficiency have the most impact on long term cost of ownership Strategic renewal proactively schedules building renewal or replacement to minimize cost of ownership Synergy of Renewal and Space Efficiency The most impact on cost of ownership occurs with the combination of space efficiency and economically favorable replacement Less space is maintained and the systems are more efficient This is the case with the proposed Central Services Building This facility replaces older portable buildings in less space than currently occupied The demolition of cottages standing vacant will provide further opportunities for synergy of renewal and space efficiency This replacement of older inefficient space will reduce long term deferred maintenance Intuitive Model It is helpful to intuitively check cost of ownership models using general guidelines The chart below further refines this general cost of ownership savings model This can be done by using the 15 percent for initial cost and the 85 percent for 50 year long term costs 5 6 x initial cost noted above In the chart the difference in new square footage between the models is 98 400 square feet of new space Assuming a cost of 450 per square foot the initial cost of this difference would be 44 million The 30 year cost 60 percent of total 50 year cost of ownership would be The chart below compares the 30 year cost of ownership of two scenarios Initial cost difference 44 million Long term cost after initial 44 million x 5 6 x 60 percent 148 million Total Delta 192 million Cost of Ownership Comparison 1 200 000 000 1 129 323 314 184 Million Savings 1 000 000 000 800 000 000 945 040 889 Peer Based Square Footage Renovate existing buildings as they are Replace auditorium and cottages in 20 years 600 000 000 400 000 000 Master Plan Building square footage 13 percent below peers Replace buildings when economically advantageous Replace auditorium now remove cottages 182 896 538 200 000 000 125 069 377 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 Keep Existing Peer SF Strategic Replacement Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G80
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Renewal Optimization Strategic renewal can reduce long-term cost of ow...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Existing Auditorium vs Flex Theater Renovate Existing Auditorium and Addition The purpose of this analysis is to compare the initial and long term cost of renovating vs replacing the auditorium Scope Renovate existing add black box theater 14 300 square feet add meeting space restrooms dressing rooms stage storage lobby corridors ramps walls This option includes renovating the existing auditorium and adding a flex meeting black box space restrooms dressing rooms stage storage lobby expansion and associated corridor space New Flex Theater Cost Estimate 11 479 332 Scope Demo auditorium site restoration MP room theater restrooms dressing rooms stage storage lobby corridors ramps walls 27 200 square feet Total Project Budget 18 569 778 In 2016 dollars Total Project Budget 13 545 612 In 2016 dollars New Flex Theater This option includes replacing the existing auditorium with a 900 seat flex theater similar to Austin City Limits ACL Moody Theater in Austin Texas The floor space in front of the stage would serve as a flex space for concerts theater productions banquets and meetings The seating on the first level is moveable similar the ACL Moody Theater The seating in the balcony is fixed This design features two stage areas The traditional stage behind the proscenium can be used for theater productions and more The stage in front of the proscenium can be expanded with a stage lift system or utilized for an orchestra pit This accommodates concerts and other events without displacing theater sets Deaf Space Design The current auditorium has two deaf space design deficiencies The first is head on seating The proposed flex theater has U shaped seating to allow attendees to see each other Second it can be difficult to read signing from the back half of the existing auditorium due to the distance The seating in the proposed flex theater is closer to the stage G81 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans 70 000 000 Renovate and add to existing now replace in 20 years 60 Million 60 000 000 50 000 000 40 000 000 30 000 000 20 000 000 2047 2046 2045 2044 2043 2042 2041 2040 2039 2038 2037 2036 2035 2033 2032 2031 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 0 2034 New Theater 46 Million 10 000 000 2019 Conceptual Intent The purpose of the conceptual scope site plan and estimate is to provide a tool for making a renovate or replace decision These are preliminary concepts and will need refinement with additional stakeholder input Site Plan 30 Year Cost of Ownership 2018 The major long term difference in the two scenarios is the cost associated with the ongoing renewal and operating inefficiency of a 50 plus year old building and the replacement of the existing building when it reaches 80 years of age Site Plan 2017 Cost of Ownership Modeling The cost of ownership was modeled for 30 years The cost of ownership includes construction renewal adaptation interest and maintenance Renewal and adaptation models are based on a tool developed by the Association of Physical Plant Administrators that has proven reliable in decades of use This tool has been validated with the statistical analysis of 38 facility assessments by 11 consulting firms Thirty years was selected to include common bond terms and to include the first renewal cycle of most building systems materials Assumptions for this model were 3 5 percent bond interest 4 percent inflation and 6 per square foot for building maintenance Cost Estimate 15 737 100 Cross Section Looking North
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Existing Auditorium vs. Flex Theater  Renovate Existing Auditorium and...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Existing Cottage Repurposing The purpose of this analysis is to compare the initial and long term cost of repurposing of an existing cottage to a new use in this case for toddlers These scenarios are based on the assumption of one class one day occupancy If the program changed to separate morning and afternoon sessions the capacity would double This analysis is for building construction only and does not include site features such as roads parking and play areas New Toddler Facility Repurpose Existing Cottage to Toddlers Scope Convert two cottages to toddler center Six activity centers 9 250 square feet Cost Estimate 4 922 665 Scope New toddler center Six activity centers Demo two cottages and restore site Total 7 800 square feet Cost Estimate 3 543 540 207 680 3 751 220 Renovate Existing Cottage This option includes renovating an existing cottage to a facility to house the toddler program This model would accommodate current enrollment but not future enrollment if current trends continue It would require repurposing two cottages to accommodate future enrollment if trends continue New Toddler Facility This option includes six activity centers that will accommodate enrollment if current enrollment trend continues It also includes more storage additional restrooms and a staff area Cost of Ownership Modeling The cost of ownership was modeled for 30 years The cost of ownership includes construction renewal adaptation interest and maintenance Renewal and adaptation models are based on a tool developed by the Association of Physical Plant Administrators that has proven reliable in decades of use This tool has been validated with the statistical analysis of 38 facility assessments by 11 consulting firms Thirty years was selected to include common bond terms and to include the first renewal cycle of most building systems materials Assumptions for this model were 3 5 percent bond interest 4 percent inflation and 6 per square foot for building maintenance The model assumes the existing cottages will be replaced in 30 years when they are more than 80 years old Conceptual Intent The purpose of the conceptual scope site plan and estimate is to provide a tool for making a renovate or replace decision These are preliminary concepts and will need refinement with additional stakeholder input Facility Needs Conceptual Plans G82
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Existing Cottage Repurposing The purpose of this analysis is to compar...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Renewal Cycle Optimization These charts compare how renewal cycles compare for TSD facilities The intent is to demonstrate the impact of renewal scheduling and provide an informed decision making tool The renewal investment blue bars includes estimated renewal deferred maintenance and adaptation investment necessary to bring the campus wide facility condition index FCI down to 15 percent for each cycle Avg FCI 24 Renewal and adaptation models are based on a tool developed by the Association of Physical Plant Administrators that has proven reliable in decades of use PSC has validated this tool with the statistical analysis of 38 facility assessments by 11 consulting firms 30 years was selected to include common bond terms and the first renewal cycle of most building systems materials These models were based on 5 percent inflation 20 year debt term and 3 5 percent interest rate The top chart models the cost of ownership for a renewal investment every 7 years to bring the facility condition index FCI down to 15 percent in each cycle The total renewal cost is the summary of the renewal investment every 7 years blue bars The resulting average FCI of this model is 24 percent The bottom chart models the cost of ownership for a renewal investment every 10 years to bring the facility condition index FCI down to 15 percent in each cycle The total renewal cost is the summary of the renewal investment every 10 years blue bars The resulting average FCI of this model is 26 percent This model may seem counterintuitive in that deferring renewal from every 7 years to every 10 years results in less total cost This is explained by the 10 year cycle model resulting in an average FCI of 26 percent vs an FCI of 24 percent for the 7 year model Thus the 10 year model carries a slightly larger renewal backlog over time than the 7 year model Avg FCI 26 G83 Facility Needs Conceptual Plans
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Renewal Cycle Optimization These charts compare how renewal cycles com...
