rwucampus03lr

7/27/2019 RWUCampus03LR

1/67

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report:

CAMPUS PLANNINGby Edgar AdamsAssociate ProfessorSchool of Architecture, Art& Historic Preservation

Spring 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio

Daniel J AlexanderMaryellen Anderson

Timothy BaileyDaniel BracaMeghan BrennenTimothy BrennanKyle HarrisonRich KrenzerTalal MahmeedChristopher Nardi


2/67

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning

1

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

Preface:

Acknowledgements 3

Introduction:Why is Campus Planning Important 4

Managing Growth vs. 5Planning for Excellence

The Master Planning Process:Major Steps

1. The Vision

Mission 6 History/Identity 7 Institutional Mission/ 8

Physical Form

2. The Team The Master Planning 9

Committee

The Professional Team 103. The Process

Institutional Planning 11 Facilities Planning 11

4. The Agenda Principles/Values 12 Objectives 13

5. The Plan Analysis 14 Design 14

6. Implementation 157. Conservation / Stewardship 16

The 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio:

Existing Conditions / Site Analysis: 18

Summary 30

Research / Benchmarking

(see presentation on enclosed CD)

Interim Proposals 34

Scheme A 35Scheme B-1 37

Scheme B-2 39

Final Planning Strategies 41Scheme A 43

Scheme B 46

Precinct Plans 49

Concluding Recommendations 56

Appendix A: Aerial Photographs 57

Appendix B: Previous Plans 62

Bibliography 65


3/67


2

Preface

The delicate thing about the university is

that it has a mixed character, that it issuspended between its position in theexternal world, with all its corruption andevils and cruelties, and the splendid worldof our imagination.Richard Hofstadter, ColumbiaUniversity

This document is a product of a yearlong RWU Presidential

Fellowship, established by Roy J. Nirschel to involvefaculty in the advancement of key initiatives embodied,

either explicitly or implicitly, in the universitys ongoingstrategic planning process. It was indeed an honor to be

counted among the initial recipients and am most grateful

to President Nirschel for this opportunity and forestablishing a climate that supports and encourages faculty

initiative and seeks to engage faculty more directly, notonly in shaping future Roger Williams Alumni; but also in

shaping the physical and intellectual environment thatsupports us as we do that important work.

This 2003 RWU Campus Planning Fellowship Reportarises out of a myriad of unique circumstances that have

informed this work and establish an essential backdrop for

the ideas represented herein. The role of a campus

planning document, however, is to be prospective and not

to be too rooted in the seemingly inextricable challenges of

the moment. That said, this document tries to walk a line

between the particular needs and aspirations of a particular

university at a particular time in its development; and the

traditions and forms that have shaped the development of

this unique form of community in a more general sense. It

is not an official Master Planning document; however since

that document is not informed by the level or range ofdesign intentions that the campus deserves it should be seen

as part of larger master planning process.

I would also like to acknowledge the fact that this effort

was in many ways the first official acknowledgement of the

work of many faculty and students who have, over the

years, attempted to contribute to the shaping of the unique

environment we steward. This important work has been

carried out in studios, research seminars, and more recently

through committees at various levels within the university.This is my third studio on campus and my second to look at

it from a campus planning perspective. I am especially

indebted to Ulker Copur for her important research and

analysis of the campus and to Dean Stephen White. Many

of the ideas represented in this document evolved from the

work of the Facilities Task Force during the 2002 Strategic

Planning sessions that Dean White co-chaired.

This document is a Campus Planning document and does

not reflect the full scope of a Master Planning document. Itdoes not attempt to be comprehensive in scope; however,

the strategies it employs do aspire to a comprehensive

reach. This, hopefully, can be most clearly seen in the

attempt to place this document within the context of a more

inclusive, more comprehensive and more integrated

approach to planning for the future needs of the University

community. In recognition of the importance of the above,

I have included a summary of the research I conducted into


4/67


3

the Campus Planning process as a means of acknowledging

the gaps in our efforts to date. In this work I am indebted tothe pioneering work of Richard Dober, the founder of the

Society of College and University Planners (SCUP) and arecent participant at a symposium at Roger Williams

University entitled Campus: Mission Identity and Form.

His writings along with those of Michael Dennis wereinstrumental in framing the overview of the Master

Planning Process that follows. All of this is inacknowledgement the hybrid nature of this document.

While this clearly mirrors the fact that my own work with

the Master Planning Committee was divided in two phases,it may also be an acknowledgement of the hybrid nature of

the task itself and of the many different hats worn over thelast year. The most daunting hat to fill was that of

Landscape Architect. Here, my students and I were clearlyout of our element. As a result, my own appreciation of the

importance of landscape in general and of the work of the

Landscape Architect in particular, have grownimmeasurably.

Acknowledgements:

In addition to President Nirschel, would particularly like tothank the following people for their support and active

participation in this process:

2001 RWU Facilities Master Plan Task ForceCo-chairs: Stephen White, John Stout, John TameoMembers: Edgar Adams, Bruce Bowie, Allison

Chase Padula, Jim Galib, Fred Gould, RobertMcKenna, Dawn Occhi, Betsy Peck-Learned,

Joyce Stewart, Steve Terrien, James Tweed,

David Zlotnick2002 - 2003 Master Planning Committee

Co-chairs: Jeffery Gillooly, Matthew White &

Stephen White

Members: Edgar Adams , Allison Chase Padula,,

Margaret Church, Ulker Copur, Vincent

Giambertone (alumnus), George Kolb, James

Noonan, Maryellen Anderson (student member)

And last but certainly not least:

2003 RWU Campus Planning StudioInstructor: Edgar Adams

Students: DJ Alexander, Maryellen Anderson,

Timothy Bailey, Daniel Braca, Timothy Brennan,Meghan Brennen, Kyle Harrison, Richard Krenzer,

Talal Mahmeed, Christopher Nardi


5/67


4

Introduction

" The building of cities is one of man's greatest

achievements. The form of his city always has beenand always will be a pitiless indicator of the state ofhis civilization."..." I contend that human will can

be exercised effectively on our cities now, so thatthe form that they take will be a true expression of

the highest aspirations of our civilization."

Edmund Bacon

Campuses, like cities, tell us much about our collectivevalues and are, like cities, powerful symbols of our highest

aspirations. Yet they also represent a unique and distinctiveform of community that is dedicated to higher values(higher education). They therefore hold a special place in

our hearts and minds and are increasingly importantsymbols of our countrys leadership in an increasingly

knowledge based global culture.

Why is Campus Planning Important?

SCUP Statement of PrinciplesSociety of College and University Planners, 1991

1. A campus is a work of art whose stewardshipshould command the attention and respect of

successive generations.

2. The art is expressed through the melding ofbuildings and landscapes into a physicalenvironment called the campus design.

3. Appropriate campus designs define and celebrate aninstitutions purpose, territory, accomplishmentsand aspirations.

4. Appropriateness is achieved by addressing andresolving the issues of continuity and change in the

physical elements and forms which generate thecampus design.

5. To deny or demean the campus design is todiminish the institutions vitality symbolically or

actually.

6. In support of this statement of principle, eachinstitution should undertake an assessment of its

campus design heritage identifying those

buildings and landscapes which are or could beessential components in creating or sustaining the

campus image and the sense of place.

7. Incorporated in the overall campus plan, theassessment should be used to seek and encumber

funds to conserve, enhance and enlarge the campus

design legacy a legacy that legitimizes, facilitatesand proclaims the institutions existence.


