Abstract
This book is a good addition to the small but growing literature on the physical development of university campuses and on the relation between such development and the surrounding community. It should be of interest primarily to those involved in university (physical) planning and development from an academic or practical perspective, as well as to a broader public that cares about university–community relations.
The first decade of this century was indeed a “dynamic” one for campus-building projects, not just in North Carolina but across the nation. Sometimes described as a “facilities arms race,” many institutions were able to secure public and private funding to renew and expand their physical plant, from classroom buildings and research laboratories to student unions, housing, and athletic facilities. This building frenzy peaked in 2006 at about $15 billion, good for perhaps 40–50 million square feet per year. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), with funding provided by a massive statewide bond issue for higher education, over 6 million square feet of new buildings were built over the decade, and a million square feet was renovated. This book describes the philosophy and approach to this enormous undertaking and vividly describes a host of challenges encountered. This is not an outsider’s account; the authors were both deeply involved, Godschalk as a UNC faculty member, chair of the Building and Grounds Committee, and a variety of other related roles; Howes as Special Assistant to various UNC Chancellors, former mayor of Chapel Hill, and similar positions. Thus, they presumably had extensive access and personal knowledge to bring to the work presented here. The result is a deep and engaging, but not excessively exhaustive (and exhausting) case study.
The book’s narrative follows the chronology of the decade. It starts with the preparation of the Master Plan, including the generation of proposals, participation processes, and governmental reviews. The main challenge in this phase was accommodating growth without harming the traditional campus image. This is followed in chapter 3 by the content of the Development Plan, including guiding principles, and proposed changes to the lengthy Chapel Hill zoning “straitjacket” (p. 15). The next chapter describes the Project Design Process, which aimed at handling a large volume of projects that needed to combine design creativity with compatibility with the historic campus aesthetic, and chapter 6 focuses on the renovation process.
From there, the book switches to discussion of the specific major developments that were completed. The North Campus project’s challenge was to fit major expansions of arts and sciences facilities in the largely built-up traditional campus. On the Southeast Campus, many student residential and student life projects were built and the focus was on creating an attractive and integrated environment. Here, the existing sprawling agglomeration of health care and research needed to be knitted together in a more pedestrian and student and patient-friendly environment. And the final project, the new Carolina North project outside of the main campus, required a new strategy with the city to allow future growth while preserving valuable environmental features. The final chapter summarizes lessons learned.
A guiding theme throughout the book is the concept of sustainability. The authors’ opening paragraphs cite Perry and Wiewel (2005) regarding the tension between the internal needs of the campus to provide educational, research, and student life space, and the external concerns of neighbors and local governments about tax-exempt, but economically significant institutions with at best a mixed record of collaborative planning. The authors fundamentally define sustainability as the process of blending these contending forces while maintaining the historic campus. “Because the historic campus remains in place for generations, its maintenance must be a central focus of sustainable planning. Therefore, the triple bottom line for a campus plan is sustaining the past, present and future” (p. 12, italics in original).
Frankly, while I find much to like about this book, I do not care for its use of the term this way. It is so broad as to lose all specific meaning, and largely equates with the concept of “good” planning—which obviously is different for many people. This shows up most clearly at the end of chapter 7, about the Southeast campus, where the label of sustainability is applied to conflict resolution (it is better to have consensus than not); to convenient access for students to services; to saving the natural environment. The authors even write, “A sustainable athletic complex should be designed to integrate playing fields, arenas, and stadiums into campus settings that enable efficient access and egress and provide convenient supporting facilities for visitors” (p. 118). Would anyone try to design something that is inefficient and inconvenient?
Setting this quibble aside, the book provides useful insight into the nature of campus–community relations. Among the contextual elements of this relationship is that the campus had become surrounded by historical neighborhoods, for which part of their attractiveness was the very presence of the campus, but whose residents now fiercely resisted further campus expansion. (Many campuses seem to be surrounded by either rich neighborhoods that do not like campus expansion and are able to resist it—e.g., Georgetown, UCLA—or poor ones that, often based on painful experience, deeply distrust universities, e.g., Columbia, University of Illinois at Chicago. “Goldilocks” situations—e.g., Portland State University—are few and far between). A second important element of the relationship was that the Town Council had traditionally approved university building projects one at a time. To achieve the construction pace envisioned, the process needed to be streamlined, which was achieved by shifting to a review of the comprehensive Master Plan and Development Plan, rather than individual projects. Even so, “for some controversial projects, navigating the rocks and shoals of Chapel Hill’s approval process took an extraordinary amount of effort by University officials in order to avoid being turned down by the Town Council” (p. 61). These efforts are described in vivid detail, including the not uncommon irony of having university faculty lead the charge against their institution. Nobody bites the hand that feeds it like faculty.
The many lessons of this detailed case study are summarized as “triumphs” in the final chapter. They include the following main points:
The preservation of the “sacred spaces” (p. 145) of the campus. Indeed, the authors place a lot of emphasis on the importance of maintaining the historic character of the campus, not just as a physical planning preference but as a key connection point for alumni. Of course, the importance of this will vary by institution; for many of the newer, rapidly growing urban campuses this may be much less salient.
Maintenance of the historic look and feel of the architecture by strict massing and design guidelines. Both of these “triumphs” were made possible by extensive preparatory work that identified the historic, stylistic, and natural strengths of the campus.
The creation and linking of student living and learning communities; faculty teaching and research areas; and patient and visitor service areas, achieved by developing area plans for the main parts of the campus.
Modernization of the educational and research facilities, based on a tight focus on key aspects of the university’s mission, rather than allowing marginal uses to occupy strategic space.
The change from Town Council’s project-based approval to overall plan approval.
Approval of the actual Development Plan. As discussed above, these two triumphs were achieved through very intensive political negotiations over a period of time.
Limiting development to the responsible capacity of the campus. This involved creating efficiencies such as better stormwater management, development of a public transportation system that reduced road and parking needs, etc.
Development of a new research campus on sensitive land, using strict environmental standards, and involving extensive negotiations with public bodies.
A new internal design review process, based on the standards of the Master Plan.
Few campuses will be able to build as many projects in the short time that happened at UNC. And no campus will face the exact same constraints in terms of strong local zoning and building control over the campus, a significant historical core, surrounding historical neighborhoods, etc. But the lessons implicit in these triumphs have relevance in many places. Development should be guided by an overarching vision, detailed in versions of a master plan, development plan, and design guidelines. Taking a holistic approach, rather than working on a project-by-project basis is essential. Depending on the campus context, relations with neighbors and local government may be better or worse, but they will almost surely matter. The goals and processes described in this book, enlivened by more detailed profiles on some of the key players, will be of interest to anyone who has witnessed the explosive growths of higher education institutions, and will be invaluable to those responsible for making it happen on their own campus.