H DESIGN GUIDLINES
H  DESIGN GUIDLINES
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Design Guidelines Architectural Design Guidelines Overview Twenty five years into the third era of campus architecture at the Texas School of the Deaf the following architectural and aesthetic design guidelines have been prepared at a time in which TSD has grown comfortably into its relationship with the present day architectural context of its campus Architectural snapshots remain today of TSD s Victorian neoclassical and modernist eras captured in the form of a handful of buildings of each period that remain within the campus Much of TSD s architectural heritage can be found as vernacular ghosts woven into the formative and aesthetic vocabulary of those buildings constructed at TSD since 1990 Though much of the original built heritage of the School has been torn down over time much remains today to draw upon in the efforts to add in a respectful and cohesive manner to the collection of buildings and site work at TSD The master plan endeavors to develop guidelines that are better defined as a composition of heritage in which design professionals engaged in future projects at TSD may draw upon in developing formative aesthetic materialistic and bioclimatic solutions to their work TSD s architectural fabric is a loosely related mix of forms and colors with only a handful of overarching elements interconnecting them all into an institutional rhythm Given the high building density of the campus adherence to the architectural design guidelines of the master plan is more of an exercise in understanding the aesthetic heritage of nearby buildings than anything else This quality can already be seen in the existing campus as postmodern buildings constructed since 1990 were designed to integrate subtly to adjacent existing facilities through the use of different brick color and connecting building forms Future buildings at TSD must similarly be adapted to merge future styles and building technologies to their surrounding fabric The expansions and developments in the 1990s and early 2000s greatly improved the quality of learning and living on campus However those design strategies did not account for deaf friendly design strategies that have only recently been developed and understood The master plan outlines a range of strategies that should be considered when converting or designing a space Sources utilized in understanding deaf space strategies include surveys and interviews with faculty students and alumni as well as meeting with staff at Gallandet University in Washington D C As a result the following design guidelines are presented in a palette form of delivery so as not to stifle the opportunity to add future richness in form and diversity to the TSD campus but rather provide avenues for the same unique designs and subtle historical references made in the expansions of the 1990s and 2000s The following section overviews traditional building forms vertical and roof fabric bioclimatics and building recommendations at both the human and empirical scale in anticipation that these guidelines will shape decades of further architectural expansion at an Austin and statewide campus landmark H85 Design Guidelines Key General Guidelines for TSD Facility Design The following points represent general recommendations based upon the architectural fabric of the TSD Campus as well as best design practices in Deaf Space design and bioclimatic recommendations for this campus and the Austin area They include the following Massing When possible buildings should be defined by the gable or capped gable form Hipped roofs are not a part of the vocabulary at TSD Height Though three and four story buildings have been constructed at TSD in the last 25 years these spaces have presented challenges to TSD faculty and students alike Wherever possible buildings should be limited to no more than two stories in height Vertical Fabric Unit masonry specifically modular brick remains today and in the future as the predominant exterior material on campus Line of Sight The design of plazas entries courtyards and circulatory site work shall be done so as to minimize visual obstruction and maximize line of sight for deaf students faculty and visitors Eastern and Western Views Designers shall be cognizant of the prevailing dynamics on both eastern and western sides of campus The eastern campus requires greater attention to establishing an architectural sense of institution as seen from South Congress Avenue while the western side of campus requires both built bioclimatic and landscape solutions to soften the built environment and solar impact generated from the west Gable Gable Gable Heritage Middle School Middle School High School High School Above The gable form at TSD can be seen above in a myriad of buildings Left to right The capped gable of the circa 1925 Heritage Center two separate formative masses of the Middle School High School Classroom Building
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Design Guidelines  Architectural Design Guidelines Overview Twenty-fi...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines Vertical Building Envelope Palette The century and a half evolution of the TSD Campus has resulted unsurprisingly with a blend of masonry veneers and colors that are as much a reflection of the era each campus facility was built in rather than anything else Modular brick coursed in a half length running bond remains the vastly predominant style utilized across campus finished with standard concave joints The masonry blends shown here do not constitute 100 percent of the blends seen on campus for example the yellow cream brick used on the Cora Clinger Gymnasium is not shown and thus subsequent design professionals working at TSD are advised to carefully analyze the existing building vernacular and context in which future work is to be sited Every effort should be taken to develop tactical design solutions to the building envelope of future work that harmonizes with all existing adjacent construction Design Guidelines H86
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines Vertical Building Envelope Palette The...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Planting Zones When working within a specific zone focus active or passive or the connection between two or more zones it s important to identify specific elements to help shape the space to a desired outcome These elements can be described as design components that each designer can use to emphasize certain views spaces and circulation patterns Active Zone This zone s primary focus is on movement The scale of movement can vary from macro to micro depending on the user s intent Long axial movements from one side of the campus to the other along primary corridors are considered a macro scale while circulation from one adjacent class to another are an example of micro scale At a macro scale active zones should identify the central axis and provide a balanced overstory along that axis At points of interest such as building entries and intersection areas micro focus zones should be implemented These areas should be emphasized with scale color and texture changes These areas should also incorporate best practices for hard of hearing listed on page H82 Focus Zone This zones primary focus is on points of interest This includes entry points transition zones and sense of place on a micro individual user scale These are achieved by changes in color texture and arrangement At a macro scale this is experienced at a vehicular level while driving down South Congress Avenue the same principles apply but on a larger scale Passive Zone This zone s primary focus is to provide a naturalistic base palette from which to build upon and set parameters and boundaries This zone is often seen as a backdrop to human activity While some micro active zones may cut through a passive zone to provide circulation or an intimate gathering space this zone still remains mostly natural Elements The Architectural Forms of Plants Overstory Ceiling This is usually achieved with canopy trees but can also be achieved with built structures such as pergolas and shade screens Seven foot height minimum to allow an individual to walk underneath Understory Walls This can encompass a wide variety of plants and materials ranging from 18 inches to 7 feet to achieve the desired enclosure Examples include shrub massing ornamental trees berming hedges retaining walls and other built structures below the canopy line Groundcover Floor A planting or mass used as a visual floor usually below 18 inches This should be kept below the eye level of the individual within the space Overstory Ceiling Understory Walls Groundcover Floor Architectural Plant Form Diagram Zone Transition Section Diagram Typical Micro Focus Zone H87 Design Guidelines ACTIVE ZONE FOCUS ZONE ACTIVE ZONE PASSIVE ZONE
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Campus Planting Zones When working within a specific zone  focus, acti...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Specific Plants Elements Visual Characteristics of Plants Color General Wash Background color to harmonize a general view It should be uniform smooth and pleasing to the eye Accent A visual break is a sequence or pattern of plant material It has a dramatic effect on the appearance of a planting environment concentrating attention on a specific portion of the design Axis Color Accent Used to emphasize certain features of a composition Form The length width and height of an individual plant and its general shape General plant forms are rounded oval conical upright weeping spreading or irregular Vertical forms can be used to create strong accents as well as add height to a composition while horizontal forms add width to tall structures Weeping forms create soft lines and connections to the ground plane while rounded forms are useful for creating large plant masses to borders and enclosures Scale The relationship of a plant to another plant and to the planted space as a whole All aspects of the composition must be in scale with its user Sequence The continuity and connection from one element to another The proper sequence of color or texture will allow a viewer s eye to move within the space in an ordinary fashion and heighten the visual experience Formal Balance Diagram Balance Formal Repetition of features on each side of the central axis Texture The tactile and visual character of the physical surface as determined by the form size and aggregation of the units of which a plant area is composed Texture should be considered in terms of comparison between plants in the design and adjacent materials Balance Informal Variation of plant type quantity or position on either side of the central axis Axis Form Diagrams Informal Balance Diagram ROUND OVAL CONICAL WEEPING UPRIGHT HORIZONTAL IRREGULAR Design Guidelines H88
