Tag Archives: Campus

Post-Pandemic Campus

Posted on by

It seems realistic to anticipate the safe return of campus life sometime in the 21-22 academic year, but the post-pandemic campus will not be the way things were in March 2020.  What will the post-pandemic campus need to become?  How will it differ from the thousand-year tradition of place-based higher education?

Colleges and universities have been changed by the pandemic.  They are now always digital and occasionally physical.  Teaching, studying and working remotely will continue to be available and an option preferred by many.  Time on campus will continue to be both more transient and more valuable. Continue reading →

Campus:  Reboot and Redesign

Posted on by

RebootImagine reoccupying a physical campus.  It will be like trying to reboot the command module of Apollo 13, and you are Ken Mattingly (played by Gary Sinise in the movie).  You are in the command module simulator on the ground.  You have to decide what to turn on and in what sequence, without crashing the computer.

Everywhere teams of “Ken Mattinglys” are working on plans to reboot their campuses.  Many have come to realize the campuses they have may not be the ones they need.  All original design assumptions have been changed.  They are now working with a new design program suited for the both/and world of physical and digital presence.  This post is written for these teams.

Mattingly had a manual.  He knew the amps drawn by each system and he was working on a single spacecraft.  He knew how many astronauts he had to consider.  You don’t have a manual.  You don’t know how large the crew will be nor a time for splashdown.  Academic administrators are considering a wide range of scenarios and postponing decisions as long as possible.  Meanwhile, the expected number of on campus undergraduates is eroding.  The uncertainties of timing and target make your challenge almost impossible.

Scenarios

The work of Edward J. Maloney and Joshua Kim lays out 15 scenarios focused on teaching and learning.  UC Davis and others have published draft plans for ramping up on-campus research. Purdue, Brown and many others are preparing to return to normal, albeit with enhanced health monitoring and infectious disease response programs.  Even the most optimistic scenarios of “Back to Normal-Fall 2020” assume smaller incoming classes and fewer existing students returning.  The only exceptions are those already in online programs.  Most of the planning concepts start with assumptions that there will be fewer students on campus and more online programing than pre-pandemic levels.

An insightful whitepaper by Eliot Felix and his colleagues at Brightspot is a good starting point for everyone thinking about the post-COVID peak campus.  There are links to relevant articles by other higher education experts and data on trends.  Accelerating trends include the convergence of online and on-campus education.  Decelerating trends include travel, particularly international.  The piece concludes with recommendations including assessing how facilities are used and rethinking operations and staffing.

Reboot

What do you turn on first?  What do you leave turned off?  These questions are valid if the start date is August 2020 or January 2021.  Think of this as a much needed change in trajectory, an opportunity to redesign campuses for the realities of 21st century, rather than the traditions of the 20th century.

I made 6 recommendations for the future of campuses in 2013, as I assessed the logical consequences of increased use of online learning.

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

All are still valid.  Managing space and time and rethinking capacity has been important for a long time.  Now it is urgent.  It is the first step for the teams of “Ken Mattinglys.”

Manage space and time; re-think capacity

The need for social distancing requires a different set of metrics and different models of space management.  The economics of the institution may be based on maximizing the number of on-campus students.  Over at least the next academic year, the potential capacity of campus will be reduced.  Residence hall potential capacity will be more than 50% less than pre-pandemic levels.  Classroom and lab capacity will be lower still.

If enrollments are low enough, space will not be a constraint.  If enrollments are high enough the changed metrics will create constraints.  The answer lies in adding time to the equation.  Expanding the classroom hours per week will increase potential capacity.  Hybrid courses will offer the most significant opportunities.  They combine online and on-campus synchronous sessions with asynchronous content.  Any version will challenge pre-pandemic norms and ingrained management practices.

Make campus matter

With so much of higher education available in digital and largely asynchronous forms, the justification for a campus must derive from something more than “we have always done it this way.” As the pandemic spread, instructors and administrators were forced to consider the pedagogical requirement of face-to-face classes.  Many scrambled for digital alternatives, previously dismissed as substandard.