6/67


5

Managing Growth vs. Planning for Excellence

This plan did not develop in a vacuum. The current

administration is very focused on establishing more regularand more comprehensive planning procedures. The Town

of Bristol and outside accrediting agencies now require

long range planning reports as a part of their oversight ofthe University. Many universities have departments of

institutional research or planning. In spite of an impressiverecord of growth and achievement the Universitys

entrepreneurial approach did not value long-range thinking.

The Facilities Management Department, as its namesuggests, is reactive and not proactive and is not equipped

to deal with the demands now being placed upon it.

These types of growing pains are to be expected and arecompounded by the fact that the University now finds itself

in a unique position. A University with many outstanding

professional programs and a liberal arts core, it represents adistinctive blend which has few precedents. Its beautiful

setting also offers unique opportunities and challenges. TheUniversity can no longer afford to continue to grow simply

in response to market forces; but must now confront the

physical limits of its remarkable site.

All of this requires various modes of planning or researchat various levels within the University. What is the role of

satellite campuses, what is the ideal enrollment, what is thecarrying capacity of the site, what is the impact of graduate

programs? Is Roger Williams a niche player in a larger

regional or international market or is it a prized localresource?


7/67


6

The Master Planning Process

Primary Steps:

1. Create a Vision

2. Establish a Team

3. Establish a Process

4. Develop a Campus Plan

5. Implement the Plan

6. Conserve and Maintain the Vision

7. Repeat as necessary

As the outline above indicates I am placing the Campus

Plan within the context of a larger Master Planning Processin order place emphasis on the unique role of the "Plan" as

something which can give real physical expression to the

goals and aspirations of the University, something that

transcends the immediate private concerns of any one bodyand looks at the physical environment in a comprehensiveway. It links past and future, natural and manmade (nature

and culture) and offers and clear vision for the future form

of the institution. I realize that in placing so muchimportance on the plan I am setting rather high

expectations; but I am doing so with the knowledge that, inan ideal sense, the campus plan is but one component of the

physical design process. There should be precinct plans and

ultimately individual building site plans. All of these

inform, elaborate and even modify the "Campus Plan". Yet,a good Campus Plan has the power to inspire future

designers for generations to come. Our plan will referencepast plans and there will be other plans to overlay this one.

1. The Vision

Mission

Roger Williams University is a community

devoted to teaching and learning wherein students

pursue both personal and intellectual growth. TheUniversitys mission is to teach students to think,

reason, and communicate; to develop expertise in

their chosen fields of study; to appreciate

established disciplines and to investigate

interdisciplinary connection; to experience study

and life abroad; to value cultural diversity; to

develop ethical awareness; and to preserve

intellectual curiosity throughout a lifetime.

Roger Williams University is committed to thecreation and delivery of distinctive undergraduate

and graduate programs that involve discovery and

curiosity and that are characterized by an ethos of

inquiry and civic responsibility.

More recently, Roger Williams Universitys President Roy

J. Nirschel defined the core values at the center of the

University mission as follows:


8/67


7

1. Building a love of learning as an intrinsic value2. Preparation for careers and future study

3. Development of undergraduate researchopportunities

4. Service to the community5. Creating a global perspective6. Nurturing a caring and respectful community

History / Identity

InstituteThe Universitys roots can be traced back to 1919, when

Northeastern University School of Commerce and Financeopened a branch at the Providence YMCA. The next year,

Northeasterns School of Law opened a Providence

division, offering a LL.B. degree. Northeasterns presence

in Providence grew again in 1938, when the University

opened the Providence Technical Institute, offering a

certificate program in mechanical engineering.

After an amicable agreement to separate from Northeastern

in 1940, the YMCA Board of Directors established the

Providence Institute of Engineering and Finance. The newinstitute was only in its second year when the outbreak of

World War II forced its closing for the duration of the war.

The School reopened in 1945 under a new name: The

YMCA Institute of Engineering and Finance. Over the next

five years the Institute grew, serving veterans through both

the evening division and the newer day division. An

important milestone was reached in 1948, when the state

authorized the Institute to grant an Associates Degree.

Junior CollegeAs the Institute grew, the need for its separation from the

YMCA became increasingly apparent, and in February of1956, it received a state charter to become a two-year

degree granting institution under the name of Roger

Williams Junior College. The new Junior College, the

states first, began offering liberal arts studies in 1958 and in

1964 the liberal arts program was established leading to an

Associate in Arts degree.

CollegeBy the early 1960s, the institution, still based at the

Providence YMCA, was growing rapidly. As a result ofthat growth, and the states decision to create its own public

junior college, the school sought approval to become a

four-year college. The College acquired 63 acres of

waterfront land in Bristol from the Fulton family and in

1969 completed construction of its new campus. The

Providence campus, 1,000 students strong, continued to

house the Business and Engineering Technology programs.

The new Bristol campus offered a full liberal arts program,

enrolling 1,500 students. In addition, the College offered

evening programs in both Providence and Bristol.

UniversityToday, full-time day and evening program are offered at

the Bristol Campus and evening courses and selective day

courses are offered at the Providence Campus. The College

of Arts and Sciences and the Schools of Business,

Engineering, Justice Studies, Law and the School of

Architecture, Art & Historic Preservation are now housed


9/67


8

on the Bristol Campus. With the founding of the School of

Law in 1993 the College became a University. Graduate

programs are now being offered in Architecture, and

Justice Studies with programs in Education and HistoricPreservation soon to follow. The University is accredited

by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges

and has accredited programs in Architecture, Education and

Law. Rapidly expanding facilities have accompanied the

impressive growth of the institution, causing ever

increasing demands to be placed on its unique and sensitive

site. In its rapid development there have been sporadic

attempts to produce a Campus Plan. The Plan for the 90s

produced two such Plans, but these, and the many isolated

initiatives which have been undertaken since then, haveunderscored the need for a more comprehensive and

integrated approach to managing the special resources and

the unique site which distinguish the University and have

been instrumental in its rise to prominence.Source: Institutional Master Plan

Institutional Mission / Physical Form

The historical survey above tells a remarkable story;

however in that story are also the seeds of an ongoingstruggle to come to grips with the current identity and

future goals and aspirations of the institution. These areperhaps best summarized in the following key goal and

value:

Goal: To become the premier liberal arts universityin the region.

Core Value: to create an ethos of inquiry and civicresponsibility

The aspirations and values above are worthy to be sure;however the history of the institution suggests that the

hoped for transformation is neither complete or even a

natural consequence of the current trajectory of the

University. How do you go from being a niche player to

being a premier liberal arts university, not to mention the

premier liberal arts university in a region which containsseveral of the worlds best institutions of higher learning?

The answer to the above question is important in framing

the more immediate goals and initiatives of the institution.One of the most challenging aspects of the hoped for

transformation is the fact that the institution still feels

like a Junior College. This is a direct consequence of

history above and the way that this history has been

manifested in the built environment we call the Campus.

This poses unique challenges for the continued growth and

development of the Campus and should be viewed as an

integral aspect of achieving the core mission of the

University as it emerges through the ongoing Institutional

Planning Process. This linkage of Institutional Mission andPlanning with the Physical Form of the Campus must be

consciously maintained if the aspirations of the institution

are to be realized. This is what distinguishes University

Campuses and gives them the unique place that they hold in

American society the ability to embody that which is

most cherished in our aspirations as a people.


