2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report:

CAMPUS PLANNING
by Edgar Adams Associate Professor School of Architecture, Art & Historic Preservation

Spring 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio

Daniel J Alexander Maryellen Anderson Timothy Bailey Daniel Braca Meghan Brennen Timothy Brennan Kyle Harrison Rich Krenzer Talal Mahmeed Christopher Nardi

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Table of Contents
Table of Contents

Preface: Acknowledgements Introduction: Why is Campus Planning Important Managing Growth vs. Planning for Excellence The Master Planning Process: Major Steps 1. The Vision Mission History/Identity Institutional Mission/ Physical Form 2. The Team The Master Planning Committee The Professional Team 3. The Process Institutional Planning Facilities Planning 4. The Agenda Principles/Values Objectives 5. The Plan Analysis Design 6. Implementation 7. Conservation / Stewardship

The 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio: 3 4 5 Existing Conditions / Site Analysis: 18 Summary 30 Research / Benchmarking (see presentation on enclosed CD) Interim Proposals Scheme A Scheme B-1 Scheme B-2 Final Planning Strategies Scheme A Scheme B Precinct Plans Concluding Recommendations Appendix A: Aerial Photographs Appendix B: Previous Plans Bibliography 34 35 37 39 41 43 46 49 56 57 62 65

6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 16

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Preface
The delicate thing about the university is that it has a mixed character, that it is suspended between its position in the external world, with all its corruption and evils and cruelties, and the splendid world of our imagination. Richard Hofstadter, Columbia
University

traditions and forms that have shaped the development of this unique form of community in a more general sense. It is not an official Master Planning document; however since that document is not informed by the level or range of design intentions that the campus deserves it should be seen as part of larger master planning process. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that this effort was in many ways the first official acknowledgement of the work of many faculty and students who have, over the years, attempted to contribute to the shaping of the unique environment we steward. This important work has been carried out in studios, research seminars, and more recently through committees at various levels within the university. This is my third studio on campus and my second to look at it from a campus planning perspective. I am especially indebted to Ulker Copur for her important research and analysis of the campus and to Dean Stephen White. Many of the ideas represented in this document evolved from the work of the Facilities Task Force during the 2002 Strategic Planning sessions that Dean White co-chaired. This document is a Campus Planning document and does not reflect the full scope of a Master Planning document. It does not attempt to be comprehensive in scope; however, the strategies it employs do aspire to a comprehensive reach. This, hopefully, can be most clearly seen in the attempt to place this document within the context of a more inclusive, more comprehensive and more integrated approach to planning for the future needs of the University community. In recognition of the importance of the above, I have included a summary of the research I conducted into

This document is a product of a yearlong RWU Presidential Fellowship, established by Roy J. Nirschel to involve faculty in the advancement of key initiatives embodied, either explicitly or implicitly, in the universitys ongoing strategic planning process. It was indeed an honor to be counted among the initial recipients and am most grateful to President Nirschel for this opportunity and for establishing a climate that supports and encourages faculty initiative and seeks to engage faculty more directly, not only in shaping future Roger Williams Alumni; but also in shaping the physical and intellectual environment that supports us as we do that important work. This 2003 RWU Campus Planning Fellowship Report arises out of a myriad of unique circumstances that have informed this work and establish an essential backdrop for the ideas represented herein. The role of a campus planning document, however, is to be prospective and not to be too rooted in the seemingly inextricable challenges of the moment. That said, this document tries to walk a line between the particular needs and aspirations of a particular university at a particular time in its development; and the

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

the Campus Planning process as a means of acknowledging the gaps in our efforts to date. In this work I am indebted to the pioneering work of Richard Dober, the founder of the Society of College and University Planners (SCUP) and a recent participant at a symposium at Roger Williams University entitled Campus: Mission Identity and Form. His writings along with those of Michael Dennis were instrumental in framing the overview of the Master Planning Process that follows. All of this is in acknowledgement the hybrid nature of this document. While this clearly mirrors the fact that my own work with the Master Planning Committee was divided in two phases, it may also be an acknowledgement of the hybrid nature of the task itself and of the many different hats worn over the last year. The most daunting hat to fill was that of Landscape Architect. Here, my students and I were clearly out of our element. As a result, my own appreciation of the importance of landscape in general and of the work of the Landscape Architect in particular, have grown immeasurably. Acknowledgements: In addition to President Nirschel, would particularly like to thank the following people for their support and active participation in this process: 2001 RWU Facilities Master Plan Task Force Co-chairs: Stephen White, John Stout, John Tameo Members: Edgar Adams, Bruce Bowie, Allison Chase Padula, Jim Galib, Fred Gould, Robert McKenna, Dawn Occhi, Betsy Peck-Learned,

Joyce Stewart, Steve Terrien, James Tweed, David Zlotnick 2002 - 2003 Master Planning Committee Co-chairs: Jeffery Gillooly, Matthew White & Stephen White Members: Edgar Adams , Allison Chase Padula,, Margaret Church, Ulker Copur, Vincent Giambertone (alumnus), George Kolb, James Noonan, Maryellen Anderson (student member) And last but certainly not least: 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio Instructor: Edgar Adams Students: DJ Alexander, Maryellen Anderson, Timothy Bailey, Daniel Braca, Timothy Brennan, Meghan Brennen, Kyle Harrison, Richard Krenzer, Talal Mahmeed, Christopher Nardi

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Introduction
" The building of cities is one of man's greatest achievements. The form of his city always has been and always will be a pitiless indicator of the state of his civilization."..." I contend that human will can be exercised effectively on our cities now, so that the form that they take will be a true expression of the highest aspirations of our civilization." Edmund Bacon Campuses, like cities, tell us much about our collective values and are, like cities, powerful symbols of our highest aspirations. Yet they also represent a unique and distinctive form of community that is dedicated to higher values (higher education). They therefore hold a special place in our hearts and minds and are increasingly important symbols of our countrys leadership in an increasingly knowledge based global culture. Why is Campus Planning Important? SCUP Statement of Principles
Society of College and University Planners, 1991

3. Appropriate campus designs define and celebrate an institutions purpose, territory, accomplishments and aspirations. 4. Appropriateness is achieved by addressing and resolving the issues of continuity and change in the physical elements and forms which generate the campus design. 5. To deny or demean the campus design is to diminish the institutions vitality symbolically or actually. 6. In support of this statement of principle, each institution should undertake an assessment of its campus design heritage identifying those buildings and landscapes which are or could be essential components in creating or sustaining the campus image and the sense of place. 7. Incorporated in the overall campus plan, the assessment should be used to seek and encumber funds to conserve, enhance and enlarge the campus design legacy a legacy that legitimizes, facilitates and proclaims the institutions existence.

1. A campus is a work of art whose stewardship should command the attention and respect of successive generations. 2. The art is expressed through the melding of buildings and landscapes into a physical environment called the campus design.

