1 HOWARD UNIVERSITY 2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/...

1

HOWARD UNIVERSITY2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/ Recreation

JUNE 30, 2010

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

1. Market Context2. Student Housing3. Intercollegiate Athletics4. Campus Recreation5. Q&A Throughout

2

MARKET CONTEXT3

HBCU/TWI DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK STUDENTS

MARKET CONTEXT4

HBCU/TWI DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK STUDENTS

MARKET CONTEXT5

MARKET CONTEXT6

Recruitment focuses on capturing the most prepared students

Retaining the best students is becoming increasingly difficult

THEN NOW

STUDENT HOUSING

1. Context2. Macro View3. Location Attributes4. Quality & Unit Mix5. Problem & Opportunity Summary

Pace University – Campus Master Plan Feasibility Analysis8

Inadequate Facilities Poorly Maintained Facilities

Source: The impact of facilities on recruitment and retention of students – Reynolds, et al 2006

7.9%

9.8%

14.1%

14.8%

16.5%

16.8%

18.8%

21.1%

21.4%

23.9%

40.5%

41.3%

Residential Facilities off Campus

Varsity Athletic Facilities

Research / Lab Facilities

Other

Recreation Facilities

Student Union Center

Technology Facilities

Library

Open Space

Classrooms

Facilities in My Major

Residential Facilities on Campus

8.7%

9.1%

10.9%

14.2%

16.0%

16.6%

19.3%

21.6%

24.8%

30.2%

44.1%

69.6%

Residential Facilities off Campus

Varsity Athletic Facilities

Research / Lab Facilities

Technology Facilities

Other

Recreation Facilities

Library

Facilities in My Major

Student Union Center

Open Space

Classrooms

Residential Facilities on Campus

STUDENT HOUSING - Context

Facility Related Reasons Students Reject Acceptance Letters

STUDENT HOUSING - Context9

STATES THAT SUPPLY HOWARD THE MOST STUDENTS

STUDENT HOUSING – Macro View10

Howard Has the Capacity to House 45% of its Students, but GW, GU and AU House Between 60% and 70%.

Off-Campus Options are Often: In Poor Condition Too Expensive Far From Campus

Affordable Student Housing is not The Highest & Best Use of Privately Held Real Estate Near Howard’s Campus

Howard’s Recruitment & Retention Efforts are Impeded by a Lack of Housing.

STUDENT HOUSING – Location11

STUDENT HOUSING – Location12

1,42630.9%

2,06244.7%

1,12124.3%

Beds By Location Campus Core

Campus Edge

Off-Campus

ExhibitC.2: Beds by Location Based upon Proximity to Campus

STUDENT HOUSING – Quality & Mix13

RESIDENCE HALL Beds % Total Gross SqFt GSF/Bed % GSF Built Age

Bethune Annex (BX) 557 12.09% 225,000 403.9 14.78% 1994 16Carver Hall (CA) 173 3.75% 58,567 338.5 3.85% 1942 68Cook Hall (CO) 200 4.34% 83,444 417.2 5.48% 1937 73Drew Hall (DR) 332 7.20% 88,979 268.0 5.85% 1957 53Howard Plaza Towers East (HPE) 893 19.38% 286,844 321.2 18.84% 1989 21

Howard Plaza Towers West (HPW) 837 18.16% 286,843 342.7 18.84% 1989 21Meridian Hill Hall (ME) 649 14.08% 182,516 281.2 11.99% 1941 69Slowe Hall (SL) 299 6.49% 93,711 313.4 6.16% 1942 68Tubman Quadrangle* 669 14.52% 216,319 323.3 14.21% 1937 73

Baldwin Hall (BA) 124 2.69% 50,625 408.3 3.33% 1948 62Crandall Hall (CR) 141 3.06% 36,150 256.4 2.37% 1929 81Frazier Hall (FR) 127 2.76% 42,769 336.8 2.81% 1929 81Truth Hall (TR) 150 3.25% 36,150 241.0 2.37% 1929 81Wheatley Hall (WH) 127 2.76% 50,625 398.6 3.33% 1948 62

TOTAL 4,609 1,522,223 330.3 average GSF/BedExhibit A.1: Housing Inventory, Gross Square Footage, and Building Age Calculations by Residence Hall

* Bed count & GSF are sums of Quad complex halls, and GSF/Bed year built & age are averages of same.


