Campus

Designing

Campus Greatest Experiences Data Collection and Discussion from the USA Secondment

Mohammed GABR

PhD

2016 - 2020 UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD Arab Academy for Science & Technology

EVALUATING CAMPUS URBAN DEVELOPMENTS BASED ON STUDENT EXPERIENCE New Integrative Design-Investment Assessment of two Campus Developments in the UK & US

CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION

Executive Summary PHYSICAL CAMPUS MATTERS IN TERMS OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE “Campus master plans are no longer just about assessing academic needs and capital improvements ... We are integrating concepts, like deep energy efficiency and renewable energy, to provide clients with practical measures that will result in long-term cost savings.” Sronkoski, principal and director of Legat’s Higher Education practice.

Higher education institutions - faced by tight budgets, fluctuating enrolment and satisfaction pressures - continue to be committed to improving the campus and facilities experience that cope with the students needs and advanced educational visions. As a result, universities are seeking new and creative ways to generate efficiencies (reduce costs and provide greater-impact capital investments) while enhancing a vibrant, innovative experience. The Campus Outdoor Spaces (COS) plays a great role and represents the first and lasting impression of the university. COS leverage great values for health (via environmental and health benefits) and wellbeing (via physical activity and social interaction). Efficient COS design also provides opportunities with more funding available for education. To achieve such beneficial COS, universities rely on master planning studies to guide campus development decisions through a maze of factors. The study therefore identified common COS features and impacts of 40 significant campus developments/masterplans in the top two leading regions/countries - England and California. This comes after reviewing literature to outline an array of COS pressures in space and financial challenges, demographics and students needs, community integrations, academic goals and new technologies. Content analysis, observations and survey are used to achieve a multi-purpose tool to inform campus circumstances and institutional ambitions with comprehensive and up-to-date information. The resulted model COS Experience Calculator (COSE-C) is based on a three-layer database/analysis relating form to the student experience and a companion costs. The first layer includes general information about HE systems, university ranks, campus types and forms, size by space and enrolments. Second layer is used to depict common design features in multiple development scenarios (interactive, communal, instructive, or energetic COS). The third layer include and integrate database from analysing in detail two campus developments on students satisfaction, space features, and development costs, where the findings of this study can contribute most to achieve greatest-impact investment in COS in UK, US, and elsewhere globally.

ENGLAND CALIFORNIA

Mohammed Gabr PhD candidate, University of Salford 2016-2020

Page 2/60



INTRODUCTION / LITERATURE “The ‘Place-making Dividend’ [is] the intrinsic value that accrues to a community when districts possess a strong sense of place that in turn results in high levels of repeat visits, increasing rents, retail sales, leasing demand, and capital value. Such a dividend occurs when individual real estate projects are so well designed and interconnected that they work as one integrated place.” Geoffrey Booth, Bruce Leonard, Michael Pawlukiewicz, “Ten Principles for Reinventing Suburban Business Districts” (Urban Land Institute, 2002) available at: http://www.uli.org/report/ten-principles-for reinventingamericas-suburbanbusiness-districts/

The physical campus environment is the first thing people notice when they visit a university campus even before attending, and the campus setting is recalled as something memorable after departing from a particular institution (Smith,2000). The surrounding environment plays an integral role in shaping users’ experiences - especially when it is a highly used public space like a college campus. As a public space, the campus outdoor space (COS) is an important part of users’ overall experience. Universities’ diverse social, economic, and cultural activities affect many people and campus planning and design impacts the community as a whole (Dober, R. 1992). The design of college campuses creates an everlasting impression. Therefore, there is a greater need for properly designed campus landscapes, which creates a sense of place and community for the users’. While the benefits of living on campus have been well documented, the changing landscape of living arrangements, programming efforts, and other factors underline the need to reexamine its impact. The benefits of effective planning of COS contributes to - and is assessed by the following (Brodie, 2011): 

Satisfaction: Satisfaction is simply the foundation, and the minimum requirement, for a continuing relationship between university staff, students, and community.



Loyalty – Identity: Highly engaged students are more loyal. Increasing the engagement of target students increases the rate of students’ place-attachment.



Word of Mouth advertising - advocacy: Highly engaged students are more likely to engage in free, credible Word of Mouth advertising. This can drive new student enrolment and can have viral other effects.



Awareness - Effectiveness of well-connected campus: When students are exposed to diverse campus spaces that they are highly engaged with, they tend to actively elaborate on its central idea.



Complaint-behaviour: Highly engaged students are less likely to complain to other current or potential students, but will address the university directly instead, or, to some extends, will try to solve or cope with the challenge.



Marketing intelligence: Highly engaged students give valuable recommendations for improving quality of offering.

People are naturally attracted to activity, especially when the activity is watching other people. It gives the passerby more reason to stop and sit or stand. Life Between Buildings by Jan Gehl examines the different parts of outdoor settings in cities. He analyses the basic functions and opportunities that these spaces should provide or facilitate in order to be successful. The underlying theme of successful outdoor spaces that is emphasized in the book is the ability to provide quality space. Jan Gehl claims that it is not enough to design spaces that only allow people to pass through or travel from point A to point B. In order to create a quality space, he states that, “Favourable conditions for moving about in and lingering in the spaces must exist, as well as conditions that allow participation in range of social and recreational activities (Gehl 1980, 131).” Furthermore, as a result of designing higher quality spaces the recreational and social activities develop and flourish (Gehl, 1980). Another crucial aspect to a successful outdoor space is the opportunity to sit. Gehl discusses two types of successful seating, primary and secondary seating. Primary seating is benches and chairs. Secondary seating is stairways, steps, low walls, and other similar types (Gehl 1980). Landscape is defined as "The character and appearance of land, including its shape, form, ecology, natural features, colours and elements, and the way these components combine" (DETR & CABE, 2000). Landscape represents a skeleton for an outdoor environment of a campus (Dober, 1992). He attributed the benefits of landscape as aesthetic, functional and climatological purposes. Aesthetic includes features such as artworks and sculptures.


Page 3/60



The functional purpose includes noise control, privacy and reducing erosion; while the climatic benefits include shade and air circulation. Eckert (2012) argued that landscape could become an important part of its identity. Landscape elements can be employed to screen poor architecture (Abbaszadeh, 2011; Carmona, 2003). Landscape features according to Dober (1992) are classified into place making which include the structure, such as open and green spaces, routs for pedestrians and parking. Whilst, place marking refers to the elements that contribute to give a campus its uniqueness from other campuses and associate with the sense of place, such as trees, outdoor furniture and landmarks. In addition to these features, walkways, sidewalks, streets, and parking are also landscape context on campus (Eckert, 2012). M. Z. Abd-Razak et al. (2011) concluded that campus landscape features are about creating a sense of comfort and welcoming, better way finding, attractive scenery, and better safety. They also revealed that landscape can contribute towards learning process. According to Abbaszadeh (2011), landscape features, particularly trees, have the ability to support the sense of enclosure to the people using the urban spaces. It is concluded by Al-Hagla (2008) that open spaces have the ability to articulate the character of a neighborhood which applies to university campuses too. This is attributed to open spaces as social interactions setting. They are also acting a places of micro-ecological features (Al-Hagla, 2008). Within this concern, there has been, In recent years, a significant Amount of debate regarding the importance of space on learning: JISC, EDUCASE and more recently the OECD--‐CELE project (Centre for Effective Learning Environments) represent some of the most significant groups, placing their concerns on the qualities of the learning spaces. Additionally, several author’s works complement the discussion (Baepler et al., 2014; Boys, 2010; Brown, 2003, 2005; Crook, 2012; Dudek, 2000; Fisher, 2005, 2006; Grummon, 2009; Heitor, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013; Hertzberger, 2005, 2008; Hunley and Schaller 2009; Johnson and Lomas, 2005; Lippman, 2002; Long and Ehrmann, 2009; Malcolm, 2003; Monahan, 2002; Monahan, 2002; Oblinger, 2005; Sanoff, 2001; Sawyer, 2009; Schneider, 2002; Scott--‐Webber, 2004; Taylor, 2009; and others). Also many examples of researches, following the space syntax methods, have shown that spatial structures can promote the production of patterns of co--‐ presence through movement (Hillier and Penn, 1991), furthermore, proximity between people contributes to interaction (Backhouse and Drew, 1992). Therefore, spatial configuration enables the production of casual contacts needed for the generation of new ideas and knowledge diffusion (Penn et al., 1999) (Heitor et al., 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013) (Sailer, 2011). Space syntax methods provide an accurate framework for space--‐use analysis, allowing to formulate the hypothesis that proximity, co--‐presence and encounters in space potentially establish an important factor for knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Regarding this argument, some authors have been developing studies in this field, both in campus Scale (Greene and Penn 1997), as well in school building scale, addressing their analysis to organization, flexibility and adaptability of academic spaces (Heitor et al., 2013, 2012, 2015); evaluation of mobility flows on academic spaces (Heitor et al., 2007, 2009); and the influence of spatial layouts on students’ behavior (Pasalar, 2004). Campus landscaping is becoming the new public face of universities (Ozdil, et.al, 2013). The learning experience should take place throughout the campus and not just indoor (Kenney et al. 2005). A lot of learning is social and a lot of that social learning happens out in the plazas and other outdoor spaces on campus where people meet. Integrating students’ social and academic needs creates a sense of liveliness in the campus community (Atkins & Oakland, 2008). The link between the physical characteristics of the campus and the behaviour within it is known as “architectural determinism,” a form of human-environment interaction (Strange & Banning, 2001, p. 13). Public universities have a responsibility to provide usable, innovative COS to their students and faculty and to the communities around them. Assessing users’ perceptions of the campus landscape at different campus spaces can help formulate a comprehensive master plan for the campus. Previous research illustrates that assessing users’ perceptions may help landscape architects to design campus landscape master plans to enhance users’ experience (Francis & Marcus, 1998). So the intention is to better understand opportunities for improved delivery of experience-based outdoor space options that are focused on supporting diverse green, innovation, and extra-curricular exploration initiatives, hence a student experience enhanced by integrated and appropriate space features. However, decisions about whether universities can use the allotted spending amount as standard income, hiring professors, funding more scholarships, or upgrading and repairing spaces/facilities is a complicated mission. Because universities depend on investment returns for supplementary income, there could be trouble if the investments do not yield a suitable amount of returns. Taken together, investments in campus developments must rely on reliable models to ensure the investments made are in line with the needs and values of students, university, and community policy allocation. The starting point for every development is both a general and detailed study of best-case-scenarios, as well as its specific physical context. As such, this research is led by a phenomenological approach to highlight subjective


Page 4/60



meanings and intuitive descriptions of environmental experiences. Phenomenology explores the things and events of daily experience and emphasizes subjective meanings and intuitive descriptions of the world experiences. Phenomenology explores the things and events of daily experience and emphasizes subjective meanings and intuitive descriptions of the world (Heidigger, 1927/1962; Husserl, 1911/1965; Seamon, 1982). To contribute toward bridging the gap between the underlying principles of the phenomenology of space, the real experience of outdoor settings, and the university expenditures on campus developments, Chapter 5 of this research involves three phases of data collection/analysis. The first phase first-step, general UK & US campus study. This phrase brings forward the innovative, student-oriented city campus approaches, spotting the specific urban/landscape design innovations, and the user (students) reactions (how efficiently the students actually used the space). It helps to know what behaviour was associated with or anticipated at a locus, what the physical parameters of that setting were, and the description or preconception that people held of the behaviour in that physical setting The second phase is a focused comparative campus site appraisal which involves the collection of qualitative and quantitative data to establish a comprehensive profile of the site and its context through a process of data collection, survey and analysis along with observing how the student experience outdoor spaces and the significance of landscaped spaces in one’s life. In this phase, the deeper primary data collection is about connections to the place, meaning and identity of place, as well as social interaction and community involvement particularly related to the student experience at UOS & SDSU campuses. The third phase proceeds to examine the business case for the above relation. It responds to questions like: Does the investment actually translate into the innovation of the COS? How can we support the prioritization of COS development/renovations?

