|
Subheadings within this section:
Evaluation of the 1973 Plan
The 1973 plan led to the successful consolidation of academic activities along the ridge upon which
the university sits. Undergraduate classes were centralized in facilities like Fraser and Wescoe halls.
The plan also succeeded in designating building sites on the core campus, and those sites have, for
the most part, been developed; it envisioned developing more research facilities on west campus.
Indeed, it is our successes that force on us the need, now, to re-evaluate the visions of 1973 from a
new base of facts and assumptions.
Since the formulation of the 1973 plan, academic activities on the hill have expanded, east to west--but that expansion cannot go further. Only so much distance can be covered in the brief time between classes. The limiting factor on expansion north or south is the willingness and ability of
| It is our successes that force on us the need, now, to re-evaluate the visions of 1973 from a new base of facts and assumptions. |
people to walk further, from either direction, up a fairly steep grade. Overall, adding more area to the
campus has made for a more difficult day; the geographic expansion has increased the typical commitment of time necessary to come and go from here, study here, and conduct business here.
The plan's strategy of designating and developing sites within the core campus arose when KU was a
community of 18,000 students and a place
that could still accommodate growth within
a fairly compact core campus. If the strategy
of adding built space to the core campus
were to continue, we would significantly
alter the campus environment and disrupt
what we have grown used to.
In the course of the current evaluation, we discovered some desirable aspects of the 1973 plan that
have not yet been implemented. For example, that plan envisioned an expansion of graduate student
and faculty research activities to west campus, yet those activities remain sited, by and large, on the
main campus. A necessary component of that plan, a transportation infrastructure for moving people
between the campuses, is not yet in place. As history demonstrates, planning strategies must consider
and respond to the interrelationship among issues of land use, access, and image.
Future Scenarios
The following discussion of the three scenarios explores the effects each would have on land use, on
parking and transit needs, and on image and environment. Evaluation of each scenario needs to
include consideration of the following.
- How and whether the scenario preserves the principles of adjacency and affinity--the siting of like
activities (from a universe of activities that includes teaching, research, support services, parking,
housing, and athletics, for example) within proximity of each other
- How the scenario would affect the mix of transportation modes to and across campus
- How the scenario would affect people's perceptions, derived from experience, of the campus
image and environment
- How the scenario would affect property acquisition policy and planning.
What follows are three development scenarios that take into account issues of land use, access, and
campus image and environment.
The Basic Elements of Campus Development Scenarios | The first scenario projects a main campus that retains its current
boundaries and is more densely built and populated;
during the class day, it is committed solely to
pedestrian use.
The second projects a geographic expansion of the
main campus so that its ratio of built to open space
is much like today's. In this scenario, the core
campus, which continues to be focused on the
academic mission, is enlarged yet remains in one
piece.
The third scenario projects an expansion of academic activities on parcels of land that are not
contiguous with the main campus.
The graphics in the following figures depict schematic land use models for the central campus, not
specific areas of development. In addition the
scenarios illustrate the interconnection of land use,
access. and image. It is that interconnection which
must be respected as the university shapes and
reshapes the campus. It is what creates a workable, physical environment unique to the institution.
Scenario One:
Increased density within the core campus/No significant increase in area
Figure I: Scenario One: Increased density in the core campus |
Major features of this scenario are as
follows.
- The removal of nearly all parking
from the core campus
- The replacement of low-rise
buildings by multistory facilities and
replacement of small footprint
facilities with larger, higher density
development
- An increase in value of, and increased competition for, every
buildable site
- Less open and green space and
more paved plazas providing a more
urban quality of space
- Durable, well-maintained plantings
need to replace areas of lawns which can be worn out from the higher densities of activities.
Scenario Two
Increased area of the academic core/comparable density
Figure M: Scenario Two: Contiguous expansion of the core campus |
Major features of this scenario are as
follows.
Preservation of historically significant
smaller footprint buildings like Bailey,
Stauffer/Flint, and Lippincott halls
A ratio of built to open space comparable to today's
Possible relocation of some programs
less central to the academic day to
facilities at the periphery of the core
campus or to west campus
Acquisition of property adjacent to
campus becomes a priority.