10/67


9

2. The Team

The Master Planning Committee

The existence of an inclusive Design Authority is seen as

critical to the development and implementation of a

successful Campus Plan. In 2002 President Nirschel tookthe important step of establishing such a body in the

structuring of the university Master Planning Committee.This committee includes senior administrators, alumni,

faculty, academic deans and students. The committee is

chaired by the Executive Assistant to the President alongwith the Director of Facilities Management and the Dean of

the School of Architecture. This committee serves theimportant role of balancing the competing interests of the

various university constituencies and acting as arepresentative forum for the discussion of issues related to

the facilities and space needs of the campus community. In

some cases this type of committee includes representationfrom the Board of Trustees, such as the chair of the Boards

own Facilities Committee if such a committee exists. Thefollowing mission / objectives of the Roger Williams

University Master Planning Committee were developed

during the Fall of 2002:

To link Campus Planning and Facilities initiativesto the core values and mission of the University.

To link Physical Planning and InstitutionalPlanning.

To act as a representative forum for the discussion

of issues related to the facilities and space needs of

the campus community.

To foster a comprehensive, integrated and

environmentally sensitive approach to campus and

facilities planning and development.

To advise the administration on the development ofguidelines and principles that will provide greatercontinuity and will shape the future development of

the Campus.

To advise the administration and provide input to

professionals and consultants during thedevelopment and review of campus planning

proposals, landscape proposals, precinct plans andindividual building proposals.

To provide the institution with a sense of placewhich reinforces its mission, goals and identity and

which celebrates community and the beauty of itsnatural setting.

To provide safe and supportive facilities for allmembers of the campus community and for alluniversity sites on campus or off.

To foster interaction and dialogue with thesurrounding community on issues of interest and

opportunities of mutual benefit.


11/67


10

The Professional Team

The list of consultants involved in a given Master Planning

process can be many and varied. To date the university hasrelied on a rather limited group of such consultants in

planning for and implementing facilities initiatives.

Primary among these omissions is the absence, in thehistory of the University, of a dedicated Campus Planning

effort. Such efforts have been limited to supporting specificbuilding initiatives or have been completed by Architects

whose primary focus is on the provision of architectural

services. This over reliance on a specific entity from aspecific field (regardless of the range of services provided)

can inhibit the kind of integrated and comprehensivethinking required in the consideration of the complexities

of the Campus environment. At the same time, isolated anduncoordinated consultants, left to their own devices, can be

equally ineffective.

This brings us back to the importance of a coordinating

entity on the professional side as well as on the universityside. On the University side, this entity could be a Director

of Planning, a Campus Architect, or could be drawn from

the membership of a Committee such as the current MasterPlanning Committee. Ultimately the Master Planning

Committee can provide a vital forum and can ensure arepresentative and comprehensive grasp of the issues

involved and in the formulation of standards and guidelinesthat aid professionals in the development of proposals that

will be in step with the larger goals and aspirations of the

University.

It is also critical that a representative professional team be

brought on as early as possible. Recent building projects oncampus have suffered from the lack of a strong and

consistent attention to the importance of the landscape. Thelandscape is the glue that holds a Campus together and

should be treated as an integral aspect of any building

project regardless of the scale. The original Campus, inspite of its dated architectural expression, shows a strong

integration of building and landscape that is lacking incurrent undertakings. The professional team may include

representatives from any of the following, including

various specializations within the listed fields:

Facilities Planning / Space Planning Traffic Planning / Parking Campus Planning (often integrating the fields of

Planning, Landscape Architecture and Architecture)

Landscape Architecture Architecture Public Art Interior Design

3. The Process

Institutional Planning

An institutional vision is of obvious importance to the

success of any Master planning process. The linkage of this

vision to Facilities or Campus Planning is not automatic or

linear. There needs to be a clear feedback loop, an iterative

process that allows for the one to influence the other and


12/67


11

vice-a-versa. This is where the central role of the Master

Planning Committee (and its corollary on the Board) are so

important. It is also interesting to note the increasing

number of Departments of Institutional Research oncampuses in this light.

Facilities Planning

Inventory / AssessmentIn order to understand the current status of facilities and

their usage on campus it is often helpful to conduct a

regular inventory and assessment of these facilities. This

could include the following types of assessment:

Quantitative / Qualitative Assessment Accreditation Standards Maintenance Needs Energy Efficiency Suitability to current use Utilization / Scheduling Efficiency Code Compliance, ADA, BCOA, DEM, etc. Inter - Departmental Comparisons Peer Comparison

Future NeedsIn order the understand the future facilities needs it is

important to have access to various types of information

linked to the Strategic Planning initiatives of the university

and to the research which supports those efforts. This can

include the following:

Demographics

Trends w/in Universities Departmental / Discipline specific Trends Financial Constraints / Opportunities Enrollment Projections

Faculty / Staff Needs Program Development / Retrenchment Impact of Technological Advances / Change Environmental Impacts

4. The Agenda

It is important here to acknowledge that rarely are such

processes strictly linear. However, the task of establishing aclear and quantifiable set of goals or agenda for the

Campus Plan is essential for the success of that Plan. It is

equally important to recognize that these parameters

frequently change and that the success of a Campus Plan

should not be tied to an arbitrary existing condition or

perceived need, which may be subject to change. The task

of the Agenda may be broadly defined as bringing together

Institutional Mission / Planning (Vision / Analysis) and

Facilities Planning (Current inventory / Projected need) and

may include the following:

Identity: guiding Principles and Values Set Priorities, Identify Problems Establish Parameters Identify Constraints Target Opportunities


13/67


12

Principles / Values

The 2002 Facilities Task Force clearly linked its objectives

and recommendations to the Core Values enumerated byPresident Nirschel, in summarizing the University Mission

Statement as follows:

RWU Core Value #1: Learning for its own sake asan intrinsic value

Establish aesthetic and ergonomic guidelines,including comprehensive plan based on ideas ofan established academic core of collegiate

quadrangles/open spaces and perimeter parking,consistent architectural themes, and allocation of

a percentage of construction costs for public art.

Create interior and exterior spaces for formal andinformal meetings, including multiple study

spaces, gathering spaces, exhibition spaces,auditorium

Continue the tradition of the library as the focalpoint of the academic core

Take advantage of waterside locationviews,

selected facilities enhancements

RWU Core Value #2: Preparing students forprofessions and further study

Establish and enhance dedicated state-of-the-artfacilities (labs, courtrooms, studio spaces)appropriate to professions and further study

Confirm pattern of interdisciplinary main library,with selected branch and departmental libraries

Establish facilities standards applicable to

specific educational programs, includingaccreditation guidelines for professional and

graduate programs.

RWU Core Value #3: Making AvailableOpportunities to Conduct Research

Clarify teaching models in relation to researchand related space needs

Internet access in all classrooms, offices and

student residences Explore wireless technology Establish comprehensive IT plan inclusive of

space, staff, training, hardware and software

lifecycles, Digital Image Lab, and educational

technology training Establish facilities standards applicable to

research activities on and off-campusRWU Core Value #4: Serving the larger community

Enhance or create spaces for gatherings ofvarious sizes for non-RWU campus

Enhance or create spaces for activities at night Study the possibility of establishing an urban

campus in Providence

Create auditorium for public and special events,and conferences in the Campus Center


14/67


13

RWU Core Value #5: Developing a globalunderstanding and perspective

Establish space for intercultural/spiritual life

activities Establish comprehensive campuses in

Providence and in Study Abroad locations

RWU Core Value #6: Maintaining a caringcommunity with respect for each individual

Establish housing standards with common areas Establish call boxes throughout the campus Relocate road to establish pedestrian campus

environment

Create an accessible campusfor existing andnew facilities as well as programs Minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at busy

intersections.