Some faculty members have found the advantages of teaching parts of their courses online.  Other faculty members will not return to face-to-face teaching until vaccine protection is available.  All have learned to teach with more intention.  Many of their courses will not return to campus this academic year, and none will return unchanged.

Even at the most traditional institutions “on-campus time per degree” was already declining.  The pandemic has dramatically accelerated this trend.  This change in convention makes the support of increasingly limited face-to-face time a strategic value, rather than an assumed byproduct of traditional campus life.

Sharing time and place

There must be something significantly better about “live performance” and it needs to be more than “sense of place.” I believe it is a function of sharing time and place.  Whether in the form of agenda driven or serendipitous conversation, “live” interactions among students and instructors have a bandwidth that exceeds current digital alternatives. This is a luxury, no longer to be taken for granted. To justify the expense of a campus, this luxury must be exploited to improve the value of the outcome, not simply to increase the price of admission.

The specifics of rethinking the campus will be unique for every institution, and none of it will be easy.  Over time some campuses may see demand return for its residential college experience. For many others, the prospects are not rosy. Regardless of the setting, after all the layers of tradition and place are stripped away there is one irreducible condition – the campus is where students and scholars share time and place when ideas are at stake. Without this condition, the institutions would not have existed in the first place. Without this condition, there is no need for the physical campus.

I began this post in late March as the magnitude of the threat to place-based higher education began to emerge.  Since then I have had conversations with more than two dozen higher education colleagues across the country.  Each added to my understanding of the challenges.  I am grateful to all.

Campus in the Moment

Posted on by

In the shade of a tree

Life in pre-cyborg places was a very different experience.  You really had to be there.

         City of Bits, William J. Mitchell, 1996

Time and place have drifted apart.  Campuses were built for a pre-digital age long before we could extend our reach and grasp by digital means.

The connection of education to place has become fluid.  Alexandra den Heijer says it is like “managing a matter of solid, liquid and gas.”  Campuses are just beginning to recognize this new reality.

Continue reading →

Campus as Palimpsest

Posted on by

Scraping and Rewriting

What Time is this Place?    Kevin Lynch, 1973

Campuses are palimpsests, manuscripts from which previous writing has been scraped to make way for newer writing.   They are physical palimpsests – places from which many prior buildings and landscapes have been removed to make way for subsequent waves of priorities, technologies and design thinking.

Campuses are unfinished stories with pieces written at different times in different languages.  Some have grand chapels, remnants of a time when the language of religion was central to the life of the place.  Most have libraries in prominent locations speaking in the language of collected secular wisdom.  Later, campuses added layers speaking to science and still later recreation centers and athletic stadiums that would erase previous gymnasiums and sports fields.  At the same time students migrated from rooming houses to residence halls.  Through it all, each campus gained a unique founding mythology and visual history of a particular spot on the earth.

Divergent narratives

Campuses, when seen by different writers, produce diverging narratives. Christopher Alexander considered campuses to be organic, growing as new or different needs emerged. Paul Turner saw successive waves of architectural style written in brick, stone and steel. Perry Chapman saw a more experiential nature of campuses as sites of maturity and personal pilgrimage.

Generations of higher education leaders have used campuses as a way of speaking about the importance of their enterprise.  Politicians see campuses as a means of economic development and physical demonstration benefiting constituents.  Facilities managers see them as machines of building space to be maintained and optimized.  Alums fixate on a gauzy memory at the mention of places frozen in another time.

More than appearance

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, our understanding of campuses is formed by more than physical appearance.  After all, colleges and universities are cultural institutions.  Their campuses are expressions of multigenerational effort, rather than transient commercial enterprises.  They may seem to be static and immovable yet they are evolving all the time.  Sometimes evolution is signaled by bulldozers and cranes.  More often it is at a granular level, room by room, floor by floor, as existing buildings are made more consistent with present expectations.  Stewart Brand spoke of this type of constant evolution and improvement in How Buildings Learn.

