In March and April of 1995, Sasaki Associates reviewed the strategic issues confronting Lawrence University over the next five to twenty-five years. The process built upon the work accomplished by the Campus Plan Committee in 1990 and was further informed by a series of interviews with the current Campus Plan Committee as well as information provided by four focus groups representing a range of campus interests from the perspective of administrators, faculty, students, and trustees.
The first step in this process involved the articulation of a set of ÒimperativesÓ. These provided a common understanding of those characteristics of the campus that should be protected and built upon.
The process then identified a set of six issues focused upon the potential need for additional and/or modified space. An additional set of issues related more generally to the physical environment . For each specific space issue, an analysis was prepared that identified alternative approaches to a solution. Based upon a second series of meetings with administrators, faculty, students and trustees, recommended strategies were prepared combining the most promising of the space accommodation options as sets of campus-wide moves.
The overarching goal of the review of strategic options was to think beyond individual issues and considerations of the best solution to each. More importantly, the goal was to consider the relationship between the individual issues and to ensure that opportunities for mutual benefit were considered. The process sought a combination of solutions that increase the contribution of each to the overall quality of the campus.
Seven criteria were used in evaluating each issue.
1. Fit -- Each suggested site for a building or function was considered with respect to its ability to physically accommodate the proposed use.
2. Place -- The physical quality of the campus environment is critical to the long term success of the University. This criterion provided a focus on the contribution each alternative makes to the quality of the campus environment.
3. Critical Relationships -- Each campus function should be related to some functions more than others. This criterion identified critical relationships and commented on the extent to which a particular site was positioned relative to those relationships.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action -- This criterion identified any displacement of existing space and/or other physical action made necessary by the proposed alternative.
5. Contingent Opportunities -- Some options create particular opportunities for other desirable actions. This factor provided comment on these opportunities.
6. Other Challenges -- Here comments were made regarding particular challenges that needed to be addressed in conjunction with the proposed solution.
7. Cost Consideration -- This study did not specifically quantify the costs of one solution as opposed to another. Rather, any unusual costs that could be expected were identified to allow for a qualitative comparison of solutions with respect to potential cost premiums.
The Lawrence Campus Today and Tomorrow
The campus of Lawrence University reflects the classic image of the American liberal arts institutions - a compact campus centered around a memorable green with "Old Main" as its centerpiece. It is a meaningful image, and for Lawrence a wonderful reality. It is also a critically important reality for the University as the 21st Century approaches.
Higher education institutions throughout the country are facing a multitude of challenges as the new century approaches - competition for a changing demographic base; the need to be ever more efficient and accountable in facilities use and investment; adapting to rapidly evolving computer/telecommunication technologies; being responsive to the needs of host communities whose economies are changing, etc. Lawrence faces these challenges, and is obviously striving to be among the institutions that will survive and thrive in the "age of limits". (See the attached article "Planning for the Future Campus" in the Appendix to this report).
One of the underlying resources that Lawrence must bring to the challenges noted above is its "quality of place", as represented in the memorable image of the Green, in its exceptionally human scale, and in its fit within the fabric of the Appleton community. In our experience as physical planners, quality of place is a real, tangible asset for institutions that must bring all of their attributes to bear in attracting and retaining students and faculty. When decisions are made to construct, renovate, or reorganize space in an era of tight fiscal resources, they not only have to fulfill functional requirements but they must contribute to the quality of the campus as a learning environment. Technology is exponentially advancing the capabilities of institutions to disseminate and access learning information, but it is essential (especially for liberal arts institutions) to maintain an environment that fosters face-to-face exchange and cultivates the critical skill of people dealing with people. The role of learning institutions to provide examples that teach quality of place and quality of community will only increase as the larger world looks to those institutions as bastions of stability and examples of how civilized communities must function.
These broad mandates for maintenance of the quality of the campus environment, coupled with the established attributes of the Lawrence campus, provide the foundation for the recommendations set forth in this report. While our charge has been to address with the University a diverse array of specific program issues and needs, we have endeavored to organize our recommendations with the larger view that the prospective moves will not only reinforce the qualities of the campus, but will contribute to those qualities in a significant, measurable way.
The first step in defining options for the various siting issues is to establish a coherent framework within which the options can be tested. During the March workshop, several factors were voiced with enough emphasis and recurrence to indicate that they represent fundamental values that contribute to the character of the Lawrence campus. In the aggregate, they constitute the framework that should be observed as the basis for any strategies for future change.
We have applied the term "imperatives" as our interpretation of the factors to be maintained or accomplished in facilities siting, program relocation, and physical improvements. The order in which the imperatives are summarized below is not a priority sorting. It is more a statement that all of the items deserve standing as foundations for campus development.
Figure 1 provides an illustration of several of these imperatives.
Respect for the Integrity of the Main Hall Green
The Green is the primary organizing and symbolic space of the campus, and, in combination with the Main Hall as its centerpiece, the University's most memorable icon. While there is a diversity of architectural styles and character at its edges, there is also great clarity in the way the space is defined by the surrounding architecture. The clarity derives largely from a generally compatible scale of architecture, composed in such a way as to give Main Hall primacy.
The composition of the Green must be respected with any additions or changes to its architectural edge. Such changes should be measured in the way that they reinforce or enhance that edge in scale, massing, materials, and position.
Embrace the River Edge as an Integral Part of the Campus Experience
It was acknowledged that the river (including the views up and down the river) has been an underutilized asset. Historically, it has been something of a backside to the campus as manifested by having located many of the University's utility functions at the river edge. It is widely recognized that the river edge can and should be an amenity that is enhanced by the location and design of improvements that are oriented to the river, and that more opportunities should be seized to integrate the river into the campus experience.
Maintain and Enhance the Integrity of the Academic Core
The University's academic facilities occupy a relatively compact core area where the walking distances between academic functions are short and where academic facilities can be visually comprehended as a single ensemble. The Conservatory north of College Avenue is removed in relative terms by the traffic "seam" created by the street, but still within a reasonable walking distance and within the visual framework of the Green. The clarity and compactness of the academic core is an extraordinary asset that must be sustained in locating future academic facilities.
Reinforce the East-West "Spine" that Connects the Brokaw-Colman Area, the "Academic Necklace" at the South End of the Green, and the Student Residence Areas Flanking John and Alton Streets
The "spine" is a tangible framework of pedestrian walks and buildings that tie the three areas of the campus south of College Avenue together and that supports much of the pedestrian life of the University. This east-west spine along with the north-south axis from Main Hall through the Conservatory to the Park is a unifying feature that must be reinforced in the siting and design of future facilities and the creation of a diversity of pedestrian gathering places. The "academic necklace", a term coined by the Board of Trustees, is a similarly unifying feature of the campus to be reinforced.
Maintain and Enhance the Lawrence Sense of Community
The "sense of community" at Lawrence can be drawn in part from the compactness of the campus and the variety of congregating spaces (outdoors and indoors) that support informal encounter and dialogue. The opportunities to foster the sense of community should continue to be programmed into new and renovated buildings and open space improvements.
Recognize the Library as the Principal Locus of Academic Life
It has been observed recurrently that the Library is the locus of Lawrence's academic life as a liberal arts institution. It is a point of commonality from a traditional location standpoint and is becoming increasingly the heart of electronic information access. Decisions on the location of functions associated with the formal and informal learning experience should always be premised on proximity and accessibility to the Library.
Ensure that Each Future Project Contribute Positively to the University's Quality of Place and to the Learning Environment
Each future project must be located, designed, and planned for use in such a way that it genuinely and positively contributes to the quality of the campus environment. The essential test of any location and design decision, having satisfied functional criteria (site size, access, program accommodation, etc.) should be that the project enhances and unifies the overall character of the campus.
Enhance the Clarity of Public Access to the Campus
The campus reveals itself to the visitor approaching from east or west on College Avenue as a great green "collegiate scale" opening in the development fabric that otherwise closely lines the street on either side of the campus. But there is little clarity in affirming that one has arrived at Lawrence or in directing the visitor to a destination. It is necessary to define visitor destinations through graphics, access patterns, and visible, welcoming locations.