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Managing Growth vs. Planning for Excellence This plan did not develop in a vacuum. The current administration is very focused on establishing more regular and more comprehensive planning procedures. The Town of Bristol and outside accrediting agencies now require long range planning reports as a part of their oversight of the University. Many universities have departments of institutional research or planning. In spite of an impressive record of growth and achievement the Universitys entrepreneurial approach did not value long-range thinking. The Facilities Management Department, as its name suggests, is reactive and not proactive and is not equipped to deal with the demands now being placed upon it. These types of growing pains are to be expected and are compounded by the fact that the University now finds itself in a unique position. A University with many outstanding professional programs and a liberal arts core, it represents a distinctive blend which has few precedents. Its beautiful setting also offers unique opportunities and challenges. The University can no longer afford to continue to grow simply in response to market forces; but must now confront the physical limits of its remarkable site. All of this requires various modes of planning or research at various levels within the University. What is the role of satellite campuses, what is the ideal enrollment, what is the carrying capacity of the site, what is the impact of graduate programs? Is Roger Williams a niche player in a larger regional or international market or is it a prized local resource?

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

The Master Planning Process

Primary Steps: 1. Create a Vision 2. Establish a Team 3. Establish a Process 4. Develop a Campus Plan 5. Implement the Plan 6. Conserve and Maintain the Vision 7. Repeat as necessary As the outline above indicates I am placing the Campus Plan within the context of a larger Master Planning Process in order place emphasis on the unique role of the "Plan" as something which can give real physical expression to the goals and aspirations of the University, something that transcends the immediate private concerns of any one body and looks at the physical environment in a comprehensive way. It links past and future, natural and manmade (nature and culture) and offers and clear vision for the future form of the institution. I realize that in placing so much importance on the plan I am setting rather high expectations; but I am doing so with the knowledge that, in an ideal sense, the campus plan is but one component of the physical design process. There should be precinct plans and

ultimately individual building site plans. All of these inform, elaborate and even modify the "Campus Plan". Yet, a good Campus Plan has the power to inspire future designers for generations to come. Our plan will reference past plans and there will be other plans to overlay this one. 1. The Vision Mission Roger Williams University is a community devoted to teaching and learning wherein students pursue both personal and intellectual growth. The Universitys mission is to teach students to think, reason, and communicate; to develop expertise in their chosen fields of study; to appreciate established disciplines and to investigate interdisciplinary connection; to experience study and life abroad; to value cultural diversity; to develop ethical awareness; and to preserve intellectual curiosity throughout a lifetime. Roger Williams University is committed to the creation and delivery of distinctive undergraduate and graduate programs that involve discovery and curiosity and that are characterized by an ethos of inquiry and civic responsibility. More recently, Roger Williams Universitys President Roy J. Nirschel defined the core values at the center of the University mission as follows:

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

1. Building a love of learning as an intrinsic value 2. Preparation for careers and future study 3. Development of undergraduate research opportunities 4. Service to the community 5. Creating a global perspective 6. Nurturing a caring and respectful community History / Identity Institute The Universitys roots can be traced back to 1919, when Northeastern University School of Commerce and Finance opened a branch at the Providence YMCA. The next year, Northeasterns School of Law opened a Providence division, offering a LL.B. degree. Northeasterns presence in Providence grew again in 1938, when the University opened the Providence Technical Institute, offering a certificate program in mechanical engineering. After an amicable agreement to separate from Northeastern in 1940, the YMCA Board of Directors established the Providence Institute of Engineering and Finance. The new institute was only in its second year when the outbreak of World War II forced its closing for the duration of the war. The School reopened in 1945 under a new name: The YMCA Institute of Engineering and Finance. Over the next five years the Institute grew, serving veterans through both the evening division and the newer day division. An important milestone was reached in 1948, when the state authorized the Institute to grant an Associates Degree.

Junior College As the Institute grew, the need for its separation from the YMCA became increasingly apparent, and in February of 1956, it received a state charter to become a two-year degree granting institution under the name of Roger Williams Junior College. The new Junior College, the states first, began offering liberal arts studies in 1958 and in 1964 the liberal arts program was established leading to an Associate in Arts degree. College By the early 1960s, the institution, still based at the Providence YMCA, was growing rapidly. As a result of that growth, and the states decision to create its own public junior college, the school sought approval to become a four-year college. The College acquired 63 acres of waterfront land in Bristol from the Fulton family and in 1969 completed construction of its new campus. The Providence campus, 1,000 students strong, continued to house the Business and Engineering Technology programs. The new Bristol campus offered a full liberal arts program, enrolling 1,500 students. In addition, the College offered evening programs in both Providence and Bristol. University Today, full-time day and evening program are offered at the Bristol Campus and evening courses and selective day courses are offered at the Providence Campus. The College of Arts and Sciences and the Schools of Business, Engineering, Justice Studies, Law and the School of Architecture, Art & Historic Preservation are now housed

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

on the Bristol Campus. With the founding of the School of Law in 1993 the College became a University. Graduate programs are now being offered in Architecture, and Justice Studies with programs in Education and Historic Preservation soon to follow. The University is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges and has accredited programs in Architecture, Education and Law. Rapidly expanding facilities have accompanied the impressive growth of the institution, causing ever increasing demands to be placed on its unique and sensitive site. In its rapid development there have been sporadic attempts to produce a Campus Plan. The Plan for the 90s produced two such Plans, but these, and the many isolated initiatives which have been undertaken since then, have underscored the need for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to managing the special resources and the unique site which distinguish the University and have been instrumental in its rise to prominence.
Source: Institutional Master Plan

Core Value: to create an ethos of inquiry and civic responsibility

The aspirations and values above are worthy to be sure; however the history of the institution suggests that the hoped for transformation is neither complete or even a natural consequence of the current trajectory of the University. How do you go from being a niche player to being a premier liberal arts university, not to mention the premier liberal arts university in a region which contains several of the worlds best institutions of higher learning? The answer to the above question is important in framing the more immediate goals and initiatives of the institution. One of the most challenging aspects of the hoped for transformation is the fact that the institution still feels like a Junior College. This is a direct consequence of history above and the way that this history has been manifested in the built environment we call the Campus. This poses unique challenges for the continued growth and development of the Campus and should be viewed as an integral aspect of achieving the core mission of the University as it emerges through the ongoing Institutional Planning Process. This linkage of Institutional Mission and Planning with the Physical Form of the Campus must be consciously maintained if the aspirations of the institution are to be realized. This is what distinguishes University Campuses and gives them the unique place that they hold in American society the ability to embody that which is most cherished in our aspirations as a people.

Institutional Mission / Physical Form The historical survey above tells a remarkable story; however in that story are also the seeds of an ongoing struggle to come to grips with the current identity and future goals and aspirations of the institution. These are perhaps best summarized in the following key goal and value: Goal: To become the premier liberal arts university in the region.