Old Main and the Power Plant

Campuses are the result of many actions and many actors.  These are places created year by year, decision by decision.  Prior decisions restrict future decisions.  Let’s use two examples – Old Main and the Power Plant.

Many campuses have some form of “Old Main.” Richard Dober provided a loving account of these earliest vestiges of American campuses.  The location of Old Main was usually the first important decision.  The site was chosen for cultural reasons that were salient at the time.  Often these concerned some form of prominence such as the highest point of ground, relationship to other cultural artifacts, and/or ability to frame a campus green.  That first building was seldom demolished.  It became the first stake in the ground around which all else revolved.

The site of the first “Power Plant” was the second important decision shaping and restricting later decisions. The location of the first coal-fired steam boilers often determined future building sites.  As campuses grew, it made sense to extend the existing system of underground tunnels, pipes and power lines to serve new buildings.  New buildings were sited where they could be served through the extension of the first distribution systems.  After a few waves of expansion, the power plant site was no longer peripheral.  It became part of the core of campus.

Palimpsest

Over generations, the earth is scraped and re-scraped.  Streams are turned into storm sewers.  Obsolete buildings are repurposed or demolished.  Roads and parking lots are laid down and later reconfigured.  When the capacity of existing systems is exhausted, additions or wholesale redevelopment is required.

Through it all, the palimpsest of the campus sees multiple scrapings and rewriting.  The digital transformation of higher education is the most recent wave leading to scraping and rewriting.

Campus as Palimpsest is adapted from an unpublished manuscript  Campus Matters:  Place in a Digital World

 Michael Haggans, 2020

Do Campuses Have a Future?

Posted on by


“The campus reveals the power that a physical place can possess as the             embodiment of an institution’s character.”                                                                                           Campus: An American Planning Tradition      Paul Venable Turner, 1984

Campuses adapted to a digital world will have a future.  It is likely that others along with their institutions will wither into irrelevance.

When I began my work on this topic about ten years ago, it wasn’t clear that any campuses had much of a future.  Analogies to the growing demise of newspapers and shopping malls were widespread.  Digital transformation was underway.  Online courses were growing in quantity, quality and popularity.  Competition from digital alternatives was growing.  Seeing these conditions as existential threats seemed to be reasonable and not overly dramatic.

Some observers were confident that more than a third of existing higher education institutions would close.  Others believed that changes wrought by digital transformation were just another twist in a long history. After all, colleges and universities had gone through multiple periods of change and transformation since their emergence almost 1000 years ago. Each time, institutions adapted and some survived.

It’s a wrap

As I bring my work to a close, it is good to note the errors I have made.  The first was failing to distinguish the implications of financial and demographic pressures from those resulting from technological evolution.  The second error has proven more problematic:  failing to distinguish campus from institution.

Digital Transformation in a Thicket

Through conversation with many faculty and administration members, I came to realize the operational complexity of colleges and universities.  I saw more of the moving parts and I began to appreciate the changing financial and demographic environments in which they operated.  Technology was only one of many forces threatening traditional higher education and changing its campuses.

The challenge became to identify consequences of digital transformation that were hidden in a thicket of issues influencing higher education and its campuses.  While technology has caused, allowed and/or created changes in higher education, I came to understand that these changes were difficult to separate from the bigger waves of demographics and financial patterns.

This realization more than anything explains how a single question led to a decade of work.  I read from a flow of books, research papers, articles, blogs and revisited the history of higher education.  I worked with my students on understanding the planning and design of campuses.  Most important were conversation with faculty, administrators and consultants working in and with colleges and universities.  All helped me to see and understand what was evolving on the ground, within the moving parts.

What was happening?

Pedagogy was changing as faculty members experimented with the potential of online resources.  Coffee was coming into libraries.  At the same time, librarians found the need for more people space and less onsite book storage.  Expectations for study and group workspace was increasing across campuses.  As online resources improved, students and faculty spent less time in classrooms.  Most importantly institutions were less bound to their physical place, the campus.  Several were becoming national and global without any increase in physical footprint.  There’s a lot to unpack there.  I will devote several upcoming posts to do that unpacking.

