Category Archives: Campus Planning and Design

Classrooms: Bigger, Flatter, Faster and Fewer

Posted on by

Even in the digitally driven future of higher education, three-dimensional classroom spaces will be needed.  They won’t be used in the traditional manner and they won’t be the traditional kind.  They will be bigger, flatter, faster and there will be fewer classrooms for the same number of students.

Lectures will continue, but already they occupy less class time.  Pedagogy is changing in and outside of the classroom.  In the classroom, change is not disabling the lecture; it is enabling discussion, teamwork and practical applications. Whether fast or slow, the rate of change is limited by each institution’s culture.  Differences in institutional culture will become evident in the structure of classrooms and what happens there. Continue reading →

Guest Commentary by Duke Oakley

Posted on by

The long term survivability of traditional higher education is in doubt.  MOOC’s, SPOC’s and digital disruption are ideas prominently in play.  Yet the value of physical campus, however difficult to define, endures.  Duke Oakley, former UCLA Campus Architect and Assistant Vice Chancellor for Design and Construction, has written an extensive Guest Commentary on the continued relevance of the college campus. [link]

Charles Warner Oakley is a graduate of Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania.  From 1986 to 2000, he was Campus Architect and Assistant Vice Chancellor for Design and Construction at the University of California – Los Angeles.  During his tenure, he guided the planning of the campus and the design of more than 4.5 million square feet of new building area and renovation of more than 3 million square feet.

“Duke” as his friends and colleagues know him, is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and an emeritus member of the Association of University Architects. 

The Full Bundle

Posted on by

Student circle.umn.2013In the regulated monopolies of cable television, the consumer has little choice and gets the full bundle.  In the emerging landscape of higher education, the consumer has many choices.  From the piece-by-piece approach of DIY-U, to traditional institutions adding MOOC’s to hybrid models such as Minerva, conventional business models that depend on old-fashioned bundling are under threat.

Buying college used to be like buying cable – to get the degree you wanted, you had to buy courses, schedules and features you didn’t want.  Higher education bundling requires additional payments without direct personal benefit, just like paying for 500 TV channels when all you want are local stations, ESPN and Comedy Central.  Cable is still bundled, but the unbundling of higher education is gaining momentum.

Objective measurement of the costs and benefits of higher education will drive part of the unbundling process.  The rapidly evolving array of on-line options is enabling unbundling and fostering further pedagogical innovation and experimentation.  Employers are looking for talent beyond degrees, and accrediting organizations are not keeping up.  Many of the current full bundles will look like bad investments of time and money. Continue reading →

Campus Forever?

Posted on by

Northrup reversedIt is hard to find anyone who thinks his or her own undergraduate campus will cease to be.  It is as if these places will go on forever.

At a recent SCUP conference I asked attendees to tell me why their campus would or would not exist in 2040.  One said their campus would morph into a “multi-purpose innovation / business / research park”.  All the rest said their campus would survive – at least until 2040.

The reasons fell into four categories:  too big to fail, enough demand, adaptable enough and unique mission.  Can this be right?

To survive, campuses must be more than a collection of familiar physical artifacts and stage sets for live action reality shows. Continue reading →

Legacy and a Blank Slate

Posted on by

Blank SlateProvosts and presidents are asking how much campus they actually need.  Campus planners are caught between decisions of building or not building.  As each contemplates changes to the trajectory of their institution, they will be well served to have the courage to consider both a blank slate and “Old Main.”  Making campus matter in the 21st century requires two contradictory ideas:  respecting legacy and starting fresh.  Until recently much was tacitly assumed to be fundamental to the idea of campus:

  • Physical class time was required.
  • Serendipitous encounters occurred face to face.
  • The value of an institution was tied to a specific geography.
  • Books were on paper.
  • An undergraduate degree required eight semesters.
  • Research required specialized locations; and
  • Interactions among students and faculty were synchronous.

These assumptions are becoming either obsolete or optional.  The choices vary among institutions and are a function of evolving business models. Continue reading →

To Build, or Not to Build

Posted on by

UMN.vert.cropUniversity presidents and provosts are always faced with the choice of staying the course or modifying the trajectory of their institutions.  Due to failing business models, rapidly evolving digital competition and declining public support, the stakes are rising.  Some are asking how they should think about the campus built for the 21st century.

My first draft of recommendations:

  • Build no net additional square feet
  • Upgrade the best; get rid of the rest
  • Manage space and time
  • Measure productivity
  • Right-size the whole
  • Rethink
 capacity
  • Take sustainable action
  • Make campus matter

Continue reading →

Real or Synthetic?

Posted on by

Haggans in PDU 130226Two recent events have brought the paradox of the 21st century campus into sharp focus for me.  First, I taught one of my courses remotely via Google Hangout.  Second, a seminar class allowed students to have an in-class conversation with a veteran Minnesota campus planner and later to engage in a discussion of Mission and Place by Kenney, Dumont and Kenney.

In the first case, technology is pulling us away from the traditional model.  In the second case, the values of the traditional model pull us back to the chairs and tables of three-dimensional space.  Technology is allowing us to reinvent many aspects of what has traditionally been the exclusive domain of higher education as they are pulled into a synthetic digital domain.  As this happens many educators are seeking and often struggling to retain the unique values of the real face-to-face experience.
Continue reading →

The Paradox of the 21st Century Campus

Posted on by

UT stepsMany worry that traditional higher education is over valued yet also believe that there is something of lasting worth in the shared experiences of campus life.   This is the paradox of the 21st century campus:  feeling the need for “campus” while technological and pedagogical realities are moving higher education away from the campus. Continue reading →

Campus: More than a Dreamscape

Posted on by

Dreamscape.UTThe popular conversation about the digital transformation of higher education takes two common forms.  Some decry the dehumanizing effects of digital formats, and others embrace the changes seeing no risks, only rewards.

Almost every week there is word of a new digital partnership, educational startup or innovative mash-up in higher education.  These initiatives range from invalidating the previously sacrosanct concept of the college degree to global expansion of access, all the while accelerating the shift of ever more educational activity to a virtual world. Continue reading →

Campus Sustainability: Compromised by Space and Metrics

Posted on by

Every college and university claims to be striving to be sustainable.  Two significant obstacles stand in the way:  too much space and ineffective management practices.

The most sustainable building is the one that is never built.  Unfortunately, most institutions continue to build space they don’t need and can’t afford.  Even if these buildings are at the cutting edge of sustainable design, institutions are increasing their carbon footprint problem.  Having more bricks than necessary is expensive, regardless of how good those bricks are.

Everyone wants more space, but only occasionally is that appropriate and sustainable.  Two articles in the SCUP journal Planning for Higher Education provide insight into these dynamics.  Space and Power in the Ivory Tower, by Sandra Blanchette, identifies the challenges in achieving effective space management in the political milieu of the university.  New Metrics for the New Normal, by Gregory Janks, Mel Lockhart and Alan Travis, identifies the limitations of current space allocation guidelines.  Together they describe an environment with inadequate tools and ineffective decision-making. Continue reading →