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Specific Plants Elements  Visual Characteristics of Plants  Color  Gen...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Designing Deaf Spaces Sensory Reach Spatial orientation and the awareness of activities within our surroundings are essential to maintaining a sense of well being Deaf people read the activities in their surroundings that may not be immediately apparent to many hearing people through an acute sensitivity of visual and tactile cues such as the movement of shadows vibrations or even the reading of subtle shifts in the expression position of others around them Many aspects of the built environment can be designed to facilitate spatial awareness in 360 degrees and facilitate orientation and wayfinding Space and Proximity In order to maintain clear visual communication individuals stand at a distance where they can see facial expression and full dimension of the signer s signing space There space between two signers tends to be greater than that of a spoken conversation As conversation groups grow in numbers the space between individuals increases to allow visual connection for all parties This basic dimension of the space between people impacts the basic layout of furnishings and building spaces Mobility and Proximity While walking together in conversation signers will tend to maintain a wide distance for clear visual communication The signers will also shift their gaze between the conversation and their surroundings scanning for hazards and maintaining proper direction If one senses the slightest hazard they alert their companion adjust and continue without interruption The proper design of circulation and gathering spaces enable singers to move through space uninterrupted Sensory and Reach Space and Proximity Light and Color Poor lighting conditions such as glare shadow patterns backlighting interrupt visual communication and are major contributors to the causes of eye fatigue that can lead to a loss of concentration and even physical exhaustion Proper Electric lighting and architectural elements used to control daylight can be configured to provide a soft diffused light attuned to deaf eyes Color can be used to contrast skin tone to highlight sign language and facilitate visual wayfinding Mobility and Proximity H89 Design Guidelines Light and Color
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Designing Deaf Spaces Sensory Reach     Spatial orientation and the aw...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Best Practices Applied Sight Triangles The user approaching or departing an intersection should have an unobstructed view of that intersection including sufficient lengths along each path A typical intersection is divided into areas known as quadrants There may be three quadrants such as for a T intersection or four such as for a four legged intersection Sight triangles are the specified areas along an intersections approach legs and across the included corners These areas should be clear of obstructions that might block a users view Site triangles can also be used to layout space in section A clear cone of vision must be maintained between the groundcover and the bottom the overstory trees at all intersections Reference adjacent diagrams Rule of One Third For best results design a mixture of species of about two thirds deciduous and or flowering ornamental species and one third evergreen species Evergreens provide color and interest during the winter months when deciduous plants have lost their foliage and gone dormant Wall Treatment A predominant architectural feature across the TSD campus are the large concrete and masonry retaining walls These walls are necessary given the grade changes across campus but have led to large monotone expanses throughout campus Planting mosaics paintings and other wall applications can be used to break up these large expanses and help tie together the landscape Some plant species are ideal for cascading those plants should be planted at the top of walls Another way the break up the spaces is the use greenscreen This technique allows plants and vines to grow vertically onto a substructure attached to the wall creating a living wall experience Site lines should also be considered when planting in front of retaining walls Plant species that grow beyond the height of the wall can cause security issues for faculty and staff that need to be able to see students Not all planting beds need to be densely planted at the base of retaining walls other techniques or applications can be employed Mosaics and murals often times are used as opportunities for class gifts way finding and or artistic expression areas Often times these types of applications become cherished areas and give the user a sense of ownership a key component to long term vitality Cascading Plant Over Wall Groundcover Understory Mosaic Mural wall Overstory Sight Triangles Typical Plantings Zones at a Pedestrian Intersection with Sight Triangles One Third Rule Typical Plantings Zones at a Pedestrian Intersection Section Cone of Vision Design Guidelines H90
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Best Practices Applied Sight Triangles     The user approaching or dep...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Texas Ash Fraxinus Texensis Arizona Cypress Cupressus Arizonica Cedar Elm Ulmus Crassifolia Bigtooth Maple Acer Grandidentatum Bur Oak TYPICAL FOCUS ZONE PLANT LIST TYPICAL PASSIVE ZONE PLANT LIST Texas Ash Fraxinus Texensis Honey Mesquite Prosopis Glandulosa Bigtooth Maple Acer Grandidentatum Bigtooth Maple Acer Grandidentatum Bur Oak Quercus Macrocarpa Bur Oak Quercus Macrocarpa Southern Live Oak Quercus Virginiana Quercus Macrocarpa Texas Red Oak Quercus Texana Texas Red oak Quercus Texana Anacacho Orchid Tree Bauhinia Lunarioides Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia Indiaca Bald Cypress Taxodium Distichum Arroyo Sweetwood Myrospernum Sousanum Desert Willow Chilopsis Linearis Arroyo Sweetwood Myrospernum Sousanum Yaupon Holly Ilex decidua Yaupon Holly Ilex decidua Yaupon Holly Ilex decidua Huusache Acacia Farnesiana Huusache Acacia Farnesiana Huusache Acacia Farnesiana Mexican Redbud Cercis Canadensis Mexican Redbud Cercis Canadensis Mexican Redbud Cercis Canadensis Texas Mountain Laurel Sophora Secundiflora Texas Mountain Laurel Sophora Secundiflora Texas Mountain Laurel Sophora Secundiflora Butterfly Bush Buddleja Marrubiifolia Butterfly Bush Buddleja Marrubiifolia Butterfly Bush Buddleja Marrubiifolia Cotoneaster Cotoneaster Spp Cotoneaster Cotoneaster Spp Cotoneaster Cotoneaster Spp Globe Mallow Sphaeralcea Ambigua Globe Mallow Sphaeralcea Ambigua Plumbago Plumbago Auriculata Knockout Rose Rosa Knockout Knockout Rose Rosa Knockout Sumac Evergreen Rhus Virens Texas Sage Leucophyllum Frutescens Texas Sage Leucophyllum Frutescens Abelia Abelia grandiflora Bird of Paradise Caesalpinia Pulcherrima Bird of Paradise Caesalpinia Pulcherrima Yarrow Achillea Spp Texas Lantana Lantana Urticoides Texas Lantana Lantana Urticoides Indian Hawthorne Raphiolepis Indica Plumbago Plumbago Auriculata Plumbago Plumbago Auriculata Red Yucca Hesperaloe Parviflora Red Yucca Hesperaloe Parviflora Esperonza Tecoma Stans Big Muhly Muhlenberia Lindheimeri Big Muhly Muhlenberia Lindheimeri Fall Aster Aster Oblongiformis Gulf Muhly Muhlenbergia Capillaris Gulf Muhly Muhlenbergia Capillaris Purple Cone Flower Echinacea Purpurea Switch Grass Panicum Virgatum Switch Grass Panicum Virgatum Iceplant Delosperma Spp Horseherb Calyptocarpus vialis Coral Honeysuckle Lonicera Sempervirens Leadwort Plumbago Ceratostigma plumbaginoides Buffalo Grass Buchloe Dactyloides Iceplant Delosperma Spp Liriope Liriope Muscari Leadwort Plumbago Ceratostigma plumbaginoides Mondo Grass Ophiopogon Japanicus Liriope Liriope Muscari Sedum Sedum Spp Mondo Grass Ophiopogon Japanicus Sedum Sedum Spp Verbena Spp Buffalo Grass Bermuda Hybrids H91 Design Guidelines Buchloe Dactyloides Verbena Spp UNDERSTORY GROUNDCOVER UNDERSTORY OVERSTORY Cupressus Arizonica OVERSTORY Arizona Cypress GROUNDCOVER GROUNDCOVER UNDERSTORY OVERSTORY TYPICAL ACTIVE ZONE PLANT LIST Shortgrass Prairie Seed Mixes Bermuda Hybrids Zoysiagrass Zoysia Japonica
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Texas Ash  Fraxinus Texensis  Arizona Cypress  Cupressus Arizonica  C...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Planting Zone Plan n t s Planting Zone Diagram Legend Active Zone Passive Zone Macro Focus Zone Micro Focus Zone Design Guidelines H92
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Proposed Campus Planting Zone Plan n.t.s.  Planting Zone Diagram Legen...
Texas Red Oak Texas Ash Lacebark Elm Cedar Elm Typical Overstory Evergreen Trees Typical Overstory Deciduous Trees Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Afghan Pine H93 Design Guidelines Austrian Pine Pinyon Pine Arizona Cypress Bigtooth Maple
Texas Red Oak  Texas Ash  Lacebark Elm  Cedar Elm  Typical Overstory Evergreen Trees  Typical Overstory Deciduous Trees  T...
Typical Understory Flowering Trees Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Vitex Texas Redbud Desert Willow Typical Understory Shrubs Texas Mesquite Artemisia Lantana Rock Rose Agustache Purple Cone Flower Design Guidelines H94
Typical Understory Flowering Trees  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Vitex  Texas Redbud  Desert Willo...
Typical Understory Ornamental Grasses Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Mexican Feather Grass Sideoats Grama Blonde Ambition Typical Groundcovers Feather Reed Grass Ice Plant Red Sp H95 Design Guidelines Ice Plant Yellow Sp Gopher Plant Creeping Thyme
Typical Understory Ornamental Grasses  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Mexican Feather Grass  Sideoat...
Typical Native Turf Grass Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Blue Grama Sun Turf Native American Seed Turffalo Tech Turf Shadow Turf Typical Non Living Bedding Materials Buffalo Grass Wood Mulch 3 16 Minus Compacted Gravel 3 6 Aggregate 2 4 Landscape Boulders Design Guidelines H96
Typical Native Turf Grass  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Blue Grama  Sun Turf     Native American S...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Guidelines Student Life Spaces Deaf Space Design dictates a stronger visual connection to one s surroundings When one s form of communication is a visual kinetic form the environment has a greater impact Lighting color line of sight and layout of spaces all play a role in the ability to effectively converse The need to clearly see an individual s front torso and face commands a greater attention to detail to provide an adequate communication space The following vignettes provide a foundation of guidelines for design for the deaf community in a living and learning environment Line of sight should be provided as much as possible to provide visual connection to surroundings and other occupants This allows visual communicators the ability to yell or communicate across larger distances Appliances should be located on a center island to allow users to cook and still have a visual range of most of the lounge area This allows occupants to not turn the back to the room keeping a visual connection the space at large Reduce sound reverberations through the use of acoustic panels Sound reverberations interfere with cochlear implants By reducing sound reverberations especially in open spaces with poor acoustics it allows users to keep communicating Flexible seating arrangements allow communicators the ability to face each other and rearrange the space as needed Users should have multiple seating heights and furniture that can be easily moved to adapt to the situation H97 Design Guidelines