PROBLEM STATEMENT / RESEARCH QUESTIONS What is "well-designed" campus in different context/cities ?

STUDY # 1 • Field research in different spatial, social & administrative COS context.

How much did the student/user receive through an investment of time, energy, and resources within the COS design development?

STUDY # 2 • New metrics for Personal development (individual), Engagement (social), Academic (education), and Healthy (physical) outcomes.

How to measure efficiency of investments in COS ?


STUDY # 3 • Develop a methodology for a comparative study in place and time.

Page 5/60



METHODOLOGY / METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION Table 1: Data Collection Methods of the research LITRETURE REVIEW

#1 #2 #3

EXPLORE EXAMINE VALIDATE

University documents : main features / figures / statistics Masterplan analysis + Observation (Counting/Mapping) Detailed design/investment assessment + Expert Interviews

HE - California & England Analyze 10-15 Campuses Compare COS in 2 Campuses

Data Collection Method

Site analysis

Documentary

Lynch Analysis

University documents

Landuse Analysis

(main facts & figures)

Figure ground Analysis

Masterplan analysis Students / Users

- Historical background - Space (gate) counts

- Opinions / reviews

- Static snapshots

- Design support of innovation, academic and bussniness

- Movement trace - what, when, and how

- Genral profile - Demograhic information

3 visits / day 3 weekdays / season 1 weekend / season Total = 12 visits

- Student data & analysis - frequencey of use

Experts Interview

#3

PHASE

- Satisfaction / outcomes

#2

Observation

Quantitative survey

PHASE

#1

PHASE

Qualitative survey

- Financial info & economic values

Compact campus that is :      

Academics, Campus planners, Student unions, Innovators and Businuss

Simpler to access/collect and analyze data Subject to recent/future masterplan development Typical/average population Typical/average size (avoiding too extremes) Efficient planning (value/cost per acre) Comprehensive design (multifunctional solutions).


Campus Open Space (COS) that is :      

Within campus area and Defined by campus spaces/buildings Typical/average area size (200 – 5000 m²) Typical/average size (avoiding too extremes) Diverse sets (connected-isolated, public-private, smart-natural, ..) Accessible and high demanded (more use) Special uses (more valuable)

Page 6/60



Dynamic conditions (weather, temporary events): 1st step analysis Like public spaces, a campus is in constant motion. Season, weather, holidays, but also events and other (planned or unexpected) activities influence route choices and behaviour of students and visitors. Especially in the (University of Salford) campus this is the case: extending the university buildings and redevelopment its spaces, river, station area, links to city center and mediacityUK; all besides the new future massive development in cooperation with the Salford Council. The city is also very much known for its ever-changing, rainy weather. Further, the university is recognized by its outdoor activities, influencing …. For the research it is essential to be aware of these temporary circumstances to draw the right conclusion or see the results in the right perspective.

Campus Design: 2nd step analysis Based on the actual movement and spatial conditions, several interventions have been suggested by the recent development. The interventions vary from limiting traffic to ……. The main issue discussed or discovered by the students is the lack of hierarchy and the huge central plaza and the lacking identity of the connecting routes due to discontinuity in some buildings and corridors. Especially going south to north, there are no direct connections. Only with several turns, it is possible to reach the other side of the campus spaces. To increase orientation, the main nodes should be improved to guide users easier through the campus, resulting in circuits instead of serial routes.

Space zone Appraisal: 3rd step analysis 1) Visual quality (Langelaar, 2010) investigating the quality of space design in campus based on the theory of Jan Gehl and 2) Appraisal of the participants (Kwon, 2010) mapping the experience of students.

Business Model Innovation Innovation is the introduction of new and improved ways of doing things. Innovation means “The action or process of innovating (or) A new method, idea, product, etc” (REF: Oxford Dictionary). Innovation in Public Spaces means an intentional introduction and application of ideas, processes, products, technology, services or procedures that have resulted in one or more of the following outcomes: Improved service delivery; Reduced Cost; Improved quality; transparency and accountability in public systems impacting the well-being of large number of common people (REF). Review Theories - Observe Gaps - Generate Ideas - Discuss stakeholders/experts - Baseline survey Implement/Examine Casestudy - Generalize/Validate findings.


Page 7/60


1.1


CAMPUS OUTDOOR DESIGN - LITERATURE REVIEW (BOOKS)

Table 2: List of relevant books ordered by their date of publish No

Date

Book Title

1

Sep 1983

Multicriteria Methods for Urban and Regional Planning

H. Voogd

2

Sep 1987

Campus: An American Planning Tradition (Architectural History Foundation Book)

Paul Venable Turner

3

Dec 1991

Campus Design (1st Edition)

Richard p. Dober

Functional, attractive, accessible & expressive campus design

4

Apr 1996

Campus Architecture: Building in the Groves of Academe

Richard p. Dober

Integrate planning/design of campus buildings with their landscapes; incorporate the latest technology and educational trends; and ensure a synergistic relationship with the surrounding community

5

Jul 2000

Richard p. Dober

A practical guide to creating sites, plans, and designs for the campus landscape

6

Mar 2001

David J. Maurrasse

Offers a road map for both universities and local institutions to work together for the good of their communities

7

Mar 2007

Kerstin Hoeger

Present and comment on current trends in campus design world wide.

8

Dec 2008

Anne Taylor

Pesents numerous examples of dynamic designs that are the result of interdisciplinary understanding of place; and a wealth of photographs of thoughtful and effective solutions to create learning environments from comprehensive design criteria.

9

2008

Shaun R. Harper

Shows how to capitalize in educationally meaningful ways on the diversity that exists on campuses across the nation

10

Jan 2010

Robert C. Dickeson

Offers the best advice for addressing the current economic concerns affecting most colleges and universities.

11

Sep 2010

The Design of Learning Spaces (Future Schools)

Pamela Woolner

12

Jan 2011

Towards Creative Learning Spaces: Re-thinking the Architecture of PostCompulsory Education

Jos Boys

13

Jan 2011

Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space 6th Edition

Jan Gehl

14

Apr 2011

Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation

Ben Wildavsky, Andrew P. Kelly & Kevin Carey

15

Aug 2011

The Business of Design: Balancing Creativity and Profitability

Keith Granet

16

Dec 2011

Creating Campus Cultures: Fostering Success among Racially Diverse Student Populations 1st Edition

Samuel D. Museus & Uma M. Jayakumar

Campus Landscapes: Functions, Forms, Features (1st Edition) Beyond the Campus: How Colleges and Universities Form Partnerships with their Communities 1st Edition Campus and the City: Urban Design for the Knowlege Society Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design of Learning Environments Creating Inclusive Campus Environments for CrossCultural Learning and Student Engagement Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, Revised and Updated 2nd Edition

Author/s


Description A contribution to the use and understanding of multicriteria evaluation methods in public planning in general and by experts employed in the urban and regional field in particular. Organized chronologically, Campus looks at new patterns of open planning; the ambitious scale and dramatic setting of schools; the park-like campuses; the Beaux-Arts campuses; the enclosed Gothic quadrangle; and at the more recent flexible and dynamic campus plans.

After many years of minimal investment in school premises, schools in the UK are in the midst of a wave of planning, building and using new schools. Starting from contemporary educational and architectural theories, it suggests alternative conceptual frameworks and methods that can help map the social and spatial practices of education in universities and colleges; so as to enhance the architecture of post-compulsory education. Toward more lively and healthy public places Examines the current higher education environment and its chronic resistance to change; the rise of for-profit universities; the potential future role of community colleges in a significantly revised higher education realm; and the emergence of online learning as a means to reshape teaching and learning and to reach new consumers of higher education. The Business of Design guides the reader through the steps of creating a successful firm, from the initial foundation of a design practice, to financial management, marketing and public relations, human resources, and project management. provides insights into how campus cultures can and do shape the experiences and outcomes of their increasingly diverse college student populations.

Page 8/60


17

Jan 2012

18

Oct 2012

19

Aug 2013

20

Nov 2013

21

Dec 2013

22

Feb 2014

23

Jul 2014

24

Oct 2014

25

Oct 2014

26

Oct 2014

27

Dec 2014

28

2015

29

Mar 2015

30

Jul 2015

31

May 2016

32

Jun 2016

33

Sep 2016

34

Sep 2016

35

May 2017

36

Sep 2017

Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization Sustainability in Higher Education: Stories and Strategies for Transformation (Urban and Industrial Environments) 1st Edition Design for the Changing Educational Landscape: Space, Place, and the Future of Learning 1st Edition The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools. Revised 3rd Edition The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus (MIT Press) Campus Landscape Planning & Design Blueprint for Tomorrow: Redesigning Schools for Student-Centered Learning University Trends: Contemporary Campus Design 1st Edition Learning Space Design in Higher Education Building Better Universities: Strategies, Spaces, Technologies 1st Edition Perspectives on Campus Planning Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must Master to Truly Transform Our Schools 1st Edition Designing for Learning: Creating Campus Environments for Student Success 2nd Edition Launch: Using Design Thinking to Boost Creativity and Bring Out the Maker in Every Student


Scott Doorley, Scott Witthoft & Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University

A tool that shows how space can be intentionally manipulated to ignite creativity

Vijay Kumar

Step-by-step guidebook for successful innovation planning

Peggy F. Barlett & Geoffrey W. Chase (Editors)

Integrating sustainability into curriculum, policies, and programs

Andrew Harrison & Les Hutton

The way to a fully-integrated learning landscape (a learning community) by encouraging stakeholders to creating an eventsbased rather than space-based identity

Prakash Nair & Randall Fielding

a new graphic vocabulary that synthesizes learning research with best practice in school planning and design

Mitchell Thomashow Michael Herz Prakash Nair Jonathan Coulson, Paul Roberts, Isabelle Taylor (Authors) Lennie Scott-Webber Jos Boys Arthur J. Lidsky & George G. Mathey

A framework for sustainability on campus, describing initiatives that range from renewable energy to a revamped curriculum to sustainable investment Characteristics, design approaches and exemplar projects (Asia, Europe & US) Ways to use current spending to modify existing spaces, and explains which kinds of adaptations offer the biggest return in terms of student learning Introduces the most significant, widespread and thoughtprovoking trends in campus design today Discuss the concept of learning spaces, the pedagogy of learning spaces, and the way learning spaces are changing To bridge the gap between educational ideas about what the university is, or should be ‘for’, and its day-to-day practices and organisation. Collection of the best of Dober Lidsky Mathey ideas called Perspectives on Campus Planning

Ron Ritchhart

Why and how schools must become places where thinking is valued, visible, and actively promoted

C. Carney Strange & James H. Banning

Understand the design factors of campus environmental theory that impact student success and create a campus of consequence

John Spencer & A J Juliani

provides a process that can be incorporated into every class at every grade level

Redesigning Learning Spaces (Corwin Connected Educators Series) 1st Edition

Robert W. Dillon, Benjamin D. Gilpin, A. J. Juliani, Erin M. Klein

Learn to design brain-friendly learning environments that foster engagement, productivity, and achievement while allowing for seamless integration of educational technology

Spaces for Innovation: The Design and Science of Inspiring Environments

Kursty Groves Knight & Oliver Marlow

Explains the relationship between the design of working environments and levels of creativity and innovation

Ian Taylor

Argues that investment in the higher education sector is a driver for intellectual, social and economic development, offering opportunities for positive impacts for the physical environment on the character and performance of higher education.