Mitigate the Affects of College Avenue as a Divide between the North and South Campus Areas
College Avenue is a seam that separates major areas of the campus, but is not an insurmountable barrier. The divide should be mitigated by design (plant materials and lighting along the street that reinforce its character as a campus parkway; changes in street pavement texture at crosswalks that subdue traffic) and by siting more uses on the north side of the street that animate the area and make it feel more integral to the life of the campus.
Define a Long Term Boundary that is Compatible with the Stability and Character of the Neighborhood
The quality, character and scale of the neighborhood surrounding Lawrence is an asset to the campus. The delineation of a boundary for future acquisitions should be orderly, following natural edges (streets or mid-blocks). Interim or long term uses at the boundary perimeters should be compatible in scale and activity with the residential uses beyond.
Make Administrative Functions Accessible and Integral to the Life of the Campus
It is characteristic of the liberal arts institution that administrative functions are accessible parts of the campus, whether as central administration or administrative services for students. To the extent that administrative functions are relocated on the campus, those functions should be in central, readily accessible and welcoming locations for students, staff/faculty and visitors.
Recognize the Importance of the Campus Land South of the River
The land south of the river is an exceptional resource of intercollegiate athletic and recreation functions, and potentially for uses not requiring immediate proximity to the heart of the campus. While some distance has to be traversed, good transportation access should be maintained to ensure that the sports/recreation dimension of the University experience is recognized and encouraged.
Maintain the Human Scale of Student Housing; Diversity Housing Choices
The proportion of resident enrollment at Lawrence is exceptionally high, an obvious commitment to the value of resident educational life to the liberal arts institution. The residential pattern is such that it generally reinforces the feeling of human scale. It is essential to maintain a domestic scale and distribution of student housing in close proximity to the campus core, but also to provide for more diversity in the types of housing. The diversity of types of housing (traditional dorms, apartments, suites, houses) offers choice in a competitive marketplace and it allows students a wider array of residential environments that they can experience as they move through stages of interest and maturity at Lawrence.
Anticipate all Critical Infrastructure Requirements out to the Planned Perimeters of the Campus
Although an underground network of utility conduits serves the central campus area, the present infrastructure is not readily extendible beyond the established campus core to accommodate future purchased or constructed buildings because of location, age, capacity, condition, and barriers presented by city streets. Supporting the vitality of all collegiate endeavors, while preserving the visual landscape, will require farsighted attentiveness to the capacity and topology of underground services such as steam, potable water, chilled water, electricity, gas, cable television, telephone cables, and fiber optic data cables. Provision should be made for well-protected passageways and reserved conduits for unforeseen future needs.
Continue to Avoid the Intrusion of Parking on the Campus Pedestrian Environment
The Lawrence campus is remarkable in the lack of intrusiveness of automobile parking in the principle pedestrian areas of the campus. Parking is either non-existent or visually subdued in most of the outdoor spaces where pedestrians move or gather, except to the north of Downer Court between Brokaw and Coleman.
III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PROGRAM STRATEGIES
The workshop process identified six campus functions in need of additional and/or renovated space. For each space requirement, alternative strategies were considered and an order of magnitude of space need identified. The following lists each function, preferred location or locations, and the assumption regarding space needs. Figure 2 illustrates the location of each.
FunctionSpace RequirementRecommended Location(s)Priority:1. Science Building50,000 GSFOn the Main Hall Green (Sampson House) or on Fox River edge.2. Student Union50,000 GSFRelocate next to Downer.3. Academic Expansion"Significant" but not specifically quantifiedReuse Union Building to create additional 27,000 GSF. Renovate Main Hall to create 36,000 GSF upgraded space.Future:4. Library ExpansionNot specifically quantifiedEnlargement of 1961 addition creates potential for approximately 40,000 additional GSF.5a. Residential Upgrade100 to 200 bedsBrokaw, Quad and river edge behind Ormsby.5b. Residential Expansion200 bedsOn acquired land facing Washington Street and Mead Street and/or the block west of Durkee.
6. Administrative and Other Surge SpaceNo additional spacePlantz, the Church or Brokaw (as available).
The following summarizes the recommendations included in the above listing.
Science Building
Over the past several years the University has been engaged in planning for a new science building. There is consensus that an additional 50,000 GSF of science space is needed.
The focus of discussion in the recent work sessions has been to confirm the site for the proposed building. It was concluded that either of two sites as shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4 could be very satisfactory for the building. One is on the Green as currently proposed. The other is south of and between Stephenson and Youngchild in a configuration that overlooks the river in a dramatic way.
The site on the Green will require a carefully sited and designed building to insure that it is compatible with the Green and Main Hall. While there may be cost premiums for the design of the building and for relocating Sampson, it is believed that a satisfactory solution is attainable. Figure 5 provides a sketch illustrating a building in this location.
A site on the river edge that has a prominent entry between Stephenson and Youngchild is an excellent location for a new academic building for the University. The opportunity to improve the connection of the campus to the river while providing new academic space within the academic necklace should not be overlooked. Further consideration of this site will include an estimation of potential premium cost for demolition, foundations, and utility relocation. Figure 6 provides a sketch illustrating a building in this location.
Student Union Building
The current Union, built in the 1950's, has served the University well. However, it no longer measures up to student needs and expectations in area or configuration. It creates a significant competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other schools. Similarly, a significant competitive advantage is lost without a high quality union or campus life facility that also has good public access and visibility. It is estimated that a facility in the order of twice the size of the current facility will be necessary to satisfy today's needs.
Assuming the new science building is in the location of Sampson House, the existing site will be relatively invisible. Because of this, the difficulty of access for service, and the lack of critical relationships to food service, other sites for the Union were considered. A new Union facing onto East Alton and Lawe, that is connected to and shares food service and meeting rooms with Downer, that is interconnected with Kohler, and that would be visible from College Avenue, received almost unanimous and enthusiastic support from the Campus Planning Committee and Focus Groups. Assuming a Union on this site, it was recommended that East Alton be closed and converted to campus open space. In addition, an elevated connector could be built over Lawe to a new addition to the Library. The site is deemed so attractive that it should be seriously considered regardless of the location selected for the Science Building.
Academic Expansion Space
Although it could not be quantified at this time, it was agreed that the space in Main Hall is no longer adequate to house the liberal arts faculty and classroom needs. It was concluded that academic expansion is necessary to provide more congregation spaces and to relieve the "compression" of space for departments, faculty and students; modern hi-tech classrooms; and additional well located space for emeriti faculty.
Expansion of academic use into a vacated Union building was identified as a preferred option. Given the high priority for a new Union and a clear preference for locating the new Union next to Downer, reuse of the Union for academic purposes is an excellent opportunity. The size of the building provides for a reasonable increment of growth (to be confirmed in a detailed programming study), and the building is in an excellent location within the existing academic necklace. Additionally, the use for academic offices and congregation spaces can take advantage of the river views that distinguish this site.
Library Expansion
The Library serves as the center for academic life on the campus. As such, its central location should be reinforced through the siting of related academic and student life facilities. While there is no immediate need for expansion of the Library itself, the desire for use of this building as a site for centralized electronic information management, as well as those uses traditionally housed in a library, was confirmed. It was further agreed that additional library space is best created by demolition and replacement of or expansion that envelops the l961 wing on the east side of the building.
Residential Upgrade and Expansion
Discussions about campus residential facilities focused on three related issues. Those were the location, type and amount of housing. The location issue centered on the identification of the existing use zones on the campus. Housing uses currently ÒbookendÓ the academic and student life core with an Òeast campusÓ cluster east of Lawe and a Òwest campusÓ cluster along and west of Drew. The only exception to this is Plantz on the north side of College Avenue.
It was agreed that the uses on the western edge of the campus are in need of clarification. The current mixture of residential, administrative, student services, physical plant, and parking uses is confusing and incompatible. It is the least coherent part of the campus and the least favored by students as an area in which to live. Deciding upon the long term use of Brokaw and finding a permanent home for Physical Plant parking and shops are the critical first steps. The strategic recommendation is to renovate Brokaw into a desired residential facility, and to make improvements to the open space around the building. This will reestablish the west campus as a desired living area.