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Deaf Space Design Guidelines     Student Life Spaces Deaf Space Desig...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Guidelines Academic and Meeting Spaces Diffused lighting helps eliminate shadows glare and reflection that interfere with visual communication Daylight through the use of skylights is ideal for learning environments because of the soft glow reflected from surfaces A mixture of lighting should be utilized to reduce shadows and glare This could include luminous ceilings and directed lighting mixed with large surface area lighting Directed lighting may be focused on occupants within the space based on furniture arrangements to eliminate shadows Classrooms should be designed to meet the needs of those in a wheelchair Adequate space should be provided to maneuver a wheelchair throughout the classroom space As well components should be aligned to an accessible height such as marker boards being mounted only 2 feet from the floor Transparency should be provided as much as possible to allow occupants to understand the happenings of the environment around them Line of sight to as many adjacent spaces as possible allows occupants to connect to activities outside of their occupied space Glazing can be clear or slightly opaque to provide a sense of privacy Classroom sizes are larger than a typical classroom because of the need to allow space to sign Students need the ability to stand or sit at a far enough distance apart to visually communicate All classroom spaces should have a semicircle or U shape arrangement to allow a visual connection between all students Each student s visual range should be such that they can see all participants within the classroom environment An individual s visual range is the area that can be seen with little movement of their head High contrast between wall surfaces and skin tone should be provided to ease visual communication Colors that provide the highest contrast with most skin tones are muted blues and greens Design Guidelines H98
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Deaf Space Design Guidelines     Academic and Meeting Spaces Diffused...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Guidelines Office and Work Spaces High contrast between wall surfaces and skin tone should be provided to ease visual communication Colors that provide the highest contrast with most skin tones are muted blues and greens A vibration zone should be provided at entry ways that are not within visual range of the occupants This vibration zone will be comprised of materials that allow the movement of someone approaching the space to be felt by occupants such as rubber flooring Transparency should be provided as much as possible to allow occupants to understand the happenings of the environment around them Line of sight to as many adjacent spaces as possible allows occupants to connect to activities outside of their occupied space Glazing can be clear or slightly opaque to provide a sense of privacy Diffused lighting helps eliminate shadows glare and reflection that interfere with visual communication Daylight through the use of skylights is ideal for learning environments because of the soft glow reflected from surfaces A mixture of lighting should be utilized to reduce shadows and glare This could include luminous ceilings and directed lighting mixed with large surface area lighting Directed lighting may be focused on occupants within the space based on furniture arrangements to eliminate shadows H99 Design Guidelines
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Deaf Space Design Guidelines     Office and Work Spaces High contrast...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Guidelines Exterior Accessibility needs to be increased across campus Wider accessible ramps should be added to the many level changes occurring across the site Ramps also provide an easier option to traverse level changes while continuing to communicate with others Flexible seating arrangements allow communicators the ability to face each other and the surrounding area easily This allows users to maintain a greater visual connection to their surroundings Users should be provided multiple seating heights and open ended furniture This allow site furnishings to be used in multiple directions and for varying areas Adequate space to sign should be provided on walkways Users need room to turn and face each other to communicate Stairs are particular difficult because most users need to see the step in order to maintain balance and not trip The hard of hearing need to have their visual attention on each other to communicate and not where they are walking Whenever possible gradual ramps should be provided as an alternative to stairs for ease of use Above Example of the use of elevator lobbies and common spaces to aid in accessible circulation along The Spine Design Guidelines H100
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Deaf Space Design Guidelines     Exterior Accessibility needs to be in...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Impact on Learning Design Guidelines Decades of research indicate a correlation of certain facility features with student achievement particularly at risk students The following are guidelines for maximizing facility impact on learning by incorporating these features in building design Acoustics Preventing distracting noise from adjacent space and minimizing reverberation in learning space are two primary factors Both should be measured per the standards set by Acoustical Society of America ASA In learning spaces background noise should be kept below 40 decibels when the room is unoccupied and all equipment is running and reverberation in classrooms Reverberation should be maintained between 0 4 and 0 6 seconds for classrooms and labs Strategies include Sound confining HVAC equipment duct silencers and turns in HVAC ducts to minimize air and equipment noise HVAC equipment to be located in a manner to prevent noise transmission to learning spaces Sound absorbing finishes to reduce reverberation Insulate walls and ceilings to minimize noise transmission from adjacent spaces Maintain noise reduction coefficient levels in walls as recommended by the ASA Avoid placing classrooms and labs adjacent to noisy areas such as gyms commons cafeterias music rooms etc Consider sound reinforcement systems after the above are incorporated Some believe that if the above requirements are met sound reinforcement systems are not needed For larger assembly rooms employ an acoustical consultant to advise on acoustical matters Indoor Air Quality Some of the more common Indoor Air Quality IAQ contaminants include carbon dioxide carbon monoxide volatile organic compounds VOCs fungal spores mold dust particulates skin cells and formaldehyde These and other contaminants should be kept with in EPA recommended ranges Strategies for maintaining good indoor air quality include Moisture control measures in building envelope for the building environmental region Meet minimum fresh air requirements stipulated by ASHRAE Ducted supply and return High efficiency air filtration systems Proper HVAC drainage systems Minimize use of VOC s and other contaminants in materials and maintenance Localize exhaust control for concentrated contaminant sources Windows and outdoor natural ventilation when thermal comfort conditions are not compromised or exterior pollutants are not introduced via windows Separate operable windows and HVAC intakes from loading zones or pollutant producing sources HVAC equipment air intakes per EPA recommendations Routine IAQ testing monitoring one two times per year H101 Design Guidelines Lighting Provide natural daylighting and controls per Guide for Daylighting for Schools by Lighting Research Center Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and as follows Minimize or eliminate direct beam radiation Ability to darken space with lighting controls Low view glass for younger occupants Orient building to maximize daylighting Avoid uncontrolled skylights Optimally size overhangs on south facing glazing Consider balance between clear glazing and low E glazing Proper glass to floor ratios Bounce light deep into space Select light interior colors to enhance light reflection For artificial lighting provide Appropriate type of lighting and lighting levels per the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Maintain consistent light levels except for intentional dark or light areas Intentionally darken spaces such as projection screens and lighted spaces such as marker boards Appropriate dimming controls Fixtures compatible with daylighting design Thermal Comfort Maintain a balance of humidity and air temperature for thermal comfort per ASHRAE Strategies are Individual room temperature control Humidity control Building envelope moisture control Air movement and velocity per ASHRAE Space and Equipment Provide adequate space and equipment for learning areas Follow space guidelines published by the Council of Educational Facility Planners International CEFPI Building Condition Research indicates a correlation of overall building condition and student achievement Facilities should be maintained in good condition to realize this correlation with student achievement A target level should be established for the Facility Condition Index FCI to ensure a minimum condition level A maximum FCI level of 25 is recommended with lower levels preferable Correct and restore water leaks promptly and maintain visible conditions in a quality manner to minimize the perception of poor conditions Maintaining lower FCI levels is also important to preserve capital investment Allowing FCI levels to creep up either from poor maintenance or under funding can compromise previous facility improvements Special Needs Design Considerations The intent of these guidelines is to summarize general design guides for special needs students General design guides in other sections of this master plan also apply such as maximizing impact on learning and deaf space design This summary is intended for children with moderate needs and is not an all inclusive list The design professional should work with TSD staff on the design of special education needs space Limit activity spaces to six to eight children More space for their activities and to preserve the personal space of others The Council of Educational Facility Planners International recommends 35 to 45 square feet per student Classrooms designed for group activities but also with alcoves or small rooms for individual activity or calming Greater physical and acoustical separation between activities to reduce distractions Modular and flexible furniture Place windows above eyesight level to minimize distractions while allowing natural daylight into the room Provide space for parental involvement with teacher and students as well as observation without distraction such as observation rooms Locate spaces in the mainstream of student activity to maintain student dignity Space and equipment for speech language and physical therapy Support multi sensory stimulation such as communications techniques tactile tasks music movement light technology and sound technology Appropriate lighting to avoid glare and flickering Individual room control of air conditioning and heating Durable materials in all areas Wider corridors and walks to all adequate passing space Minimal travel distance between destinations such as physical education music art library and food services Playground areas that are secure safe provide stimulation and provide physical opportunities for children with gross motor skill challenges Outdoor walks pedestrian walks and pathways should be physically separated from vehicle circulation
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Impact on Learning Design Guidelines Decades of research indicate a co...