Joy Kirr

Gradual shifts - in thinking, teaching, and approach to classroom design - that will have a massive impact in classroom

Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, Russell J. Quaglia, Dominique Smith, Lisa L. Lande

a framework for making daily improvements in engaging your students, highlighting opportunities that offer the greatest benefit in the least amount of time.

Future Campus

Shift This: How to Implement Gradual Changes for MASSIVE Impact Engagement by Design: Creating Learning Environments Where Students Thrive (Corwin Literacy) 1st Edition


Page 9/60




Page 10/60



Figure 1: Key books/resources relevant to campus design and planning (reviewed by author) Mohammed Gabr PhD candidate, University of Salford 2016-2020

Page 11/60


1.2


CAMPUS OUTDOOR DESIGN - LITERATURE REVIEW (PUBLICATIONS)

Table 3: List of relevant journal papers and thesis dissertations ordered by their date of publish No

Date

1 2

1983 1994

3

1995

4

1996

5

1996

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Jul 1999 Nov 1999 2000 2000 Jul 2000 2001 Mar 2002 Aug 2002

14

2003

15

2003

16

2003

17 18

Jul 2003 Nov 2004

19

2005

20

2005

21

2005

22

Sep 2005

23

2006

24

2006

25

2006

26 27 28

Dec 2006 Mar 2006 Jul 2006

32 33

Jan 2007 May 2007 Nov 2007 2008 2008

34

2008

35

2008

36 37

2008 2008

29 30 31

Publication Title

Author/s

Learning spaces for the 21st century : A review of the literature Open space preservation : An imperative for quality campus environment The Social Needs of the Users in Public Open Spaces "The Involvement of Socio-Cultural Aspects in Landscape Design of the Outdoor Urban Environment in Ar-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia" Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning Guidelines for Developing a Campus Master Plan Document for Small Colleges and Universities

Paul Temple Janice C. Griffith

A Strategic Planning Primer for Higher Education

Alexandra L. Lerner

Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design: Factors Affecting the Perception and Use of Outdoor Spaces at the University of Jordan Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments The Value of Urban Design (A research project commissioned by CABE and DETR to examine the value added by good urban design) People+Places+Spaces A design guide for urban New Zealand Open space for the public: an evaluation of designed open spaces on urban university campuses The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainable campuses and campus planning: Experiences from a classroom case study at the University of Kansas Designing more effective on‐campus teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic developers Health, Well-Being and Open Space : Literature Review The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies (An Int. Research Project, Synthesis Report) Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis : An application to urban transport investments New Campuses for New Communities: The University and Exurbia [Research and Debate] School Factors Related to Quality and Equity (Results from PISA 2000 – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Transforming Learning for the 21st Century: An Economic Imperative Promoting physical activity and active living in urban environments : The Role of Local Governments The Role of Design in Inhibiting or Promoting Use of Common Open Space The Use of Documentary Research Methods in Social Research First Questions for Designing Higher Education Learning Spaces Promoting space efficiency in building design (UK Higher Education Space Management Project) What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature (Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success) Social Spaces, Casual Interactions, Meaningful Exchanges: ? Information Ground? Characteristics Based on the College Stu....

Omar Salem Bahammam (PhD) Avi Hofstein, Sherman Rosenfeild Bradley Allen Jamison

TAWFIQ M. ABU-GHAZZEH Dilanthi Amaratunga, David Baldry Kelvin Campbell, Robert Cowan Peter Jamieson, Kenn Fisher, Tony Gilding, Peter G. Taylor, A.C.F. (Chris) Trevitt, CABE and DETR Ministry for the Environment Elizabeth Errett Neil (MSc) Paul H. Gobster, Lynne M. Westphal Stacey Swearingen White Peter Jamieson Nina Morris John Brennan, Roger King, Yann Lebeau Alejandro Tudela, Natalia Akiki, Rene Cisternas Richard Bender, John Parman OECD Chris Dede, Spence Korte, Robert Nelson, Gil Valdez, David Ward Peggy Edwards, Agis Tsouros Galen Cranz, Charlene Young Monageng Mogalakwe Scott Bennett Space Management Group George D. Kuh, Brian K. Bridges, John C. Hayek Carol Landry, Charles Naumer

The University Campus & the Urban Fabric : Mending the University District

Katja N. Irvin (MSc)

Enhancing the Student Experience (Policy Report)

The 1994 Group

Best Practices: Building Block for Enhancing School Environment Increasing Interactions with Nature: A Survey of Expectations on a University Campus Activity Patterns in Public Space: a tool for assessing city centres Tracking Pedestrians in the Historic City Centre of Delft Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of investment projects Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and Instrument for Pre-Accession Can Procurement Affect Design Performance ? Creating successful masterplans : A guide for clients

Robert Blum André K. Faul


Stefan van der Spek CBA Guide Team Daniel Forgues D, Lauri Koskela CABE

Page 12/60


38 39 40

Mar 2008 Oct 2008 Nov 2008

41

2009

42 43

2009 2009

44

2009

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Mar 2009 Sep 2009 Mar 2010 Dec 2009 2010 Sep 2010 Nov 2010 2011 Mar 2011 Jul 2011 Nov 2011

56

2011

57

2012

58 59 60

2012 2012 2012 Apr 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012

61 62 63 64

2013

65

2013

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Feb 2013 Feb 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 Sep 2013 Sep 2013 Sep 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013


Urban Design Element (City of San Diego General Plan) Why indoors? The role of outdoor learning in sustainability, health and citizenship

Peter Higgins

Outdoor Space Quality : Case Study of a University Campus Plaza

Dicle Aydin, Ummugulsum Ter

Introducing Healing Gardens into a Compact University Campus: Design Natural Space to Create Healthy and Sustainable Campuses Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration Planning and Partnerships for the Renewal of Urban Neighborhoods Exploring Sustainability in Campus Design and Greenspace: Lessons from Leading Universities Design Intentions and Users Responses: Assessing Outdoor Spaces of Qatar University Campus

Stephen S. Y. Lau, Feng Yang H. Nordh, T.Hartig, C.M.Hagerhalla, G.Fry Stephen A. Sterrett Mina Chan, Whitney Coupland, Kristen Gagesch, Catherine Mulé, Alyse Runyan Ashraf M. Salama

Models Used to Determine Academic Program Costs and Viability

Academy Administration Practice

Designing Campus Learning Spaces : A Report on Students’ Current and Future Needs

Janice Fournier, Cara Lane, Henry Lyle III

Calculating Cost-Return on Investments in Student Success

Delta Project

Campus Architecture and Student Culture in American Higher Education

Alexandra R. Troxell

Campus as an Integrated Learning Environment : Learning in Campus Open Spaces

Ender Peker (MSc)

Student engagement literature review

Vicki Trowler

Seeking Responsive Forms of Pedagogy in Architectural Education Urban Design SPD Draft Supplementary Planning Document

Ashraf M. Salama Development & Enterprise, Gateshead Council Romana Xerez, Jaime Fonseca

Mixing Methods in Urban Research: Exploring City and Community Social Capital Students’ Experience of University Space: An Exploratory Study

Andrew M. Cox

Social learning spaces and student engagement

Kelly E. Matthews , Victoria Andrews & Peter Adams

Walkability as an Urban Design Problem: Understanding the activity of walking in the urban environment Effective learning environments in relation to different learning theories In-between space and social interaction: a case study of three neighbourhoods in Izmir A Framework and Tool Box for Monitoring and Improving Quality ECD_Framework Sustainable Landscape Plan, West Lafayette Campus in support of Landscaping the Sustainable Campus (an Indiana Wildlife Federation Program)

Eunyoung Choi Ali Guney, Selda Al Can, Işın (PhD) UNICEFF Purdue University

The Sensory Experiencing of Urban Design: The Role of Walking and Perceptual Memory

Monica Degen, Gillian Rose

Examining the Environment: The Development of a survey Instrument to Assess Student Perceptions of the University Outdoor Physical Campus

Erica Eckert (PhD)

Estates Matter! Report on Survey of Students’ views of their universities’ estates 2013

Julian Robinson, Rod McAllister, Sheppard Robson, Rupert Cook

Towards an Integrative Theory Approach to Sustainable Urban Design in KSA: The Value of GeoDesign Campus Planning & Design: The Academic Landscape (A report on Landscape forms leaders Roundtable, Arizona State University) Activity, exercise and the planning and design of outdoor spaces Placemaking and Place-Based Investments As Economic Development in Light of a Changing Economy Everyday Encounters with Nature : Students’ Perceptions and Use of University Campus Green Spaces Optimizing Pittsburgh’s Open Space, Parks, and Recreation System University Campus as a Public Space of the City. Case Study: Eastern Mediterranean University Campus Attaining Zero Defects Within the UK’s Building Schools for the Future Programme : Stakeholders’ Perceptions

Y.A. Aina, A. Al-Naser, S.B. Garba Gail Greet Hannah Catharine Ward Thompson Richard K. Carlisle, Benjamin R. Carlisle Janet Speake,Sally Edmondson, Haq Nawaz Pittsburgh City Planning Amir Rashidi (MSc) Chris Boothman, Anthony Higham

Informal Setting for Learning on Campus : Usage and preference

Norhati Ibrahim, Nur Hafisah Fadzil

The importance of connection to nature in assessing environmental education programs

Cynthia McPherson Frantz, F. Stephan Mayer

Places & Spaces: Case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based learning environments

David Bryan Zandvliet

Getting to Great Places : How better urban design can strengthen San Jose’s future

Benjamin Grant


Page 13/60



77

2014

Sustaining Campuses Through Physical Character- The Role Of Landscape

78

2014

Identifying and Improving Green Spaces on a College Campus: A Photovoice Study

79 80

2014 2014

81

2014

82

2014 Jan 2014

Comparative Case Studies, Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation The Marketisation of Higher Education : Issues and Ironies The Foundational Role of Universities as Anchor Institutions in Urban Development A Report of National Data and Survey Findings Market Towns : Bringing Planning and design together to make good places happen

Faris Matloob , Ahmad Sulaiman, Turki Ali, Shuhana Shamsuddin, Wan Mardyya Seitz, C.M., Reese, R.F., Strack, R.W., Frantz, S., West, B. Goodrick, D. Roger Brown Debra Friedman, David Perry & Carrie Menendez Urban Design Group

Urban Design Lessons : Housing Layout and Neighbourhood Quality

Homes and Communities Agency

Guidelines for Ethical Visual Research Methods

Susan Cox, Sarah Drew, Marilys Guillemin, Catherine Howell, Deborah Warr, Jenny Waycott

83 84 85 86 87 88

Feb 2014 Apr 2014 May 2014 Jun 2014 Jun 2014

Every Space is a Learning Space : Encouraging Informal Learning and Collaboration in Higher Education Environments Developing the creative and innovative potential of young people through non-formal learning in ways that are relevant to employability (Expert Group Report) Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines

Stephanie McDaniel John Bamber Stephen SiuYuLau, ZhonghuaGou, YajingLiu

University of Washington : Learning Space Assessment Innovation and creativity in a design of high quality public space. Case study of Poznan, Poland

Dominika Pazder

Oct 2014

Community on Campus: The Role of Physical Space

Kim D. Harrington

Nov 2014

Living on Campus: Does it Still Make a Difference?