UNIT TYPE Beds % Total Classification Head Count % Total CapacityTraditional 1,790 38.8% Freshman 2,329 23.3% 76.9%Suites (J r & Full) 1,064 23.1% Sophomore 1,614 16.1% 35.9%

J unior 1,352 13.5%Apartments 1,755 38.1% Senior 1,635 16.3% 37.2%

Graduate 3,085 30.8%TOTALS 4,609 beds 10,015 students

Exhibit B.1: Unit Type Capacity Allocated by Market Segment


Occupancy Type Bed Count % Total Unit Type Bed Count % TotalSingle 2,847 61.8% Traditional 1,790 38.8%

Traditional 874 30.7% Single 874 48.8%Suite 450 15.8% Double 604 33.7%Apartment 1523 53.5% Triple 312 17.4%

Double 1,450 31.5% Suite 1,064 23.1%Traditional 604 41.7% Single 450 42.3%Suite 614 42.3% Double 614 57.7%Apartment 232 16.0% Triple 0 0.0%

Triple 312 6.8% Apartment 1,755 38.1%Traditional 312 100.0% Single 1523 86.8%Suite 0 0.0% Double 232 13.2%Apartment 0 0.0% Triple 0 0.0%

TOTAL 4,609 4,609Exhibit B.2: Bedroom Occupancy by Unit Type


UNIT TYPES Beds % Total Market SegmentTraditional 1,790 38.8% Freshmen 2,329

Men's 493 27.5% Male 811 34.8%Women's 669 37.4% Female 1,518 65.2%Coed 628 35.1%

Suite 1,064 23.1% Sophomores & J uniors 2,966Men's 12 1.1% Male 1,007 34.0%Women's 532 50.0% Female 1,959 66.0%Coed 520 48.9%

Apartment 1,755 38.1% Seniors & Graduate 4,720Men's 0 0.0% Male 1,772 37.5%Women's 25 1.4% Female 2,948 62.5%Coed 1,730 98.6%

TOTAL 4,609Exhibit B.3: Unit Type and Classification Distribution by Gender

PHYSICAL PLANNING CRITERIA17

Existing Housing Inventory Existing Demand Reconciliation

Building / Type Current BedsProjected Demand

Current OCR

Targeted OCR

RangeTraditional:

Carver Hall 180 Meridian Hill Hall 574 Slowe Hall 300 Tubman Quad 640

Total Traditional Beds: 1,694 2,241 1.32 1.05 - 1.10Jr. Suites:

Bethune Annex 550 Cook Hall 200 Meridian Hill Hall 185 Drew Hall 330

Total Jr. Suite Beds: 1,265 1,928 1.52 1.10 - 1.20Full Suites:

Phase 1 0 Total Full Suite Beds: 0 789 0.00 1.10 - 1.20Apartments:

Howard Plaza Towers 1,539 Total Apartment Beds: 1,539 3,199 2.08 1.15 - 1.30Totals 4,498 8,157 1.81

STUDENT HOUSING – Summary18

The Need for New & Renovated Housing is Acute 1,100 beds are in poor locations and are candidates for

replacement As much as 1,100 beds must be added to meet demand A significant portion of the balance of Howard’s Inventory

must be carefully assessed for renovation or replacement to meet new standards of excellence

As Much Housing as Possible Should be Built in the Campus Core

With Between 800,000 and 1,000,000 S.F. of Housing Needed, There is an Opportunity to Place Some Strategically on or Near Georgia Avenue to Catalyze Retail and Commercial Development

STUDENT HOUSING – Summary19

Campus Recreation

1. Context2. Functional Relationships3. Problem Summary4. Key Considerations

Campus Recreation - Context

Campus Recreation – Functional Relations

Campus Recreation Centers Can Anchor Student Neighborhoods

Campus Recreation Centers Can Be Used as Catalysts for Day-Part Utilization Expansion for Campus Edge Retail, Student Centers or Related Facilities

Recreation Centers Can be Used to Support Alumni and Community Relations

Recreation Centers Can Have Relationships with Health Care Service Units such as Cardiac Rehab, Orthopedic Surgery or Wellness & Preventive Care Programs

Campus Recreation – Problem Summary

Howard Does Not Have a Contemporary Campus Recreation Center, as a Result Howard Students are Relatively Inactive.