I IMPLEMENTATION
I  IMPLEMENTATION
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Implementation Opinion of Probable Cost Total Building Square Footage Below Peers The proposed net increase in building square footage would result in the district being below peers as indicated to the right The Peer Square Footage is building square footage in 2026 given a continuing enrollment trend if TSD was consistent with peer schools for the deaf The opinions of probable cost OPC are based on unit prices from recently constructed facilities in the Austin area adjusted for the unique construction environment factors at TSD limited on site storage required background checks limited construction times The unique construction environment increase was obtained from general contractors experienced with TSD and is estimated at 20 25 percent The improvements in the following table do not include renewal costs The OPC includes estimates for construction cost design fees and program management fees 184 Million estimated 30 year cost of ownership savings by keeping total building square footage below peers and strategic renewal Conceptual Phasing Opinion of Probable Cost Texas School for the Deaf Campus Master Plan Improvement Annual inflation factor 6 0 2016 OPC 2018 1 19 2019 1 26 2020 Phase 1 1 33 2021 1 41 2022 Phase 2 1 50 2023 1 59 2024 Phase 3 1 68 2025 Justification Phase 4 New Toddler Addition demo two cottages 3 751 220 4 201 366 construction Accommodate increasing enrollment accessibility deficiencies 17M cost of ownership savings Repurpose Clinger Gym to practice play gym elem activity center 3 759 480 4 210 618 construction Preserve iconic building accessibility deficiencies match peer gym ratio 18 569 778 20 798 151 New flex multi purpose theater to replace auditorium construction Reconfigure Ford photo lab culinary arts to 3 CTE programs 1 243 720 1 392 966 New Central Service Center 9 676 590 10 837 781 construction Site improvements parking roads covered walks accessibility 2 594 938 2 906 331 construction Repurpose portions of dorms to create residential learning kitchens Move Interpreters from cottage to ERCOD Toddler Buildings Top stakeholder priority accessibility deficiencies 8M cost of ownership savings construction 802 400 Occupant safety meet industry space standards comply with HB5 Free up space for academic programs replace temporary buildings centralize stakeholder services Accessibility deficiencies parking to accommodate growth trend erosion control 1 009 766 construction Improve student life accessibility deficiencies 102 749 129 302 construction Preserve iconic buildings Repurpose Deaf Smith Building to DFAS and translators 1 368 564 1 722 245 construction Expand student center to new facility locate DFAS adjacent to stakeholders New Seeger multipurpose workout room locker addition 6 596 436 8 301 166 construction Match peer gym and locker room benchmarks for number of spaces Upgrade baseball softball practice facility 757 560 953 338 construction Occupant safety consistent with peer facilities Expand CTE to north end of Pease and create Tech lab 354 000 Remove temporary buildings 472 214 construction Comply with HB5 centralize information technology facilities 53 100 70 832 construction Provide permanent space for occupants accessibility deficiencies occupant safety 519 200 692 581 construction 16M cost of ownership savings New Student Center flex learning space 7 608 168 10 148 824 construction Student life flexible learning space top stakeholder priority Stadium upgrades synthetic turf track upgrade 1 734 600 2 313 849 construction Systems at normal life reduce water consumption adequate track lanes to host track meets Demo cottages site restoration Locate Transitional Housing at south end and add two story unit 3 122 280 3 929 177 construction Accommodate transition students locate transition students in age appropriate zone Site Improvements landscaping technology fencing demo Old Boiler Bldg 3 500 000 4 404 512 construction Safety security sustainability landscaping enhancements Repurpose ES MS HS admin space to academic use 1 557 600 2 202 406 construction Accommodate growth trend emerging education programs construction Accommodate growth trend locate students in appropriate campus zone Repurpose existing Transitional Housing to special needs New HS commons between Koen and Lewis halls MS HS CTE addition per enrollment change Second central plant 950 561 1 344 068 3 186 000 4 504 922 construction Enhance student life 13 629 000 19 271 054 construction Accommodate growth trend emerging education programs 3 835 000 6 092 823 Support phase 4 buildings includes distribution Existing central plan will be at capacity after phase 3 Outreach and applied research center 4 998 834 7 941 855 Support thousands of Texas deaf and hard of hearing students that don t attend TSD Outreach and applied research center visitor housing 4 609 080 7 322 636 Housing to support outreach and research center for visiting parents and researchers 1 686 072 Site improvements to support outreach and applied research center Site work and parking for outreach and applied research center Yearly total Biennium total Master plan total I103 Implementation 1 061 263 99 942 120 44 347 213 20 449 506 44 347 213 13 698 299 34 147 805 27 322 451 23 043 386 27 322 451 23 043 386 128 860 854
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Implementation  Opinion of Probable Cost Total Building Square Footag...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Facility Funding Options The following are some potential facility funding sources that may be considered State funding sources are authorized and defined by the Texas Legislature State Revenue Bonds Commonly used for new construction these are bond funds that are typically authorized by the Texas Legislature State General Revenue Funds These funds are typically authorized by the Texas Legislature with a General Appropriations Act General revenue funds are not typically used for capital improvements They are typically used for ongoing operations and maintenance expenses Other Potential Revenue Sources The following revenue sources are unlikely to cover the cost of proposed capital improvements They can however offset ongoing operation and maintenance expenses or address very specific and relatively minor needs Public Use of Facilities While this has not been significant source for funding some funds can be realized from the use of TSD facilities for fees These use fees would need to be compared to TSD operating cost for true funding source quantification Private Public Partnerships Partnerships with private entities can be a source of funding This is most common with initial cost of programs or facilities The ongoing cost to operate these programs must be considered Higher Education Joint Efforts Cooperative program efforts such as career and technology education or research efforts with higher education entities can be a source of funding This could be on an initial and or ongoing basis Grants Grants from public and private sources This is most common for initial facility costs Funding for research or innovative efforts are among the more common types of grants Private Donors Funds can be obtained for facilities and equipment from companies or individuals These are commonly related to buildings and program equipment Energy Credits Energy providers often provide energy credits for energy improvement upgrades This is typically associated with renovation projects Implementation I104
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Facility Funding Options  The following are some potential facility fu...
APPENDIX AP
APPENDIX  AP
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Appendix References Sources Baldwin Steve C Ph D Land History of the Texas School for the Deaf Lone Star Journal of the Texas School for the Deaf Vol 136 No 4 Austin Texas School for the Deaf Winter 2015 2016 Texas School for the Deaf 1901 1915 1916 1920s and undated Boxes 821 92 and 821 66 Texas School for the Deaf records Archives and Information Services Division Texas State Library and Archives Commission Interview with Dr Steve C Baldwin and Mr Joe Johnston 25 March 2016 Designing for Disabled Children and Children with Special Education Needs Department for Children Schools and Families 2007 Barnes Michael Finding Historical Value in the Texas School for the Deaf Austin American Statesman 3 December 2015 Pages D1 and D3 Texas School for the Deaf Master Plan Building Program Phases I and II Barnes Architects Austin Texas 1990 Retrieved from Texas Facilities Commission Records Texas School for the Deaf Study January 1987 City of Austin Office of Land Development Services Fehr Granger and Emerson Fehr Records and Drawings AR 2009 014 Austin History Center Austin Public Library Texas Image Credits Campus Master Plan Study for Texas School for the Deaf Barnes Russell Architects Austin Texas 1988 Retrieved from Texas Facilities Commission Records City of Austin Development Services Department Capitol View Corridors Plotted generated on 29 August 2016 Retrieved from ftp ftp ci austin tx us GIS Data Regional standard_maps Capitol_View_Corridors pdf on 8 November 2016 Fehr Granger and Emerson Fehr Records and Drawings AR 2009 014 Austin History Center Austin Public Library Texas Hovinga Sharon K C F Ed S Texas School for the Deaf Sesquicentennial A Proud Tradition Austin Historical Publications Inc 2010 Eight Key Design Issues for Special Needs Environmental Design Cathy Cherry AIA 2016 Fehr Granger and Emerson Fehr Records and Drawings AR 2009 014 Austin History Center Austin Public Library Texas South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan The City of Austin Texas Retrieved online from ftp ftp ci austin tx us npzd Austingo SCW_Vision_Plan_LatestEdition pdf on 10 November 2016 Figure 29c Maintenance costs per rentable square foot Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Research Report 32 International Facility Management Association IFMA Houston TX 2009 State Board of Control Specifications and Blueprints 1932 1949 1967 and undated Box 1991 016 90 Texas State Board of Control records Archives and Information Services Division Texas State Library and Archives Commission Green Schools Attributes for Health and Learning National Research Council of National Academics 2006 Hovinga Sharon K C F Ed S Texas School for the Deaf Sesquicentennial A Proud Tradition Austin Historical Publications Inc 2010 Planning and Designing for Students with Disabilities National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities 2001 School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement Glen I Earthman 2002 Smith Hank Todd ed Austin Its Architects and Architecture 1836 1936 Austin Austin Chapter of the American Institute of Architects 1986 State Board of Control Specifications and Blueprints 1932 1949 1967 and undated Box 1991 016 90 Texas State Board of Control records Archives and Information Services Division Texas State Library and Archives Commission State Board of Control Contracts and Related Records 1854 1885 1909 1933 1940 and bulk 1920 1928 Texas State Board of Control records Archives and Information Services Division Texas State Library and Archives Commission Appendix AP106
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Appendix References  Sources Baldwin, Steve C., Ph.D.,    Land Histor...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Stakeholder Survey Results For this survey respondents were shown these photographs of each building and asked for their opinions regarding the structure TSD HISTORICAL STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Boiler Building 1 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 29 5 41 1 29 5 answered question skipped question Response Count 89 124 89 302 10 2 What do you think should be done with this building Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use academic student life Replace with a new different facility Response Percent 9 0 64 9 26 1 answered question skipped question Response Count 27 194 78 299 13 3 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 2 0 9 6 88 4 answered question skipped question Response Count 6 29 266 301 11 4 What do you think should be done with this building Answer Options Response Percent Retain in place as is 82 3 Relocate the Heritage Center and find an alternative use for it 8 7 Replace with a new Heritage Center 9 0 answered question skipped question AP107 Appendix Response Count 246 26 27 299 13
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Stakeholder Survey Results   For this survey, respondents were shown t...
Answer Options Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use academic student life Replace with a new different facility Heritage Center Response Percent 9 0 64 9 26 1 answered question skipped question Response Count 27 194 78 299 13 3 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 2 0 9 6 88 4 answered question skipped question Response Count 6 29 266 301 11 4 What do you think should be done with this building Answer Options Response Percent Retain in place as is 82 3 Relocate the Heritage Center and find an alternative use for it 8 7 Replace with a new Heritage Center 9 0 answered question skipped question Response Count 246 26 27 299 13 Appendix AP108
Answer Options  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new us...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Clinger Gymnasium 5 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 7 4 25 7 66 9 answered question skipped question Response Count 22 76 198 296 16 6 If this building was adapted for other uses which of the current activities need to be preserved Check all that apply Answer Options Playing Court Spectator Bleachers Locker Rooms Bowling Alley Response Percent 74 6 50 4 43 6 68 2 answered question skipped question Response Count 209 141 122 191 280 32 7 What do you think should be done with this building Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use athletics facility Replace with a new gymnasium Response Percent 19 9 55 5 24 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 58 162 72 292 20 8 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me AP109 Appendix Response Percent 13 1 35 5 51 4 answered question skipped question Response Count 38 103 149 290 22
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Clinger Gymnasium 5. Please rate your personal interest towards this ...