The locations for modifications to existing housing and the construction of new housing should reinforce the existing clarity of the campus land use organization. In addition to upgrading Brokaw, priority locations for modified or new housing are the east end of the quad where new housing could ÒcompleteÓ the Quad, and the river edge below Ormsby where new housing could take advantage of the river views while contributing significantly to connecting the campus to the river .
A second residential issue is the need for housing for students that is made up of suites or apartments. As campuses across the country compete for students, the quality of housing and the variety of options for housing are important issues. The need for a housing type that offers a kitchen and living space in addition to private bedrooms was identified. This is a housing option that is directed at upper classpersons for whom an Òoff-campusÓ lifestyle could be accommodated within the framework of the campus community. It was estimated that between ten and twenty percent of the units available would be a desirable and sufficient number of suites.
The third issue is the potential for expansion of housing on campus should the University increase its enrollment. Given the very high percentage of students now accommodated on campus, this expansion would support an increase in the student body. Approximately 200 additional beds with a target student body of 1,500 maximum was discussed. Alternative locations for this growth were identified to the north and west of the campus, and the recommended limits of acquisition of additional land to accommodate this growth was designated.
Administration and Other Surge Space
Discussions regarding administrative and other surge space focused upon questions of location and consolidation versus dispersal. No additional space requirements have been identified. Rather, it was concluded that the vacancies resulting from other space moves should be examined to determine whether such vacancies would create opportunities for better accommodation and centrality of administrative functions.
Assuming a program for new and improved housing that eliminates the need for Plantz, the location and style of the building would be appropriate for the conversion of the building to administrative plus other surge, support, or academic uses. Except for the proximity to the Conservatory, Plantz is not a highly desired residential location for students. Given its age and condition, a renovation versus conversion decision will need to be made in the next several years.
A second opportunity site for administration space is the church site at the corner of College Avenue and Meade. While this location is less attractive than Plantz, it is an option worth further consideration. Additionally, this is a location that could provide for a ÒtemporaryÓ or five to ten year location for administrative functions, thus simplifying housing renovation programs. The use of the facility is dependent on its acquisition by the University.
A third option for administration is to remain in Brokaw. This option prevents the return of Brokaw to its original use and the reinforcement of the west campus as a self-contained residential area.
Sequencing of the Recommended Alternatives
The following recommends a sequence for implementation and includes comments regarding the interrelationship of actions and necessary next steps.
1. Science Building
This is the current top priority facility and can proceed independent of the other strategic issues.
The Green site will require the relocation of Sampson House and the President's and Dean of Faculty's offices. It is assumed these offices could remain in a relocated Sampson House, although the offices would have to find temporary space while relocation and reconstruction takes place.
The River site will require demolition of Physical Plant and the relocation of utilities.
The next and immediate step is to select a site required as part of the Olin application and to acquire funding.
2. Student Union
Next to Science, this is the top priority. This high priority is driven by student demand and the need to be increasingly competitive for top students. Assuming selection of the preferred site, it can proceed independent of other strategic issues.
The Downer site will require the removal or relocation of Raymond House and the relocation of the Dean of Student's office. It is assumed this function will be included within a new Union, although temporary quarters would be necessary while construction takes place.
Planning for the Union on the Downer site should consider the opportunity for second level connection to the Library and should seek necessary approvals to close East Alton.
The next step is to prepare a detailed program including a preliminary design and cost estimate for a new Union including necessary modifications to Downer and Kohler. This should proceed immediately.
3. Academic Expansion
The need for academic expansion is strongly expressed by the faculty. The urgency is driven by the competitive need for new hi-tech classrooms, and the need to provide more congregation and informal exchange, as well as the overall physical quality of the liberal arts areas.
The preferred expansion strategy for academic facilities into the existing Union will require (and cannot take place until) the relocation of the Union.
Renovation of the building will be required, but it is assumed that it could take place largely within the existing building envelop.
Following renovation and occupancy of the existing Union, it is anticipated that renovations to Main Hall will be undertaken.
The next step is to prepare a detailed program including preliminary layout and cost estimates for academic use of the existing Union building and Main Hall. This programming must take place within the context of decisions regarding departmental structure and the academic calendar. This should proceed in the near future.
4. Library Expansion
There is no current demand for expansion. When it occurs, it can proceed independent of other strategic issues.
The proposed expansion strategy will require the removal of or extensive modification to the 1961 addition.
Planning for Library expansion to the east should consider the potential for second level connection to the proposed Union. This will entail developing strategies for managing multiple entries or designing the access at the second level in such a way as to arrive at the Library outside of the control entry into the Library.
There are no evident and immediate "next steps" other than ongoing planning by the Library staff for monitoring and accommodating changing and/or emerging needs.
5a. Residential Upgrade
There is a current demand being expressed by students for suites or apartment style housing. The availability of this option could enhance the attractiveness of the University to potential students.
The Brokaw upgrade is linked to the permanent or temporary relocation of the administrative functions and cannot take place until such relocation is resolved.
Construction of new housing in the Quad requires demolition of four houses including two "theme" houses accommodating a total of 28 students.
Construction on the river edge could require relocation of a portion of steam line.
The design of a new facility or facilities should be preceded by a feasibility study that considers costs, market and financial implications. The program for replacement units and the site specific floor plans will evolve through the design process.
The next step requires a decision to proceed with construction of this new housing. Coupled with this is the need to decide which of the three sites is preferred as the first location for suites type housing.
5b. Residential Expansion
Expansion housing will be required only if the University seeks to expand.
A potential linkage to other strategic issues is that improved academic facilities for science and liberal arts and a new Union could result in a demand for new residential space to accommodate an increase in the number of qualified students applying and accepting admission to the University.
Assuming the potential for this magnitude of growth over the long term, current activity involves implementing an acquisition strategy for those properties within the recommended campus boundary.
The next step is to review the growth strategy and to establish the level of urgency for acquisition of additional land. Feasibility analysis should be undertaken, as in Item 5a above.
6. Administration and Other Surge Space
All administrative moves involve relocations or acquisitions. Because there is no defined demand for additional new space, the housing relocations and/or land (church) acquisitions should proceed on their own merits. The administrative moves can take advantage of whatever opportunity is created by these actions.
A move into Plantz will depend upon residential renovation strategies that determine that it is not necessary or cost effective to renovate the building for future residential use.
A move into the Church will depend upon the price for the acquisition of the building and the determination that reuse for administrative purposes is feasible.
Remaining in and upgrading Brokaw will depend upon the decision to permanently convert the building from residential use.
The next steps are to monitor the impact of other space moves on the administrative uses in Brokaw, Sampson, Raymond, Landis Peabody, etc. and to then further consider the question of the relative merit of the options.
The first three steps represent priority actions to be taken by the University. Combined, they will result in the significant upgrading and transformation of the academic and social resources of the University through the creation of over 100,000 GSF of new and upgraded academic space and 50,000 GSF of new student life resources. The other listed actions can take place on an independent schedule to improve the student environment and to respond to the University's need to maintain a competitive position.
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the issues addressing the needs for new, modified or expanded facilities, there are several other important topics in need of ongoing attention. Recognizing that each could be the topic of an in depth study, and that a number of topics will require an investment in time and/or professional assistance, the following identifies the issue, frames a set of recommendations or approaches to resolution, and suggests next steps in arriving at a detailed solution or approach.
a. Quantities
A discussion of parking supplies on campus revealed that there are over 300 off-street spaces on the north side of the river. There are an additional 175 spaces south of the river largely near the football field. The third ÒsupplyÓ is over 200 legal on-street spaces that exist north of the river in the area bounded by the river, Mead, Franklin, and Drew plus and additional nearly 90 spaces that are available weekends and for special events after 7:00 PM on College Avenue between Lawe and Drew. The on-street supply is potentially threatened by an increasing number of streets that are posted for residents only in an effort to restrict student parking.