Polly A. Graham, Sarah S. Hurtado, & Robert M. Gonyea

93

Dec 2014 2015

urban innovation and investment : The role of International Financial Institutions and Development Banks Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces

94

2015

The future of the campus: Architecture and master planning trends

95 96 97

2015 2015 2015 Jun 2015 Sep 2015 Oct 2015 Oct 2015 Dec 2015 Dec 2015

Examining attributes of urban open spaces in Doha Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development What is a Walkable Place? The Walkability Debate in Urban Design The Sustainable Campus: A Comparison of Comprehensive Sustainability Policies in the Campus Master Plans of the University of Guelph and Queen’s University

104

2016

Sustainable Campus Landscapes in the United States and China: A Comparative Analysis

105

2016

Chapter 14 : Urban Design and Quality of Life (Book Section)

Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Apr 2017 Apr

An Innovation in Urban Governance: Implementing Living Labs and City Labs through Transnational Knowledge and Experience Exchange Assessing Users’ Perceptions of Campus Landscapes : Learning from the University of Texas at Arlington

89

Aug 2014

90 91 92

98 99 100 101 102 103

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Case Studies in University-Led Urban Regeneration Open space quality in deprived urban areas: user perspective and use pattern The University of Ottawa’s Husky Energy Courtyard: Looking back, looking forward after 10 years Campus on Motion: UW’s campus Landscape Framework Office of the University Architect Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Cluster efficiency study through benchmarking

Student engagement in placemaking at an Australian university campus Campus Does Matter : The Relationship of Student Retention and Degree Attainment to Campus Design Regional planning, sustainability goals and the mitch-match between educational practice and climate, energy and business plans A mixed methods approach for the integration of urban design and economic evaluation: industrial heritage and urban regeneration in China

Academy Administration Practice, Business of Cities Ltd. Kathleen G. Scholl, Gowri Betrabet Gulwadi Jonathan Coulson, Paul Roberts, Isabelle Taylor Ashraf Salama, Simona Azzali United Nations A. Forsyth. Elizabeth Bang (MSc) Clare Melhuish Ayah Abbasia, Chaham Alalouch, Glen Bramley Renate Sander-Regier, Emily Sohanna Acheson, Nikki Rai, Jessica Ruo-Qi Chen

Manuela Tvaronaviciene Zhaofang Zhang, Jing Zhou, Deanna Schmidt, Kathleen Garland Ombretta Romice, Kevin Thwaites, Sergio Porta, Mark Greaves Thomas Höflehner, Friedrich M. Zimmermann Gloria Simon Rumao (MSc) Vicky O'Rourke, Claudia Baldwin Amir H. Hajrasouliha, Reid Ewing Thomas Skou Grindsted Mauro Berta, Marta Bottero, Valentina Ferretti

Campus walkability in Malaysian public universities: A case-study of university malaya

Naziaty Yaacob

Design Process of a Campus Plan: A Case Study of Duzce University Konuralp Campus

Ozgur Yerli

Street level urban design qualities for walkability: Combining 2D and 3D GIS measures

Li Yin


Page 14/60


115 116 117 118 119

2017 May 2017 Aug 2017 Sep 2017 Dec 2017 2017

120 121 122


A case study of the Influence of Multipurpose Spaces on Campus life at an Institution of Art and Design Impact of Quality and Usage of Outdoor Spaces on Sustainable Campus Environment in Akure, Nigeria

Ikudayisi Ayodele Emmanuel, Adegbehingbe Victor Olufemi

Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experience

Giorgia Nesti

A Human-Centered Approach to Enhance Urban Resilience, Implications and Application to Improve Outdoor Comfort in Dense Urban Spaces Planning the Campus with Place in Mind: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Lifeworlds of Community College Campuses in British Columbia The Valuation of Intangibles : Explored Through Primary School Design Designing with data : Shaping our future cities College Settings That Promote Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Case Study

Ata Chokhachian, Daniele Santucci, Thomas Auer Lisa Domae (PhD) Zulkiflee Abdul Samad, Sebastian Macmillan ARUP & RIBA Jonathan Spiegel, Amanda L. Becker, Judy Randi

123

1.3 CAMPUS OUTDOOR DESIGN – CAMPUS MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENTS Table 4: List of significant campus masterplans ordered by their dates No

Date

University

UK Universities Jul 2006 Jul 2006 Jun 2007 mar 2008 Dec 2010 2012 Mar 2012 2012 - 22 2013 - 18 2013 - 18 2013 - 18 2014 2014 - 2024 2015-2024 Mar 2015 Nov 2015 2015-2025 2015-2025 Jun 2016 2017-2025 Future visions

Newcastle University (Landscape Strategy by Gillespies) University of Bristol (Campus-masterplan) Warwick University University of Liverpool (Urban Design Framework Part 1 & 2) University of Exeter (Streatha, Campus Masterplan Framework) University of Stirling University of Chester (Development Framework) University of Manchester University of Sussex (US masterplan - Making the Future 2013-18) University of Lincoln (Revised Strategic Plan 2013-18) University of Oxford (Strategic Plan 2013–2018) Plymouth University (2020) University of Glasgow (Estate Strategy - Redevelopment of the Gilmorehill Campus) University of Nevada, Reno (Campus Master Plan - University Regional Center Plan) Sheffield University (3parts Key Strategies) University of Kent, Canterbury (Concept masterplan : Stages 1, 2 & 3) University of Bradford (Estates-Strategy) LEEDS (campus Development) Syracuse University (Campus Framework) City of Glasgow College (Strategic Plan)

2001 2007 Fall 2010 Mar 2010 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 2012-2013 May 2013 Spr 2014 2015 2015 2008-2018 Apr 2016 Jun 2016

San José State University University of California Riverside (Campus Design Guidelines) University at Albany (Design Guidelines) Indiana University Bloomington (by Smithgroup JJR) Kansas state university St Mary College of Maryland (Phase I; Needs Analysis and Existing Conditions Assessment) The University of Tennesee (Campus Landscape Vision and Site Standards prepared by Carol Johnson Associates INC) Pratt Institute The College of William & Mary (Campus Design Guidelines Report) The University of Texas at Austin (Landscape Master plan & Design Guideline) Woodbury University Pomona College Radford University Texas masterplan UC Santa Barbara (North campus open space restoration project Prepared by Rodriguez Consulting Inc.)

UOM (STRATEGIC VISION TO 2025)

USA Universities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Page 15/60



Table 5: COS Design features matrix from literature review Tho mas Jeffe rson , 1800

Ped estri an circ ulati on

Con necti vity

Acce ssibil ity Paul Turn er, 1984

Tree lined stree ts and walk way s

Jan Gehl , 1987

Acce ssibil ity and ADA

Gain es, 1991

Walk way s

Circ ulati on

Marc us & Fran cis, 1997

Circ ulati on

Abu Gha zzeh , 1999

circ ulati on nod e

Indivi dual identi ty of colle ge Amer ican style

Blen ding with neigh borh ood chara cter

Heig ht of buildi ngs arou nd the spac e

Ope n spac es / Cour tyard s

ADA & acce ssibil ity

Plaz as/o pen spac es

Acce ssibil ity

Ped estri an circ ulati on

Natu ralist ic plan

Grea t axis

Ov eral l patt ern

Exte nsive land scapi ng

Gre en and natu ralist ic

Axis open to view/ com muni ty

Siz e and sha pe

Natu ral land scap es

Org anic form s in desi gn

Visib ility

envir onme ntal perce ption s

Colle ge town life

Park -like open spac es

Cam pus safet y

Buildi ng exteri or cohe siven ess

Locat ion of camp us

Buildi ng exteri or cohe siven ess

Def ine d ca mp us edg es

Outd oor learn ing

Top ogra phi cal feat ure s

Hu ma n sca le

Visu al focu s

Sen se of plac e

Axial plan Foca l point

Sen se of plac e

Ca mp us self con tain ed city

Land scapi ng

Ca mp us as a pub lic spa ce

Land scapi ng

Desig ned entra nces

Gathe ring place s/ Benc hes

spiri t of plac e

Sen se of com mun ity

Sen se of plac e

Land scapi ng

Sen se of plac e

Ca mp us lay out


Hu ma n sca le des ign

Ped estri an expe rienc e

Hub of activ ities

Natu ral land scapi ng

Fou ntai ns

Sta tue s and art wor k

Ga zeb os

Ove rall app eal

Sha ded law n

Ped estri an flow

view s of surro undi ng area s

Flex ibilit y for futu re exp ansi on

Ge niu s of the Pla ce

Co mp act

Gre ener y acro ss cam pus

land scap e

Natur al prese rve

Big lawn s and open spac es

Land scapi ng

Siz e of ca mp us

gree n lawn s

Acce ss to cam pus

Walk way s

Park -like char acter

Eff ecti ve lay out

settle ment, spac e& chara cter

Libra ry as main featu re of cam pus

A pla ce apa rt fro m the city

Land scapi ng

Placi ng build ings arou nd open spac e

Ams den, 2004 2005

Bala nce betw een archi tectu re & natu re

Co nte xt

Ope n spac e

Susta inabili ty

Gum prec ht, 2003

Ecke rt, E. 2012

Envir onme ntal qualit y

Resp onse to climat e

Walk way s

Stra nge & Ban ning , 2000

Dob er, 2000 2011

The great lawn

Past oral & pictur esqu e style s

Fred erick Law Olm sted, 1895

Griff ith, 1994

Acad emic villag e

Outd oor learn ing

Seati ng areas

Plac es for study ing

Steps for sitting & place s for social gathe ring

Outd oor learn ing

Wat er feat ure s

Tre es & sha de

Wat er

Benc hes/si tting

Wat er feat ure s

Seati ng areas

Fou ntai n

Public gathe ring / Mobil e seatin g with tables

Flex ibilit y of cam pus

Sha ded stru ctur es

Sha de tree s/ Sha ded sea ting

Fou ntai ns

Wat er feat ure s or fou ntai ns

Sign age

Sta tue s

Pu blic Art

Meeti ng space / Benc hes / seatin g

Camp us entra nces

Pu blic arts

Art wor k

Flex ible & dyn ami c

Ligh ting

Clear/ attract ive entra nces

Lan dma rks

Camp us entra nces

Sign age / Ligh ting / Tras h bins

Tre es

Page 16/60

EVALUATING CAMPUS URBAN DEVELOPMENTS BASED ON STUDENT EXPERIENCE New Integrative Design-Investment Assessment of two Campus Developments in the UK & US Lan dsca pe form s by Gail Han nah, 2013

Paul Ven able Turn er

TOT AL

circ ulati on (5)

Con necti vity & Acce ssibil ity & walk abilit y (8)

Identi ty & style (7)

Law ns

Fun ctio n

Desi gn of lawn and open spac es (9)

Ca mp us lay out, fun ctio n& defi ned edg es (4)

Susta inabili ty issue s (7)

Gro wth

Pres ervat ion “plac es of mem ory”

Susta inabili ty

Links to neigh bors (3)

Natu ral view s

Ca mp us con text , patt ern, Siz e& sha pe (7)

Land scapi ng (10)

Natu ralist ic desi gn (6)


Colla borat ive Lear ning

Foci

Visib ility & focal point & axis (9)

Sen se of plac e (6)

Co mp act & Hu ma n sca le (3)

Ped estri an activ ities & expe rienc es (3)

Outd oor learn ing (4)

Tec hnol ogy

Open space s for intera ction

Pod s& fou ntai ns

Meeti ng / Seati ng/ Benc hes (7)

Wat er feat ure s or fou ntai ns (8)

Tre es, De nse pla ntin g and Col ourf ul pla nts

Scu lptu re

Scu lptu re & Pu blic art (7)

Flex ibilit y (3)

Attrac tive entra nce (4)

Ga zeb os, Tre es & Sha des (7)

Sen satio n

Inve stm ent & Gro wth (1)

Oth er indiv idual item s (see note belo w)

Other individual items: Overall appeal (1); Signage (2); Lighting (2); Landmarks (1); Trash receptacles (1); Statues (1); Building exterior cohesiveness (2); Genius of the Place (1); Topo-graphical features (1); Technology (1); Sensation (1).