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

2. The Team The Master Planning Committee The existence of an inclusive Design Authority is seen as critical to the development and implementation of a successful Campus Plan. In 2002 President Nirschel took the important step of establishing such a body in the structuring of the university Master Planning Committee. This committee includes senior administrators, alumni, faculty, academic deans and students. The committee is chaired by the Executive Assistant to the President along with the Director of Facilities Management and the Dean of the School of Architecture. This committee serves the important role of balancing the competing interests of the various university constituencies and acting as a representative forum for the discussion of issues related to the facilities and space needs of the campus community. In some cases this type of committee includes representation from the Board of Trustees, such as the chair of the Boards own Facilities Committee if such a committee exists. The following mission / objectives of the Roger Williams University Master Planning Committee were developed during the Fall of 2002: To link Campus Planning and Facilities initiatives to the core values and mission of the University. To link Physical Planning and Institutional Planning. To act as a representative forum for the discussion

of issues related to the facilities and space needs of the campus community. To foster a comprehensive, integrated and environmentally sensitive approach to campus and facilities planning and development. To advise the administration on the development of guidelines and principles that will provide greater continuity and will shape the future development of the Campus. To advise the administration and provide input to professionals and consultants during the development and review of campus planning proposals, landscape proposals, precinct plans and individual building proposals. To provide the institution with a sense of place which reinforces its mission, goals and identity and which celebrates community and the beauty of its natural setting. To provide safe and supportive facilities for all members of the campus community and for all university sites on campus or off. To foster interaction and dialogue with the surrounding community on issues of interest and opportunities of mutual benefit.

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

The Professional Team The list of consultants involved in a given Master Planning process can be many and varied. To date the university has relied on a rather limited group of such consultants in planning for and implementing facilities initiatives. Primary among these omissions is the absence, in the history of the University, of a dedicated Campus Planning effort. Such efforts have been limited to supporting specific building initiatives or have been completed by Architects whose primary focus is on the provision of architectural services. This over reliance on a specific entity from a specific field (regardless of the range of services provided) can inhibit the kind of integrated and comprehensive thinking required in the consideration of the complexities of the Campus environment. At the same time, isolated and uncoordinated consultants, left to their own devices, can be equally ineffective. This brings us back to the importance of a coordinating entity on the professional side as well as on the university side. On the University side, this entity could be a Director of Planning, a Campus Architect, or could be drawn from the membership of a Committee such as the current Master Planning Committee. Ultimately the Master Planning Committee can provide a vital forum and can ensure a representative and comprehensive grasp of the issues involved and in the formulation of standards and guidelines that aid professionals in the development of proposals that will be in step with the larger goals and aspirations of the University.

It is also critical that a representative professional team be brought on as early as possible. Recent building projects on campus have suffered from the lack of a strong and consistent attention to the importance of the landscape. The landscape is the glue that holds a Campus together and should be treated as an integral aspect of any building project regardless of the scale. The original Campus, in spite of its dated architectural expression, shows a strong integration of building and landscape that is lacking in current undertakings. The professional team may include representatives from any of the following, including various specializations within the listed fields: Facilities Planning / Space Planning Traffic Planning / Parking Campus Planning (often integrating the fields of Planning, Landscape Architecture and Architecture) Landscape Architecture Architecture Public Art Interior Design

3. The Process Institutional Planning An institutional vision is of obvious importance to the success of any Master planning process. The linkage of this vision to Facilities or Campus Planning is not automatic or linear. There needs to be a clear feedback loop, an iterative process that allows for the one to influence the other and

10

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

vice-a-versa. This is where the central role of the Master Planning Committee (and its corollary on the Board) are so important. It is also interesting to note the increasing number of Departments of Institutional Research on campuses in this light. Facilities Planning Inventory / Assessment In order to understand the current status of facilities and their usage on campus it is often helpful to conduct a regular inventory and assessment of these facilities. This could include the following types of assessment: Quantitative / Qualitative Assessment Accreditation Standards Maintenance Needs Energy Efficiency Suitability to current use Utilization / Scheduling Efficiency Code Compliance, ADA, BCOA, DEM, etc. Inter - Departmental Comparisons Peer Comparison

Trends w/in Universities Departmental / Discipline specific Trends Financial Constraints / Opportunities Enrollment Projections Faculty / Staff Needs Program Development / Retrenchment Impact of Technological Advances / Change Environmental Impacts

4. The Agenda It is important here to acknowledge that rarely are such processes strictly linear. However, the task of establishing a clear and quantifiable set of goals or agenda for the Campus Plan is essential for the success of that Plan. It is equally important to recognize that these parameters frequently change and that the success of a Campus Plan should not be tied to an arbitrary existing condition or perceived need, which may be subject to change. The task of the Agenda may be broadly defined as bringing together Institutional Mission / Planning (Vision / Analysis) and Facilities Planning (Current inventory / Projected need) and may include the following: Identity: guiding Principles and Values Set Priorities, Identify Problems Establish Parameters Identify Constraints Target Opportunities

Future Needs In order the understand the future facilities needs it is important to have access to various types of information linked to the Strategic Planning initiatives of the university and to the research which supports those efforts. This can include the following: Demographics

11

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Principles / Values The 2002 Facilities Task Force clearly linked its objectives and recommendations to the Core Values enumerated by President Nirschel, in summarizing the University Mission Statement as follows: RWU Core Value #1: Learning for its own sake as an intrinsic value Establish aesthetic and ergonomic guidelines, including comprehensive plan based on ideas of an established academic core of collegiate quadrangles/open spaces and perimeter parking, consistent architectural themes, and allocation of a percentage of construction costs for public art. Create interior and exterior spaces for formal and informal meetings, including multiple study spaces, gathering spaces, exhibition spaces, auditorium Continue the tradition of the library as the focal point of the academic core Take advantage of waterside locationviews, selected facilities enhancements

Confirm pattern of interdisciplinary main library, with selected branch and departmental libraries Establish facilities standards applicable to specific educational programs, including accreditation guidelines for professional and graduate programs.

RWU Core Value #3: Making Available Opportunities to Conduct Research Clarify teaching models in relation to research and related space needs Internet access in all classrooms, offices and student residences Explore wireless technology Establish comprehensive IT plan inclusive of space, staff, training, hardware and software lifecycles, Digital Image Lab, and educational technology training Establish facilities standards applicable to research activities on and off-campus

RWU Core Value #4: Serving the larger community Enhance or create spaces for gatherings of various sizes for non-RWU campus Enhance or create spaces for activities at night Study the possibility of establishing an urban campus in Providence Create auditorium for public and special events, and conferences in the Campus Center

RWU Core Value #2: Preparing students for professions and further study Establish and enhance dedicated state-of-the-art facilities (labs, courtrooms, studio spaces) appropriate to professions and further study

