Let’s Do the Numbers
Here’s what Google maps can tell us about Hillview. Here is a first pass at estimating what part of the sprawling Hillview Center is buildings vs. atriums vs. circulation. Later I decided the 25K estimate of Usable Interior Space provided with Google estimation was too small. Why? I may have overestimated the space consumed by Circulation. Above … the Rec. Dept. interior space shown of 17K is not based on Google maps, but is a first pass at calculating that space based on partial room size statistics provided by City staff to the Los Altos Measure A NO side.
This was my first pass at estimating what part of the sprawling Hillview Center was buildings vs. atriums vs. circulation. Bascically about 68,600 square feet of footprint sprawl contains about 44,900 of buildings and covered breezeways and covered porches. In my second pass I decided that this 25,825 estimate of usable interior space was too small because I had overestimated the space consumed by Circulation-Breezeways. The Rec. Dept. interior space shown of 17,725 is my first pass at calculating that space based on partial room size statistics provided to the NO side by the City. More about that below.
There is a lot of space for “Circulation” at Hillview. The new Measure A 55,000 gross square feet building may have half as much for circulation. Lalah estimates current Hillview circulation as 13,250, whereas the City and ABA architect are saying 6,530 of circulation at Hillview now. Something is off.
When Lalah saw that Google map estimation gave me an answer of 13K square feet devoted to circulation while the City ABA architect reports 6K in an October 2014 presentation on page 32, the discrepancy was so large, I did a do over. I visited the Hillview Center a second time, measuring width of breezeways and porches with an actual measuring tape. I continued to rely on Google to give me lengths of buildings. Yet I was able to reduce circulation only from 19,075 to 13,250. I have decided there is something “off” about the architect’s 6,530 number, so I used 13,250, my second estimate of circulation as the estimated “fact.” It would be nice if estimates were within 10% of each other.
