Plan-It UUrth

2 – An amphitheater was a ‘write-in’ item on the questionnaire and not something we as a congregation had thought a lot about at the time the questionnaire was conducted.  Now that people have had time to think about it, there seems to be a fair amount of support for it.  How important is it for you to see an amphitheater of some sort included in the building phase and do you envision it as a ‘virtual space’ – undeveloped sloping and level lawn areas only – or as a more substantial structure?

3 – Some of the existing hexagonal concrete exterior walls will be covered up by building additions and the necessity to add structural reinforcement to the main hall/sanctuary building.  Given their historic significance, should a portion of the existing hexagonal walls be incorporated into the master plan at the cost of compromised energy efficiency and increased maintenance needs?  How important is that you?  Should we retain some of the panels in the library or front office area?  Would it be acceptable to honor that heritage in some other way?

1 – Question about the priority of RE spaces:

–       not important

–       not important to me

–       both are important in phase 1

–       would like to have improvement equally balanced

–       I would rank RE improvement slightly ahead of social hall improvements, as the RE program is a strong draw for new members

–       I think priorities for the RE program and buildings would have the Fahs room ‘pad’ improvements #!, the childcare area and elementary areas to be #2.  Wifi extending throughout all buildings is also a very high priority

–       Not high

–       If it’s not dire, RE can wait

–       Don’t care – whatever the majority agrees

–       Wifi, enclose Fahs surround, and sprinklers should be a very high priority

–       I think the RE classrooms should be one of the highest priorities. They are really dismal and unwelcoming.  I’m disappointed to learn that they were ranked a lower priority than the social hall. If we want          to raise future members, we need to value the RE program and create a warm environment for RE programs. I absolutely think improvement of RE rooms should be part of phase one.

–       Somewhat, but not at the expense of the social hall (from 2 people – husband and wife)

–       Ranking of R.E. – I think a lot of people kind of forget about R.E.  spaces when planning a remodel, but when presented as meeting places, they suddenly remember that they might use them.  I think R.E. should have a higher ranking.

–       Not important

–       Social hall vs. RE.  Social hall is my priority because it’s the part I use the most, and it’s the first part that newcomers see.

–       RE and social hall should be on equal footing, though I understand some of the work in the social hall needs to be done as a ‘block’ and has code upgrades that are required.

–  I agree that RE facilities should be a lower priority

– It’s a tough question, sort of like, “Which is more important, your left leg or your right arm?”

2 –Question about the endorsement and priority of an amphitheater 

–       virtual space

–       great idea

–       I would like it to be a bit larger – to seat up to 400 if possible.  I would like it to be phased earlier if cost effective and used for services – especially during renovation of main hall.

–       ‘virtual space’ in this phase

–       uncovered to begin with, with the potential for covering as global warming impacts the weather

–       an amphitheater will have many potential uses and more will come up over time.  Any groundwork, including terraces, should be done early on.  A stage house can be built later as more funding is available.

–       An amphitheater is not a necessary item.  I originally put it in when ideas were first requested and we were encouraged to think ‘outside the box’.  Some sort of attractive outside structure would be nice to have for outdoor weddings and other events.  It might bring more event rentals to UUSS.

–       This is the most important first thing we do.  It’s real.  We can see it.  It’s a visible first step as well as providing an immediate step for the various performers, young and old, who will utilize it.

–       More virtual space for me but I’m not married to it.

–       Seems like an important asset.  Ok if not ‘hardscape’/structures

–       Yes, it’s important, but questionably a high priority unless initial cost is very low.

–       not important in phase I (from 2 people – husband and wife)

–       I do not think an amphitheater should be a high priority item. I also think that if it is included, it should not be an actual structure. I can’t imagine its use justifying what it would likely cost.

–  Amphitheater – I love the idea of an amphitheater.  I like the idea of a “virtual space” but am not sure how the seating would work.  Ideal, of course, would be a more substantial structure.

–       Should not be included in Phase I.

–       I wouldn’t vote for an amphitheater; but if enough people want one, let it be virtual at first to prove the concept.

–       I support setting up the area for an amphitheater (grading, perhaps pouring concrete for a stage area) now, and then waiting until later to decide how much we should build it up.

–  Amphitheater is intriguing… I see it as mostly virtual space, but also wanted to suggest that it include a seasonal “retention pond” water feature.   “Green” landscape nowadays talk about rainwater harvesting, ground water recharge.  Because we wouldn’t use the outdoor space in winter, anyway, why not maximize its functionality, especially when it can be done in a landscape feature way?

– I love the idea of an amphitheatre, and just configuring the lawn areas, not as a structure.

–       Not at all important.  With noise levels, it would not be useful.  It would need projected sound.  The neighbors would be bothered by projected sermons on Sundays, and we wouldn’t be able to use it past 10pm, which precludes any profitable rental of the space.

–       No, it’s not important to me to have an amphitheater.  Weather here in Sacramento seems to be one extreme (hot) to the other (cold).  In Southern Cal it makes sense – not northern Cal, eg Redlands Bowl, Hollywood Bowl, mountain camps are great for So. Cal. amphitheaters.

3. Question about our heritage hexagons –

–       sustainability is very important.  Yes, it can be honored in many different ways

–       energy efficiency #1, maybe the walls can be used in an outdoor garden walk or something like that

–       turn the original hex material into “art” pieces around the campus, retain some walls that are prominent (library) – could be lighted by LED’s between inner wall and new outer insulated wall covering

–       security, maintenance, energy efficiency more important

–       retain some that don’t directly impact heating, cooling, safety, or impair insulation

–       I would keep enough hexagons to show their historical value.  They do not all need to be kept.

–       I think it’s important to keep some vestige of the walls.  Not necessarily as part of a building.  Perhaps as exterior artwork or something in the garden or on the patio – incorporated as part of a water feature?

–       I like the hexagonal walls, but energy efficiency is more important.

–       To keeping at cost of compromised energy efficiency and maintenance needs?:  “no”  Acceptable to honor in some other way?:  “yes”

–       Not an issue for me at all

–       I think energy efficiency and ease of maintenance are more important than saving/showing the existing walls. There are other ways to honor that image that won’t compromise the “greenness” of the building or cost the congregation money it can’t afford.

–         Keep the energy efficiency and lower maintenance.  Could keep a few panels.  (from 2 people – husband and wife)

–         I have always disliked the hexagons.  They are hard to clean and unattractive.  Let’s honor their heritage with the hexagonal designs in the glass on the doors into the sanctuary and let it go at that.

–       Achieving energy efficiency is far more important than retaining hexagonal panels.

–       The historic hexagons definitely need recognition.  Maybe someone could use an original panel in a creative way; but what about a beautiful metal plaque in relief on the library wall, showing the original building idealized in bronze and silver?

–       I don’t think we need to retain any hexagonal walls.  We can honor them by including them as some piece of artwork on campus.

– I’m a staunch preservationist concerning the existing hexagonal concrete exterior walls.  When I first came to UUSS, 1980, an older member talked about how the building was handcrafted by members when it was built, using a Frank LLoyd Wright inspiration for on-site construction.  I am under the impression that those hexagon windows were made through the efforts of members placing in forms.  I believe that connects us across time and generations.  I dislike the idea of “honoring” the heritage in some other way — it seems often to be tokenism — like how the Alhambra Theater was honored by keeping a tiny bit of its fountain..  To me, it is a sad sentinel.  Regarding the “compromised energy efficiency,”  I should think it could be offset by going a bit further on energy-efficient smart design.  I can think of various approaches “off the cuff” to achieve that.