Campus and Institution are not synonymous

My second error has proven more problematic:  failing to distinguish campus from institution.  The campus, the physical place, is not the institution any more than a religious building is a religion.  In both cases the place/building is a physical expression of the institution/religion.  In early writings I fell into the common practice of making campus and college or university synonymous.  Lately I have become rigorous in using the term campuses only when speaking of physical places in much the same way we distinguish a snail shell from a snail.

To wrap up my work on the future of the physical campus, I am continuing conversations with valued colleagues. I am updating my campusmatters.net blog posts.  Finally, I will be identifying patterns of adaptation and describing the types of campuses taking shape in response to the digital transformation of higher education.

Do Campuses Have a Future?   is adapted from an unpublished manuscript         Campus Matters: Place in a Digital World              Michael Haggans, 2020

Campus Futures – Two Insightful Voices

Posted on by

Academia Next scans beyond the horizon to lay out possible futures for higher education.  Campus of the Future recognizes the evolving physical state of campuses. Both books will be available in early 2020.  Filled with insights into the future of campuses, each is the result of years of study.

Academia Next by Bryan Alexander considers the morphing of higher education with particular attention to technology and the near-term consequences of demographic and economic trends.  Before making the daring move of imagining higher education beyond 2035, he lays out seven scenarios for the near-term.

Scenarios

Alexander draws these scenarios from current trends and his work with scores of colleges and universities.  All these institutions are dealing with the consequences of the last 20 years of transformation in higher education.  All are facing existential crises for the next 20 years and beyond.  Alexander offers no glib answers.  As he sees it, “much of American higher education now faces a stark choice:  commit to experimental adaptation and institutional transformation often at serious human and financial costs, or a painful decline into an unwelcoming century.”

“Peak Higher Education” is baked in current demographic and economic trends, plausible and not particularly hopeful, with American higher education in decline.  More hopeful trajectories are found in “Health Care Nation,” “Open Education Triumphant” and “Renaissance”.  These three rely on a public consensus that higher education is a public value rather than a private good.  “Retro Campus” posits institutions that intentionally reject technology in order to find better ways of teaching and learning.

As a former university architect, I am most intrigued by “Siri, Tutor Me” and “Augmented Campus.”  The first imagines the benefits of artificial intelligence combined with advances in learning analytics.  In this scenario traditional face to face instruction would be valued to the extent that it “either differs from software or reproduces the “tutorware’s best features.”    Many will find this a scary prospect, but continued improvements in tutoring software and learning analytics are on the way.  Many students may find them most attractive, particularly when compared to current alternatives.

From my study of the digital transformation of higher education and what it means for traditional campuses, I find Alexander’s “Augmented Campus” most compelling.  In this scenario, institutions dive more deeply into digital means and methods.  The distinction between on-campus and off-campus, classroom instruction and on-line learning are blurred to a vanishing point.  At the same time, the physical matter of campuses must be adapted to this new reality.  In the Netherlands, Alexandra den Heijer has found just the right metaphor to help understand the augmented campuses that are already taking shape.

Campus of the Future

Campus of the Future by Alexandra den Heijer has an exquisite sub-title:  managing a matter of solid, liquid and gas. In those few words, she has captured the physical consequences of higher education’s existence in the 21st century. She comes at this from the vantage point of the Delft University of Technology.  TUDelft has become a global institution with more than 2.5 million students world-wide, including 25,000 attending on-campus.  It is well on a path of experimental adaptation and institutional transformation.

Her recent inaugural address (here) as Professor of Architecture and the Built Environment, den Heijer summarizes her theory and practice of shaping the future of her institution and others in Europe.  Campus of the Future frames the existence of the institution in three states of matter:  solid, liquid and gas:  campus (exclusive and territorial), network(interactive and shared), and virtual (place independent and personal).  All three states are part of the planning and design problem facing TUDelft and other 21st century universities.