2.2 MAPPING OUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - REGIONAL SCALE A. Historical Background The United States continues to be impacted by the patterns of European campuses, including architectural forms and spatial organization (Chapman 2006). The origins of colleges in the United States can be traced from the start of the seventeenth century (Turner 1987). In the beginning, many campus designs followed the British tradition consisting of three components: classrooms, resident halls, and recreational facilities (Turner 1984). Harvard College and the College of William and Mary were built in 1636 and 1699, respectively, and were considered the first colleges in the United States. The design of these campuses initiated the tradition of a quadrangle, which is an inward-looking courtyard with a single building on each of three sides around an open space. The word “campus” was first associated with college grounds to describe Princeton University in the 1770s (Eckert, 2012; Turner, 1984) and now refers to the overall physical quality of higher education institutions (Bowman, 2011). In 1850, Fredrick Law Olmsted introduced park-like campus design principles, especially prominent in the landgrant institutions, which embodied the new air of a more democratic education versus the previously portrayed elitism of institutions of higher education (Turner, 1987). Olmsted designed a number of campuses in America including Cornell University, Stanford University at California, Yale University, the University of California at Berkeley, and many others. His aim in designing these campuses was to improve students’ overall learning experience (Berry, 2009). With the increase in the U.S. population in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, university campuses began to evolve and expand. During this period, the construction of new buildings and facilities was based on realigning the spaces with existing topography (Chapman 2006). In the nineteenth century, Thomas Jefferson proposed a different approach to education at the University of Virginia, called “academic village”, and its design focused on reaching out to students and professors in an appropriate landscape setting (Turner, 1987). Thomas Jefferson’s design principles have played a major role in shaping the American campus landscape and his ideas continue to be emulated in the planning of modern university campuses (Chapman 2006). From the seventeenth century until today, American campuses have evolved in both campus planning and landscape designing. A good number of the lawns, open courtyards and quads are due to another trend called the Beaux Arts movement of the 1900's with its emphasis on city planning (Griffith, 1994). As looking at the modem era, a fresh approach towards campus planning was established to accommodate the impact of automobiles, computers and digital


Page 17/60



communications (Dober, 1992). Low maintenance planting, use of native plants and low water use are new modem campus planning principles (Chapman, 1994).

B. Classifications by type, size, enrolments and Locations of Universities Over 3,900 university campuses in the United States 51% are located in the urban core, 25% rural, 24% in suburban areas (Wiewel, W. 2005). 7 Colonial before the American Revolution: Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth; 5 State universities: Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, California; 5 Research universities (MIT, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and Chicago) (Roger L. Geiger)

Table 6: Classifications Model of Research Universities in the US (Roger L. Geiger)

Model for the US Research University

5 State Universities

7 Colonial Colleges

5 Private Research Universities

- Harvard, MA

- Michigan

- MIT

- Yale, CO

- Wisconsin

- Cornell

- Pennsylvania, PH

- Minnesota

- Johns Hopkins

- Princeton, NJ

- Illinois

- Columbia, NY

- Stanford

- California

- Chicago

- Brown, RI - Dartmouth, NH

University of California system

California State University system - Pomona College

- UC Berkeley - UC LA - UC SD - UC San Francisco - UC Santa Barbara - UC Irvine - UC Davis - UC Santa Cruz - UC Riverside - UC Merced - University of California, Hastings College of the Law

Analyzing 20 university campuses


- CSUB - CSUCI - Chico State - SUDH - CSUEB - Fresno State - CSUF - HSU - Long Beach State - CSULA - Cal Maritime, The Academy - CSUMB - CSUN - Cal Poly Pomona - Sacramento State - CSUSB - SDSU - SFSU - SJSU - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo - CSUSM - SSU - Stan State

- University of Southern California - Santa Clara University - University of San Fransisco - Loyola Marymount University - University of San Diego - Chapman University and over 100+ private universities and colleges in California

Page 18/60



Table 7: Classifications with total numbers of US universities according to Carnegie and U.S. news (REF) Carnegie category

U.S. News category

Total no. of universities

1) Doctoral Universities (highest research activity / R1-115), 2) Doctoral Universities (higher research activity / R2-107) and 3) Doctoral Universities (moderate research activity / R3-113)

National Universities

1) Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs / M1-393), 2) Master's Colleges and Universities (medium programs / M2-207) and 3) Master's Colleges and Universities (smaller programs / M3-141)

Regional Universities: North, 659 (388 private; 259 public; South, Midwest and West 12 for profit)

1) Baccalaureate Colleges - Arts and Sciences Focus (259)

National Liberal Arts Colleges

233 (213 private; 20 public)

2) Baccalaureate Colleges - Diverse Fields (324); 3) Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges: Associate's Dominant (149); 4) Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges: Mixed Baccalaureate/Associate's (259)

Regional Colleges: North, South, Midwest and West

324 (193 private; 116 public; 15 for profit)

Campus City (College Town)

Rural Campus

Urban Campus (Isolated from city)

311 (114 private; 190 public; 7 for profit)

Suburban (commuter) Campus

Urban Campus (Integrated with city fabric)

Figure 2: University classifications according to relationship with the city (REF)


Page 19/60



Table 8: General comparative information on significant university campuses in 50 States of the US. State

Population

Area sq mi

Inst.

Leading Universities University of Alabama, Birmingham:

1 Alabama

4,779,736

52,419.02

61

University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF):

2 Alaska

710,231

663,267.26

7

Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture

3 Arizona

6,392,017

113,998.30

155

Arkansas State University

4 Arkansas

2,915,918

53,178.62

87

Stanford University

5 California

37,253,956

163,695.57

276

Colorado College:

6 Colorado

5,029,196

104,093.57

132

Yale University

7 Connecticut

3,574,097

5,543.33

114


Page 20/60


CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION University of Delaware

8 Delaware

897,934

2,489.27

23

9 Florida

18,801,310

65,754.59

439

University of Florida

Flagler College Berry College

10 Georgia

9,687,653

59,424.77

210

University of Hawai'i, Mānoa 11 Hawaii

1,360,301

10,930.98

2

Brigham Young University

12 Idaho

1,567,582

83,570.08

43

University of Chicago

13 Illinois

12,830,632

57,914.38

391

University of Notre Dame

14 Indiana

6,483,802

36,417.73

175

Iowa State University

15 Iowa

3,046,355

56,271.55

107


Page 21/60


CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION University of Kansas

16 Kansas

2,853,118

82,276.84

99

University of the Cumberlands 17 Kentucky

4,339,367

40,409.02

165

Louisiana State University

19 Louisiana

4,533,372

51,839.70

173

Bowdoin College 19 Maine

1,328,361

35,384.65

60

University of Maryland 20 Maryland

5,773,552

12,406.68

148

Harvard University

21 Massachusett

6,547,629

10,554.57

114

Central Michigan University

22 Michigan

9,883,640

96,716.11

90

University of Minnesota 23 Minnesota

5,303,925

86,938.87

169

University of Southern Mississippi 24 Mississippi

2,967,297

48,430.19

69


Page 22/60


CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION University of Missouri

25 Missouri

5,988,927

69,704.31

242

University of Montana 26 Montana

989,415

147,042.40

54

University of Nebraska

27 Nebraska

1,826,341

77,353.73

68

University of Nevada 28 Nevada

2,700,551

110,560.71

43

Southern New Hampshire University

29 New Hampshire

1,316,470

9,349.94

43

Princeton University

30 New Jersey

8,791,894

8,721.30

207

University of New Mexico

31 New Mexico

2,059,179

121,589.48

61

Cornell University, New York

32 New York

19,378,102

54,556.00

632


Page 23/60


CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION Duke University

33 North Carolina

9,535,483

53,818.51

188

University of North Dakota

34 North Dakota

672,591

70,699.79

30

University of Cincinnati

35 Ohio

11,536,504

44,824.90

190

Oklahoma State University 36 Oklahoma

3,751,351

69,898.19

158

University of Portland 37 Oregon

3,831,074

98,380.64

125

Carnegie Mellon University

38 Pennsylvania

12,702,379

46,055.24

388

University of Rhode Island

39 Rhode Island

1,052,567

1,545.05

37

University of South Carolina

40 South Carolina

4,625,364

32,020.20

97


Page 24/60


CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION University of South Dakota

41 South Dakota

814,180

77,116.49

33

Rhodes College

42 Tennessee

6,346,105

42,143.27

191

Rice University 43 Texas

25,145,561

268,580.82

506

University of Utah

44 Utah

2,763,885

84,898.83

60

The University of Vermont 45 Vermont

625,741

9,614.26

32

University of Virginia

46 Virginia

8,001,024

42,774.20

222

Washington University in St Louis

47 Washington

6,724,540

71,299.64

164

West Virginia University

48 West Virginia

1,852,994

24,229.76

99


Page 25/60


CHAPTER [ 5 ] : DATA COLLECTION University of Wisconsin

49 Wisconsin

5,686,986

65,497.82

85

University of Wyoming

50 Wyoming

563,626

97,813.56

17


Page 26/60



Table 9: Key marks of the 20 selected university campuses 2017/18 (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ca)

University

Location

Found in / last devs

Univ type & Rank CA/USA

Campu s type

Enrollmet / Campus size (n/m2)

2016 Endow ment

Acc epta nce rate

Cost & Aid

(Selectivity )

Stanford, CA

1885 / 2018 / 2035

Private #1 #5

Urban Medium

16,914 / 33.103km² = 5.11n/m²

$22.4 billion

5%

$49,617 tuition $15,112 Room & board

Berkeley, CA

1868 / 1999 / 2020

Public research #3 / #21

Urban Large

40,174 / 4.986 km² =.008n/m²

$4.1 billion

16%

$14,098 In-state $42,112 Out-state $17,274 Room&board

Los Angeles, CA

1919 / 2002 / 2019

Public #4 #21

Urban Large

44,947 / 1.6956km² =.026n/m²

$3.9 billion

18%


Los Angeles, CA

1880 / 1929 / 2011

Private #4 #21

Urban Large

43,871 / 1.2464km² =.035n/m²

$4.6 billion

16%

$54,259 tuition $14,885 Room&board

Santa Barbara, CA

1909

Public, Coed #6 #37

Suburba n Large

24,346 / 4.002km² =.006n/m²

$429.2 million

36%


La Jolla, CA

1960 / 1989 / 2035

Public research #8 #42

Suburba n Large

34,979 / 8.663km² =.004n/m²

$1.3 billion

36%


Davis, CA

1905

Public, Coed #10 #46

City (Suburba n) Large

29,546 / 36,441km² =.811n/m²

$1.1 billion

42%


San Diego, CA

1949 / 1996 / 2016

Private #12 #90

Urban Medium

8,508 / 1.1088km² =.008n/m²

$449.8 million

51%


San Francisco, CA

1855 / 1858 / 1880 / 2007 / 2028

Private, Coed #13 #110

Urban Medium

11,018 / 0.2226km² =.049n/m²

$297.5 million

71%


San Diego, CA

1897 / 2007

Public institution #16 / #140

Urban Large

34,688 / 1.1453km² =.030n/m²

$223.2 million

35%


Claremont, CA

1887 / 2004 / 2015

Private #16 #140

Suburba n Small

1,660 / 0.5666km² =.009n/m²

$2.0 billion

9%


Santa Clara, CA

1851

Private,Coed #33 #2 Regional West

City Medium

8,422 / 0.4289km² =.019n/m²

$840.7 million

48%


San Jose, CA

1857 (oldest public)1 995

Public research #103 CA

Urban Large

27,778 / 0.6232km² =.045n/m²

$125.6 million

67%


Green color: TOP results in a column

Orange color: BOTTOM results in a column

The table above shows and compares some key marks of 13 significant university campuses in California. Each mark in each column is defined below. Col #1

Location of the University in the city, all universities are located in California.