Ergonomic design for offices, residences andclassroom uses

Safe, comfortable, scheduled RWU and publictransportation between Bay campuses andresidence locations

Facilities for commuter students

Spaces for religious services Dining space for faculty and staff (in Campus

Center)

Adjunct office space standards for faculty, andfor private meetings with students

Source: 2001 RWU Facilities Master Plan Task Force, Report to

the RWU Strategic Planning Steering Committee

Objectives

These concerns were consolidated in the form of the

following list of objectives handed down to the MasterPlanning Committee and RWU Campus Planning Studioby President Nirchel. This list of priorities may be

summarized as follows:

Establish a comprehensive Campus Plan looking atbuilding parameters, traffic patterns, ergonomics and

artistic enhancements.

Redesign entry and exits to campus Parking Issues Pedestrian space, walkways, etc. Building of new/renovated Academic Building Building of new/renovated campus

center/performing arts center

Review needs for more housing on Campus Review signage on campus (not addressed) Relocation of Facilities to North Campus Meets needs of Admissions for logical path to

welcome and inform visitors

Look at the utilization of the waterfront Preservation of brand views (bridge) and look at

green space usage

Review athletic/wellness field needs and locations Physical improvements to Metro Center consistent

with the developing mission of the site (notaddressed)

Committee mission, goals and direction


15/67


14

5. The Plan

Campus Planning

At the heart of any memorable Campus is a strong sense of

place and of community. These are two increasingly

difficult terms to define in todays fast paced globalsociety; yet, I cannot think of two more important qualities

for an institution that seeks to create a lasting bond with itsstudents. If the student is to identify with the University

then it is important that the intellectual, social and physical

landscapes they encounter are each crucial components of alarger sense of community and place. The memories they

take away from their brief time with us will last a lifetime.These memories can run the gamut from bad food to good

friends. Creating memorable spaces and instilling a senseof pride in what they have accomplished are critical

measures of any institution of higher learning. Cheap and

impersonal buildings or environments alienate students andundermine the proclaimed values of the institution.

AnalysisUnderstanding seemingly intangible aspects of our built

environment like Place requires careful analysis and acomprehensive approach. We know a memorable place

when we see it; but how do we create, complement ormaintain one? A range of analytical tools are needed. Many

of these forms of analysis were conducted for the CEIS andare not included in this document. The Following forms of

analysis are fundamental to understanding the complexities

of the Campus environment:

Environmental Analysis (CEIS) Figure Ground Campus Growth Circulation: Pedestrian/Vehicular Land Use Design Constraints: Natural / Legal Spatial Structure Open Space / Green Space Views Topography Axis / Grids

DesignIn this case the design of the Campus Plan was undertakenwithin the context of an Architectural Design Studio. This

posed some unique challenges and many opportunities for

learning and growth. While many students had participated

in studios that used sites on Campus, this was the first

where the campus itself was the object of the investigation.

In addition to the jump in scale, students were also faced

with the challenge of inverting their modus operandi.

Rather than working from the inside out, from the

individual to the collective they were forced to look at thespace between the spatial structure of the campus. This

required that they work with a new language with its own

vocabulary and syntax. The prototypical process is outlined

below:


16/67


15

Identify / Test Strategies Develop Alternatives Choose Direction Develop Final Plan Develop Guidelines

In order to assist in this process, a number of exercises

where undertaken which allowed the students to explore the

entire range of scalar relationships. We started with a series

of loose collage exercises that allowed the students to gain

an intuitive understanding of the structure of the campus.

The strategies that emerged where tested and developed at

a schematic level. Thirty studies were reduced to three

basic strategies with variations. Precinct plans were thendeveloped to test strategies and explore alternatives at a

scale between that of the individual building and that of the

Campus. These studies then informed the testing, selection

and development of two final schemes. This movement

between scales and modes of investigation was critical to

the development of the final plans.

6. Implementation

Continuity of process allows for continuity of the built

environment. The Campus should not be viewed as a

collection of disparate projects, but as The Project with a

series of interdependent pieces, each of which answers to

the whole. This requires communication and shared

understanding among the various parties participating in

the shaping of this larger environment. The design

authority is instrumental in the communication of

institutional memory and values. The particular demands of

the end users, of facilities or other imbedded interests mustbe in dialogue with the established principles shaping the

whole. At the most mundane level the implementationphase involves the following:

Establish project committees (sub-committees) Develop Precinct Plans Review Building and Landscape Design Proposals:

- Review Programming- Design Process: Concepts, Schematic Design,

Design Development, Final Documentation

Manage Costs


17/67


16

7. Conservation / Stewardship

The cyclical nature of this process is increasingly

recognized by requirements of governmental andaccreditation authorities. However, without the

commitment and participation of all members of the

campus community it is hard to make the tough choices and

sacrifices that are often called for in the implementation

and maintenance of a shared vision. If we say that we value

something we must be willing to commit the resources and

energy to make it possible. Sacrifices will only create

resentment unless the vision is a shared one that is

communicated consistently and effectively. A

representative Master Planning Committee serves a vitalsymbolic and real practical function in shaping a shared

vision, in aiding in the consistency of its implementation

and in maintaining the continuity of valued assets and

principles. The stewardship of the Campus environment is

a task that takes constant vigilance and involves the

following basic tasks:

Identify and maintain key assets Evaluate changing needs

Maintain Values / Principles


18/67


17

The 2003 Campus Planning Studio

Edgar Adams, Instructor

Daniel J AlexanderMaryellen Anderson

Timothy BaileyDaniel Braca

Meghan Brennen

Timothy BrennanKyle Harrison

Rich KrenzerTalal Mahmeed

Christopher Nardi


19/67


18

Existing Conditions

Figure Ground Fig. 1

Campus Growth Fig. 2

Building Use Fig. 3

Circulation:Vehicular Fig. 4

Pedestrian Fig. 5

Parking Fig. 6

Views Fig. 7

Spatial Structure: Stepping Fig. 8

Green Space Fig. 9

Topography Fig. 10

Geometry Fig. 11

Conclusion


20/67


19

Existing Figure Ground Fig. 1


21/67


20

Fig. 2


22/67


21

Fig. 3


23/67


22

Fig. 4


24/67


23

Fig. 5


25/67


24

Fig. 6


26/67


25

Fig. 7


27/67


26

Fig. 8


28/67


27

Fig. 9


29/67


28

Fig. 10

TopographyDrawn by Jason Laterneau


30/67


29

Fig. 11


31/67


30

Existing Conditions

Fig. 1: Figure Ground

The figure ground shows the basic structure of the campusby highlighting the relationship between the buildings

(solids) and the spaces (voids). It also allows one to easily

appreciate the grain of the campus based on reading the

size, proportions and space between buildings. One can

also begin to understand issues such as griding, edges,

clustering and the hierarchy of buildings and spaces. In

short, the figure ground once decoded gives one the DNA

of the campus.

Fig. 2: Campus GrowthThe unique pattern and scale of the original campus

buildings and spaces can be read in the Campus Growth

and Figure Ground diagrams. Latter dormitory buildings

did not follow the grid of the academic structures but

established a clear dialogue with the topography and

contour of the shoreline. This pattern was somewhat broken

by the Bayside dormitories, but was picked up again by the

Stonewall complex. The scale and footprint of the more

recent buildings changes dramatically and one can begin to

appreciate how the parking which once was on the edge ofthe campus, now finds itself in the center as the campus has

grown to the North.