Answer Options Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use athletics facility Replace with a new gymnasium Toddler Center Response Percent 19 9 55 5 24 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 58 162 72 292 20 8 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 13 1 35 5 51 4 answered question skipped question Response Count 38 103 149 290 22 9 Do you feel that the current use of this building is a most effective use of the structure Answer Options Yes No Don t Know Response Percent 36 0 28 7 35 3 answered question skipped question Response Count 104 83 102 289 23 10 What do you think should be done with this building Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use academic student life Replace with a new different facility Response Percent 31 5 38 8 29 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 90 111 85 286 26 11 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 13 8 42 9 43 3 answered question skipped question Response Count 40 124 125 289 23 12 Do you feel that the current use of this building is a most effective use of the structure Answer Options Yes No Don t know Response Percent 43 2 17 8 39 0 answered question skipped question Response Count 124 51 112 Appendix AP110 287 25
Answer Options  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new us...
Answer Options Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use academic student life Replace with a new different facility ERCOD Building Response Percent 31 5 38 8 29 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 90 111 85 286 26 11 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 13 8 42 9 43 3 answered question skipped question Response Count 40 124 125 289 23 12 Do you feel that the current use of this building is a most effective use of the structure Answer Options Yes No Don t know Response Percent 43 2 17 8 39 0 answered question skipped question Response Count 124 51 112 287 25 13 What do you think should be done with this building Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new use academic student life Replace with a new different facility AP111 Appendix Response Percent 43 1 35 9 21 0 answered question skipped question Response Count 121 101 59 281 31
Answer Options  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Retain in place as is Renovate and adapt for a new us...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Auditorium 14 Please rate your personal interest towards this building Response Percent Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me 2 4 13 8 83 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 7 40 242 289 23 15 What do you think should be done with this building Response Percent Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate and update with accessibility amenities and new Replace this building with a new auditorium 19 0 63 0 18 0 answered question skipped question Response Count 55 182 52 289 23 16 Please rate your personal interest towards these buildings Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 25 3 25 0 49 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 73 72 143 288 24 17 What do you think should be done with these buildings Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate all cottages and retain as updated housing Renovate one cottage for new use alumni center academic Replace all cottages with new student and staff residential Response Percent 5 6 43 0 14 3 37 1 answered question skipped question Response Count 16 123 41 106 286 26 Appendix AP112
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Auditorium 14. Please rate your personal interest towards this buildi...
Answer Options Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Retain in place as is Renovate and update with accessibility amenities and new Replace this building with a new auditorium Valley Cottages Percent 19 0 63 0 18 0 answered question skipped question Response Count 55 182 52 289 23 16 Please rate your personal interest towards these buildings Answer Options Not Important to me Indifferent not sure Very Important to me Response Percent 25 3 25 0 49 7 answered question skipped question Response Count 73 72 143 288 24 17 What do you think should be done with these buildings Answer Options Retain in place as is Renovate all cottages and retain as updated housing Renovate one cottage for new use alumni center academic Replace all cottages with new student and staff residential AP113 Appendix Response Percent 5 6 43 0 14 3 37 1 answered question skipped question Response Count 16 123 41 106 286 26
Answer Options  Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan  Retain in place as is Renovate and update with access...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan 18 Based on your responses to the earlier questions please rank from one being the highest priority to preserve to 7 being the lowest priority to preserve the buildings and building groups previously mentioned Answer Options Boiler Building Heritage Center Clinger Gymnasium Toddler Center ERCOD Center Auditorium Valley Cottages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 107 32 4 2 48 38 13 28 53 18 20 72 26 17 22 59 32 26 41 27 17 21 36 61 31 25 37 14 20 18 46 76 22 33 23 10 24 46 55 12 47 122 16 2 10 23 17 47 Comments 19 Please feel free to include any comments as to issues elements of the campus historic fabric or details of any of the buildings included in the survey that you wish to elaborate on All comments generated from the survey have been included without any editing for grammar spelling etc Individual comments are separated by full line breaks SAVE ALL BUILDINGS RENOVATE UPDATE TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY SAVE ALL BUILDINGS JUST RENOVATE UPDATE W NEWEST TECHNOLOGY Oldest building standing on campus should be retain with historical significance information stated in heritage building Could be used for Alumni association or Meetings I have seen the Valley Cottages that are required lots of repairs Time to let them go I dont know how they are better right now after I left No idea The historical part of auditorium needs to be preserved due to history but it needs to be updated The cottages have history but its beyond repair We need more residential spaces for new incoming students Make it more family style not dormitory ECROD and President House TLC it would be great for toddlers class since the kids numbers are expanding They are nearby ECE which is good place ECROD should located to mobile house near Nellie that has been abandon since The cottages are my strong believe Rating Average 5 59 2 61 3 16 4 41 4 79 3 02 4 29 answered question skipped question Response Count 218 224 224 217 233 237 255 262 50 that they needs to remodeling they are good for guests from deaf schools sports other school visit student life purpose intern students Clinger gym oh no I would never want to demolish it it is very historic for us as albumi remodeling them please You could renovate one or two cottages for residential use and renovate other cottages for office use PTSO needs its own office storage More parking is needed all over the campus More meeting rooms are needed All Cottages need stay due for athletic program such like Volleyball Basketball Baseball Softball etc from out of states to stay there to sleep in for the tournament weekend not to use the dorms Clinger Gym need to use in basement for locker and equipment too storage Some of land are useless and use it as for park lots Between Adm office and CTE wall need to become door walk through not to walk around at end Seeger Gym park MUST be staff only Not parents or visit to use LEAVE Grass ALONE ATV use walk way or drive way FIX it for ATV to get through Park lots behind Football field need fix to more room for traffic Park lots between Aud and TSD Gym need more spaces You had better to change in the future as more valuable and visual must be can to design Because you need to support for the design that TSD Most historic buildings should be left alone with only renovate inside to meet the modern technology with the quality of education for students needs Keep our TSD campus and have them renovate the facilities such as the old power building and use for more 2nd Heritage museum Hope that keep old history at TSD all old TSD building look good to me the auditorium will add new ramp behind the building maybe that auditorium need be to tear down because there were no accessible for wheelchair students This TSD made everyone make education living learning social theatre etc more made all students feel like home Its very important for student live there Im very very proud of TSD Its deaf culture stay power strong education I love TSD Save all old Oak trees too And anything that are historical All buildings are for TSD only for students staff visitors ASL Deaf culture perseverance I don t wish to see them to be demolished removed or changed for different purposes for outside TSD Please keep all things as they are Thanks I wish this place better and lookin good Because people would love this campus easy interesting this education and future life Appendix AP114
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan 18. Based on your responses to the earlier questions, please rank, fro...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued The campus is beautiful keeping the historical design while updating and making better use of the campus would be ideal Losing the historical significance associated with visual appeal would be tragic Don t let FDC be in TSD Retain all TSD buildings such as the capital still is there as it is over 100 years The survey was not designed in a way that allowed for in depth responses Please continue to consider alternate ways to include community feedback such as forums focus groups etc This survey was also not accessible to those individuals who use ASL as their primary language In some cases there were insufficient options on what would be the best way to approach older buildings For instance the separate space for the toddler center is very needed but the current building may be too small of a space Whenever there are a demolish of a building make sure that this space will be use for a better advantage toward TSD students There are so many program that really need an expansion in space size PIP is the program that really need to expand the space size Those buildings are my best memories They are so beautiful buildings Keep everything authenticity Keep deaf friendly and deaf accessible in this designs Bldg library between hereditary historical blg auditorium also need to be saved too Every building has siginigicant needs All serve different purposes no less or more I keep the building at tsd for history I am cherish TSD every buildings are important for different reasons that fit deaf students staff needs lousy building modern suck Please leave TS D as it is with s few remodification I really am horrified that you are asking us to prioritize buildings we feel are ALL worthy of remaining intact More bad feelings that you just want to sell our campus to developers ANGRY Need to upgrade for PIP Parnet Infant Program to more room and space for new students Please do not remove our campus historic Just renovate them for better Just listen to the Deaf Community s need Limited options made it hard to sometimes make a decision on what I would want done Update what needs to be updated But don t demolish and replace with completely new Keep what can be kept Lots of history there Save history and important to remember Please research on Deaf Space architecture that is will very resource for you I would to retain all historical buildings but better for renovation inside and keep the historical building outside Demolish is bad idea and I don t want to destroy our historical memories Our campus must be preserved and protected Please make clinger gym make live again I love the environment of TSD and would like to see that any future remodeling keep this same environment Thank you Keep cottages as historic Don t cut more oak trees I wanted to leave them alone as it is and I ve had lots of memories this TSD campus They re good building that can useful for staffs and students to acknowledged about their TSD historical TSD is TSD period Just please be thoughtful TSD is a huge piece of history Keep bricks and other important things if some buildings are going to be demolished but please try to renovate first Need have buildings for independent living skills students apts separate building for ECE students with its own cafe mini audience support center playground It is important to listen deaf community who really care TSD and their history and future Please keep history And dorm neec replace new and cha ge Preserve the whole campus and that is very important for our future and many years to come I would to see wrestling gym get some improve Make sure you make it fair for everyone Make it better as well Do NOT abolish any building on campus We need all of them to serve our students staffs Some buildings need to be updated with technology and make up AP115 Appendix place a historic marker for each building stating what they were used for also place a historic marker for a tree where cows were hanged up for slaughter and concrete water trough for cows to drink My son lived in the dorms and now in the cottage I think that the living and play areas for the children should be renovated first before the other buildings I am one to preserve historical architecture but understand a limited budget comes into play You can use last two cottage 570 569 to build tall building for visitor guest to be use when Sleeping They need bed to accommodate When having visitor from different state such as athlete Conference concert Or rent a room I want to preserve bowling alley because it s part of history and we should have bowling alley to have fun Bowling area is the most memories of our deaf community and we want to retain that area and use for our PE activities