This is the seventh book in a series addressing the issues of the 21st century campus.  A single data point shows the power of this work.  In the last 25 years, the traditional student body of TUDelft has increased by 113% while the net building area has increased by only 2.5%.  This is an astonishing result accomplished by 1) modernizing heritage buildings, 2) demolishing obsolete structures, 3) adding net new space sparingly, and 4) efficient management of space and time of use.

These strategies are grounded in the belief that better is better, not bigger is better.  American campus planners and facility managers have much to learn from the work of der Heijer and her team.  Among other things, they have developed Smart Tools utilizing a wide range of data-driven efficiency metrics for the management of space and time. These tools have informed the creation of 21st century-appropriate student and faculty centered environments.  At the same time the carbon footprint of the institution has been reduced.

Voices worth hearing

Both Academia Next and Campus of the Future will inspire fresh ways of thinking about the future of higher education; at once familiar and strange, different than we might have imagined.

The approaches and perspectives of Alexander and den Heijer could not be more different, geographically or professionally.  One is based in the wonkiness of futurism and the other is grounded in the stone and steel of place.  They both understand the forces changing higher education and point to the campuses that will result.  Their voices are worth hearing.

Dissolving Campus Edge

Posted on by

Campuses traditionally had physical edges.  Boundaries marked by walls, gates and signs defined ownership and identity.  While these markers remain, many institutions have made their boundaries less distinct. Students and faculty move seamlessly back and forth from physical to digital, from the campus to its digital doppelgänger.

Projects across the country point to hybridization – a morphing of building types and fluid patterns of use.  These are not just nearby storefront classrooms or branch campuses; nor are they whole new campus projects 10 time zones away. These are different.  Retail enterprises dealt with this phenomenon as their brick and mortar stores encountered Amazon and its ilk.  The buzzword of choice was phygital.

Innovative programmer/planner of campus environments, Elliot Felix has used the term phygital to describe his firm’s academic library projects.  The Hunt Library at North Carolina State is an early example.  The library and its resources are first digital and then physical, reversing the conventional understanding.  Libraries organized around this inversion, are better suited to meet the needs of faculty members and students living in the flow of digital/physical life and learning. Continue reading →

Remaking the OR’s of Higher Ed: LSC and FLEXspace

Posted on by

Learning spaces are strategic assets of higher education, just as operating rooms are for
healthcare. These rooms support events that are synchronous and personal; where teaching and learning is face to face; individually and in small groups.  These are the spaces where memory is tethered to place.  Campus does matter when this happens.  Otherwise why be there?  Why not be online?

The Learning Spaces Collaboratory and FLEXspace both do heavy lifting in the difficult work of improving learning spaces.  These two organizations are helping to make change room-by-room, building-by-building, campus-by-campus.

Most existing classrooms are pedagogies in steel and concrete, formed in the pre-digital age of tablet-arm chairs.  Some have been clumsily re-fitted with splashy HD screens, but few are designed for the physical/digital, both/and world of active learning and flipped classes.

The Collaboratory focuses on tools and participatory processes for campuses to create effective learning environments.  LSC is hosting its first virtual roundtable on November 3, 2018. Faculty and designers from across the country will share their experience in interactive sessions with folks just beginning the process.

While LSC works in the planning and design phases, FLEXspace documents learning spaces, makerspaces, libraries and the places in between.  They have just added mobile-friendly diagnostic tools for existing spaces.  An accessible inventory of innovative spaces includes thousands of examples in more than 50 countries.  You can search by a host of variables to find comparable settings and comparable projects.  Here is a link to the leaders of FLEXspace on Bryan Alexander’s Future Trends Forum.

