The RFQ asks the design team to consider a new seating concept that provides both flexibility and intimacy – aren’t these somewhat at odds with one another?
The flexibility of dining room seating remains a high priority; 8,000 students use the facility on a daily basis, while foot traffic is upwards of 16,000. “Flexibility”, in this case, should be taken to mean: Maximizine the amount of diners ( approximately 900) by minimizing the amount of under- utilized tables, primarily due to sociopetal/sociofugal phenomenon (e.g., a single student’s “territorial possession” of one large table) Maximizing and retaining the number of students using the space for studying (either alone or in small groups) While still providing seating that can accommodate periodic special events (e.g., catered) for larger groups An “intimate” environment, however, should serve to reduce the monotony of a “cafeteria” feeling in the existing space, which may or may not be dependent on the seating arrangements developed.