Page 27/60



Co l#2

Date of foundation and key dates of development

Col #3

Type of the university (public or private, research or teaching); rank of the university in CA; rank of the university in USA

Col #4

Campus settings. 1) Rural Campuses: located in the country, often near farms and usually near a small town; majority of students living on campus; more access to outdoor learning opportunities particularly in fields like agriculture or environmental science; on-campus transportation options for students. 2) Suburban Campuses: in small cities, large towns or residential areas near cities; combine some of the best features of urban and rural areas; offer access to nearby cities and to outdoor activities; college’s transportation options. 3) Urban Campuses: located in cities; spread throughout a city or self-contained within a city; offer off-campus learning experiences through cooperative classes and internships; tend to attract culturally diverse students; entertainment options such as museums, concerts and plays on and off urban campuses; strongest publictransportation options. Campus size. 1) Small: fewer than 5,000 students, typically private colleges and sometimes small public colleges; More familiar to team spirit; more likely to offer classes with fewer students, enabling professors to give students more individual attention. 2) Medium: majority between 5,000 to 15,000 students; the best of two. 3) Large: more than 15,000 students; may seem impersonal on the surface, but most offer many opportunities to become part of a smaller community of students with common interests; classes may be more lecture-oriented supported by lively discussion sessions; offer the academic options they seek.

Col #5

Campus size (km²) / total enrollments = number of users / m²

Col #6

An endowment is a donation of money or property as an investment fund for the ongoing support of the university. It is also an indicator for the university’s wealth, hence better facilities attracting world-class faculty. Stanford University has the third highest endowment worldwide (2016), and was ranked #4 on the 100 Richest Universities (2017).

Col #7

Selectivity is the percentage of students who are admitted. The lower the percentage, the more selective the university is.

Col #8

Cost & Aid represents the in-state and out-of-state tuition fees as well the roam and board which are the average fees for accommodation and meals on a comprehensive basis.

Quad Studies East Campus Master Planning Study Green & Gold Plan Other Studies Physical Design Framework Strategic Academic Plan

Planning Systems

Long Range Development Plan Capital Financial Plan

Figure 3: Typical portfolio of planning documents that guides physical development at UC system (REF)


Page 28/60



PHASE #2 COS EXPERIENCE COUNTY SCALE – VISITING SANTA CLARA CAMPUSES 2-HOUR VISIT PHOTOS/NOTES Principle One: Campus

Liveability - Student-oriented COS design

Address the human scale enhanced by building and landscape details: People experience the built environment at their own attitudes encouraged by the scales of the space. Campus spaces, corridors, and buildings meet and engage students through many means. Huge open space forms also can be broken down or subdivided visually to offer for example open, semi-closed and fully shaded/closed scales; or control the levels of privacy, or to lighten the sense of mass and enrich the hierarchy of spaces. Create a cohesive and coherent landscape that reflects the heritage/culture/values within the campus: Enhance all campus spaces and connections with healthy, well-sited, and well maintained landscape, plantings, turf and floor patterns, etc. Providing landscape details play a critical supporting role in shaping successful campus spaces and connections; the health, performance, and maintenance levels of those space plantings, lawns, cleaning, for a high-quality image land grant heritage. Principle Two: COS

Connectivity

Reinforce densely interconnected pedestrian routes/connections: Shortening both actual and perceived distances via accessible alleys, pathways or paseos (pedestrian boulevards) coupled with frequent crosswalks. Sidewalks should form a continuous network connected by frequent, safe street crossings. Sidewalks, while fundamental, are only one part of the broader public realm. They should be seamlessly integrated with walkways, paseos, building entrances, transit facilities, plazas and parks. Create a campus network of spaces: Campus landscapes are, above all, places for people; in order for the campus to be perceived as a cohesive, welcoming, and attractive space matching a leading research university. Minimize the impact of vehicles on campus - design streetscapes for pedestrian comfort: Optimize campus pedestrian connections above all others. Pedestrian connections must inspire positive activities, vehicular connections must be downplayed, and alternative transportation promoted. Principle Three: COS

Siting and identity

Orient street and open spaces to buildings: The built edges provide a sense of definition to campus spaces, which helps makes the environment more legible and coherent. At all scales, edges help reinforce circulation routes while allowing easy pedestrian access to buildings. Also consider floor levels of buildings to the street or open space level. Create high quality and high performance landscapes: Reinforce the University’s identity and the unique setting of its campus – its location, scenery, the river and parks, and its historic buildings/structures – with redeveloped sited buildings. Shape campus spaces with plantings. New innovative spaces and activities on campus must be sited to reinforce the campus character and engage the campus urban setting to create connections and spaces outside the building that are as positive as those within. Place parking behind or below buildings: In newer development, good places for people depend heavily on the artful accommodation of cars. Parking is an expensive, space-hungry and unattractive use - and it’s a key driver of site planning and project finances. It should be provided in multilevel structures where possible and placed where it will not disrupt pedestrian spaces. Once parked, every driver becomes a pedestrian, so pedestrian exits should be located to support/enliven public spaces. Principle Four: COS

Usability/Functionality to support Academia

Organize uses to support public activity: The way space uses are designed has a major impact on the activity, vitality, security and identity of surrounding spaces. Main COS uses can be classified into:


Page 29/60



• Active uses (such as retail, lobbies and event spaces) should be placed strategically along pedestrian routes to engage students as well as the community, and should be designed for transparency and interest. • Secure, private spaces should be placed at controlled - gated or monitored spaces & away from public corridors. • Certain uses, such as parking and sports complex/playgrounds, can be placed away, but their points of access can be major nodes of activity. • Loading and utility spaces should be hidden from students’ frontages. Enhance the campus as a successful place for learning: Enrich the University with a comprehensive network of campus spaces that reflect the University’s mission to embody excellence in learning. Approach the design of campus spaces in a comprehensive manner – prime consideration must be the space’s contribution to the entire campus open space system and the embodiment of excellence, not the enhancement of a particular building. Principle Five: Campus

Movability/Accessibility

Accommodate a variety of travel modes: While also serving as public amenities, sites of commerce and green spaces. Vehicular roadways should be no bigger than necessary for their function, and they should apportion space safely among private vehicles, transit, bicycles and parking. If they are well designed, streets can move significant volumes of auto traffic and still support other activities. Small streets are equally important and can limit vehicular speeds and capacity in the service of other functions, from deliveries to social activity. Enhance alternative transportation on campus.

Table 10: Rating the overall COS experience in the 20 selected university campuses (Assessed by author) Selected COS COS

Plan/form

Space ratings Interactive

Common

Instructive

Overall Rating

Energetic 0

5

10

15

20

Station Square

The Avenue

Chapman Square

The Broadwalk

Newton Square

LEGEND

ZONE KEY

Design Experience


Page 30/60



2.1 Site Visit #1 : UC Berkeley The excellence of UC Berkeley is the enduring vision to deliver programs of instruction, research, and public spirit to the State of California, and the unique enhancement of quality of life on campus. The Landscape Master Plan (LMP) was published by the University of California, Berkeley in January 2004. LMP identifies the cultural and physical values of the campus landscape and provides a vision for its future. It presents a broad physical framework for the use and treatment of open space within the central campus. While the campus has a prominent architectural heritage, it is the landscape that firmly establishes the image of the University. The 178-acre academic core known as the central campus is densely developed, with an average daytime population of 44,000 students, faculty and staff. The rural site was first chosen in 1858 by the College of California for its hillside location framed by the wooded forks of Strawberry Creek, the rolling open landscape, and the primary views to the Golden Gate. The campus landscape has changed dramatically over the 135 years of its service to higher education. The once sloping, grassy plain embraced by the wooded forks of Strawberry Creek has evolved into a descending chain of glades framed by buildings on terraces and mature trees. As the City of Berkeley developed around it, the campus became a park within the city. Increases in the University’s urban population and built density over the last half century have changed the role of the campus open space, and greatly increased its value to the campus and community.

Figure 4: Scaled map of UC Berkeley campus (REF) The campus landscape is comprised of a typology consisting of five types, used to describe and organize the physical attributes and historic context of the campus open space system. The order of the types below reflects the chronology of their development: Rustic type - The original campus landscape character featuring native plant dominance, rustic character, low maintenance requirements, and relating to neoclassical or rustic architecture. Example: Founders' Rock. Natural type - A landscape that appears natural in the campus, but has been altered. Native or indigenous plant dominance, low maintenance requirements; may support neoclassical or rustic architecture. Example: Grinnell Natural Area.


Page 31/60



Picturesque type - The picturesque Olmstedstyle landscape of rolling pastoral lawns, informal mixed tree borders, mixed exotic and native plants, high maintenance requirements, and not directly related to particular architectural styles. Example: Faculty Glade. Neoclassical type - Rigid architectural landscape framing neoclassical and Beaux-Arts campus buildings, with typically exotic plants selected to enforce the architectural styling and moderate to high maintenance requirements. Example: Campanile Esplanade. Urban type - Typically exotic landscape plantings in contemporary, geometric urban plazas, popular as places of interaction, with building forms dominant and moderate maintenance requirements. Example: Sproul Plaza.

Rustic Type Natural Type Picturesque type Neoclassical type Urban type

Figure 5: The five main landscape typologies of UC Berkeley campus (REF) The contrast and interlacing of the natural and designed systems is a powerful signature of the Berkeley campus. A. The Natural environment (which have evolved from the native, original landscape): 1. Natural Systems The campus' physical form and image resulted from the extraordinary richness of its natural setting. The natural systems are the elements of this setting: the forks of the creek, the upper and lower tree canopy, and the topography of the land. The natural quality of these elements enhances the vitality of the campus environment. 2. Strawberry Creek Along with its riparian corridors provide unity to the campus organization. The creek was the key element in the siting of the campus, considered a visual, recreational and resource amenity since the early history of the campus. As the creek wends its way through campus, it links and defines a variety of campus open space elements, structuring a dramatic spatial experience. The creek banks provide places for gatherings as well as secluded spots for reflection or study. Culturally, the creek functions as a link between the present day and past generations of campus users. The phased plan is based on the coordination of two creek zones. Zone 1, the riparian zone, is defined as a section of at least 100' in width, centered on the stream course along the entire length of the creek. The vegetation includes native and naturalized plants that form dense woodlands along the stream course. Zone 2 is a broader zone and includes other rustic woodland areas adjacent to the riparian landscape, which have a strong complementary relationship to the creek and also often have a strong historic and symbolic identity in their own right, such as the Eucalyptus Grove. This zone consists of large trees with a naturalized understory.