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued The campus is beautiful, keeping the historical des...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued The options you have were tricky There was no medium ground between a demolishing or a renovation All options that offered new facilities weee not clearly on what it wld be used for If anythinf ALLL buildings on campus should be used primarily for TSD its staff and students The memories of those who attend this school lives beyond just those who come to school here It is forever embedded in those who attended this school s family This school is what helped to shape them into the productive citizens that they have become Preserve older facilities buildings to reflect flashback of how TSD has represented the students staff alumni and community History is important Retro is classy and classic TSD Athletic Dept don t have a baseball field Need to build the baseball field on campus Just feedback to remove all old tennis courts and then build softball field So the old softball field change to the baseball field Build new tennis courts on valley or someplace Historically buildings The campus does not have most of its original buildings from the early days I think it is highly important to preserve older buildings The auditorium could really be replaced The seats are built for skinny people back in the 60 s and the equipment is old and could use replacement The auditorium is also not of proper size for a campus this large Too small I think the new auditorium should be twice in size and the seats should be wider There was not an option to identify the Clinger Gym for renovation that would be my choice Thanks I would like to see the auditorium rebuilt with a new modern auditorium with a fly system comfortable seating costume storage scene building shop offices box office concession stand new curtains more catwalks and classrooms Another Idea that I had with the Heritage Center is to move the museum to another location Add a wall down the center to split it into two large rooms and one side can be a theatre classroom for HS and the other side a theatre classroom for MS Because we are a residential school I believe that renovating updating or revitalizing living spaces for our students will help make TSD feel more like home As we grow retaining well kept living spaces is vitally important Our students deserve residential buildings with amenities that meet their needs and provide comfortable living spaces for students who are far from home Please do NOT ever think about touching our heritage center and it is the oldest building on campus Everyone in the nation talks about it We also should keep the two houses because they are perfect places for outreach services It would be great if one of the cottages can be renovated and converted into a toddler learning center so that way the second house can be used for more offices for outreach services Thank you old gym suggestion Wrestling GYM climbing ropes climbing wall Need design fix new cottage throw away old cottage need design fix new museum need fix news air condition best activity gym History is important and is nice to have buildings maintain their history There are only few old buildings left Especially the GYM I understand about the cottages but is there a way to keep 3 of them instead of one and demolish the rest And not to cut so many trees because the ground need them to stay cool Without trees the sun kills the grass Thanks What about getting rid of the HR portable building and using that space for a new TLC Family learning center I like the idea of keeping the old houses for the historical story part of TSD but I like their location near the main gate for the TLC Family learning center Please keep all good builder everywhere for good memory and be remember what we been enjoy and learn lot from all history gene I don t think the survey was parsed fairly ie keep one cottage for alumni student life and demolish all others Need four courts for new gym which is Clinger gym remove Not sure if it works well for Alumni members It seems not clear Thank you for your attention The Toddler Center building should be repurposed for another program The ERCOD Center and the Toddler Center are both good buildings but they are both way too crowded and becoming dangerous because of that Maybe not keep just one cottage but at least two and demolish others KEEP THE VALLEY COTTAGES Demolish the half of kelburg building and build a new additional to it Some options were not given such as renovate and or expand to address current use Clinger gym has a part time usage with children preschool and elementary aged students using it during mild temperature weather days With renovation it could then be the gymnasium location for the elementary snd and preschool students to use on a year round basis Multi purpose usage also if a stage or raised platform was added Something will have to be done to increase the of Accessible bathrooms It would be great that you will share with us what the plans are to renovate and replace the buildings Also to bring our feedback again later Really appreciate this survey to collect our opinions and feedbacks I feel that the auditorium needs to be replaced with a new updated auditorium which includes classrooms and offices for the theatre teachers a costume storage room a scenic building shop a box office and a black box theatre This will help benefit the students and will also help benefit the community as more rentals will come Heritage center is extremely an important part of our Deaf identity therefore please leave it alone totally Cottages needs to be removed for ACCESS program for a new dorm with a nice kitchen for both girls and boys together in order to enhance their social skills and interaction We need two story parking building nearby the school and dorm buildings We need other dorm for freshmen students in the valley Clinger gym downstair needs to be renovated with a new equipment storage for sports Appendix AP116
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued The options you have were tricky. There was no medi...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued Please keep Heritage Center since it is the oldest campus building I would love to have the old power plant turned into an Archive since it is next to the museum in the Heritage Center Thanks Thank you for the opportunity to have input Make sure the buildings are safe for use and when renovating building consider DeafSpace We definitely need a wrestling room elem s own gym MS s own gym and SOTX s own athletic facilities none We need a building for the departments that provide Student Support services By having a building for SLPs OTs Behavior Support and counselors this would allow us to offer a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach for our students It would be nice if the Laundry house could be renovated to become the center of TSDmaybe use for admissions or superintendent s offices Programs like ACCESS need to be relocated to a place like the cottages or the ERCOD bldg where they can teach independent living skills Many of the buildings are not being utilized in a manner that is efficient to the goals and vision of TSD For the cottages an idea for an use For the parents of the residential students who would come to town for meetings celebration graduations etc their children s sports events They could pay little bit for it like 10 per bed or something so the money can be used to cover the bills and laundry As often these parents are paying hundred of dollars on hotels around the town It was done at my school back in Minnesota when I was a student there Im unsure of the use of many of these building Im also unaware of the age and historical signifiance Additionally Im new to TSD If we demolish the bigger buildings and make them functional classroom or living spaces we could preserve some of the littler buildings and use for guests No comments related to the buildings or details to this survey but wanted to suggest to make some space available to add a baseball field to our beautiful and spacious campus The current Toddler Learning Center needs to be used in a different capacity AFTER a new center is built for the TLC The cottages need to be demolished and new buildings erected for a VARIETY of purposes not just residential services The kitchen in the Special Needs Department is in DIRE need of a SERIOUS SERIOUS upgrade There is black mold that no one other than the staff within this department that seem to notice or care and we teach our students out of this kitchen every day This is truly sad and unacceptable There are a couple of buildings that are of historical significance but the rest in question should be either renovated for different use or replaced PLEASE save OUR Heritage Center This is a beautiful campus and should be updated and preserved as much as possible The historical significance of the TSD campus should be the first consideration I have little to no connection with these buildings thus was unable to provide answers to many of the questions to be honest those ERCOD and toddler buildings if people knew that TSD ordered the buildings through Sears catalog and delivered and buoy by whom I wonder it may rank higher but if we really need to look at facility use cottages I m very inclined in just removing it entirely and building maybe 2 large dorms rec stations for students boys girls in a very modern interior but a very old exterior that matches what would be been looked like 150 years ago to give campus the illusion of a very old campus that s being preserved like heritage center etc boiler room must be removed been at TSD 11 years soon and it s just sitting there it s in an bad area not accessible by anyone than business office which needs upgrades myself I think if we do build I do not know what could be placed there tho clinger gym granted it s old would love to see the bowling alley cleaned up renovated but is it in our best interest I don t think so I would greatly prefer a double floor gym with provisions for a wrestling room lockers on lower level and can be converted to general gym use basketball etc during off seasons I would put that priority one if that ever occurs with TSD having 60 teams space is really hard to safely practice for kids from 3rd grade to 8th grade as sometimes 7 8th trade may practice late I think Elem and MS should not need to practice past 6pm dinner homework transport to home make kids go bed late and get up late arriving school late affects everyone Building a center that use for hospitality and Human Resource such as handle new applicants guests families students and others who visit TSD for first time instead using the Security by the entrance gates by the Congress which will be the major place to enter the TSD instead of using Elizabeth Human Resource need to be relocated to be near the gate with parking lot because it is not good location for any applicants if we want to impress them to work with us Renovate the boiling bldg into addition of Heritage Center N A Good nutrition education environment to the students education is an important part of leading a healthy lifestyle Combined with physical activity can help us all to reach and maintain a healthy and brighter light in the future Clinger Gymnasium needs attention for a long time more than 15 years We kept asking for air conditioning installation safety and handicap accessibility and etc but we never get anyone to get it done Save as is please don t destroy our TSD history here In my opinion many of the historical buildings should be preserved but are not in an ideal physical location for updating the rest of the school buildings AP117 Appendix
