focus group hensel park - campus master planlisten: what we heard: hensel park focus group. the...

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPDATEFocus Group – Hensel Park

14 April 2016

What We Heard

Campus Framework & Open Space Network

Hensel Park Topics

Landscape Approach

Discussion and Next Steps

AGENDA

WHAT WE HEARD

Pedestrian Conflict Areas• Bizzell Street

• Academic / Engineering Area (Ross Mall, Ireland St., etc.)

• University Drive Crossings

White Creek• Erosion Issues

West Campus Remoteness• Connection from White Creek Housing to East Campus

• Connection from West Campus to East Campus

• West Campus feels remote due to lower population and

density

Memorial Student Center• Works well on multiple levels – Design Standards,

Signage, Branding, Green/Open Space, etc.

Traffic Congestion Points• Reed Arena/Parking Lots (100)

• Bizzell Street (Parking Lots 54)

Green Space• JK Williams Admin Building East Lawn (formal)

• All Quads (Cushing, Academic, Architecture)

• West Campus Green Space is underutilized

• Spence Park has great potential

• Simpson Drill Field – multifunctional open space

Build-to-Line• Identify (and Enforce?) – Is it still applicable?

Campus Policies and Process• Campus Policies and Process should align with the CMP

• Update in order to implement the plan accordingly

Campus Branding• Multiple opportunities to enhance TAMU branding

• Arrival points, institutional identity and campus traditions

need to be leveraged.

Off-Campus Development• Will lead to new access points and the need for improved

systems to support TAMU users of these developments

What We Heard: Collectivelisten:

Connections to Hensel

Park are weak –

sidewalks are being

constructed along

South College

What We Heard: Hensel Park Focus Grouplisten:

The facilities buildings

create a barrier between

the Childcare Center and

Housing to Hensel Park;

Used for landscaping

storage and composting,

the buildings create

visual disparity to typical

university facilities.


The earthen berm create

a barrier with positive

and negative impacts: it

assists with masking

road noise but also limits

visibility.


Hensel Park is regarded

as the limited 25 acres

currently used as park

space but has the

potential to utilize

significantly more land

area.


Access points to the park

are limited – primarily at

the single South College

Avenue entrance.

Easements exist along

the northern

neighborhood edge to

allow access.

No access available from

Texas Avenue.


CAMPUS FRAMEWORK AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK

The 2004 Civic Structureframe:

Framework Updateframe:

Open Space Networkframe:

Expanded Open Space Networkframe:

HENSEL PARK TOPICS

Hensel Parktopics:

• Hensel Park serves as the meeting point of

TAMU, City of College Station and City of Bryan.

• What is the Vision?

• Program definition to support continuous use.

• Connection to Main Campus: proposed bike

lanes, pedestrian routes, transit

• Synergies with adjacent development

• Access into the Park: adjacent neighborhoods,

Texas Avenue, TAMU Housing, Childcare Center

• Establishment of Site Boundaries and Acreage

Hensel Park: TAMU, College Station and Bryantopics:

Hensel Park: Distance Perceptiontopics:

2,360 ft(0.45 miles)

Connection to East Campustopics:

Connection Types:• Pedestrian

• Bicycle

• Transit

• Vehicular

Pri

ma

ryPotential for a secondary

connection path?

Surrounding Developmenttopics:

Development Types:• Student Housing

• Multi-Family Housing

• Mixed-Use

• Commercial

• Retail

• Hotel

• Restaurant

Park Boundaries and Acreagetopics:

± 25 acres

± 30 acres

Current ‘Hensel Park’

Natural Condition

Service Facilities± 32

acres

Potential Access to the Parktopics:

Access Points:Residential

Neighborhoods

University Square

Texas Avenue

South College Avenue

Child Care & Gardens

Century Square

A

B

C

D

E

F

A

A

B

C

C

D

D

D

E

F

LANDSCAPE APPROACH

The Approach

1. Utilize the Campus Framework and Open

Space Network to identify potential for

new and improved green space on campus

– ongoing as framework develops.

2. Determine the program typology for each

open space (existing and proposed).

3. Develop and apply a reference

vocabulary to each open space as

appropriate to its campus zone, character,

use, and site specific details (drainage,

shade, etc.).

4. Results in a recommendation for each

open space on campus as part of the final

CMP Update.

approach:

2016 - Define Program for Open Spacesapproach:

1. Park

2. Courtyard

3. Quadrangle

4. Garden

5. Formal Civic Space

6. Pocket Park

7. Natural

8. Recreation /Athletics

9. Connector

10. Open Lawns / Fields

11. Showcase Space

12. Others ???

2016 - Define Design & Elemental Vocabulary

1. Texas Landscape

2. Paved / Hardscape

3. Formal Lawns

4. Connectors:

• Tree-Lined Walk

• Streetscape

• Green Space Link

5. Teaching / Pedagogy

6. Detention / Retention

7. Others ???

approach:

Example: Parks• Parks are large tracts of land that often include

lawn, grassland or meadow, and woodlands.

• They are used for ornament, passive recreation,

or active recreation. Passive recreation can take

place within upland or riparian landscapes.

Oftentimes, ornamental or passive recreational

parks are naturalistic in their physical form.

• Within a campus setting, active recreation takes

the form of athletic fields often framed by

vegetation within a larger park context, typically

in upland landscape areas.

2016 - Define Program for Open Spacesapproach:

DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS

• Coordinate CMP effort with

outlined Vision A & B developed

by Dr. Compton and Dr. Shaffer.

• Test scenarios utilizing Vision A &

B along with mixing of the two

visions.

• Coordinate Hensel Park

development with broader

landscape definition for entire

campus planning effort.

• Consider phasing options.

Next Stepshensel:

• Refine conceptual programmatic

elements.

• Joint Focus Group Session:

mid-May (TBD)

Thank you!

14 April 2016

focus group hensel park - campus master planlisten: what we heard: hensel park focus group. the...

Documents