12

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

RWU Core Value #5: Developing a global understanding and perspective Establish space for intercultural/spiritual life activities Establish comprehensive campuses in Providence and in Study Abroad locations RWU Core Value #6: Maintaining a caring community with respect for each individual Establish housing standards with common areas Establish call boxes throughout the campus Relocate road to establish pedestrian campus environment Create an accessible campusfor existing and new facilities as well as programs Minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at busy intersections. Ergonomic design for offices, residences and classroom uses Safe, comfortable, scheduled RWU and public transportation between Bay campuses and residence locations Facilities for commuter students Spaces for religious services Dining space for faculty and staff (in Campus Center) Adjunct office space standards for faculty, and for private meetings with students
Source: 2001 RWU Facilities Master Plan Task Force, Report to the RWU Strategic Planning Steering Committee

Objectives These concerns were consolidated in the form of the following list of objectives handed down to the Master Planning Committee and RWU Campus Planning Studio by President Nirchel. This list of priorities may be summarized as follows: Establish a comprehensive Campus Plan looking at building parameters, traffic patterns, ergonomics and artistic enhancements. Redesign entry and exits to campus Parking Issues Pedestrian space, walkways, etc. Building of new/renovated Academic Building Building of new/renovated campus center/performing arts center Review needs for more housing on Campus Review signage on campus (not addressed) Relocation of Facilities to North Campus Meets needs of Admissions for logical path to welcome and inform visitors Look at the utilization of the waterfront Preservation of brand views (bridge) and look at green space usage Review athletic/wellness field needs and locations Physical improvements to Metro Center consistent with the developing mission of the site (not addressed) Committee mission, goals and direction

13

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

5. The Plan Campus Planning At the heart of any memorable Campus is a strong sense of place and of community. These are two increasingly difficult terms to define in todays fast paced global society; yet, I cannot think of two more important qualities for an institution that seeks to create a lasting bond with its students. If the student is to identify with the University then it is important that the intellectual, social and physical landscapes they encounter are each crucial components of a larger sense of community and place. The memories they take away from their brief time with us will last a lifetime. These memories can run the gamut from bad food to good friends. Creating memorable spaces and instilling a sense of pride in what they have accomplished are critical measures of any institution of higher learning. Cheap and impersonal buildings or environments alienate students and undermine the proclaimed values of the institution. Analysis Understanding seemingly intangible aspects of our built environment like Place requires careful analysis and a comprehensive approach. We know a memorable place when we see it; but how do we create, complement or maintain one? A range of analytical tools are needed. Many of these forms of analysis were conducted for the CEIS and are not included in this document. The Following forms of analysis are fundamental to understanding the complexities of the Campus environment: Environmental Analysis (CEIS) Figure Ground Campus Growth Circulation: Pedestrian/Vehicular Land Use Design Constraints: Natural / Legal Spatial Structure Open Space / Green Space Views Topography Axis / Grids

Design In this case the design of the Campus Plan was undertaken within the context of an Architectural Design Studio. This posed some unique challenges and many opportunities for learning and growth. While many students had participated in studios that used sites on Campus, this was the first where the campus itself was the object of the investigation. In addition to the jump in scale, students were also faced with the challenge of inverting their modus operandi. Rather than working from the inside out, from the individual to the collective they were forced to look at the space between the spatial structure of the campus. This required that they work with a new language with its own vocabulary and syntax. The prototypical process is outlined below:

14

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Identify / Test Strategies Develop Alternatives Choose Direction Develop Final Plan Develop Guidelines

institutional memory and values. The particular demands of the end users, of facilities or other imbedded interests must be in dialogue with the established principles shaping the whole. At the most mundane level the implementation phase involves the following: Establish project committees (sub-committees) Develop Precinct Plans Review Building and Landscape Design Proposals: - Review Programming - Design Process: Concepts, Schematic Design, Design Development, Final Documentation Manage Costs

In order to assist in this process, a number of exercises where undertaken which allowed the students to explore the entire range of scalar relationships. We started with a series of loose collage exercises that allowed the students to gain an intuitive understanding of the structure of the campus. The strategies that emerged where tested and developed at a schematic level. Thirty studies were reduced to three basic strategies with variations. Precinct plans were then developed to test strategies and explore alternatives at a scale between that of the individual building and that of the Campus. These studies then informed the testing, selection and development of two final schemes. This movement between scales and modes of investigation was critical to the development of the final plans. 6. Implementation Continuity of process allows for continuity of the built environment. The Campus should not be viewed as a collection of disparate projects, but as The Project with a series of interdependent pieces, each of which answers to the whole. This requires communication and shared understanding among the various parties participating in the shaping of this larger environment. The design authority is instrumental in the communication of

15

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

7. Conservation / Stewardship The cyclical nature of this process is increasingly recognized by requirements of governmental and accreditation authorities. However, without the commitment and participation of all members of the campus community it is hard to make the tough choices and sacrifices that are often called for in the implementation and maintenance of a shared vision. If we say that we value something we must be willing to commit the resources and energy to make it possible. Sacrifices will only create resentment unless the vision is a shared one that is communicated consistently and effectively. A representative Master Planning Committee serves a vital symbolic and real practical function in shaping a shared vision, in aiding in the consistency of its implementation and in maintaining the continuity of valued assets and principles. The stewardship of the Campus environment is a task that takes constant vigilance and involves the following basic tasks: Identify and maintain key assets Evaluate changing needs Maintain Values / Principles

16

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

The 2003 Campus Planning Studio

Edgar Adams, Instructor Daniel J Alexander Maryellen Anderson Timothy Bailey Daniel Braca Meghan Brennen Timothy Brennan Kyle Harrison Rich Krenzer Talal Mahmeed Christopher Nardi

17

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Existing Conditions
Figure Ground Campus Growth Building Use Circulation: Vehicular Pedestrian Parking Views Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7

Spatial Structure: Stepping Fig. 8 Green Space Topography Geometry Conclusion Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11

18

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Existing Figure Ground

Fig. 1

19

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 2

20

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 3

21

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 4

22

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 5

23

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 6

24

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 7

25

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 8

26

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 9

27

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 10

Topography
Drawn by Jason Laterneau

28

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 11

29

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Existing Conditions
Fig. 1: Figure Ground The figure ground shows the basic structure of the campus by highlighting the relationship between the buildings (solids) and the spaces (voids). It also allows one to easily appreciate the grain of the campus based on reading the size, proportions and space between buildings. One can also begin to understand issues such as griding, edges, clustering and the hierarchy of buildings and spaces. In short, the figure ground once decoded gives one the DNA of the campus. Fig. 2: Campus Growth The unique pattern and scale of the original campus buildings and spaces can be read in the Campus Growth and Figure Ground diagrams. Latter dormitory buildings did not follow the grid of the academic structures but established a clear dialogue with the topography and contour of the shoreline. This pattern was somewhat broken by the Bayside dormitories, but was picked up again by the Stonewall complex. The scale and footprint of the more recent buildings changes dramatically and one can begin to appreciate how the parking which once was on the edge of the campus, now finds itself in the center as the campus has grown to the North. Fig. 3: Building Use The basic pattern of academic buildings along the crest of the peninsula and the dormitories along the water has remained intact with the exception of the stonewall dormitories which wrap around the southern edge of the