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued Please keep Heritage Center since it is the oldest ...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan DM Construction Program 2016 17 Appropriation Alt 3 Auditorium 544 14 Roof repair Accessibility upgrades Replace HVAC system Plumbing system upgrade Interior finish upgrade Exterior enclosure repair Lighting replacement Electrical power upgrades HVAC controls Life safety upgrades Business Office 508 35 Replace roof Egress lighting Patch exterior enclosure Door hardware upgrades Electrical power upgrades Cafeteria 503 34 Generator for food service Accessibility upgrades Egress lighting Central Plant 512 4 Replace cooling towers Replace distribution pumps HVAC controls Life safety upgrades Electrical power upgrades Clinger Gym 517 27 Life safety upgrades Accessibility upgrades Replace HVAC system Lighting replacement Electrical power upgrades HVAC controls Interior finish upgrade Exterior enclosure repair Alt 1 Cottage 564 24 Interior renovation Technology upgrade Accessibility upgrades Plumbing system upgrade Replace HVAC system Deaf Smith 504 15 Accessibility upgrades Interior finish upgrade Life safety upgrades Elementary 505 31A Accessibility upgrades Exterior drainage improvement ES MS Boys 527 39 Exterior drainage improvement Accessibility upgrades Egress lighting ES MS Girls 526 32 Exterior drainage improvement Accessibility upgrades Egress lighting ERCOD 525 29 Repair interior finishes Accessibility upgrades Replace doors CTE Ford 513 6 Exterior enclosure repair Partial HVAC replacement Life safety upgrades Health Center 33 Accessibility upgrades HVAC controls Heritage Bldg 509 37 Replace ductwork Repair exterior walls HVAC system controls Life safety upgrades Kleberg 514 45 Replace roof Replace HVAC system Replace atrium Accessibility upgrades Life safety upgrades HVAC controls Interior finish upgrade Improve stormwater drainage Koen Hall 515 44 Roof repair Accessibility upgrades Egress lighting Improve stormwater drainage Lewis Hall 516 42 Accessibility upgrades Improve stormwater drainage MS HS 519 40 41 43 Accessibility upgrades Internal storm drainage repair Pease 500 8 Electrical power upgrade Egress lighting Seeger Gym 501 9 Interior renovation Roof replacement Plumbing system upgrades HVAC system controls Improve exterior enclosure Accessibility improvements Egress Lighting SN Dorms 5708 19 Egress lighting Accessibility upgrades Swim TSD Gym 518 12 13 Interior finish repair Partial HVAC replacement Life safety upgrades Glazing repair Roofing repair Site Work Bouldin Creek erosion repair Electrical power upgrades Site drainage improvements Toddler Center 524 28 Accessibility improvements Life safety upgrades Landscape improvements Egress lighting Alt 2 HR Trailer T3 26 Foundation repair Accessibility upgrades Site drainage improvements Life safety upgrades Total project budget 40 million Appendix AP118
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan DM Construction Program 2016-17 Appropriation  Alt  3  Auditorium  544...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Master Plan Feedback From TSD Website December 2016 January 2017 All comments have been included without any editing for grammar spelling etc Individual comments are contained inside quotation marks Overall I think it s a great plan Even though you did address the parking issue I strongly recommend that you take a long hard look at the TSD parking lot layout around the Seeger Gym and the TSD Gym The parking layout for these two gyms really sucks big time More parking spaces closer to these gyms are really sorely needed I realize that it may be hard to do but can y all just try to improvise some more in these areas Wow They are so awesome I am glad that they will improve for disabled people can access around the campus and inside the buildings in the future I will visit TSD often in the future Considering the projected growth here at TSD I don t think that the plan for added parking goes far enough Our parking is already stretched so thin that it seems unlikely that the added parking will be sufficient I think considering a multi level parking garage would go a long way towards keeping our green space while also providing adequate parking for staff families and other visitors to our campus As we try to beautify the campus I would like there to be more barriers like railroad ties around some of the walkways to keep the mud from pouring on the walkways We also need to try to re grade the walkways so they are flat and possible use a surface that will pull away the water or be a little rough so not slippery when wet We also need reflective paint or surfaces rough and glowing for all of our steps and ramps uneven places as we have several students with vision loss and seeing these at night is not at all easy If the money isn t available is it still possible to add trees and shrubs to the campus I like the overall master plan however I have a different thoughts about the location of the auditorium and expansion of parking lots To have more support from the legislator I was thinking of moving the auditorium to the old Deaf Smith Center and expand the parking lots at the west end of the campus Open the west end gates only for showings at the auditorium to the public The auditorium could become a venue for concerts and events See the examples of Berger Performing Arts Center located at the Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and Blind bergercenter com 1 I am VERY impressed with the architects understanding explanation and application of Deaf space throughout the project Where ERCOD is now I have heard that the brick on the ground between the driveway and the building is very old original TSD brick I hope that it can be saved and placed somewhere on campus Thank you 3 Did I miss any Deaf space improvements to the Health Center and Cafeteria I admit I was reading quickly It look so great for TSD My most concern is drive on grass will it happen again Drive on path not grass Just FYI the bowling alley in the Clinger Gym is the second oldest bowling alley in Texas The oldest bowling alley is still intact and it is at Austin Saengerrunde on 1607 San Jacinto Blvd The bowling alley needs to be preserved I found this very informative and appreciate this very much All looked awesome Typo p 8 Letter I Student Center description Students after school activities will be housed in the Student Center as well as distance learning space Change Students to Students Question Should deaf friendly be deaf friendly I m not sure C19 submitted to the al Commission THC Assuming this means submitted to the Texas Historical Commission I stopped trying to see any usage errors and started re reading for content AP119 Appendix 4 ANY way to reconfigure the secondary library to reduce remove the number of stupid sight obscuring columns 5 I like the addition of rainwater recovery systems and paving that will be permeable Any way to incorporate solar panels to generate part of our energy Even with the second plant or just to store backup so we don t have to buy so much from Austin Energy 6 Like name omitted I think some of the landscaping issues could be dealt with earlier than later particularly if smaller trees were placed in movable planters And PLEASE avoid planting more cedars junipers or cypress here Red oaks are lovely Elms fine Midsize Redbuds are gorgeous All groundcovers in particular need to be highly drought resistant I like the idea of Buffalo Grass I ve had several folks ask me why a summary of this hadn t been posted in ASL on the website They suggested having the Phase One map or each of the pretty elevation photos on greenscreen with someone name omitted comes to mind signing a summary of the proposed changes Wayfinding is one word p B9 Can you get rid of the blank page B10 I guess after all these plans are implemented an physical addition to the Health Center can be planned if projected enrollment is correct we ll need it 2 Although I know this may not be an architectural issue I want to ensure that we are moving forward with age appropriate classrooms continuum of services in mind I know the zoning is a big part of the plan and I like that but I m talking about making sure that there s as soon as is feasible no longer a Special Needs wing Your master plan is well structured and logical What was important to me as a Deaf teacher and future deaf parent is the Deaf Space and Deaf Friendly with interior and exterior design at TSD I appreciate the details with deaf space and toddler center I sincerely hope TSD team who is responsible to execute the master plan is considering to include day care to work with toddler center especially if TSD want to keep the teachers on campus without losing teachers who contribute a lot to TSD
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Master Plan Feedback From TSD Website  December 2016-January 2017   Al...
Texas School for the Deaf 2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued Another feedback for TSD master plan team to consider is ensure that mold issue doesn t happen I am noticing myself and other employees rising issue with allergies I am seeing your future landscape plans and unfortunately Texas is a huge problem with cedar mold and mildew I highly encourage do not plant cedar trees and remove cedar trees to prevent future allergies Please be more considerate of environment impact outside and inside of TSD especially with the latest mold issues inside the building if you decide not to renovate certain building They look good From what I see I think it s kinda overkill with trees all over the campus It looks kinda crowded Maybe that s just me but looks like maybe too many trees overcrowding some areas Yeah we MUST have turf for our football field and maybe softball field too Less maintenance and all Happy that you are considering 8 lane track NOT 6 lane That d be a smart move As for the new transitional building will there be an office for the staff to use Supposedly if a policeman stop by and want to talk to Supervisor and Residential staff in private place that is something we need to think about because at the old Transitional Apartment there was no office at all because for years we didn t had residential staff for it until in the year of 2000 s Thanks 1 Agree Central Admin space and additional parking should definitely be part of Phase 1 2 If at all possible item 3 A should be bumped up to Phase 2 perhaps moving a Phase 2 item to Phase 3 It is imperative that we have the academic space to address our long overdue continuum of services We really more parking added Not sure if the ones proposed are enough Need remove stairs campus prevent students fall and wheelchair neef flat floor also vision impaired safe I only have two questions It is not clear to me when the Central Plant is expected to reach capacity during the renovations Is this plan flexible enough to accommodate moving the second Central Plant up if needed Page 45 addresses the need for a second electrical primary feed Where will that be located Overall this is an excellent plan seems everything has been taken into consideration Something to consider In Phase 3 it shows the Elementary Audiology area is to become an academic area The cost to move the sound booth is high Also if I am remembering correctly when the booth was moved to this location we were told that this booth couldn t be moved again A new booth would cost a lot The Master Plan for TSD is beautiful carefully planned and well written Stakeholder input was valued and included throughout the development of this plan which was truly a community effort This plan and related research will be valuable to TSD TFC and the Legislature for many years It is unfortunate that funding is uncertain for each phase of this plan however I look forward to next steps and seeing the TSD Master Plan implemented Appreciate everyone s hard work on this plan The TSD Master Plan is very well planned and thought out TFC did a great job of working with all the TSD stakeholders to find out what they needed and wanted to improve their learning and living environment It s a very thorough and beautiful document I really enjoyed reading about the history I am please to see the research the time it took to gather the data and the input of staff students and parents were considered I am please to see the committee look at historical factors as well as smart deaf space It will be a joy to grow with TSD in this process of creating flowing and unified campus I look forward to the project I am very excited about the campus master plan That is a great idea I can t wait to see some new things on the campus I am glad that TSD is still running for Deaf students Appendix AP120
Texas School for the Deaf   2017 Campus Master Plan Comments Continued Another feedback for TSD master plan team to consid...