LSC has been a consistent catalyst for all to think of learning spaces as strategic assets rather than capital costs to be managed.  Jeanne Narum and her team have empowered teachers and administrators to act as if effective learning spaces are essential to the core mission, rather than the latest fad in edu.talk

Improving learning spaces, the operating rooms of higher education, will be part of the strategic vision of campuses that survive and thrive in a competitive digital world.  FLEXspace and the Learning Spaces Collaboratory have seen it this way for a long time.

Online Education Impacts Campuses – 2017

Posted on by

Equivalent of 500,000 undergrads are only online

Is traditional undergraduate campus building space being made less necessary by online education? Yes.

The growth of online education is depressing the need for the brick and mortar of campuses just like online sales are reducing the need for retail space. In fall 2015 the scale of the undergraduate impact was      12 Arizona States or          52 Harvards.

 

So far more than 23 million square feet of traditional campus space has been obviated by online education. This space is existing and unbuilt.

  • Existing – excess space that is no longer needed; and
  • Unbuilt – space that need not be built.

Continue reading →

Classrooms and ORs

Posted on by

student-centeredOperating rooms are to hospitals as classrooms are to colleges and universities – mission critical.

They are tiny parts of an institution’s footprint yet essential to the mission. Hospital administrators pay attention to ORs. Provosts rarely give classrooms a second thought. In the digital transformation of higher education effective learning environments are becoming more critical, not less. Inattention to classrooms and learning spaces can be an Achilles heel.

Patient-Centered Operating rooms are part of a much larger patient-centered environment that includes beds and outpatient clinics. A hospital without an operating room is not much of a hospital. Though ORs and surgical support areas make up less than 7% of a hospital’s usable floor area, these small components and the procedures they support are the essence of the hospital. They are among the most carefully built spaces, with extraordinary care taken for every aspect of the physical environment, from air quality to floor vibration.

Not Student-Centered Universities are not student-centered in the way that hospitals are patient-centered. ORs are not located for the convenience of surgeons, however classrooms are located for the convenience of faculty. ORs are part of an integrated patient care environment. Classrooms are balkanized by department, school, and university with different rules pertaining to each.

Classrooms and teaching laboratories are a small part of a university footprint, often less than 7%. These spaces and the experience they support are as essential to the university as ORs are to the hospital. ORs are never an afterthought, classrooms often are. ORs are understood to be strategic assets, classrooms are rarely considered at all, except to be sure that there are enough chairs to satisfy the “butts-in-seats” pro forma.

Examples While ORs have changed dramatically in the last century, classrooms are just beginning to get the care they deserve. A wide spectrum of active learning spaces have resulted from this attention. FLEXspace and the Learning Spaces Collaboratory have growing inventories of examples.

Active learning spaces have more floor area per student than traditional classrooms, and the floors are flat. The combination of floor area and flatness serves the needs of evolving pedagogies. Flexibility for movement and engagement allows reconfiguration for discussion and project work – and writing surfaces are everywhere. At the high-tech end of the spectrum, the rooms have the fastest possible network speed. At the low-tech end, these rooms resemble traditional seminar rooms without a massive central table.

Investing in Obsolescence The rate of improving classrooms is slow, requiring a couple of decades on most campuses. Digital transformation of higher education is accelerating, making time in traditional classrooms evermore important. Still, it is possible to find universities reinvesting scarce capital funding in obsolete teaching spaces. I won’t name the institutions, but it is happening all across the nation. The explanation usually has several sources:

  • senior faculty members who do not wish to change teaching methods
  • lag times of more than a decade between documented need and occupancy
  • ineffectual influence from knowledgeable facilities staff, and
  • indifferent institutional leadership.

All of these factors contribute to the slow change in classrooms, but none more than indifferent institutional leadership. If presidents and provosts saw the classrooms as key to a student centered environment – as a mission critical asset – they would act differently and more urgently. That is what hospital administrators do when they see problems with their ORs.

It takes decades to make significant physical change to a campus-wide array of classrooms – creating more effective and supportive learning environments. Even though poor learning environments are not life threatening, starting the process is urgent. In an increasingly competitive and digital world, physical transformation of learning environments is critical to the education mission.