Fig. 3: Building UseThe basic pattern of academic buildings along the crest of

the peninsula and the dormitories along the water has

remained intact with the exception of the stonewall

dormitories which wrap around the southern edge of the

campus along Ferry Road. Administrative and Public

buildings are not organized in a clear manner and are

difficult to locate.

Fig. 4: Vehicular CirculationVehicular circulation on campus reflects the more relaxed

attitudes of the 70s and the more commuter oriented nature

of the original campus. As the campus has grown and the

number of both cars and pedestrians have increased, the

inability of this original vehicular infrastructure to cope has

become increasingly serious. The main entrance to the

campus remains the original entrance to Ferrycliff Farm.

Landscaping and improvements have not kept pace with

increasing amounts of parking and radically increasedtraffic volumes.

Fig. 5: Vehicular / Pedestrian ConflictsPedestrian circulation has not been expanded in a manner

consistent with the quality and integrity of the well

developed network of pedestrian pathways within the

existing academic core. As new sources for pedestrian

traffic have been developed (parking lots) and new

destinations (buildings) planned there has been no

comprehensive effort to plan for the increased volumes of

pedestrian traffic and to mitigate the conflicts between

pedestrians and vehicles.

New parking areas are constructed with no consideration

for how people get from these parking areas to their

destination (the academic core). People walk in the

roadways because there are no pedestrian paths or those

paths are not adequate and do not offer compelling


32/67


31

alternatives. If we want to move parking out of the center

of the campus we must make the walk from the parking

areas as pleasant as possible. If we treat pedestrians

(students, faculty and staff) with respect, that respect willbe repaid tenfold.

Fig. 6: ParkingAs the previous diagrams have shown, there is a serious

need for the proper planning and placement of parking on

this campus. Parking should be considered integral to the

planning and placement of buildings and not just an

afterthought. Buildings are not only destinations for

vehicles, they can also define pedestrian areas and screen

out and break up unsightly parking areas.

Fig. 7: ViewsViews to and from the campus need careful consideration

in the planning of future development on campus. The

original campus had panoramic views in all directions. As

new buildings were added these views were cut-off and the

spaces between the buildings lost their connection to the

water. Buildings do not only offer views for their

inhabitants, but also frame views for others.

The campus has developed in a linear pattern parallel to the

slope and to the water. This has prevented the exploitation

of the slope by placing buildings perpendicular to the water

and allowing views to penetrate into the heart of the

campus. By allowing oblique water views from buildings

perpendicular or at a slight angle to the water there is also

the potential for lateral views of the coastline or views of

the bridge to the South and Mount Hope to the North.

The library tower is also an increasingly important marker

for the heart of the academic core of the Campus. Views of

the Library tower can be an effective means of visuallyconnecting to outlying areas and orienting visitors.

Fig. 8: Spatial Structure: SteppingThe original campus was planned on a grid with buildings

arranged in an informal stepping manner. This allowed for

an openness that allowed for the continuity of the existing

landscape. Since the 90s there has been an attempt to

compose more traditional academic quadrangles. This has

led to a bit of a split identity with some of the original

building being retrofitted to define a main quadrangle. Aninfill strategy would be a more successful approach to

solving this problem. In the original campus the

landscaping was also an integral part of the spatial structure

of the campus. This orchestration of buildings and

landscaping working in concert has also been lost in recent

additions to the campus.

Fig. 9: Green SpaceThe openness of the original farmlands has been

maintained in the lawn in front of the campus along Old

Ferry Road and in the stepping and scale of the original

campus and its buildings, which grow out of the site, using

local stone and horizontal wood roof overhangs.

The construction of the recreation center, the addition to the

architecture building and the proposed student dinning

facility will significantly transform the openness of the

original entry sequence. While this openness was primarily


33/67


32

the result of landscaped parking areas, the original farm

complex is now dwarfed by the recreation center and

pending additions to the campus. It, is therefore

increasingly important, as the core of the campus fills in, tomaintain the openness at the fringes of the campus.

This pastoral setting is one of the most powerful aspects of

to the identity of the University as perceived by visitors and

local residents alike. The north campus represents a unique

opportunity to extend that identity to the water. The careful

placement of buildings along the high ground overlooking

this meadow as it rolls down to the Bay offers a spectacular

setting for the next phase in the evolution of the University.

It is not a question of preservation of the existing meadows,for their own sake, as much as a question of how to use

buildings to frame activities and views that will make the

meadow a vital extension of the Campus, while preserving

the pastoral sense that is such a magical aspect of this

region. I this regard, I believe we should aspire to the

precedent established by our most prominent neighbors,

Blithewold and Mt. Hope Farm.

Fig. 10: TopographyThe campus sits on a powerful and dramatic landform a

peninsula. A peninsula has a strong directionality and

campus participates in that directionality in a unique way.

Route 114 occupies the crest of a ridge that, along with the

water's edge, are the most prominent features of the site.

Fig. 11: GridsThe grid of the original campus conforms to the orientation

of the original farm plots and the orientation of the grid of

the town of Bristol dating from colonial times. When Rt.

136 was connected to the Mt. Hope bridge, that connector

cut diagonally through this grid roughly parallel to the

coastline. The former Nike missile silos are at a slight angleto 136. The resolution of these grids, their relation to the

topography and to views represent the key design

challenges for the northward expansion of the campus.

Conclusion:Roger Williams University enjoys a dramatic natural

setting. Many people comment on this without a true

appreciation of what it is that they find so appealing. How

do we protect or build upon something if we do not know

what it is? What are the unique qualities of the landscape

that resonate with the general public and how do we design

buildings that reinforce or support the existing fabric of the

campus? I hope the preceding analysis has offered some

clues.

The campus core is expanding and becoming denser at the

same time. This density is important in building a sense of

community and creating a strong pedestrian core with a

variety of outdoor gathering spaces to suit different needs.

Views from buildings at the fringe of this core should be

maintained and new building sites should respect existing

open space corridors, while also exploiting the topography

to allow for new building sites to take advantage of water

views while maintaining or framing views from above.

Inadequate attention to the design and planning of the

automotive infrastructure on the campus has and will

continue to be a significant problem unless a major effort is


34/67


33

made to address it. The piecemeal efforts of recent years

have not helped. A study of parking on other campuses has

revealed that it is possible to service a pedestrian core

without resorting to large fields of parking (figs. 12, 13).This, coupled with larger remote satellite parking remain

key strategies, provided that adequate pedestrian

infrastructure is provided to make the walks from this

remote facilities pleasing and safe.

Fig. 12: Johns Hopkins University(Source: base maps by Ayers, Saint & Gross)

Fig. 13: University of Rochester


35/67


34

Research / Benchmarking

See presentation on enclosed CD

Design Process

After studying the preceding analysis, previous strategic

planning documents and reviewing the President's goals for

the campus plan, the students started by doing a collage

exercise which also allowed them to become more

comfortable working at a larger scale. Because of the

unique structure of the campus, they were not only given

other campus plans to draw from, but were also encouragedto look at famous gardens in order to understand the

vocabulary and structure of larger, more "picturesque"

environments. Each student produced three plans. From

these thirty plans we distilled them down to 10 and six and

finally three strategies (with some variations). These we

also evaluated and combined to come up with two

distinctive strategies, one with two options. These were

presented to the Campus Planning Committee at the

midpoint of the studio semester.