This supply total is contrasted with a reported demand peak of 650 spaces. Opinions on whether or not this is satisfactory vary with category of user. It is important to note that no detailed survey of parking demand has been done and that anecdotal evidence can always be questioned for validity. Observations and recommendations are as follows.
Faculty and administrators do not report significant problems finding adequate parking given the relatively small size of the campus and the availability of spaces designated for their use.
Off-street spaces assigned for student use are limited to 86, all of which are given out by lottery. This is not sufficient for off- street parking north of the river for student use. On-street parking is available for students. However, resident complaints raises the question of a need for additional long term and/or overnight parking for students. A location for additional student parking should be designated.
The major complaint about parking availability appears to come from visitors attending special events on the campus. With the exception of a limited number of spaces near admissions that are designated for visitor use, there are no spaces available on-campus and off-street to accommodate visitors. A proposed approach to event parking is discussed below.
b. Location for Additional Parking and Preservation of Green Space
The desire for additional off-street spaces is countered by a very strong desire to retain green space around the campus. Students and faculty alike seem willing to deal with parking demands in ways other than construction of large lots on campus or in the surrounding neighborhood.
The major need identified by students is a desire for secure parking for long term and overnight use. Given the increasing number of students who do bring cars, the increasing resistance to long term on-street parking, and the resistance to construction of new lots, consideration should be given to improving the security of the lot on the south side of the river. This could better utilize an already paved area, take advantage of the shuttle serving that side of the river, and provide a relatively convenient location for long term parking. Assuming on-street locations could serve the short term demand while a car is in use, this would significantly reduce the pressure on the neighborhood streets.
To the extent new parking is constructed north of the river, the pattern of locating it peripheral to the core campus should be continued. The practice of keeping lots small should also be continued. Lots is excess of 20 cars or 7,000 SF approach a critical size for visual impact. An exception to this strategy could occur where the University owns an entire block and a lot can be constructed in the interior of the lot where it is not visible from the streets. Of course, this approach must recognize the desire to maintain the quality of backyards as well. The strategy of limiting the size of an individual lot and locating lots behind buildings rather than directly off the street will support the goal of preserving the green space within the campus and at the campus edges.
c. Visitor Accommodation
Parking for special events should not justify the construction of new off-street spaces on the north side of the river. The scale and quality of the campus/ neighborhood relationship would be greatly compromised by such construction. Signage and police management (for major events) should be used to direct special event visitors to available spaces including those on the south side of the river.
Given the fact that the majority of special events are in the evening and on weekends, special attention should be given to shared parking strategies. All of the on-campus lots are within a ten minute walk of the Chapel. With clear directions to their locations and to walking routes they would be satisfactory. Additionally, there is a large supply of private parking potentially available just west of Durkee. A two block walk down Washington to the Park Street entrance to the Conservatory complex would be convenient. The existence of drop-off spaces on both College Avenue and Washington near the Chapel will allow the option of drop-off for individuals unable to walk and/or valet parking for those events when the University feels it is desired. The University should initiate discussions with owners of nearby private parking to establish agreements for shared parking.
Parking for visitors to admissions should be accommodated directly off College Avenue, preferably next to the admissions building. The number of such spaces required has not been identified. However, the more critical issue is the lack of clear signage directing visitors to those spaces that do exist. The campus identity program should specifically direct visitors to an admissions and/ or information location where short term parking is available and from which directions can be given to other locations as appropriate.
a. Bridge Widening
The University should join with the community to carefully assess the impact of the proposed bridge widening. The justification for the widening notes that 14,000 trips per day use the bridge and that there are four lane sections at each end. Recognizing the possibility that bottle necks could occur for a very limited period of time during the day, traffic standards state that two lanes should be sufficient to handle the volume. Assuming ten percent of the traffic is a peak volume, two lanes should also be sufficient for that condition.
It is also important to review the impact of the proposed bridge widening on the quality of the College Avenue environment. Widening the bridge to support peak hour commuting traffic should be discouraged. College Avenue is the front door to the University and to the downtown. It should be pedestrian friendly for students and shoppers. The vehicle should not be the only criteria for the design of the street.
b. Cross Section
The cross section of College Avenue as it passes through the campus can be modified to impact the flow and speed of traffic as well as the sense of connection for pedestrians crossing the street. The following options are recommended for consideration.
Gateway signs or markers that announce the campus zone.
Reduced speed signage.
Special paving that will provide visual and auditory signals that this is a special zone.
Wide and specially marked crossing zones at desire points as well as corners.
A raised cross walk that functions as a gentle Òspeed bumpÓ, a strategy that has proved effective in other cities.
Special landscaping such as street trees that will differentiate the campus zone.
Special street lighting for pedestrian safety as well as designating a special zone.
c. Land Use Options
Several of the options for siting of facilities considered the relocation of uses traditionally located south of College Avenue to the north of the Avenue. Independent of the issue of appropriate proximity for a particular use, the wider distribution of uses such as Union, Housing, Academic, and Administration could reduce the sense that the Conservatory is Òon the other side of the street". The planning process has identified the potential for improving west campus housing that will attract Conservatory students to live south of College Avenue and the location of selected administrative functions in a renovated Plantz that would move what are now core area functions to the north side of College Avenue.
a. Union Street between College Avenue and Washington Street
A key acquisition may be necessary before approval for closure is feasible. Planning for this part of the campus should assume the potential and desire for closing the street section and efforts should be undertaken to accomplish the closure. It is very important, however, that the visual corridor that the street now occupies be retained as has been done for the Park Avenue corridor. Although the Union corridor is not so dramatic as the axis from Main Hall to the park, its extension from the east side of the park through the pedestrian way in front of the Library, Art Center and Union should not be lost. It is an important north-south pedestrian street connecting the Library and other student life and academic activities. Additionally, the grid that organizes the town and the campus should be retained. Observations suggest that because the street now allows only a right turn out, closure will not significantly impact traffic movement.
b. East Alton between Lawe and Meade Street
Closure of this street is simplified by the ownership of all property abutting the street. The logic of maintaining the pedestrian domain for University residents is similar to that found on East John Street. Whether this street should be retained as a paved way depends in part upon the decision regarding the siting of the Union. Location of a new Union facing onto Alton and Lawe would make the conversion of the street into open space a very desirable option. Emergency access could be retained. This would permit the continuation of an open space spine from the Green and extending between the Library and Art Center into the east campus housing and student life area. As part of planning for closure of the street, traffic impact studies will need to be prepared. The role the street plays in overall traffic circulation and the impact of closure are not known.
a. Image and Community Interface
The existing interface with the community is visually excellent. The retention of wood frame houses, attention to scale and detailing of new structures and the distribution and limitation of paved parking all contribute to this quality. This is particularly well demonstrated in the area between Drew, Union, Franklin, and Washington Streets. The retention of the homes that face the park and that frame the axis to Main Hall is very import to this interface. While other faces provide somewhat more flexibility with respect to individual properties, the maintenance of a residential scale and pattern of development, streets, landscape, and green as opposed to overscaled buildings and paved parking will determine the success of this transition.
b. Fox River Open Space
The "Imperatives" section discusses the importance of developing or improving the UniversityÕs edge on the Fox River. The river edge provides an inventory of space that can accommodate expansion of the academic core and provide sites for additional housing. While the hillside presents some design and technical challenges, the benefits from retaining a compact campus, and better connecting the campus to its river edge merit its designation as prime land for campus development. The Fox River also serves as an important community interface. As the river edges within the community are improved for open space and trail systems, the University should participate.
a. Completion of the Inner Perimeter
Completion of the perimeter shown on Figure 7 should be pursued as funds are available and as properties are available on the market. The properties establish a logical perimeter within which University control is important. These properties will allow flexibility for residential growth, selective accommodation of parking, as well as the potential for potential academic growth. Upon confirmation by the University that growth will be limited to 1,500 students, at least on the campus that is north of the river, a statement of long term intent can be made to the community.
b. Wider Option
Acquisition of property outside of this perimeter is a more complicated question. The issues and options reviewed in the work sessions did not identify any program options that require more land than what is within the inner perimeter. Assuming the land is not needed for growth and that it is in the interest of the University to retain the residential scale and quality of the neighborhood, the University should support the continued and successful use for single family housing.