campus along Ferry Road. Administrative and Public buildings are not organized in a clear manner and are difficult to locate. Fig. 4: Vehicular Circulation Vehicular circulation on campus reflects the more relaxed attitudes of the 70s and the more commuter oriented nature of the original campus. As the campus has grown and the number of both cars and pedestrians have increased, the inability of this original vehicular infrastructure to cope has become increasingly serious. The main entrance to the campus remains the original entrance to Ferrycliff Farm. Landscaping and improvements have not kept pace with increasing amounts of parking and radically increased traffic volumes. Fig. 5: Vehicular / Pedestrian Conflicts Pedestrian circulation has not been expanded in a manner consistent with the quality and integrity of the well developed network of pedestrian pathways within the existing academic core. As new sources for pedestrian traffic have been developed (parking lots) and new destinations (buildings) planned there has been no comprehensive effort to plan for the increased volumes of pedestrian traffic and to mitigate the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. New parking areas are constructed with no consideration for how people get from these parking areas to their destination (the academic core). People walk in the roadways because there are no pedestrian paths or those paths are not adequate and do not offer compelling

30

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

alternatives. If we want to move parking out of the center of the campus we must make the walk from the parking areas as pleasant as possible. If we treat pedestrians (students, faculty and staff) with respect, that respect will be repaid tenfold. Fig. 6: Parking As the previous diagrams have shown, there is a serious need for the proper planning and placement of parking on this campus. Parking should be considered integral to the planning and placement of buildings and not just an afterthought. Buildings are not only destinations for vehicles, they can also define pedestrian areas and screen out and break up unsightly parking areas. Fig. 7: Views Views to and from the campus need careful consideration in the planning of future development on campus. The original campus had panoramic views in all directions. As new buildings were added these views were cut-off and the spaces between the buildings lost their connection to the water. Buildings do not only offer views for their inhabitants, but also frame views for others. The campus has developed in a linear pattern parallel to the slope and to the water. This has prevented the exploitation of the slope by placing buildings perpendicular to the water and allowing views to penetrate into the heart of the campus. By allowing oblique water views from buildings perpendicular or at a slight angle to the water there is also the potential for lateral views of the coastline or views of the bridge to the South and Mount Hope to the North.

The library tower is also an increasingly important marker for the heart of the academic core of the Campus. Views of the Library tower can be an effective means of visually connecting to outlying areas and orienting visitors. Fig. 8: Spatial Structure: Stepping The original campus was planned on a grid with buildings arranged in an informal stepping manner. This allowed for an openness that allowed for the continuity of the existing landscape. Since the 90s there has been an attempt to compose more traditional academic quadrangles. This has led to a bit of a split identity with some of the original building being retrofitted to define a main quadrangle. An infill strategy would be a more successful approach to solving this problem. In the original campus the landscaping was also an integral part of the spatial structure of the campus. This orchestration of buildings and landscaping working in concert has also been lost in recent additions to the campus. Fig. 9: Green Space The openness of the original farmlands has been maintained in the lawn in front of the campus along Old Ferry Road and in the stepping and scale of the original campus and its buildings, which grow out of the site, using local stone and horizontal wood roof overhangs. The construction of the recreation center, the addition to the architecture building and the proposed student dinning facility will significantly transform the openness of the original entry sequence. While this openness was primarily

31

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

the result of landscaped parking areas, the original farm complex is now dwarfed by the recreation center and pending additions to the campus. It, is therefore increasingly important, as the core of the campus fills in, to maintain the openness at the fringes of the campus. This pastoral setting is one of the most powerful aspects of to the identity of the University as perceived by visitors and local residents alike. The north campus represents a unique opportunity to extend that identity to the water. The careful placement of buildings along the high ground overlooking this meadow as it rolls down to the Bay offers a spectacular setting for the next phase in the evolution of the University. It is not a question of preservation of the existing meadows, for their own sake, as much as a question of how to use buildings to frame activities and views that will make the meadow a vital extension of the Campus, while preserving the pastoral sense that is such a magical aspect of this region. I this regard, I believe we should aspire to the precedent established by our most prominent neighbors, Blithewold and Mt. Hope Farm. Fig. 10: Topography The campus sits on a powerful and dramatic landform a peninsula. A peninsula has a strong directionality and campus participates in that directionality in a unique way. Route 114 occupies the crest of a ridge that, along with the water's edge, are the most prominent features of the site. Fig. 11: Grids The grid of the original campus conforms to the orientation of the original farm plots and the orientation of the grid of

the town of Bristol dating from colonial times. When Rt. 136 was connected to the Mt. Hope bridge, that connector cut diagonally through this grid roughly parallel to the coastline. The former Nike missile silos are at a slight angle to 136. The resolution of these grids, their relation to the topography and to views represent the key design challenges for the northward expansion of the campus. Conclusion: Roger Williams University enjoys a dramatic natural setting. Many people comment on this without a true appreciation of what it is that they find so appealing. How do we protect or build upon something if we do not know what it is? What are the unique qualities of the landscape that resonate with the general public and how do we design buildings that reinforce or support the existing fabric of the campus? I hope the preceding analysis has offered some clues. The campus core is expanding and becoming denser at the same time. This density is important in building a sense of community and creating a strong pedestrian core with a variety of outdoor gathering spaces to suit different needs. Views from buildings at the fringe of this core should be maintained and new building sites should respect existing open space corridors, while also exploiting the topography to allow for new building sites to take advantage of water views while maintaining or framing views from above. Inadequate attention to the design and planning of the automotive infrastructure on the campus has and will continue to be a significant problem unless a major effort is

32

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

made to address it. The piecemeal efforts of recent years have not helped. A study of parking on other campuses has revealed that it is possible to service a pedestrian core without resorting to large fields of parking (figs. 12, 13). This, coupled with larger remote satellite parking remain key strategies, provided that adequate pedestrian infrastructure is provided to make the walks from this remote facilities pleasing and safe.

Fig. 12: Johns Hopkins University

(Source: base maps by Ayers, Saint & Gross)

Fig. 13: University of Rochester

33

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Research / Benchmarking
See presentation on enclosed CD

Design Process
After studying the preceding analysis, previous strategic planning documents and reviewing the President's goals for the campus plan, the students started by doing a collage exercise which also allowed them to become more comfortable working at a larger scale. Because of the unique structure of the campus, they were not only given other campus plans to draw from, but were also encouraged to look at famous gardens in order to understand the vocabulary and structure of larger, more "picturesque" environments. Each student produced three plans. From these thirty plans we distilled them down to 10 and six and finally three strategies (with some variations). These we also evaluated and combined to come up with two distinctive strategies, one with two options. These were presented to the Campus Planning Committee at the midpoint of the studio semester. Common Themes: The preceding analysis revealed a number of challenges for any Campus Plan. The integrity of the campus core and its connection to external parking resources were essential. All schemes also pursued a strategy of infill within the campus core to preserve valuable open space elsewhere.