Common Themes:The preceding analysis revealed a number of challenges for

any Campus Plan. The integrity of the campus core and its

connection to external parking resources were essential. All

schemes also pursued a strategy of infill within the campus

core to preserve valuable open space elsewhere.

It was also important that cars be removed from the core

and that this core be clearly connected to the more recently

acquired land to the North of the campus. The mass of the

newly expanded Campus Recreation Center was a majorimpediment to this effort; however all plans sought to

create a north loop to connect the campus core and the

main entrance to parking resources also to the north. The

existing loop feeding bayside was seen as inappropriate for

public traffic (the dorms being a more private usage) as it

did not take advantage of the views from above the soccer

field. Conflicts with pedestrian traffic from Bayside were

also a major concern.

Scheme A

Campus CoreThe existing south loop in front of the Student Union is

abandoned in favor of a northward loop and the access

from the south becomes two way with a turnaround in front

of Maple Hall. Additions are proposed to the wings of

FCAS, the rear of the Engineering building, the

Administration building, Architecture Library and the

current Student Union. The Administration would be

moved to a new building closer to the main entrance and

would be expanded to include Admissions. The current

Administration Building would be converted to academic

usage. Parking would be maintained in front of the new

Administration Building; but eliminated behind to allow for

a new quadrangle between this building and Marine and

Natural Sciences. The Student union would be accessed by

a limited access "fire lane/service access" in front of

Marine and Natural Sciences.


36/67


35

Interim ProposalsScheme A


37/67


36

North CampusScheme A seeks to preserve the current soccer field near

bayside by locating the northward loop as close to the

Recreation Center as possible. This also pulls the access

road to the Maher Center back toward Rt. 136 freeing up

additional land to the water side of this important link.

A new Performing Arts Center serves as a hinge between

the geometry of the North Campus and the N/S orientation

of the Campus Core. This building serves as the focal point

of a reoriented North Entrance and would be easily

accessible to the public for performances. A reconfigured

tennis facility separates surface parking to the right of this

new North entrance from a structured parking facility

which could use the drop in topography to hid a level of

parking partially below grade (without ramps) and have

room for one or two above grade levels. Additional surface

parking is accommodated to the north.

The existing classroom facility and Nike Dormitory have

been incorporated into a new series of dormitory structures

that build on the language of the Bayside dormitories, while

also serving as a backdrop to the proposed Performing Arts

building and anchoring the North Campus. These

dormitories are carefully modulated to transition from the

geometry of Bayside to that of the North Campus, while

maximizing views from within the dormitories, framing

views between structures and preserving views from

Recreation Center above. The central portion of the U-

shaped configuration across from the parking structure

would be a natural location for a satellite dining facility

and/or classroom facility.

Scheme A: Circulation

Scheme A: Use


38/67


37

Interim ProposalsScheme B-1


39/67


38

Scheme B-1

Campus CoreThe core shows subtle variations in relation to scheme A.

The most significant departures are the use of two building

behind the existing Library in lieu of the single U-shaped

building in the previous scheme. These two buildings work

with the main library and the Recreation Center to form a

parking court. By hiding the parking in a courtyard this

allows a pedestrian mall to extend from the main entrance

to the main quadrangle. This open space loops around the

library forming a U-shaped open space sequence free of

automobile traffic. The Student Union would be serviced

from behind the M&NS building.

North CampusBoth Scheme B alternatives use a sweeping curve to tie into

the existing alignment of the access road to the Maher

Center and connect to the main entrance by a roundabout

that would provide a comfortable drop off point with

impressive views. Scheme B-1 features an "inboard"

location for the dormitories on the terrace currently

occupied by the Bayside Field. This allows us to tie-in the

existing Bayside dormitories to this sweeping roadway

through a series of terraced courtyards and walkways

providing a range of outdoor spaces and views over and

through the existing buildings. Careful attention was paid

to respect water views toward M&NS from the fitness

center. This allows for the north campus to be reserved for

athletic fields including a parking structure with built-in

grandstands overlooking a major new soccer/lacrosse venue

and Mount Hope Bay.

Scheme B-1: Circulation

Scheme B-1: Landscape Plan


40/67


41/67


40

Scheme B-2

Campus CoreScheme B-2 is similar in most respects to B-1, but with

dormitories along the water. A new configuration for the

proposed Administration Building at the Main Entrance is

offered (see additional alternative below) and the parking in

front of SAAHP reverts to its existing configuration.

North CampusThe inboard location for the dormitories is abandoned in

this alternative for a location below the access to the Maher

center. This keeps the dormitories lower in elevation

allowing for views to the water from above. A link building

is proposed to tie into the geometry of Bayside and the

main campus.

Alternate Classroom/Admin. Building Configuration

Scheme B-2: Landscape Plan


42/67


41

Final Planning Strategy

Two-pronged Strategy

The uncertainty regarding the feasibility of moving theaccess road to the Maher Center was such that we did not

feel we could devote all of our effort to this proposal.

While the advantages of this scheme are substantial it is

also clear that there are logistical hurdles to be overcome.

The current access road cuts through the most desirable

portion of the site and makes the use of the land to the east

of it difficult but certainly not impossible.

Northward Loop

In order to eliminate pedestrian conflicts in front of thecurrent student union, and to minimize or eliminate traffic

exiting from the main entrance (not a safe condition) both

schemes make use of a northward loop. This loop allows

for access to parking to the north and aids in making

vehicular and pedestrian connections to any new facilities

to the north. While the expansion to the Recreation Center

makes such connections difficult, it is also important that

we not create further pedestrian conflicts in front of the

Bayside Dormitories. We believe that it is possible to

maintain the current Bayside field and add a raised

roadway; however the opportunity for an improved venue

to the north would be the most prudent as it would allow

greater flexibility for future growth. Bayside may be an

attractive (if cramped) setting for games; however, if we

are ever to make meaningful use of the land to the north of

the campus core we can not afford to make further

impediments to its future integration.

North Campus StudiesEarlier studies looked at accommodating dormitory space

while also accommodating the need for improved practice

fields or a new major venue altogether. In many campuses

these are combined to illustrate the integral nature of

athletics with campus life. If we add in parking the problem

gets more complicated. One campus that incorporates all of

these elements to great success is Carnegie Melon

University. Here the Student Center (which includes

athletics), Dormitories and a Parking Garage (incorporating

grandstands) are all integrated into one cohesive precinct.

Carnegie Mellon University Master Planby Michael Dennis & Associates


43/67


42

Carnegie Mellon UniversityEast Campus Dormitories and Garage/Grandstandsby Michael Dennis & Associates

Preliminary North Campus Alt. (by E. Adams)

Comprehensive & Integrated PlanningThe above study was an early schematic response to

preliminary discussions within the Master Planning

Committee regarding the North Campus dormitories. While

it does not reflect the proposed alterations to the campus

circulation, it does illustrate the principles ofcomprehensive and integrated planning applied to the

existing campus infrastructure. A single formal strategy is

used to accomplish multiple goals. The buildings frame

views, respond to the geometry and language of

neighboring structures, guide pedestrian movement,

organize athletic fields (or structured parking, gray is

grandstands) and define vehicular movement.


