Think Piece: How can physical campus environments help to rebuild confidence in America’s colleges and universities?
Since 2011, enrollment among American colleges and universities has declined, with enrolled college students dropping from 20.6 million to 19 million by 2016. With growing options and outright alternatives for higher education , colleges and universities will need to adapt to prove their relevance to the increasingly competitive enrollment pool. While administrators focus on affordability and programs to keep their colleges attractive to prospective students, how can institutions leverage their physical campus to build confidence and support the role of universities in America?
As an architect and the Assistant Director of the Office of the Campus Architect at the University of Illinois at Chicago, my office has agency in the design and implementation of university facilities, learning spaces, campus grounds and campus planning efforts. Our work is guided by the principle of developing an environment that inspires social and intellectual growth among students and faculty. We have expanded our focus to evaluate how we can further leverage our work with the physical campus to positively impact morale and interest of prospective students and the university community. As a result, I have assembled the following criterion that begins to identify my thinking around the planning and delivery of physical spaces at colleges and universities. Specifically, this criterion is built with the intent of garnering prospective student interest and re-establishing the physical campus as a center for social and intellectual growth. Although it could be argued that erecting new buildings draws prospective students, new construction is not always an option and can still miss the mark of prospective students’ values. Instead, the following suggestions emphasize reflective and transparent planning, and student involvement.
1. Establish and Leverage an Institution’s Narrative
Establishing a strong narrative involving an institution’s strategic priorities and history is a necessary starting point for unifying campus goals and planning initiatives. Narratives that incorporate campus history stand to leverage the impetus for an institution’s founding. Universities should interpret their growth in the context of their entire history and build their narrative in the same manner. For instance, the University of Illinois at Chicago was established partially in response to the G.I. Bill passed in 1944, which sought to reward veterans for their military service. In effect, UIC is a public institution that made college degrees more attainable to first generation American college students.
Additionally, the location of the University’s east campus (originally known as the Chicago Circle Campus) tells a strong lesson in the significance of community involvement in planning. To acquire the land where the campus would be constructed, nearly 5,000 people were displaced by the federally funded urban renewal plan to deliver the new campus. Despite fierce opposition from community members on the verge of displacement, the construction of the campus would proceed. We keep this example in mind when developing plans for our campus and incorporate stake holder feedback where possible.
Today, more than 60 years after the campus’ construction, the University remains consistent to its founding cause and provides access to affordable education for many first-generation college goers. In 2016, UIC went through a process to identify core strategic priorities. These priorities included the following:
· Student Experience and Success
· National and International Impact and Visibility
· Chicago and Community Engagement
· Entrepreneurial University
In addition to establishing these priorities, the University also started a marketing campaign to identify itself as Chicago’s “only public research university.” By identifying itself this way, UIC has leveraged a crucial fact that will likely appeal to prospective students looking for a quality and affordable education.
2. Engaged Planning
With narrative and guiding principles established, an institution can begin to make unified planning efforts for the physical campus. Many universities engage planning initiatives through master plans that impact the overall physical campus or are tailored to specific campus districts (i.e. student housing, university medical centers, etc.). Master plans provide recommendations that respond to immediate and projected campus needs, often based on data and statistics. To validate these decisions, strong master plans provide recommendations in a way that align with an institution’s narrative or strategic priorities. To achieve this, master plans are contextualized by a prevailing vision statement, which identifies the high-level goals and motivations that the plan’s recommendations fall under.
As much as possible, master planning efforts should be transparent and provide opportunities for stakeholders to provide input. Input from a variety of stakeholders produce recommendations that reflect the aspirations and values of the greater community and provide an opportunity to garner buy-in from users that may otherwise be critical of the document. These opportunities for input are largely achieved through engagement activities. Engagement activities are informative and interactive with exercises that help translate stakeholder values to planning goals. Some of these exercises include visioning charrettes, open dialogues, and stakeholder interviews.
Engagement activities open lines of communication with university stakeholders, including faculty, staff and students and instill a sense of common ownership of the planning document’s recommendations. In effect, projects emanating from the master plan are better understood by the university community and can be an energizing source of pride.
3. Plan Implementation
Once planning documents are finalized, universities must be fervent in adhering to the recommendations provided and if necessary, amend the document should some of its provisions no longer align with institutional goals. Depending on the breadth of the master plan, the timeline for implementing its recommendations may vary from several years to decades. A reality of any planned growth impacting the physical campus is the need for funding. The cost for construction often delays (and in some cases limits) the full realization of planning efforts. Although the plan document should have already taken cost into consideration, an incremental delivery of projects with varying cost and scale can have a great impact on campuses and stakeholder morale.
The University of Illinois at Chicago recently published the executive summary for the 2017–2027 Implementation Plan. This plan serves as an update for the 2010 UIC Campus Master Plan and provides data-driven and inspiring recommendations for the physical campus’ development. In addition to the construction of new facilities and large transformational grounds projects, the implementation plan makes recommendations for upgrades to campus signage, gateways, and a plethora of small, but impactful projects. In effect, despite a narrow timeline of 10 years, we have been able to immediately implement several recommendations regarding building signage, campus wayfinding, and campus gateways. These projects provide a refreshing sense of progress for students and staff and a well needed visual update to the exterior campus. For new and prospective students, these improvements not only improve their ability to navigate the campus, but also foster a stronger sense of place and identity.
Throughout the plan implementation process, engagement activities should continue to occur, emphasizing transparency and equity in the development of physical spaces. At UIC, one way we achieve this is through the Design Review Committee (DRC). New buildings and major renovations require the review of the DRC, whose membership is appointed by the Chancellor, consisting of university staff, external advisors, and student representatives. The DRC is charged with reviewing the planning and design of campus projects to ensure compliance with the master plan and the campus design standards. In addition to the DRC, students have been offered opportunities to provide input on projects through additional initiatives such as student design competitions and furniture tests for student spaces.
4. Post Evaluation
Following the completion of new construction and major renovations, universities can provide an additional opportunity for student and staff involvement with post occupancy feedback. In our office, once projects are complete, post occupancy evaluations are administered to both students and professors. Through coordination and cooperation with professors, these evaluations are expeditiously administered and collected at the beginning of classes. By distributing the evaluations in person, we are able to achieve nearly 100% student participation. Whereas evaluations given online have markedly lower participation. An added benefit of administering the evaluations in-person is the opportunity to informally meet with students and observe them in completed spaces. This interaction provides insight on how students use spaces and gives context to the comments they provide in the evaluations.
American colleges and universities must evaluate how in-tune they are with the needs and expectations of prospective students. The role of the physical campus with tin recruitment and retention cannot be understated. Campus administrators, planners and architects should focus on optimizing planning and construction efforts to define campus improvements as a physical asset and a rallying point for student and staff pride. Approaching projects as opportunities to reinforce university goals and student preference will ensure campuses grow in unison with the needs of their consituents.