It was also important that cars be removed from the core and that this core be clearly connected to the more recently acquired land to the North of the campus. The mass of the newly expanded Campus Recreation Center was a major impediment to this effort; however all plans sought to create a north loop to connect the campus core and the main entrance to parking resources also to the north. The existing loop feeding bayside was seen as inappropriate for public traffic (the dorms being a more private usage) as it did not take advantage of the views from above the soccer field. Conflicts with pedestrian traffic from Bayside were also a major concern. Scheme A Campus Core The existing south loop in front of the Student Union is abandoned in favor of a northward loop and the access from the south becomes two way with a turnaround in front of Maple Hall. Additions are proposed to the wings of FCAS, the rear of the Engineering building, the Administration building, Architecture Library and the current Student Union. The Administration would be moved to a new building closer to the main entrance and would be expanded to include Admissions. The current Administration Building would be converted to academic usage. Parking would be maintained in front of the new Administration Building; but eliminated behind to allow for a new quadrangle between this building and Marine and Natural Sciences. The Student union would be accessed by a limited access "fire lane/service access" in front of Marine and Natural Sciences.

34

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Interim Proposals
Scheme A

35

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

North Campus Scheme A seeks to preserve the current soccer field near bayside by locating the northward loop as close to the Recreation Center as possible. This also pulls the access road to the Maher Center back toward Rt. 136 freeing up additional land to the water side of this important link. A new Performing Arts Center serves as a hinge between the geometry of the North Campus and the N/S orientation of the Campus Core. This building serves as the focal point of a reoriented North Entrance and would be easily accessible to the public for performances. A reconfigured tennis facility separates surface parking to the right of this new North entrance from a structured parking facility which could use the drop in topography to hid a level of parking partially below grade (without ramps) and have room for one or two above grade levels. Additional surface parking is accommodated to the north. The existing classroom facility and Nike Dormitory have been incorporated into a new series of dormitory structures that build on the language of the Bayside dormitories, while also serving as a backdrop to the proposed Performing Arts building and anchoring the North Campus. These dormitories are carefully modulated to transition from the geometry of Bayside to that of the North Campus, while maximizing views from within the dormitories, framing views between structures and preserving views from Recreation Center above. The central portion of the Ushaped configuration across from the parking structure would be a natural location for a satellite dining facility and/or classroom facility.

Scheme A: Circulation

Scheme A: Use

36

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Interim Proposals
Scheme B-1

37

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Scheme B-1 Campus Core The core shows subtle variations in relation to scheme A. The most significant departures are the use of two building behind the existing Library in lieu of the single U-shaped building in the previous scheme. These two buildings work with the main library and the Recreation Center to form a parking court. By hiding the parking in a courtyard this allows a pedestrian mall to extend from the main entrance to the main quadrangle. This open space loops around the library forming a U-shaped open space sequence free of automobile traffic. The Student Union would be serviced from behind the M&NS building. North Campus Both Scheme B alternatives use a sweeping curve to tie into the existing alignment of the access road to the Maher Center and connect to the main entrance by a roundabout that would provide a comfortable drop off point with impressive views. Scheme B-1 features an "inboard" location for the dormitories on the terrace currently occupied by the Bayside Field. This allows us to tie-in the existing Bayside dormitories to this sweeping roadway through a series of terraced courtyards and walkways providing a range of outdoor spaces and views over and through the existing buildings. Careful attention was paid to respect water views toward M&NS from the fitness center. This allows for the north campus to be reserved for athletic fields including a parking structure with built-in grandstands overlooking a major new soccer/lacrosse venue and Mount Hope Bay. Scheme B-1: Circulation

Scheme B-1: Landscape Plan

38

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Interim Proposals
Scheme B-2

39

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Scheme B-2 Campus Core Scheme B-2 is similar in most respects to B-1, but with dormitories along the water. A new configuration for the proposed Administration Building at the Main Entrance is offered (see additional alternative below) and the parking in front of SAAHP reverts to its existing configuration. North Campus The inboard location for the dormitories is abandoned in this alternative for a location below the access to the Maher center. This keeps the dormitories lower in elevation allowing for views to the water from above. A link building is proposed to tie into the geometry of Bayside and the main campus.

Scheme B-2: Landscape Plan

Alternate Classroom/Admin. Building Configuration 40

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Final Planning Strategy

Two-pronged Strategy The uncertainty regarding the feasibility of moving the access road to the Maher Center was such that we did not feel we could devote all of our effort to this proposal. While the advantages of this scheme are substantial it is also clear that there are logistical hurdles to be overcome. The current access road cuts through the most desirable portion of the site and makes the use of the land to the east of it difficult but certainly not impossible. Northward Loop In order to eliminate pedestrian conflicts in front of the current student union, and to minimize or eliminate traffic exiting from the main entrance (not a safe condition) both schemes make use of a northward loop. This loop allows for access to parking to the north and aids in making vehicular and pedestrian connections to any new facilities to the north. While the expansion to the Recreation Center makes such connections difficult, it is also important that we not create further pedestrian conflicts in front of the Bayside Dormitories. We believe that it is possible to maintain the current Bayside field and add a raised roadway; however the opportunity for an improved venue to the north would be the most prudent as it would allow greater flexibility for future growth. Bayside may be an attractive (if cramped) setting for games; however, if we are ever to make meaningful use of the land to the north of the campus core we can not afford to make further impediments to its future integration.

North Campus Studies Earlier studies looked at accommodating dormitory space while also accommodating the need for improved practice fields or a new major venue altogether. In many campuses these are combined to illustrate the integral nature of athletics with campus life. If we add in parking the problem gets more complicated. One campus that incorporates all of these elements to great success is Carnegie Melon University. Here the Student Center (which includes athletics), Dormitories and a Parking Garage (incorporating grandstands) are all integrated into one cohesive precinct.

Carnegie Mellon University Master Plan

by Michael Dennis & Associates

41

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Preliminary North Campus Alt. (by E. Adams) Comprehensive & Integrated Planning The above study was an early schematic response to preliminary discussions within the Master Planning Committee regarding the North Campus dormitories. While it does not reflect the proposed alterations to the campus circulation, it does illustrate the principles of comprehensive and integrated planning applied to the existing campus infrastructure. A single formal strategy is used to accomplish multiple goals. The buildings frame views, respond to the geometry and language of neighboring structures, guide pedestrian movement, organize athletic fields (or structured parking, gray is grandstands) and define vehicular movement.