Scenario Three
Central campus/west campus development
Figure N: Scenario Three: Decentralized Development |
Major features of this scenario are as
follows.
The need for a coordinated transit
system to connect areas of campus
development.
Dedication of the central campus to
undergraduate classes or lengthened
periods between class sessions to permit
time for students to move between the
campuses
Back to Top
Scenarios as a Tool to Guide
Future Decisions
A commitment at this point to one of
these scenarios is less important than a
realization that the absence of guiding principles and of conscious decision-making can lead to
undesired consequences. Consider, for example, the interlocking consequences that would propagate
from a decision to close Jayhawk Boulevard.
Such an option, along with a decision to convert the former boulevard site to a pedestrian mall, was
raised in the 1973 plan. In terms of land use, this would have provided for a more densely built main
campus, and a building site northwest of Watson Library. Yet it would have been ill-considered to
have made that change without taking a broader perspective.
For example, any construction northwest of Watson would have affected the traditional "look" of
one of the most established areas of campus---one that carries a traditional significance and is a
critical component in creating a sense of place. Had alumni from previous generations been confronted with a new building there, they might have been disturbed by the sight, remembering old
Blake Hall, which once occupied this area. Had recent graduates seen that building, they might have
noted, with sadness, the loss of an open space that was part of their KU experience. Either graduate
would have found his or her perception of this place challenged, for better or for worse.
A decision to close the boulevard also would have
engendered new patterns of campus access and challenges to existing ones. Lengthy walks to and from the
heart of the campus, from bus drop-off points, might
have devalued the bus system. Many of the some
Area in front of Strong Hall |
4,000 students who use the KU-on-Wheels system
each day would search for other options. A significant
number might choose to drive.
The need for road improvements, based on a higher
number of vehicle trips, would place additional demands on university funds for streets, traffic control,
and protection of pedestrian routes. It would be necessary to provide parking for several thousand more cars
in proximity to the campus. Even the option of remote parking,
in these circumstances, appears less feasible;
with Jayhawk Boulevard closed, it would be more
difficult to provide convenient shuttle rides. The wait
for a shuttle and the long walk afterwards would
increase frustration levels.
The demand for parking garages would increase the
ratio of built to open space, as pressures arose to
provide those garages as close as possible to the main campus. Of course the perimeter of the campus would be the best site for these garages. The environment at the perimeter would be transformed
as parking consumed open space and potential buildable sites. Because of the increase in numbers of
vehicles to specific sites, the patterns of access on campus would change
The preceding case shows how an independent decision--such as closing Jayhawk Boulevard or
constructing a building on a new site--can effect a change in the entire composition of the campus.
Creating a whole vision before addressing constituent parts is a major advantage of scenarios. To
agree in advance on a vision relieves planners of the dissatisfaction that arises when there is no
agreement. Scenarios inform individual decisions and unify the planning process.
In the table below, we show some of the ramifications that might result, under the subject
headings of land use, access and image, with enactment of the various scenarios.
| Major Elements of the Plan... |
Patterns of Land Use |
Transportation |
Image |
| Land Use Scenarios: |
Land use includes issues of density, adjacency, and property acquisition |
Transportation includes access to campus and general issues of accessibility |
Image is tied to the environment created on the campus |
Scenario One:
Increased Density--Modest increase in areaUrban quality of campus |
Building Area Ratio: >30% Floor Area Ratio: Built Space to Open Space >1:1 |
Major city routes adjacent to campus High density parking at the perimeter Transit service for access to campus--limited circulation |
High quality pedestrian environment is needed Virtual elimination of autos from the core campus An increasing urban quality of campus |
Scenario Two:
Same Overall Density
Significant increase in area contiguous to central campusTraditional campus quality |
Building Area Ratio: <30% Floor Area Ratio: Built Space to Open Space <1:1 |
Auto destinations chosen on city routes and distribution is allowed across campus Parking distributed and low density Transit service to and across campus |
Quality not solely defined by being "on the hill" May involve defining (or redefining) areas of campus |
Scenario Three:
Increased development of areas remote from central campusCentral Campus--West Campus |
Adjacencies evaluated and less central activities may be relocated Property is available |
Transit is critical to this scenario |
May require two (or more) distinctive areas of development |
|