Acquisition beyond the perimeter described above will require that the University be a landlord for those properties over the long run. Considerable expense and diversion of energy could result from such ownership. Also the threat of purchase by the University could be a significant destabilizing force on the neighborhood. Unless the University is convinced that there is a long term potential for growth beyond that projected in this study, the University should make its intentions clear and work with the surrounding neighborhood to insure stability and quality.
An important part of any campus identity program is to identify the point or points at which one is on-campus was opposed to off-campus. This clarity distinguishes the campus as a unique place within the overall community, orients visitors who need to know when they have arrived at the campus, and influences the behavior of drivers and pedestrians who will know that they are within a special precinct rather that a more anonymous public environment.
This identity can be accomplished in two primary ways. The first and most important is to reinforce the distinctive character of the campus when experienced from the streets. This is accomplished with street trees, lighting, landscaping, and general character of the physical environment within the campus. The second way is by the construction of physical "gateways" at each point where people arrive at the campus. Figure 8 illustrates the four key locations where such a physical mark could be located.
Determination of what is appropriate for these locations is an important design decision. The ÒmarkÓ made by a sign is a statement about the University. The University now exhibits a sense of simple understatement. It is recommended that these gateways take the form of a simple sign announcing the presence of the University. Confirmation of design and location for these signs should be part of a campus landscape master plan.
The campus landscape is generally well ordered with a dramatic and well scaled Green at its center. What is missing is attention to details that could enrich the pedestrian experience.
A landscape master plan should be prepared to guide the design of the campus landscape systems including planting, paving, signs, lights and furnishings. The following issues should be addressed:
Planting -- Overall layout and structure of planting, plant types, and attention to security and maintenance implications of planting design.
Paving -- Materials, locations, size.
Signs -- Design, location and materials. Guidelines for how and where information is communicated including campus and building identification, directional, informational, etc.
Lights -- Layout, fixture type, lamp types; coordination with planting; security implications; treatment of pedestrian areas, roads and parking lots.
Furnishings -- Type and location of benches, litter receptacles, cigarette receptacles, bicycle racks, outdoor kiosks, etc.
Although not so visible as other critical planning elements, the need for careful planning for and implementation of a comprehensive fiber optic network is essential. Although it appears that such a system is largely in place, the need for improvement was described and the risk of not being able to serve growing demands is an issue. The successful functioning of the campus in the future will depend upon the information infrastructure as much as upon traditional infrastructure such as power and water.
All future plans must consider the routing and installation of the fiber optic infrastructure and for centralized and adequate space for the management of the network. The recently completed spaces in the Library address this need. However, it is anticipated that there will be growth in this activity and that additional space will be required in the future. The programming for and provision of this space should be coordinated with overall library needs as discussed in the Library expansion section above.
The need for a new location for the radio tower was unanimously reported. Alternative locations and technical issues regarding relocation were not discussed. Given the present location of the tower, the design of the new science facility should address this question.
V. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR FACILITIES
The following records the analysis of the preferred location or location alternatives for each of the facilities.
Program
It is assumed that the program for the proposed science building is 30,000 NSF or 51,000 GSF as described in the program document dated March 16, 1995, that discusses the Science and Social Science Facilities.
Location
a. The Green
1. Fit
The site area is sufficient assuming necessary measures are taken to integrate the potential building footprint with adjacent Youngchild Hall and the pedestrian circulation pattern joining the academic necklace, and that the building design is appropriate to this highly visible setting.
2. Place
The principal placemaking challenge for this site is that the massing and facade treatment of the building must contribute to the ensemble of buildings framing the Green, the most significant open space on the campus. Any building sited on the Green must support the primacy of Main Hall and is best thought of as a "bookend" or complement to Ormsby Hall. The character of the architecture should be simple, reserved, and based on a proportioning system derived from classic architecture. The facade should be of masonry material that is consistent with other buildings on the Green with openings more vertical than horizontal. The final result should be as successful as the new addition to the Conservatory.
The siting for the building should not be forward of the north facade of Ormsby. The open space on the north side must accommodate the historic east-west pedestrian spine and should help direct pedestrian's to the future Union site next to Downer. The east side of the building must be similarly responsive to the north-south pedestrian corridor and the open space serving as front doors to the Union (to be academic) building and Recreation Center. The open space south of the building must anticipated future expansion of the academic necklace toward the river and the creation of a pedestrian open space across the south face of the entire necklace from Ormsby to the Union.
3. Critical Relationships
This location will permit direct connection the other science buildings.
4. Displacements/Contingent Action
Although the overall site is physically able to accommodate the building, it will be necessary to form a compatible mass and to frame an open space to the east the engages the Recreation Center, Art Center and Union. Should the existing Union be replaced or adapted to academic use, an area large enough to provide a forecourt to the building and to permit the retention of the walking path and bridge to the residential area should remain an important organizing principle.
5. Contingent Opportunities
None beyond those that result from the direct connection of the buildings.
6. Other Challenges
None.
7. Cost Considerations
a. A new building in this location will require a premium for the facade design. The classic proportions and scale of the older buildings, the less interesting facades of the Library and Youngchild, and the unique nature of the Art Center create a setting within which a new building must be respectful of the prominence of the site while providing a background for the more important Main Hall and Green.
b. Relocation and replacement of Sampson will be necessary. The historic nature of the structure is such that it should be preserved somewhere on campus. The President and Academic Dean must be accommodated in the relocated building or elsewhere. The preferred location for Sampson is between the Chapel and Plantz.
c. There should be a sufficient budget for the restructuring of the pedestrian circulation patterns. The organization of the open space including walks and planting behind Main Hall from Drew to Lawe must be addressed.
b. River Edge
1. Fit
The site area is sufficient pending measures to provide entry and common area in the space between Stephenson and Youngchild, to demolish the Physical Plant building and to relocate service access.
2. Place
This location preserves the Green in its current configuration. This site creates the opportunity to orient and to improve the river edge of the campus. The siting and design of the building should have the goal of transforming what has been the ÒbackÓ of the campus into a new precinct for expansion and into a new south facing campus edge. The design opportunity and challenge for the river site is to create a building that is worthy of its prominence on the river edge when viewed while approaching the campus over the bridges or from the new system of public open space proposed or being built along the river.
While it is imperative that the building ÒfitÓ the character of the campus, it is not so restrictive as it is on the Green. Advantage should be taken of the site to create a very distinctive new face to the campus. A building in this location can express of the technical nature of scientific inquiry. Almost any pallet of materials could be appropriate, provided the result is well designed. In that sense, the river site requires greater skill on the part of the architectural design team as the range of options is much broader.
The related design challenge will be to create a convincing entry between Stephenson and Youngchild, with a welcoming presence on the plaza south of Main Hall. A relatively transparent and atrium-like space could serve the multiple purposes of building entry, connection, and congregation space. It will also be important to create an inviting new public open space on the river side of the three buildings that extends from Ormsby to the Union.
3. Critical Relationships
This location will permit direct connection to other science buildings as well as to the major academic necklace circulation spine.
4. Displacement/Displacement Action
The major consequence would be displacement of Physical Plant buildings, the relocation of utilities, and the reorganization of service and emergency access.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Siting a new academic building in this location will be a major step in the development of the river edge of the campus as an active and positive expansion of the academic necklace. This site should be considered for academic expansion whether or not it is used for the new science building.
6. Other Challenges
The challenge of connecting the river edge to the Green and the center of the campus cannot be under estimated. It will require careful consideration of the spaces between Sampson, Youngchild, Stephenson and Ormsby, as well as the open space on the river side of these buildings. The Òfront doorÓ to a building on this site should be expressed as part of the academic necklace to insure that the perception of its location is not that of being ÒbehindÓ. A successful solution will extend the academic necklace to the river.