Carnegie Mellon University East Campus Dormitories and Garage/Grandstands

by Michael Dennis & Associates

42

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Final Scheme A
Open Space Scheme A respects the openness of the existing landscape by concentrating development and defining important open space corridors. These opens spaces begin at the water's edge and are repeat in layers moving up the hill and into the campus fabric. The diagram to the right emphasizes their relationship to water views; however it is also possible to see them as moving parallel to the slope, starting below Bayside and above Bayside and M&NS into the heart of the Campus. Another layer moves between the Law School and Recreation Center, past SAAHP and the Administration Building to FCAS. Also crucial is the final layer along routes 136 & 114. This "front lawn" to the University has become an important part of its identity and builds on the important precedents established by the Blithewold Estate and Mount Hope Farm. Scheme A takes advantage of the relocation of the Access to the Maher Center to connect the Bayside Field to the North meadow as it rolls down to the water. Improved access to the waters edge is also provided by a series of more intimate paths and spaces carved out of the existing woods (see Precinct Plans). Campus Core The infill strategy illustrated in earlier schemes is continued. In this iteration we explored possible responses to the very important site occupied by the Art Building (the former cafeteria). This building occupies a rock outcropping at a high point for the lower campus with impressive views of the bridge. There is an underutilized

and poorly maintained exterior space between the School of

43

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Business and the Fine Art building. Various strategies were explored for the use of this space and the former cafeteria. The Student Union is split to allow a connection to the water and an amphitheater oriented toward the water. North Campus The use of the proposed Performing Arts Center as a pivot or hinge allows the North Campus dormitories to rotate off to the geometry of Rt. 136. The Performing Arts Center picks up the axis of the existing North entrance as well as acting as a terminus for the new North entrance, which is rotated perpendicular to Rt. 136. The Performing Arts Center thus becomes both pivot and anchor to the North Campus. As stated earlier in our discussion of open space, this is achieved by moving the access road to the Maher Center back, which allows for the North Meadow and its impressive water views to be connected to the Bayside field and the main campus. The dormitories are comprised of two open "L's" which exploit views to the east and southeast (every suite has a water view). Between these two wings is a lower satellite dinning pavilion with other common amenities. This is complimented by a bar of classrooms and offices that conceal a parking structure behind. This could also house additional dormitory rooms if required. The parking structure is a backdrop to a new tennis complex on one side and additional surface parking to the north. Particular attention is paid to the pedestrian connections back to the main campus. Additional space is also provided for ample practice/intramural fields and a softball diamond.

44

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Final Scheme A
Rendered by Talal Mahmeed

45

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Final Scheme B
Campus Core The precinct plans illustrate the details regarding the proposed treatment of the campus core; however the role of the reconfigured student union deserves discussion here. The desire to connect to the water is expressed quite clearly with the building drawing a direct connection from the tower of the Main Library to an amphitheater that looks out to the water. This building also defines spaces to the north and south and allows the space of the main quadrangle to connect with the space in front of M&NS. There is also an important sequence leading from the north parking past the Law school to a newly configured pedestrian mall between the SAAHP and a new Admin/Classroom building. This sequence continues in a stepping fashion past the FCAS to the increasingly important path behind the Student Services building. Main Entrance The proposed Pedestrian Mall also feeds off a reconfigured main entrance. This entrance provides greater access to the Administration building and new access the parking behind it. The drive features a sweeping curve through along the lawn in front of the campus that is mirrors the sweeping drive connecting to the North Campus. This sweep is also picked up in the pedestrian continuation of the North Campus link that connects the proposed amphitheater in front of the M&NS building to the main quadrangle.

46

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

North Campus The inboard housing scheme represented in the earlier scheme B-2 was explored further; however is not included in the final plan (see precinct plans). The use of the current alignment of the Maher Center access road keeps current pattern of the dormitories along the waters edge. These dormitories are arranged in two interrelated pairs of buildings. The first pair makes the transition from the geometry of Bayside and the second frames a relationship to the proposed soccer/lacrosse venue and grandstands/parking garage. The Bayside wing of the first paring could be dropped to allow more of an opening to the north meadow. Both wings of this first pairing could also be dropped in favor of a site for a Performing Arts Center on either side of the road. This first pair of flanking dormitories acts as a gateway to the north campus and the north meadow, framing a spectacular water view and continuing the series of portals framed by the Bayside dormitories. These portals punctuate a stepping pedestrian walk linking to a realigned north entrance. The playing field would require some regarding; however, it would be an impressive setting for an allweather venue and exercise track. The dormitories, which frame the view from the playing field to the meadow beyond, also enjoy oblique water views to the east and southeast past the bayside dormitories. These dormitories also define intimate courtyards and forecourts, providing a variety of social spaces.

47

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Final Scheme B
Rendered by Talal Mahmeed

48

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Precinct Plans
Main Entrance: Timothy Bailey & Christopher Nardi The decision to explore the Main Entrance during the precinct phase reflects the complexity of the problem and the need to address it in more detail. This also allowed various strategies to be tested within the Master Planning Committee and by outside consultants. While I am not convinced that we were able to conduct a conclusive study the strategies we did study marked two extremes. The first strategy does not attempt major changes to the entrance itself, but creates a sense of arrival through the creation of a pedestrian mall in the location of a current parking lot. This works in concert with the idea of a oneway loop circulation to allow the current entrance to remain the "ceremonial" main entrance while allowing most everyday traffic to use the side entrances. The visitor parking area provides a clear connection to the Pedestrian Mall, which acts an important organizing spine. The second, more radical strategy, involves bringing people into the campus earlier, either at a point opposite the President's House or at the current turn around for those approaching from the North. This offered a chance to provide better access to the current Administration Building, but was seen as too intrusive to the front lawn.

One-way Entrance w/ Pedestrian Mall and Proposed Administration Building

Sweeping Approach

49

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Administrative operations would be consolidated into a Ushaped building with a portal connecting the proposed Pedestrian Mall to a terrace overlooking a newly formed quadrangle and the water beyond. We explored using the sloping site to maximize water views and to allow for parking to be incorporated under the building and its raised terrace.

View from Reconfigured Entry

View of Pedestrian Crossing at Proposed Administration Building

View of Pedestrian Mall from Recreation Center

50

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Infill within the Campus Core Meghan Brennen & Richard Krenzer During the 1980's Princeton University explored a unique program of infill within their campus core. Land was available however the intention was to conserve open space and to build upon the density envisioned by early master plans that sought to establish a tight knit academic village along the lines of Oxford or Cambridge. During the 1960's & 70's prominent Architects like I.M. Pei, Phillip Johnson and Hugh Stubbins preferred virgin sites on the edge of the Campus. During the 80's and early 90's this notion was abandoned in favor of a more active engagement with the historic fabric of the campus core. A number of strategies where employed. New structures were inserted to clarify and strengthen the spatial structure of the campus and additions were made to existing buildings. Additions did not to simply mimic the originals but engaged them in a dialogue. Often, new buildings or additions would have to act as intermediaries between Buildings from the 1950's and 60's which shunned their gothically inspired predecessors. In order to investigate the potential for infill within the Campus Core we took two of the original buildings on campus and used different strategies. In adding to the onestory portion of the Engineering School, we simply extended the language of the original building. In a similar addition to the FCAS a dialogue is established to create a more prominent destination to mark this important anchor to the south end of the campus.