Page 32/60



3. Tree Canopy In addition to the bands of vegetation following the forks of Strawberry Creek, a legacy of established native and specimen trees constitute a significant part of the campus landscape. The tall tree canopy imparts a sense of spatial order, visual clarity and a sense of time and grandeur to the campus. A few distinctive trees and groves such as the Eucalyptus Grove have become campus landmarks based on their history and visual prominence. 4. Lower Canopy While the tall tree canopy is visually significant, the lower canopy arrangement of groundcovers, shrubs and small trees has a direct impact on students’ perception of the landscape. The campus' unique sense of place owes much to the repetition and blending of a broad species mixture of Mediterranean, Australian, Asian, and native west coast plants. Certain plant palettes reinforce the landscape types: the neoclassical type uses plant materials commonly found in formal European landscapes accentuating architectural forms; the picturesque type features plants with naturalistic forms; the natural and rustic types are composed of remnants of native vegetation mixed with drought tolerant imports. 5. Topography The campus' impressive topography heightens the visual impact of natural and architectural features, and affords a dramatic westward vista to the Golden Gate. Through the 1920s, neoclassical campus buildings were placed atop grassy man-made terraces that accommodated the campus' natural topography and created a dignified series of plinths for buildings. This technique of stepping down terraces through the campus, allows for the creation of dynamic open spaces and framed views. A challenging aspect of this topography is the alteration to a universally accessible environment. Providing for these needs while preserving the experiential quality of campus topography is an important aspect of planning for future development on campus. B. The Designed Systems 1. Open space elements Campus open spaces provide settings for a variety of activities as well as the common social fabric for the campus community. These elements are part of the designed systems on campus. One experiences the campus as a sequence of diverse spaces, linked by paths and roads, which contrast dramatically in their scale, mood and materials. This careful sequencing of contrasting spaces is a defining quality of the campus experience. The types of open spaces are categorized broadly as: 1.1 Glades Defined as a grassy clearing in a forest. Glades on the Berkeley campus are characterized by open expanses of lawn defined by a naturalistic perimeter of trees. Berkeley glades typically have an organic form in plan, framing gently rolling topography. The glades provide a place for individual passive recreation, informal and ceremonial gatherings and a setting that complements the campus' diverse architecture. The Central Glade, including the West Crescent, West Oval and Memorial Glade, forms an axial sequence of open spaces that define and spatially unify the central campus. Faculty and Grinnell glades are more intimate spaces separate from this central axis. They have a distinct and rich sense of place about them which derives from their topography, venerable plantings and the high quality of the surrounding architecture. 1.2 Woodlands Function both as elements of the campus' picturesque park landscapes and its more rustic natural areas. Three major woodlands have been designated as natural areas: Grinnell, Goodspeed and Wickson. Campus woodlands are utilized for field studies by a variety of undergraduate and graduate level courses. They serve as buffers between the creek and the campus helping to maintain its viability as a natural habitat and preserving its sense of calm respite. Spatially, the woodlands function as screens that create distinct landscape elements, and mitigate the impact of large buildings on the campus landscape. 1.3 Places of interaction Architectural and social spaces, including plazas and esplanades. Plazas are defined as centrally located paved open spaces that facilitate social interaction. Esplanades are unique to the Classical Core and are circulation spaces with a formal structure of pathways and plantings. Places of interaction play a vital role on campus by creating a sense of community, fostering new academic initiatives through casual interactions and facilitating campus safety through the activation of outdoor spaces. Neoclassical places of interaction, such as the Campanile Mohammed Gabr PhD candidate, University of Salford 2016-2020 Page 33/60



environs and Gilman-LeConte Way, feature elements from traditional European landscapes such as axial pathways, terraces, flat planes of lawn and allées of pollarded London Plane trees. These spaces accommodate heavy foot traffic and limited service access within well-defined areas of hardscape complemented by regularly placed plantings. Modern places of interaction, such as Dwinelle Plaza, the Sproul Plazas, Spieker and College Avenue Plazas, serve as entry courts and casual breakout spaces for large modern academic facilities. They are designed in a format similar to urban plaza prototypes, which support the density of campus gatherings. 1.4 Greens The recreational play fields intermixed within the central campus. Some of the greens are located within the larger athletic/recreational zone of campus and others are remnants of historical uses. Edwards Stadium and Evans Diamond are within walled structures while Maxwell and Hearst North are open fields. The greens may consist of natural or artificial turf and often make use of field lighting. These greens are vitally important to the health of the campus population, including the physical education program, intramural sports, club sports, intercollegiate athletics and the marching band. Access to these facilities is limited and in high demand.

Woodlands Glades Places of interaction

Figure 6: The “open space elements” of the campus landscape designed systems (REF) 2. Circulation elements Includes pedestrian, universal access, bicycle, vehicular and service routes. Providing convenient and safe access to campus facilities while enhancing the campus landscape is becoming a greater challenge as the campus density and hours of operation increase. The safety and convenience of the pedestrian is the primary consideration in campus circulation. Bicycles are a convenient and sustainable mode of travel within campus and their use should be encouraged on designated routes. Private vehicular access to the campus is limited by traffic control bollards. 3. Perimeters and gateways The central campus is the academic centre, while auxiliary uses such as housing are sited within the larger campus context. This separation of academic and residential facilities differs from the traditional paradigm of the residential campus where these facilities are intermixed. To support the relationship between the academic centre and


Page 34/60



auxiliary uses, the campus edges are porous and open to the surrounding community. The perimeter of the central campus is established by public roads on four sides. The campus faces a different context on each edge. To the north and south are neighbourhoods that are primarily residential. Northside maintains the leafy appearance of an Arts and Crafts community, while the Southside has developed a lively mixed-use character with small stores and large University housing complexes. To the west is Berkeley's central business district, with large buildings on a city grid. To the east of the campus are wooded foothills with University housing and the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. The gateways define the University's image and emphasize the campus' sense of place. The Southside gateways along Bancroft Way reflect the lively context and the intensive flow of pedestrian traffic accessing the campus. Sproul Plaza and College Plaza are broad open spaces with heavy foot traffic. The gateway at Spieker Plaza is greener and less frenetic. The west gateway is a ceremonial entrance with lush plantings and mature trees which screen the University from downtown Berkeley. On the north side, the gateways at Tolman Plaza and North Gate reflect the quieter, residential flavour of the neighbourhoods they face. The east campus edge along Gayley Road fuses the campus' densely developed east end with the rustic scenery of the foothills. East Gate has lower pedestrian use than other campus gateways and serves largely as a vehicular gateway. The east side's most accessible and well-articulated pedestrian gateway is the pedestrian route through the courtyard of the Haas School of Business.

Gateways Woodland edge Neighborhood edge Downtown edge

Figure 7: The perimeters and gateways of the UC Berkeley campus (Author’s sketches)


Page 35/60



Upper Sproul plaza

6 3 Lower Sproul plaza

Space #1 Space #2

4

2 Telegraph Ave

1

4

2

5

3

6

Figure 8: Above: Masterplan with 6 snapshots at 6 space. Space#1 : Main Gate and Entrance Approach Corridor; Space#2 : Lower Sproul Plaza


Page 36/60



2.2 Site Visit #2 : Stanford

Figure 9: Scaled map of the Stanford University campus (REF)

2.3 Site Visit #3 : University of Southern California USC has analyzed each of the six Master Planning Districts in terms of university-owned property and the potential new development of this property in the years leading up to 2030. Each has its own special characteristics that will drive the planning process. D1: University Park Academic Core 161-acre. Academic core with student housing D2: University Park East Area 28-acre. Campus support services D3: University Village 35-acre. Private & university-owned student housing as well as retail & academic support D4: North of Jefferson 56-acre. Private & university-owned student housing as well as retail & academic support D5: North University Park East 75-acre. Private and university-owned student housing D6: North University Park West 98-acre. No planned development


Page 37/60



Figure 10: Master Planning Districts: Existing conditions (REF)

2.4 Site Visit #4 : UC Los Angeles The UCLA Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) describes physical planning objectives and the approach for development of campus buildings, infrastructure and landscape. It also describes the physical design standards that guide new development to enhance the unique campus aesthetic within the constraints of a fully developed urban environment. Currently, the campus has approximately 200 buildings comprising approximately 17 million gross square feet and approximately 24,000 parking spaces, accommodating the largest campus population (almost 60,000 per average weekday) on one of the smallest campuses (419 acres) in the UC system.


Page 38/60



Figure 11: Scaled map of the UC Los Angeles campus (REF) B.4.1 Campus Land Use Zones : While the campus functions as an integrated whole, patterns of use and adjacency have defined areas characterized by dominant uses and differing densities roughly contained within eight campus planning zones: Botanical Garden, Bridge, Campus Services, Central, Core Campus, Health Sciences, Northwest, and Southwest zones. B.4.2 Open Space An essential component of the aesthetic and social life of the campus. Enhancing its urban character, 34 present of the total campus area (142acre) consists of green space. The classification of open space falls into 4 categories: Preserves: Several campus open spaces have been developed to an exceptional level of spatial and aesthetic excellence or hold cherished places in campus history and tradition; including: Dickson Plaza, Wilson Plaza, Janss Steps, the Mathias Botanical Garden, the Murphy Sculpture Garden, the University Residence, Stone Canyon Creek Area, Meyerhoff Park, and Bruin Plaza. Recreational: important to the health of the campus community and the quality of campus life. Major recreational areas located in the Central and Northwest zones of campus including: the Sunset Canyon Recreation Area, the Intramural Field, Drake Stadium, North Athletic Field, Spaulding Field, and the Easton Softball Stadium. The Intramural Field, North Athletic Field, and Wilson Plaza cover subterranean parking. Formal: Highly valued formal courtyards and plazas including: the Court of Sciences, Dickson Court, the Rolfe Sculpture Garden, the Inverted Fountain, and several smaller courtyards and plazas incorporated into the hardscape adjacent to academic and health sciences buildings. Campus Entries and Perimeter Buffer Areas: Campus entries also function as open areas that interface with off-campus uses and are marked with landscape monuments of brick or stone. The major southern entry to the campus functions as the campus “Gateway” and is located at the intersection of Le Conte Avenue and Westwood


Page 39/60



Plaza. Landscaped buffer areas provide open space and a visual separation between the campus and the urban areas on the north, west, and east boundaries of the campus.