7. Costs Considerations
a. Demolition of the existing physical plant building.
b. Relocation and/or modification to electrical and steam distribution systems.
c. Special foundations and slope stabilization measures to overcome subsoil and steep banks on the river bluffs. from
d. Modifications to Youngchild and Stephenson to connect the entry to the proposed building to the Green in a convincing way.
e. Measures to accommodate service and emergency access dislocated by the projection of the building onto the existing service drive.
Program
Educational institutions like Lawrence University are now being asked to provide a new array of activities and services through their Student Union/Centers. This need is exacerbated by the fact that many of these facilities have reached the end of their first life cycle and are in need of significant renovation and expansion. The previous programming study for the Lawrence University Student Union attests to the need to seriously consider the role, location and array of activities that should be a part of this building.
Student unions are often referred to as the "living room" of the campus. Whether living room or recreation room, these facilities provide a focus for many student activities and often are an important contributor to recruiting and retaining students. Today, student unions offer a wide range of services that may not be conveniently available on or off campus. Some unions combine the campus' main food service facilities with food court style dining. In all cases, successful unions are the preferred location for students to meet other students, and to see and be seen.
The program for Lawrence University's Student Union should include qualitative and quantitative criteria. The qualitative criteria might include:
Become the living room of the campus.
Become the preferred place to meet friends.
Be comfortable and relaxing.
Be a place that has everything a student might need.
Offer choices of food, especially in an ethnically diverse culture.
Be the preferred location for study breaks.
Be a "great place for a party".
Be fun.
Quantitative program criteria might include:
1. Food Service 15,000 GSF
Campus Dining Services
Food Court
Deli
Faculty and Staff Dining
Special Events and Banquets
2. Lounges 10,000 GSF
Students
Faculty and Staff
Game Room(s)
Function Room(s)
Meeting Rooms
Ballroom
Art Gallery
Music and Concerts
Dances
3. Retail and Services 5,000 GSF
Coffee Shop
Ice Cream and Yogurt
Postal Services
Travel Services
Computer Sales and Repairs
Clothing
Barber Shop and Salon
Push Carts
4. Student Organizations 10,000 GSF
Reception and Information Desk
Office Suites
Student Organization Lockers
Workrooms
Student Government
5. Student Services 5,000 GSF
Dean of Student Life
Career Services
Tutoring Services
Writing Lab
Computer Lab
6. Other 5,000 GSF
Radio Station
Building Administration
Receiving
Building Maintenance
TOTAL 50,000 GSF
Location
Downer
1. Fit
The site is adequate to accommodate the program. This site could accommodate the program with a focus facing either onto Lawe or East Alton. It is recommended that the building be ÒLÓ shaped with an entry facing onto East Alton where it can serve the combined new building, Downer, and Kohler. This site will require the relocation or demolition of Raymond House. The building could also have an entry on Lawe that could be integrated with an enclosed second level connection to a modified Library building.
2. Place
A distinctive building in this location has the opportunity to contribute significantly to the image of the University when approached from College Avenue in either direction. Closure of East Alton (discussed elsewhere) and the creation of a green open space between a new Union and the residential Quad will create a significant new open space that is an extension of the Green to the east campus.
The move of the Union from its current site could change the function of the hill as a gathering place. A new green gathering place next to the Union would be created with the new building. Union hill can be retained for special uses by maintaining access as well as programming for its use for special activities.
The impact of relocation of the Union on the space between the Union and the Art Center is difficult to assess given its reported limited use and the poor connection that new exists with the uses within the Union. It is anticipated that more active programming of uses for the space could contribute to its successful function whether or not it is related to the Union.
3. Critical Relationships
The relationship to the Library is maintained, although the necessity to cross Lawe is an issue. An overhead and enclosed connection across Lawe between the Library and Union could be feasible. The relationship to food service is excellent which could allow for combined facilities. The distance to the recreational building is greater. The relationship to housing on the east is excellent and the relationship to housing on the west is not significantly worse. Students report that the Downer site is sufficiently ÒneutralÓ, that it would not be perceived as separate from the west campus housing. Moving the Union out of the academic necklace creates some sense of separation from academic activity. However, the site is within what is perceived as the campus core.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
Relocation or demolition of Raymond will require a new home for the Dean of Students office, which should be located in the new Union.
5. Contingent Opportunities
This location provides an opportunity to create a significant new statement about the quality of student life at the University. Another major opportunity is the sharing of existing food service facilities and meeting rooms with the Union. Connection with Kohler creates the opportunity to provide connected lodging for summer or other special programs that take advantage of the new Union complex. Additionally, moving the Union creates a site for academic expansion within the academic necklace.
6. Other Challenges
Creating a facility that provides a focus for student life on the campus and that properly integrates Downer and Kohler.
7. Cost Considerations
A cost advantage is created because of the ability to share food service and meeting spaces in Downer. A premium is created by the need to replace facilities that are in the existing building. A significant funding opportunity should be created by a new Union (with naming rights) as opposed to a renovation.
Program
The amount of academic program expansion that is necessary for the University has not been quantified. Any new construction or renovation for academic use will require a detailed program study. The motivation to consider this requirement for new or additional space is based upon several requirements.
Hi-tech Classrooms -- The rapidly increasing need for classrooms with computer work stations at each student desk and at the teaching station cannot be met within the current buildings. The needs for the sciences will be addressed in the new and modified facilities. The deficit will exist in general and liberal arts classroom. Given the fact that the required square footage per student is significantly higher in high tech classrooms, conversion will only exacerbate an already tight situation in Main Hall.
Congregation Space within the Academic Necklace -- Main Hall lacks common space proximate to offices, seminar spaces, and classrooms where students and faculty can have the kinds of spontaneous and informal encounters that are critical to the academic process. This has been expressed as a need for Òdecompression spaceÓ.
Emeriti Faculty Offices -- Related to the benefit of informal interaction is the wish for the incorporation of offices for emeriti faculty within the departmental academic environment. While these offices could be in a location separate from the academic core, it would defeat the benefit of interaction. Another benefit anticipated from additional high quality and well located emeriti offices would be the opportunity for senior faculty to retire from active teaching and maintain the quality of academic environment that attracted them to Lawrence University.
Programming Issues
Discussions identified a number of critical issues that will impact the need for and location of additional or modified academic space. They are recorded here to insure they are addressed as part of space programming for modifications or additions to academic space.
Term Structure - Quarter vs. Semester -- There has been an ongoing debate regarding the benefits of each option. Independent of the educational issues, the impact of term structure on space utilization and space requirement should be addressed.
Room Scheduling -- The current practice of lectures on MWF exclusively and labs on TuTh exclusively impacts the requirement for classrooms and labs. Recognizing the tradition this represents and the ripple effect on teaching schedules, it still warrants consideration as part of studies investigating the need for investment in new space. A related issue regarding room scheduling is the preference for classes after 10 AM and before 3 PM. Again, recognizing the importance of prerogatives for faculty and students, the impact of limiting the hours of class schedules should be part of the analysis of need for new space.
Departmental Structure -- Within the departments located in Main Hall there are no physical relationships that promote departmental interaction of faculty, emeriti faculty, or students. Space assignments match an individual to a space with no regard for these relationships. The study of new space requirements should consider the benefits of proximity as well as impacts on interdepartmental and intradepartmental communications.
Location
Because program need for additional academic space has not been quantified, the potential locations were discussed in terms of the potential for expansion as a percentage of what is now in Main Hall.
Union
1. Fit
The Union building has 26,200 GSF which is 72 percent of the 36,300 GSF in Main, thus allowing significant expansion within the existing building shell.
2. Place
The location of the Union within the academic necklace permits expansion in a way that reinforces the existing campus core as the center of the liberal arts departments. Use for academic functions including riverfront lounges for congregation of faculty and students also contributes to the sense of place in this part of the campus. If the Union becomes an academic building, the amphitheater could serve as a location for lectures or class meetings as well as social activities.
3. Critical Relationships
Relationships to other academic buildings as well as student life facilities will be excellent.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
This solution requires the relocation of the Union.
5. Contingent Opportunities
The location overlooking the river provides an opportunity to create outstanding common space for the academic departments.