Engineering School Addition (addition by replication)

by Meghan Brennen

FCAS Addition (addition through contrast/dialogue)

by Richard Krenzer

51

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

The Water's Edge Daniel J. Braca & DJ Alexander Student Union The position of the current student union is one of the most puzzling aspects of the existing campus. It is a nothing building that is at a loss as to how to respond to its prominent site. In response the proposed replacement takes all of its clues from the site, connecting to the water, defining the space in front of Maple Hall and opening up to the space in front of MNS and the connection to the North Campus. It attempts to guide movement and views rather than block them.

Model View from Water

Site Plan

52

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Waterfront Paths Increasing access to the waters edge should be the focus of a specialized study undertaken by a qualified Landscape Architect. The clearing and maintenance of any area within 200' of a costal feature is regulated by the CRMC. The guidelines are open to interpretation in some areas; however a prudent policy would be to conduct a regular review of the plans for any areas within their jurisdiction. The clearing of nature trails and underbrush to allow for the use of existing open spaces for increased access and views could be achieved and maintained with the cooperation of participating regulatory agencies. The following study is an illustration of the potential for the expansion of access to the waters edge. We believe that this access can be achieved while protecting the sensitive nature of the shoreline. Jogging trails, educational nature walks, picnic / study areas and potential space for a boathouse are but a few possibilities for this beautiful and untapped resource. Waterfront Paths

53

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

54

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Upper Bayside Dormitories Maryellen Anderson & Kyle Harrison The Bayside field remains an attractive location for additional dormitories; however it is also a desirable open space. The question becomes whether to advocate a compact campus with open space at the perimeter or to treat the north campus as a semi-autonomous cluster. In wither case the placement of a major sports venue at the location of the current Bayside fields would be a major impediment to any meaningful connection to this valuable part of the campus. A pedestrian fire lane was developed in place of the current one-way road, to facilitate a pedestrian linkage to the North Campus and avoid vehicular conflicts. North Campus Timothy Brennan & Talal Mahmeed Floor plans were developed for each of the final dormitory layouts. Point access suites proved most suitable since they would allow of maximum access to views and allow the clustering of 4-6 suites. However, corridor access would also be possible especially in Scheme B to exploit views of the playing fields to the west. Placing the Dormitories on the lower elevation

Pedestrian Fire Lane in front of Bayside.

by Kyle Harrison

Dormitories framing view of meadow / water

by Edgar Adams

55

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Conclusion
We have attempted to establish a rational basis for understanding the complex environment that we encounter as we go about our daily routines. We have tried to solve large-scale problems in a way that adds to the cohesion and coherence of our communal fabric. We have tried to illustrate how the individual work of architecture, when guided by a larger idea, need not be an island; but can reinforce existing patterns and open up new vistas and possibilities for future development. This sense of interdependency is tangible in the inner workings of our bodies and in the cooperative nature of so much of what we do as an institution. A good Campus Plan provides the foundation for this to unfold in a tangible fashion that builds on our shared values and aspirations and meets the day-to-day needs of the university community. I would like nothing better than to say that we have reached the illusive heights alluded to above; but it is a complex and involved process. The current Master Plan document was formulated under difficult circumstances; however it has been instrumental in establishing a credible basis for future negotiations. This Campus Planning Report document has the distinct advantage of not being subject to the heat of difficult town / gown negotiations. This is an advantage that we can regain if we are able to formulate a comprehensive and integrated Campus Plan that addresses the legitimate concerns of the various constituencies involved and is strong enough to weather the next round of negotiations intact. We would like to think that this document, in spite of its shortcomings, would be an important part of that process as it unfolds.

Final Review of student work

56

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Appendix A: Aerial Photographs

Fig. 1 Ferrycliff Farm (preRoger Williams University)

57

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 2 Original Campus (1970's)

58

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 4 View from North (late 1980's / Pre-Library)

Fig. 3 View from South (Late 1980's / Pre-Library)

59

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 5 View from NE (1990's / Post Law School, Pre - M&NS)

Fig. 6 View from East (1990's / Pre - M&NS)

60

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Fig. 7 View showing addition Bayside Dormitories and M&NS

61

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Appendix B: Previous Plans

Plan for the 90's Phase II 62

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Plan by Caesar Pelli's Office 1994

63

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Ganteaume & McMullen: Conceptual Master Plan (Sept. 2000)

64

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Bibliography
Books
Casebook on Campus Planning and Institutional Development : Ten Institutions, ow They Did It. Compiled by John B. Rork, Leslie F. Robbins. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. GPO, 1962. Dober, Richard P. Campus Architecture: Building in the Groves of Academe. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996. Dober, Richard P. Campus Design. New York: Wiley, 1992. Dober Richard P. Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms Features. New York: Wiley. Gaines, Thomas A. The Campus as a Work of Art. New York: Praeger, 1991. Koetter, Kim & Assoc. place/time. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1997 Muthesius, Stefan. The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Pearce, Martin. University Builders. New York: Wiley. Riera Ojeda, Oscar. Campus & Community: Moore, Rudle & Yudell Architecture and Planning. Rockport MA. Rockport Publishers, 1997. Schmertz, Mildred F. Campus Planning and Design. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972. Strange, C. C., J. Banning. Educating by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments the Work. (Bryant, JWU) Space Planning Guidelines for Institutions of Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Council of Educational Facilities Planners, International, 1985. (URI) Town of Bristol, Rhode Island. Bristol Rhode Island Zoning Ordinance. Bristol, RI: Bristol Town Council, 1994. Revisions through September 2001. Turner, Paul Venable. Campus: An American Planning Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985.

65

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

Periodical Articles
Arcidi, Philip. "Inquiry: Campus Infill", Progressive Architecture, (April 1990): 100-107 Branch, Mark Alden. "Coherence Regained", Progressive Architecture, (October 1991): 90-95. Chapman, Perry. Planning The Future Campus: Opinion, Architecture, v. 84, no. 2 (Feb. 1995): 53-57. Dennis, Michael; "On Campus Planning", Modulus 23, (1995): 109-127 Markowitz, Frank and Alex Estrella. Campus Moves: Lively Experiments In Transportation Technology, Planning, v. 68, no. 4 (July 1998):14-18. OConnell, Kim. Campus Lessons, Landscape Architecture, v. 89, no. 7 (July 1999): 32-38. Stephens, Suzanne. The American Campus, Architectural Record, v. 189, n.2 (Feb. 2000): 77-79.

Web Articles
Blumenstky, Goldie. "A Campus Planner who Strives to Overcome the "Curse of Asphalt"; http://www.scup.org/chron.htm Dennis, Michael. "On Campus Design and Planning"; http://www.michaeldennis.com/pages/3rd%20level/text/campus%20design.html Morris, Jeff. "Campus Planning: Pulling it Together"; http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=112 Rivard, Nicole. "No Parking?"; http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=98

Misc. Links
National Center for Education Statistics; http://nces.ed.gov/ Society of College and University Planning; http://www.scup.org/

66