44/67


43

Final Scheme A

Open Space

Scheme A respects the openness of the existing landscapeby concentrating development and defining important open

space corridors. These opens spaces begin at the water's

edge and are repeat in layers moving up the hill and into the

campus fabric. The diagram to the right emphasizes their

relationship to water views; however it is also possible to

see them as moving parallel to the slope, starting below

Bayside and above Bayside and M&NS into the heart of

the Campus. Another layer moves between the Law School

and Recreation Center, past SAAHP and the

Administration Building to FCAS. Also crucial is the finallayer along routes 136 & 114. This "front lawn" to the

University has become an important part of its identity and

builds on the important precedents established by the

Blithewold Estate and Mount Hope Farm. Scheme A takes

advantage of the relocation of the Access to the Maher

Center to connect the

Bayside Field to the North meadow as it rolls down to the

water. Improved access to the waters edge is also provided

by a series of more intimate paths and spaces carved out of

the existing woods (see Precinct Plans).

Campus CoreThe infill strategy illustrated in earlier schemes is

continued. In this iteration we explored possible responses

to the very important site occupied by the Art Building (the

former cafeteria). This building occupies a rock

outcropping at a high point for the lower campus with

impressive views of the bridge. There is an underutilized

and poorly maintained exterior space between the School of


45/67


44

Business and the Fine Art building. Various strategies were

explored for the use of this space and the former cafeteria.

The Student Union is split to allow a connection to the

water and an amphitheater oriented toward the water.

North CampusThe use of the proposed Performing Arts Center as a pivot

or hinge allows the North Campus dormitories to rotate off

to the geometry of Rt. 136. The Performing Arts Center

picks up the axis of the existing North entrance as well as

acting as a terminus for the new North entrance, which is

rotated perpendicular to Rt. 136. The Performing Arts

Center thus becomes both pivot and anchor to the North

Campus. As stated earlier in our discussion of open space,

this is achieved by moving the access road to the Maher

Center back, which allows for the North Meadow and its

impressive water views to be connected to the Bayside field

and the main campus.

The dormitories are comprised of two open "L's" which

exploit views to the east and southeast (every suite has a

water view). Between these two wings is a lower satellite

dinning pavilion with other common amenities. This is

complimented by a bar of classrooms and offices that

conceal a parking structure behind. This could also house

additional dormitory rooms if required. The parking

structure is a backdrop to a new tennis complex on one side

and additional surface parking to the north. Particular

attention is paid to the pedestrian connections back to the

main campus. Additional space is also provided for ample

practice/intramural fields and a softball diamond.


46/67


45

Final Scheme ARendered by Talal Mahmeed


47/67


46

Final Scheme B

Campus Core

The precinct plans illustrate the details regarding theproposed treatment of the campus core; however the role of

the reconfigured student union deserves discussion here.

The desire to connect to the water is expressed quite clearly

with the building drawing a direct connection from the

tower of the Main Library to an amphitheater that looks out

to the water. This building also defines spaces to the north

and south and allows the space of the main quadrangle to

connect with the space in front of M&NS.

There is also an important sequence leading from the north

parking past the Law school to a newly configured

pedestrian mall between the SAAHP and a new

Admin/Classroom building. This sequence continues in a

stepping fashion past the FCAS to the increasingly

important path behind the Student Services building.

Main EntranceThe proposed Pedestrian Mall also feeds off a reconfigured

main entrance. This entrance provides greater access to the

Administration building and new access the parking behind

it. The drive features a sweeping curve through along the

lawn in front of the campus that is mirrors the sweeping

drive connecting to the North Campus. This sweep is also

picked up in the pedestrian continuation of the North

Campus link that connects the proposed amphitheater in

front of the M&NS building to the main quadrangle.


48/67


47

North CampusThe inboard housing scheme represented in the earlier

scheme B-2 was explored further; however is not included

in the final plan (see precinct plans). The use of the current

alignment of the Maher Center access road keeps current

pattern of the dormitories along the waters edge. These

dormitories are arranged in two interrelated pairs of

buildings. The first pair makes the transition from the

geometry of Bayside and the second frames a relationship

to the proposed soccer/lacrosse venue and

grandstands/parking garage. The Bayside wing of the first

paring could be dropped to allow more of an opening to the

north meadow. Both wings of this first pairing could also

be dropped in favor of a site for a Performing Arts Center

on either side of the road.

This first pair of flanking dormitories acts as a gateway to

the north campus and the north meadow, framing a

spectacular water view and continuing the series of portals

framed by the Bayside dormitories. These portals punctuate

a stepping pedestrian walk linking to a realigned north

entrance. The playing field would require some regarding;

however, it would be an impressive setting for an all-

weather venue and exercise track.

The dormitories, which frame the view from the playing

field to the meadow beyond, also enjoy oblique water

views to the east and southeast past the bayside

dormitories. These dormitories also define intimate

courtyards and forecourts, providing a variety of social

spaces.


49/67


48

Final Scheme BRendered by Talal Mahmeed


50/67


49

Precinct Plans

Main Entrance:Timothy Bailey & Christopher NardiThe decision to explore the Main Entrance during the

precinct phase reflects the complexity of the problem and

the need to address it in more detail. This also allowed

various strategies to be tested within the Master Planning

Committee and by outside consultants. While I am not

convinced that we were able to conduct a conclusive study

the strategies we did study marked two extremes.

The first strategy does not attempt major changes to the

entrance itself, but creates a sense of arrival through the

creation of a pedestrian mall in the location of a current

parking lot. This works in concert with the idea of a one-

way loop circulation to allow the current entrance to remain

the "ceremonial" main entrance while allowing most

everyday traffic to use the side entrances. The visitor

parking area provides a clear connection to the Pedestrian

Mall, which acts an important organizing spine.

The second, more radical strategy, involves bringing people

into the campus earlier, either at a point opposite the

President's House or at the current turn around for those

approaching from the North. This offered a chance to

provide better access to the current Administration

Building, but was seen as too intrusive to the front lawn.

One-way Entrance w/ Pedestrian Mall and ProposedAdministration Building

Sweeping Approach


51/67


50

Administrative operations would be consolidated into a U-

shaped building with a portal connecting the proposed

Pedestrian Mall to a terrace overlooking a newly formed

quadrangle and the water beyond. We explored using the

sloping site to maximize water views and to allow for

parking to be incorporated under the building and its raised

terrace.

View of Pedestrian Crossing at ProposedAdministration Building

View from Reconfigured Entry

View of Pedestrian Mall from Recreation Center


52/67


51

Infill within the Campus CoreMeghan Brennen & Richard Krenzer

During the 1980's Princeton University explored a unique

program of infill within their campus core. Land was

available however the intention was to conserve open space

and to build upon the density envisioned by early master

plans that sought to establish a tight knit academic village

along the lines of Oxford or Cambridge. During the 1960's

& 70's prominent Architects like I.M. Pei, Phillip Johnson

and Hugh Stubbins preferred virgin sites on the edge of the

Campus. During the 80's and early 90's this notion was

abandoned in favor of a more active engagement with the

historic fabric of the campus core. A number of strategies

where employed. New structures were inserted to clarifyand strengthen the spatial structure of the campus and

additions were made to existing buildings. Additions did

not to simply mimic the originals but engaged them in a

dialogue. Often, new buildings or additions would have to

act as intermediaries between Buildings from the 1950's

and 60's which shunned their gothically inspired

predecessors.

In order to investigate the potential for infill within the

Campus Core we took two of the original buildings oncampus and used different strategies. In adding to the one-

story portion of the Engineering School, we simply

extended the language of the original building. In a similar

addition to the FCAS a dialogue is established to create a

more prominent destination to mark this important anchor

to the south end of the campus.