6. Other Challenges
None identified.
7. Cost Considerations
Given the relatively generic character of the building, there appears to be no exceptional cost issues related to conversion.
Program
The program requirements for expansion of the Library are not specific. There is an expectation that growth of the Library will be a natural consequence of the evolution of the University. Additional space for classes, seminars, study, and organization of collections were listed as possible. The requirement most clearly articulated is the need for space to house the growing information management functions.
It is also important to note that the Library is a center of academic activity on campus. This creates important relationships to other student life spaces such as the Union and Recreation Center.
Location
The preferred option for Library expansion is the demolition and replacement of the 1961 addition on the rear of the Library. Absent a specific quantified program for use of expanded space, the ÒyieldÓ of potential new space is addressed. Setbacks from College Avenue and Lawe that are consistent with the existing character of the intersection must be maintained. Given the critical visual location and the already complicated juxtaposition of the two parts of the Library, this is a design challenge that will require careful attention.
Potential New Space
The 1961 wing has a first floor area of approximately 7,000 SF which reduces as it goes up. Expansion of the footprint toward Lawe would permit a footprint of 14,000 GSF and a potential height of four floors. This total of 56,000 GSF would represent an expansion of approximately 40,000 SF which is 40 percent of the current library total of 99,000 GSF
Program
The program that was tested for new residential units assumes a suites type of housing. The building block is a 350 NSF per student unit including two bedrooms, a living space with small kitchen and a bathroom. Figure 9 is an illustration of a prototypical suites plan. A building with no common space would result in a gross square footage of 400 SF per student. This can be compared to an average of 250 to 300 GSF in current residence halls and 380 GSF in the fraternities. Assuming a building size of 50 students, which is twice the size of the fraternities and one-third the size of the residence halls, a prototypical building would have 20,000 GSF. A two floor prototype that will be appropriate in areas abutting residences would have a footprint of 225Õ x 45Õ. A three floor prototype would have a 145Õ x 45Õ footprint. Recognizing that other modules would be possible and that site specific designs are essential to insure a comfortable fit with abutting uses, these prototypes provide a basis for testing the capacity of a site to accommodate housing.
Locations
The first three locations are particularly attractive as sites within the existing campus. One is a renovation, one requires demolition of existing single family units, and one is a new site. These three locations are recommended as sites for the new style of housing as part of the program to increase options for upper level students.
The remaining locations are, for the most part, more peripheral to the core and will require acquisition of new land. These locations are recommended as sites for expansion of the bed count as opposed to modification of the existing count. Although the analysis estimates the capacity of these sites for suites type units, expansion of the bed count would likely include a mix of unit types. In that case the number of beds on any particular site could be higher.
a. Brokaw
1. Fit
The gross square footage of Brokaw is 33,500 permitting 85 suite style beds assuming the building can be efficiently planned. Brokaw contains 67 beds on two floors for an estimated four floor capacity of 134 beds as currently configured. Recognizing that a renovation plan for a historic building like Brokaw will likely result in a combination of room types and sizes (rather than all suites), it is reasonable to estimate that the building could accommodate 100 new beds.
2. Place
The renovation of this icon building will insure its preservation as a critical part of the campus environment. Next to the Chapel and Main Hall, Brokaw is the most important building on campus when viewed from the
Green and College Avenue.
3. Critical Relationships
Brokaw has a critical relationship to Coleman and Ormsby as an anchor building for the west campus residential area. Its restoration as a desirable residential building will be an important step in clarifying the nature of the west campus as a living environment as opposed to the Òmixed useÓ environment that exists today.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
The administrative functions on the first two floors will need to be relocated.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Coupled with relocation of Physical Plant, there is an opportunity to expand the open space between Coleman and Brokaw as student recreation area.
6. Other Challenges
The challenge of shifts in building use from administrative to residential will require careful scheduling. The acquisition of the church site as surge space and as an important long term land asset could provide the flexibility necessary to accomplish a relocation of administrative space in support of the Brokaw renovation.
7. Cost Considerations
Given the importance of Brokaw as an icon building, its renovation should be assumed to be a given. There will be a premium for a restoration that returns the building to its original elegance. In the context of the new policy to differentiate room rates, it is assumed that a premium room rate will be charged for suites in this building.
b. East Quad
1. Fit
One two story unit would fit in this location assuming the demolition of the existing houses facing onto Meade.
2. Place
This alternative is attractive because it allows completion of the residential quad with new units meeting the future needs of the University. The visual quality of the Quad is currently compromised by the backyards of the existing houses. This proposed type and scale of housing will, if carefully designed, maintain the residential scale of the campus edge.
3. Critical Relationships
An excellent location vis-à-vis other housing and the other student life facilities.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
Two Theme Houses would be removed that accommodate a total of 28 students. It is assumed that the new units would be preferable to what is being removed.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Phasing the project by first constructing a module of 25 units on the northern part of this site would allow testing the new unit type without displacing any students.
6. Other Challenges
None identified.
7. Cost Considerations
Demolition costs would be minimal. No new land would have to be acquired.
c. West River (A site below Ormsby on the hill above the tennis courts)
1. Fit
One three or four-story footprint could be accommodated. At least 50 beds could be accommodated.
2. Place
This site provides the opportunity create a unique ÒhillsideÓ complex of housing. Properly designed, it could include a pedestrian way connecting down the hill from the Green to the tennis area and the river edge.
3. Critical Relationships
This site would be part of the west campus residential area. Although distant from student life activities, it would be a housing type appropriate for upper level students who are seeking an Òoff-campusÓ type of living.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
No displacement will be required. Relocation of steam lines could be required.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Housing in this location would add to the opportunity to better utilize the river edge.
6. Other Challenges
Adaptation of the standard housing module to the sloping site will require special design attention.
7. Cost Considerations
Construction of housing on the site will be more expensive than for more conventional sites north and east of the campus core.
d. Church Site
1. Fit
One 50 bed two-story unit could be constructed on this site. If the site is extended to Washington Street, two units or 100 beds could be constructed.
2. Place
While this location is across College Avenue from Downer, it is likely to be perceived as an edge location. In combination with other housing in this area, however, it could be part of a third cluster of housing. Because of this potential, a plan for acquisition of the church site and other sites within the block could lead to a new residential quad that properly organizes open space, parking, and residential units.
3. Critical Relationships
This site would be a free standing location north of College Avenue until such time as additional housing is added within the block. The proximity to Downer and the possible new Union would be an attraction.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
No displacements of University uses will be required. Purchase and demolition of the Church will be required.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Acquisition of the property protects it for campus use. Use for housing provides a use of neighborhood scale.
6. Other Challenges
None identified.
7. Cost Considerations
The cost of acquisition and demolition could be higher than for locations that are less prominent and that have less substantial buildings that must be demolished.
e. Washington Street
1. Fit
Two 50 bed units that are two stories in height could be constructed facing Washington Street (not including the two units identified for the Church site). In total, four 50 bed units (or more beds with conventional rooms) could be constructed within this city block assuming retention of the three houses facing onto College Avenue.
2. Place
Housing in this location could help maintain the proper scale of university buildings on this edge while increasing the amount of housing north of College Avenue. "Completing" this edge with housing would be an affirmative statement as to the limits of expansion of academic facilities. Planning for housing in this area should consider the use and condition of the existing single family units as some could be incorporated into the residential complex to the benefit of the neighborhood scale.
3. Critical Relationships
Housing in this location is not within the ÒbookendsÓ now accommodating the majority of housing. However, a new cluster of housing in a more remote location is consistent with a housing type that has been described as Òliving off campusÓ.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
Property acquisition, demolition, and relocation of residents will be necessary.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Adding to the housing inventory.
6. Other Challenges
Designing buildings that retain the necessary neighborhood scale.
7. Cost Considerations
Land will need to be purchased to permit construction of new housing. Demolition costs will be minimal.
f. West of Brokaw
1. Fit
The site can accommodate two 50 bed units of three floors.
