2 pages

English

Exec Summary Grange Space Audit 12-2010

Pheym - Arthur Westwood

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

2 pages

English

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

UU Grange Physical Space Audit 1Executive Summary December 2, 2010 The Grange audit was completed by 14 members/friends in leadership positions (executive board, UU GROWS, committee chairs and Committee on Ministry). Two UUA space surveys were merged to create a general tool for assessing physical space. A total of 16 areas were evaluated, including the location, exterior, welcome area, sanctuary, social area, kitchen, children’s area, meeting space, office and library space, restrooms, parking, accessibility and safety, signage, the condition of exterior and interior and an overall evaluation. The scale used to assess the various aspects of each area ranged from 1 (weakness) to 7 (strength). In addition to items assessed using the rating scale, two open-ended questions asked for what was liked best and least about each area. Means were calculated for each of the items on the survey. Of the 187 total items that were rated, only the following four items were rated as strongly positive (6 or above rating). • The location is on or near a major road. • The location is convenient for our target audience. • A piano is included with the building. • There is a separate kitchen. The following 11 items were rated moderately positive (5 – 6 rating). • The sanctuary can accommodate our current size (70-80 people). • There is adequate natural light in the sanctuary. • There are adequate light fixtures to accommodate evening activities in the ...

Informations

Publié par	Pheym
Nombre de lectures	15
Langue	English

Extrait

UU Grange Physical Space Audit

Executive Summary

December 2, 2010

The Grange audit was completed by 14 members/friends in leadership positions (executive board, UU

GROWS, committee chairs and Committee on Ministry).

Two UUA space surveys were merged to create

a general tool for assessing physical space.

A total of 16 areas were evaluated, including the location,

exterior, welcome area, sanctuary, social area, kitchen, children’s area, meeting space, office and library

space, restrooms, parking, accessibility and safety, signage, the condition of exterior and interior and an

overall evaluation.

The scale used to assess the various aspects of each area ranged from 1 (weakness) to

7 (strength).

In addition to items assessed using the rating scale, two open-ended questions asked for

what was liked best and least about each area.

Means were calculated for each of the items on the survey.

Of the 187 total items that were rated, only

the following four items were rated as strongly positive (6 or above rating).

•

The location is on or near a major road.

•

The location is convenient for our target audience.

•

A piano is included with the building.

•

There is a separate kitchen.

The following 11 items were rated moderately positive (5 – 6 rating).

•

The sanctuary can accommodate our current size (70-80 people).

•

There is adequate natural light in the sanctuary.

•

There are adequate light fixtures to accommodate evening activities in the sanctuary.

•

There is a clear space for the speaker in the sanctuary.

•

There is a usable sink in the kitchen.

•

The nursery is relatively close to the sanctuary.

•

Street parking is safe.

•

The stairs are structurally sound.

•

Exits are clearly marked.

•

The condition of the exterior is in good repair, the foundation is sound, and there are sidewalks.

•

The condition of the interior includes walls that are structurally sound and floors that have

adequate structural capacity.

The ratings for the remaining 137 items

were either neutral or negative.

It is worth noting that the items

that were consistently rated the most negatively were the majority of the items in the accessibility area.

The comments for each of the areas also add some insight into how the Grange is viewed.

•

Location

– It is central, convenient, in town and close to the college.

However, it is not our own

building, and the location does not identify us as UU other than on Sunday morning.

•

Exterior

– The historical beauty of the building is appreciated.

However, the exterior does not

identify us as a UU church.

•

Welcome Area

– The positive aspects include that we have a space, the greeters that inhabit this

space, and the candle/chalice.

However, it is crowded and not attractive.

•

Sanctuary

– People appreciated the openness, light, airy space, and our stained-glass windows.

Problems with this space include that the furnace is noisy, it is not accessible which is an

increasing problem for our aging members, set up and break down time is consuming, the chairs

are uncomfortable, and it is not spiritually inspiring.

Prepared by Jennifer L. Dyck, UU GROWS committee

Thirty-five items addressed wiring, plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning.

These items were

excluded from this summary since many survey responders did not know about these conditions of the Grange.

•

Social Area

– The space is open and flexible.

However, it is not attractive and not accessible

•

Kitchen

– The positive aspects include that we have one, and it is convenient to the social area.

However, we have limited ability to use this space (we are not allowed to cook there) and no

storage space.

•

Children’s area

– The nursery is convenient and has been improved.

However, the children’s

RE space is not attractive or welcoming, we cannot keep materials set up, and we do not have a

dedicated space for the children.

•

Meeting space

– It is a large enough space that we can set up how we want.

However, the space

is too big for small group meetings, there is no good space for small group meetings, it can only

be used on Sundays, and it is unpleasant.

•

Office and Library space

– There were no positives here because although we do have a library

cart, we have no designated office or library space.

•

Restrooms

– The upstairs restroom is close and convenient.

However, it is small, not accessible,

and not private.

•

Parking

– Parking is convenient and available.

However, in the winter, behind the Grange, the

lot is not well maintained and we have no dedicated handicapped spots.

•

Accessibility and Safety

– The most positive aspect of this category is that our stairs and

handrails appear to be solid.

However, overall this was the most negative category, with people

commenting that we are not at all accessible.

•

Signage

– We have a nice sign out front on Sundays.

However, there are no permanent signs

associated with the Grange that identify it as UU.

•

Condition of Exterior

– It is a beautiful, historical building that we don’t have to maintain.

However, the front door sticks, and the exterior does not identify us as a UU church.

•

Condition of Interior

– The wooden floors, natural lighting, and stained-glass windows are all

appreciated, and we don’t have to maintain it.

However, some felt the interior was not inspiring

and also noted the problems with setting up and plugging in coffee pots.

•

Overall

– The overall appeal of the Grange is the low rent, the location, and the large, airy

sanctuary.

The aspects of the Grange that are least appealing is that it is not ours which inhibits

our growth and reaching out to the community, it is not accessible, and there is inadequate space

for meetings and RE.

Three main themes seem to emerge from the survey comments.

First, our members and friends have

become comfortable with and “used to” the Grange.

As one person noted “We’ve met so long at the

Grange that I have learned to love it, despite its limitations.

However, there are too many ways we have

to limit our congregation's activities because we don't have the available space when we need it.

We’ve

become very good at adapting ourselves and plans to our space/lack of space.”

A second theme that

emerged is that thru use of an objective tool such as this physical space audit, many aspects of the Grange

do not seem to serve our congregation well.

As one person explained, “After filling this out, I can see

that I don't find much positive about renting this space.

There are many more negative and downright

disturbing aspects of this building that we have put up with for a very long time.

Is the cheap rent really

worth it?”

The third theme that emerged is the lack of accessibility.

Survey respondents consistently

rated the Grange as not accessible, which hinders our inclusivity and is an increasing problem for our

current members who are aging.

Most people rated the downstairs space for the social area however, a few people did rate the upstairs space for the

social area.

Thus, the overall ratings in this category would be even lower if considering strictly the downstairs

space.

Univers
Ebooks
Livres audio
Presse
Podcasts
BD
Documents

Livre audio en ligne - Développement personnel Livre en ligne Tout le catalogue Tous les Intérêts

Exec Summary Grange Space Audit 12-2010

YouScribe

Le catalogue

Le service

Les conditions