Engineering School Addition (addition by replication)by Meghan Brennen

FCAS Addition (addition through contrast/dialogue)by Richard Krenzer

C


53/67


52

The Water's EdgeDaniel J. Braca & DJ Alexander

Student UnionThe position of the current student union is one of the mostpuzzling aspects of the existing campus. It is a nothing

building that is at a loss as to how to respond to its

prominent site. In response the proposed replacement takes

all of its clues from the site, connecting to the water,

defining the space in front of Maple Hall and opening up to

the space in front of MNS and the connection to the North

Campus. It attempts to guide movement and views rather

than block them.

Site Plan

Model View from Water

2002 2003 RWU P id ti l F ll hi R t C Pl i


54/67


53

Waterfront Paths

Increasing access to the waters edge should be the focus of

a specialized study undertaken by a qualified Landscape

Architect. The clearing and maintenance of any area within

200' of a costal feature is regulated by the CRMC. The

guidelines are open to interpretation in some areas;

however a prudent policy would be to conduct a regular

review of the plans for any areas within their jurisdiction.

The clearing of nature trails and underbrush to allow for the

use of existing open spaces for increased access and views

could be achieved and maintained with the cooperation of

participating regulatory agencies.

The following study is an illustration of the potential for theexpansion of access to the waters edge. We believe that this

access can be achieved while protecting the sensitive nature

of the shoreline. Jogging trails, educational nature walks,

picnic / study areas and potential space for a boathouse are

but a few possibilities for this beautiful and untapped

resource.

Waterfront Paths



55/67


54



56/67


55

Upper Bayside DormitoriesMaryellen Anderson & Kyle Harrison

The Bayside field remains an attractive location for

additional dormitories; however it is also a desirable openspace. The question becomes whether to advocate a

compact campus with open space at the perimeter or to

treat the north campus as a semi-autonomous cluster. In

wither case the placement of a major sports venue at the

location of the current Bayside fields would be a major

impediment to any meaningful connection to this valuable

part of the campus. A pedestrian fire lane was developed in

place of the current one-way road, to facilitate a pedestrian

linkage to the North Campus and avoid vehicular conflicts.

North CampusTimothy Brennan & Talal Mahmeed

Floor plans were developed for each of the final dormitory

layouts. Point access suites proved most suitable since they

would allow of maximum access to views and allow the

clustering of 4-6 suites. However, corridor access would

also be possible especially in Scheme B to exploit views of

the playing fields to the west. Placing the Dormitories on

the lower elevation

Pedestrian Fire Lane in front of Bayside.by Kyle Harrison

Dormitories framing view of meadow / waterby Edgar Adams

2002 2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning


57/67


56

Conclusion

We have attempted to establish a rational basis for understanding

the complex environment that we encounter as we go about our

daily routines. We have tried to solve large-scale problems in a

way that adds to the cohesion and coherence of our communalfabric. We have tried to illustrate how the individual work of

architecture, when guided by a larger idea, need not be an island;

but can reinforce existing patterns and open up new vistas and

possibilities for future development. This sense of

interdependency is tangible in the inner workings of our bodies

and in the cooperative nature of so much of what we do as aninstitution. A good Campus Plan provides the foundation for

this to unfold in a tangible fashion that builds on our shared

values and aspirations and meets the day-to-day needs of the

university community.

I would like nothing better than to say that we have reached the

illusive heights alluded to above; but it is a complex and

involved process. The current Master Plan document was

formulated under difficult circumstances; however it has been

instrumental in establishing a credible basis for futurenegotiations. This Campus Planning Report document has the

distinct advantage of not being subject to the heat of difficult

town / gown negotiations. This is an advantage that we can

regain if we are able to formulate a comprehensive and

integrated Campus Plan that addresses the legitimate concerns of

the various constituencies involved and is strong enough toweather the next round of negotiations intact. We would like to

think that this document, in spite of its shortcomings, would be

an important part of that process as it unfolds. Final Review of student work



58/67


57

Appendix A: Aerial Photographs

Fig. 1 Ferrycliff Farm (preRoger Williams University)



59/67


58

Fig. 2 Original Campus (1970's)



60/67


59

Fig. 3 View from South (Late 1980's / Pre-Library)

Fig. 4 View from North (late 1980's / Pre-Library)



61/67


60

Fig. 5 View from NE (1990's / Post Law School, Pre - M&NS)

Fig. 6 View from East (1990's / Pre - M&NS)



62/67


61

Fig. 7 View showing addition Bayside Dormitories and M&NS



63/67


62

Appendix B: Previous Plans

Plan for the 90's Phase II



64/67


63

Plan by Caesar Pelli's Office 1994



65/67


64

Ganteaume & McMullen: Conceptual Master Plan (Sept. 2000)



66/67


65

Bibliography

BooksCasebook on Campus Planning and Institutional Development : Ten Institutions, ow They Did It. Compiled by John B. Rork, Leslie F.Robbins. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. GPO, 1962.

Dober, Richard P. Campus Architecture: Building in the Groves of Academe. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.

Dober, Richard P. Campus Design. New York: Wiley, 1992.

Dober Richard P. Campus Landscape:Functions, Forms Features. New York: Wiley.

Gaines, Thomas A. The Campus as a Work of Art. New York: Praeger, 1991.

Koetter, Kim & Assoc. place/time. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1997

Muthesius, Stefan. The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Pearce, Martin. University Builders. New York: Wiley.

Riera Ojeda, Oscar. Campus & Community: Moore, Rudle & Yudell Architecture and Planning. Rockport MA. Rockport Publishers,1997.

Schmertz, Mildred F. Campus Planning and Design. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.

Strange, C. C., J. Banning. Educating by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments the Work. (Bryant, JWU)

Space Planning Guidelines for Institutions of Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Council of Educational Facilities Planners,International, 1985. (URI)

Town of Bristol, Rhode Island. Bristol Rhode Island Zoning Ordinance. Bristol, RI: Bristol Town Council, 1994. Revisionsthrough September 2001.

Turner, Paul Venable. Campus: An American Planning Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985.



67/67

p p p g

Periodical ArticlesArcidi, Philip. "Inquiry: Campus Infill", Progressive Architecture, (April 1990): 100-107

Branch, Mark Alden. "Coherence Regained", Progressive Architecture, (October 1991): 90-95.

Chapman, Perry. Planning The Future Campus: Opinion,Architecture, v. 84, no. 2 (Feb. 1995): 53-57.

Dennis, Michael; "On Campus Planning", Modulus 23, (1995): 109-127

Markowitz, Frank and Alex Estrella. Campus Moves: Lively Experiments In Transportation Technology,Planning,v. 68, no. 4 (July 1998):14-18.

OConnell, Kim. Campus Lessons,Landscape Architecture, v. 89, no. 7 (July 1999): 32-38.

Stephens, Suzanne. The American Campus,Architectural Record, v. 189, n.2 (Feb. 2000): 77-79.

Web ArticlesBlumenstky, Goldie. "A Campus Planner who Strives to Overcome the "Curse of Asphalt"; http://www.scup.org/chron.htmDennis, Michael. "On Campus Design and Planning";http://www.michaeldennis.com/pages/3rd%20level/text/campus%20design.htmlMorris, Jeff. "Campus Planning: Pulling it Together"; http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=112Rivard, Nicole. "No Parking?"; http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=98

Misc. LinksNational Center for Education Statistics; http://nces.ed.gov/

Society of College and University Planning; http://www.scup.org/

rwucampus03lr

Documents