2. Place
Because this site is behind Coleman Hall, it is not part of the current campus. It would be the only facility west of Durkee. Careful site design and possible modification to or elimination of the Durkee Street cul-de-sac could incorporate this area into the west campus housing area while creating a new river edge open space for use by the student residents.
3. Critical Relationships
As an edge site, it would be Òoff-campusÓ unless it is carefully integrated into the abutting west campus residential area. Because it is behind Coleman, the relationship to student life activities will be more remote. Creating an open passage through Coleman and connecting to the spine circulationway would greatly improve the sense of connection to the campus.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
Purchase and demolition will be necessary. The reported interest of historical preservation groups may be an issue impacting this option.
5. Contingent Opportunities
This site, given its proximity to the downtown and to the river, could be developed for market rate housing with a different footprint and higher structure than what is studied here.
6. Other Challenges
None identified.
7. Cost Considerations
The cost of acquisition must be included. Demolition costs will be minimal.
g. East River (between Sage and Trever)
1. Fit
One 50 bed unit of three floors could be accommodated on this site.
2. Place
This location in remote from the campus core, but within the east campus housing area. Given the river edge location, it could be an extremely attractive location for additional housing.
3. Critical Relationships
The proximity to Sage Hall gives this site a good connection to existing housing and student life facilities.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
No displacements are required.
5. Contingent Opportunities
None identified
6. Other Challenges
Design of units that take advantage of the sloping site will be a design challenge.
7. Cost Considerations
Construction costs could be more than for a conventional site. The proximity to the bank edge could create unexpected premiums.
Program
The program for administrative use has two critical dimensions. The first is the square footage of space required for each administrative function. The following lists gross square footage's of each function provided by the University. While a more detailed programming process could yield different program requirements for the administrative functions, these existing gross areas serve as an order of magnitude indicator of needs and opportunities.
Landis Peabody Development and Alumni Affairs 7,876 GSF
Raymond Dean of Students/Student services 4,300 GSF
Sampson President and Dean of Faculty 4,600 GSF
Wilson Admissions 3,300 GSF
Brokaw Business, Financial Aid, Registrar 16,750 GSF
Treasurer
Recognizing that there are other administrative units within the University including those in the Union and Downer, these five units represent the functions that now have a space and identity that is related to a specific building on campus. This approximately 40,000 GSF represents the magnitude of administrative space that could be collected into a administrative building.
The second critical factor is the desired adjacency of administrative functions to one another and to other campus functions. Discussions with students and administrators indicated several important goals.
The Dean of Students and Student Services should not be located ÒinsideÓ an administrative building. Access and visibility are important to an open relationship with students. These functions could exist within the Union facility.
Admissions should remain in a separate building. Visibility and accessibility for visiting students is critical. Depending upon the location of other administrative functions, admissions could be part of an administrative building. However, its current location in an old house, in the center of campus, and on College Avenue fits the desired conditions very well.
The President and Dean of Faculty feel accessibility and visibility are critical. The Òdrop-inÓ atmosphere afforded by Sampson is desirable and should be retained. These functions could be located in a central administration building as they are on many campuses, but location and visibility within such a building will be critical.
Business and the other functions in Brokaw have an affinity to one another. The necessity for accessibility for student use is less than the three functions discussed above. Any location within the campus boundary could serve these functions. The connection is more purposeful and need not have the sense of spontaneous access that is desired for other functions.
Development and Alumni affairs in Landis Peabody have no active connection to the daily lives of students. As such, these functions could go anywhere on campus. The affinities are such that they could easily be part of an administrative facility. Visibility and accessibility for visitors is important.
In summary, the functions now in Landis Peabody and Brokaw could be combined in an administrative building somewhere on campus. The Sampson functions could join them if a new location for administration functions is satisfactory. Wilson should remain as Admissions unless a new administrative facility is particularly visible and representative of the Lawrence environment. The Raymond functions could seek a new home in a new or modified Union facility.
There are three locations that should be considered for relocation or consolidation of selected administrative functions. Each represents a significantly different approach to locating these uses. Plantz, the preferred location, could become available as a consequence of a residential modification and renovation program. The church site is locationally less attractive, but represents a temporary or permanent adaptive reuse option. Brokaw is the least disruptive option, but would continue an administrative use where residential uses are preferred.
a. Plantz
1. Fit
Plantz is a building of 44,218 GSF and could accommodate all of the administrative functions plus other academic or surge uses yet to be identified.
2. Place
Location of most of the administrative functions in Plantz would ÒfreeÓ the central campus of functions that do not require such a central location. The impact of relocating housing from the north side of College Avenue is difficult to assess. It would be a benefit to consolidate housing into the ÒbookendsÓ where interaction and relationships to student life functions can be maximized and to locate another important University function north of College Avenue.
3. Critical Relationships
Functions now in Landis Peabody and Brokaw could work well in this location. Admissions could stay where it is with improved connections to related administrative functions such as financial aid. The President and Dean of Faculty could be in Sampson relocated next to the Chapel. An administrative ÒrowÓ would be created along College Avenue.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
As the second largest dorm with 166 students, new housing would need to be in place before such a move would be possible. Given the current condition of the building and its lack of popularity as a place to live, complete reconditioning will be necessary for any long term continued use. Planned in conjunction with a residential renovation program that creates new and improved housing in the west and east campus areas, renovation for conversion to administration could be accomplished without impacting housing availability.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Assuming a program of new housing that offers improved options for student living, this would be an excellent location of administrative uses.
6. Other Challenges
None identified.
7. Cost Considerations
As a relatively ÒgenericÓ building, conversion to administrative use would not require reconfiguring the building envelop. The ease and cost of reconstructing interior spaces will require study.
b. Church Site
1. Fit
In the absence of information regarding the arrangement of the existing building, it is assumed that it could be renovated to accommodate administrative functions. Alternatively, the site could accommodate a new building of sufficient size to house the 25,000 GSF of administrative functions that could reasonably be located on this site.
2. Place
Location here would put administrative functions at the edge of the campus. The administration building would be a destination rather than part of the active campus core.
3. Critical Relationships
While this site is at the edge of the campus rather that at its center, those function now located in Landis Peabody and Brokaw could be relocated to this site.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
An advantage of this alternative is that a move could be staged without disruption of the other campus functions. Connection of the building to the fibre optic network will be necessary.
5. Contingent Opportunities
Given the probable existence of classrooms and offices within the existing church building, it is possible that the building could be easily adapted for a ÒtemporaryÓ location allowing the near term conversion of Brokaw to all housing. This would increase the feasibility of the permanent conversion of Plantz to an administration building as new housing is created over the longer term.
6. Other Challenges
None identified.
7. Cost Considerations
In the absence of information regarding the convertibility of the existing building, cost considerations are not known. Assuming this is a strategic purchase rather than a purchase related directly to administrative space needs, the cost of acquisition is not a cost of this alternative. Additionally, no new housing would need to be created in advance of a move, creating more flexibility to manage related space issues.
c. Brokaw
1. Fit
If converted to an administrative building, Brokaw could accommodate the addition of those functions now located in Landis Peabody, Sampson and Wilson.
2. Place
Any ongoing commitment to this building will help assure its preservation. The permanent loss of the building as part of the west campus ÒbookendÓ of residential use could have a negative impact on the sense of residential ÒplaceÓ.
3. Critical Relationships
Relationships would be excellent. Either the President or Admissions or both could be located in a building with this prominence.
4. Displacement/Contingent Action
Given the fact that the current use for housing will stop, there is no dislocation. A permanent conversion from housing is important in terms of the long term strategy for the west campus housing area.
5. Contingent Opportunities
The primary opportunity would be created by the relocation of administrative uses from Landis Peabody. These spaces could convert to a new form of housing, provide for other student services or provide expansion space for selected academic uses.
6. Other Challenges
None identified
7. Cost Considerations
The cost of renovation of Brokaw should be assumed as a given over the long run. As an icon building and as a building in need of restoration to its original elegance, the question is when and for what use. A possible cost advantage of conversation to administrative use is that it is currently partially adapted to that use, although it is probable that complete renovation will be necessary.
DMH/jjm/dp/g:41688:a:report/r-mpstr