158 acre 90.5 acre

61.5 acre

15.3 acre

46.8 acre

7 acre 5 acre Campus Entries Major Axis Campus Edges

35.5 acre

Open Space: Preserves Open spaces: Recreational Open Spaces: Formal

Figure 12: LRDP Zoning Diagram (8 zones and 4 main open space typologies) in UCLA campus (REF) B.4.3 LRDP Design standards Circulation is organized to facilitate oncampus travel, limiting vehicular travel to the peripheral loop road (Charles E. Young Drive) and access to parking structures. Roads in the central portion of campus are limited to emergency and service vehicles and to provide proximate parking for the disabled. Well developed pedestrian pathways to improve wayfinding and safety. Utility Infrastructure and distribution systems (electricity, gas, heating and cooling, water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, telephone, telecommunications, and waste disposal) that serve the campus are continually evaluated and upgraded in conjunction with the campus' Climate Action Plan in order to ensure adequate facilities and services, and substantially reduced utility consumption and significant additional reductions. Mohammed Gabr PhD candidate, University of Salford 2016-2020 Page 40/60



Sustainability and Green Buildings - Incorporating energy efficiency into new buildings and renovations as part of the Green Building Program has allowed UCLA to continue to reduce the amount of energy used on a squarefoot basis, despite overall campus growth. Building Material Standards typically include UCLA blend brick and buff stone, terracotta, or concrete. These are applied in a variety of idioms, responsive to the function of particular buildings and their particular sites. They are enduring materials that express a quality of permanence and durability. Pedestrian Circulation and Campus Hardscape The large pedestrian population on campus moves through a network of campus walkways composed of brick and buff concrete that creates a unifying ground plane element. The color and patterns of UCLA brick blend and a buff coloured concrete varies from project to project depending upon the specific context but unified to provide significant visual connections to the heart of the campus. Open Space and Landscape UCLA have become the foundation of the campus reputation for a garden-like environment. Campus Furniture & Signage Consistency of detail in way-finding signage, building identification, lighting, benches, and other street furniture is essential to reinforcing the campus identity. The Architectural Guidelines denote specific selections for these elements based on successful experience with these items over many years. Many of the furniture items are painted a dark brown colour known on the campus as “Charles E. Young Brown.” The campus has developed signage guidelines and pays strict attention to the addition of signs on campus. To maintain an overall image of institutional dignity, the addition of oversized signs or retail-like designs is prohibited. A special font, UCLA Gothic, is utilized on exterior signs, typically with white letters on a dark brown background. Site Character and Context is considered through these strategies: - Recognize major organizing axes in the campus plan, - Maintain orthogonal orientation as an orienting device, - Respect and reinforce the open space and edges. The physical design guidelines are meant to apply to the entire campus and create unity and continuity across the distinct architectural character for each of the eight zones.

2.5 Site Visit #5 : UC San Diego

Figure 13: Scaled map of the UC San Diego campus (REF) Mohammed Gabr PhD candidate, University of Salford 2016-2020

Page 41/60



2.6 Site Visit #6 : University of San Diego

Figure 14: Scaled map of the University of San Diego campus (REF)


Page 42/60



PHASE #3 COS INVESTMENT Urban Scale : Assessing the Campus Spaces The study framework refine the most critical ingredients for assessing the efficiency of campus spaces on a scale from “effective” to “ineffective”. For Example, the highest levels of effectiveness would be in a relatively less space size, with more frequency of use along the day, having ultimate use of the design features, and achieving top satisfactory levels. If one or more of these indicators was distorted, the result on scale will go lower accordingly. The framework is derived by examples of Interactive, Communal, Instructive, and Energetic spaces, paired with illustrative images from wideranging site visits. All campuses embody these principles at a variety of scales or densities - from compact, urban university campuses to city campuses or scattered buildings within big-city downtowns. This has been looked from 3 different angles through data collection and analysis: 1.

Focus on the physical space design whether by the whole developed space area or by space features including designs of paving; seating; signage & lighting; bins; bollards/markers; cycle stands; planting (tree grille & flower box); and others/portables.

2.

Outcomes potentially fostered by such environments, such as social networking (engagement & community involvement), personal development (promoting creativity and innovation), academic related activities, and recreational purposes (inducing exercise).

3.

As a proxy for higher-impact design and means of enhancing the student experience through cost-effective design solutions.

1DENSITY - Space area by person (Maps + space counts)

PROXIES Design Approach

Frequency of use (T5) ÷ Space size by Area (T4) = Average number of users / m2

INEFFECTIVE

2MEANS/METRICS - Design features (urban analysis/observations) Paving

Shading

Seating

Signage

Bins

Bollards

Cycle

Plantings

Portables

High Cost Low Return

COST = [ Amount of features x costs per unit ] by features (T4) / or by developed space

3OUTCOMES - Productive performance (Student survey)

Med Cost Med Return

A. Personal Development

B. Social & Cultural

C.

Academic activity

D. Recreation & Physical activity

Ex. Creativity / innovation environmental awareness / sense of campus / multiple experiences

Ex. Group discussion / community collaboration / meetings/chatting/culture events & performances

Ex. Environmental Projects / individual & Team works / Coaching / imaginative observations

Ex. Fitness training / playing / relaxing / cycling & walking

iNTERACTIVE

COMMUNAL

iNSTRUCTIVE

ENERGETIC

EFFECTIVE INEFECTIVE

1 High density 1 Low density

2 low/smart use of features 2 High use of features

Low Cost High Return

EFFECTIVE

3 Higher outcomes gained 3 Lower outcomes gained

Figure 15: Toolkit showing how effectively money is spent on COS design to enhance the student experience – Personal development space      

It involves cognitive apprenticeship. It offers prompt feedback. It respects diverse talents and skills. It emphasizes intrinsic motivators and natural curiosities. It emphasizes higher-order thinking (synthesis and reflection). It is engaged in solving real-world problems.


Page 43/60



Cropley (2001); Acker and Miller (2005); Read (2007); Williams and Veomett (2007); Holley and Steiner (2005); Acker and Miller (2005); Panju (2008); Pytel (2006); Daggett et al. (2008); Brown and Knowles (2007)

– Social space   

It encourages contact between students among themselves and the wider community. It promotes exchange and cooperation among students. It emphasizes rich, timely feedback. O’Hare (1998); Scanlon (1999); Gavienas (2004); Miller (2008); Atherton (2009)

– Learning space      

It encourages contact between students and faculty. Knowledge is applied by the learner. New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. It promotes diverse ways of learning. It emphasizes learner independence and choice. It uses active learning techniques. Morphet (1972); Wurtman (1975); Earthman (2004); Acker and Miller (2005); JISC (2006); Miller (2008); Paradis (2008)

– Active space  

It is situated in action. It is done in high-challenge, low-threat environments. Wurtman (1975); Earthman (2004); Acker and Miller (2005); JISC (2006)

Table 11: Urban Analyses of the selected COS Space no

N1

N2

N3

N4

N5

N6

Space Type / Name / Location

Reception area (Maxwell)

Adelphi corridor

Round about

Central Plaza (stage)

Central lawns

Uni house & Sports corridors

Space Features

Parking, entrances, Bike racks, sitting benches, trees, green lawns, campus boundaries and access/views to surroundings

Bike shade, Parking, Link to Entrance, signage, benches, ramps and stairs, plants and trees, pavements

Parking, entrances, statue, signage, benches, pavements, campus boundaries, access to train

Steps for sitting, statue, signage, benches, outdoor café, pavements, access/views to peel park

Sand corridors, trees, signs, relaxing and studying opportunity

Parking, signs, seating, pavement

Streets & parking

Areas & percentage

Pedestrian circulation Pavements Green Shades Other structures

Total area Built up area Seating / benches Bike racks Parking slots Bins

Amounts

Water / fountains Lighting Traffic signs Guide signs Adv. Signs Structures Total


Page 44/60



Table 12: Description of the student experiences within the analysed COS Space no Space Type / Name / Location

N1

N2

N3

N4

N5

N6

Reception area (Maxwell)

Adelphi corridor

Round about

Central Plaza (stage)

Central lawns

Uni house & Sports corridors

1.

8:30-9:30

Cognitive / Artistic activity

Studying / reading / Academic project

12:30-13:30 16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL

Using technology (phone, laptops, etc)

8:30-9:30 12:30-13:30 16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL

2. Physical & Recreational Activity

Activity Type & Average Frequency of Use (3 visits each)

8:30-9:30 12:30-13:30

Walking through

16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL 8:30-9:30 12:30-13:30

Biking

16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL 8:30-9:30 12:30-13:30

Hang out / Games

16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL 8:30-9:30 12:30-13:30

Relax / sleep

16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL

3.

8:30-9:30

Social / cultural activity

Group Meeting / Chatting

12:30-13:30 16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL 8:30-9:30

4. Others (eating, smoking, visiting, pamphlet, etc)

12:30-13:30 16:30-17:30 Weekend TOTAL


Page 45/60



REFERENCES Banning, J.H. (1993) The pedestrian’s visual experience on campus: Informal learning of cultural messages. The Campus Ecologist. Banning, J., and Bartels, S. (1993) A taxonomy for physical artifacts: Understanding campus multiculturalism. The Campus Ecologist 11(3): 2–3. Boyer, E.L. (1987) College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York, NY: Harper & Row Brodie et al., 2011 (R.J. Brodie, L. Hollebeek, B. Juric, A. Ilic). Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions and implications for research. Journal of Service Research. Chapman, M.P. (2006) American places: In search of the twenty-first century campus. Westport: Greenwood. Coulson, J., Roberts, P., and Taylor, I. (2010) University planning and architecture: The search for perfection. Westport: Routledge. Coulson, J., Roberts, P., and Taylor, I. (2014) University trends: Contemporary campus design. Abingdon: Routledge. Dober, R.P. (1996) Campus planning. Chem: Reinhold. Griffith, J.C. (1994) Open space preservation: An imperative for quality campus environments. The Journal of Higher Education 65: 645–669. Haar, S. (2011) The city as campus: Urbanism and higher education in Chicago. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Jessup-Anger, J.E. (2012) Examining how residential college environments inspire the life of the mind. The Review of Higher Education 35(3): 431–462. Kelbaugh, D. (2003) North Campus, campus planning and architecture (pp. 18–22). Michigan: Portico, University of Michigan. Kenney, D.R., Dumont, R., and Kenney, G.S. (2005) Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design. Westport: Greenwood. Mitchell, W.J., and Vest, C.M. (2007) Imagining MIT: designing a campus for the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., and Mueller, J.A. (2014) Creating multicultural change on campus. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Scheer, B.C. (2010) The evolution of urban form: Typology for planners and architects. Journal of American Planning Association. Steinmetz, C.A. (2009) Universities as place: An intergenerational perspective on the experience of Australian university students (Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia 2009). Stern, R.A. (1986) The campus: A place apart. Films for the Humanities. Strange, C.C., and Banning, J.H. (2001) Education by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Temple, P. (2008) Learning spaces in higher education: an under‐researched topic. London Review of Education 6(3): 229–241. Turner, P.V. (1984) Campus: An American planning tradition. New York: Architectural History Foundation. Richard P., Dober. (1992). Campus Design (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wim Wiewel (2005), “University Real Estate Development: Time for City Planners to Take Notice!,” Strategies: Newsletter of the City Planning and Management Division of the American Planning Association.


Page 46/60



2

2

0

1

8

EVALUATING CAMPUS URBAN DEVELOPMENTS BASED ON STUDENT EXPERIENCE NEW INTEGRATIVE DESIGNINVESTMENT ASSESSMENT OF CAMPUS OUTDOOR PLANNING IN THE UK & US

Campus Outdoor Spaces Experience Calculator

COSEC

University of Salford MAPSLED Horizon 2020

Arab Academy for Science & Tecnology Mohammed Gabr PhD candidate, University of Salford 2016-2020

Page 47/60