Campus Recreation – Problem Summary

Given Industry Standards, Howard Has a Current Need for Between 110,000 and 120,000 S.F. of Campus Recreation Space.

Campus Recreation Centers are very Effective Recruitment Collateral for Student and Faculty.

Building a New Recreation Facility Would Mitigate the Current Space Limitations Facing the Athletic Department.

Intercollegiate Athletics

1. Context2. Problem Summary3. Key Considerations

Intercollegiate Athletics - Context

Howard Sponsors 16 Intercollegiate Athletic Teams as a Member of the MEAC Conference

The Primary Facility Assets are Burr Gym & Green Stadium and Both Facilities are Shared with Recreation and Academic Programs

Since Burr Gym was Constructed in 1964, Several Rounds of a Facility “Arms Race” have Been Completed Causing Howard’s Facilities to Fall Well Below the Current Standard in Both Capacity and Quality.

Due to Resource Constraints, Most Schools Target Different Standards for Each Sport they Sponsor.

Intercollegiate Athletics - Context

Competitive Pressure

Title IX Compliance

Recruiting – Athletes & Coaches

Retention – Coaches

Donor Interests

Consistency of Image & Standards

Athletic Facility Development Drivers

Intercollegiate Athletics – Problem Summary

Locker Room

s /

Team

Room

s

Pra

ctice F

acilitie

s

Com

petition V

enue

Specta

tor A

ccom

modations

Adm

inistration

Ath

letic Tra

inin

g &

Rehab

Strength

& C

onditio

nin

g

Museum

/ H

all o

f Fam

e

Academ

ic S

upport

Iconogra

phy

Avera

ge

Targ

et A

vera

ge

% o

f Ta

rget

Weig

hte

d A

vera

ge

Weig

hte

d Targ

et

% o

f Ta

rget

Men's TeamsBasketball 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2.0 3.5 57.1% 1.9 3.6 54.0%Cross Country 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.5 3.4 43.8%Football 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2.3 3.6 63.9% 2.1 3.7 57.7%Soccer 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1.8 3.4 52.9% 1.7 3.5 49.0%Swimming & Diving 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.4 3.2 43.8% 1.4 3.4 42.6%Tennis 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.5 3.4 43.8%Track & Field 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.4 3.4 41.7%

Women's TeamsBasketball 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2.0 3.5 57.1% 1.8 3.6 50.6%Bowling 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.7 3.2 53.1% 1.5 3.4 46.0%Cross Country 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.3 3.3 39.4% 1.4 3.4 40.8%Lacrosse 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.7 3.3 51.5% 1.7 3.4 48.2%Soccer 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.6 3.3 48.5% 1.6 3.4 47.8%Softball 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.4 3.3 42.4% 1.6 3.4 47.0%Swimming & Diving 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.4 3.2 43.8% 1.4 3.4 41.8%Track & Field 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 45.5% 1.6 3.4 47.4%Volleyball 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.8 3.4 52.9% 1.7 3.5 47.8%

Scoring Legend:

5

4

3

2

1

TEA

M

Exhibit A.2: Assessment of Existing Facility Components by Team and Reconcilation with Targeted Performance Levels

Facilities are comparable with those of the national leaders in Division I intercollegiate athletics, providing the highest possible competitive advantage.

Facilities are sufficient to provide a clear competitive advantage amongst local or conference leaders.

Facilities are functionally sufficient for intended purposes, and are not an encumbrance to an extraordinary coaching staff.

Facilities are clearly lacking, creating a competitive disadvantage, negatively impacting performance, recruitment, and retention.

Facilities are among the worst in the conference due to functional problems that place teams at a clear competitive disadvantage.

Intercollegiate Athletics - Considerations

Possibility of the Emergence of One or More Flagship Programs

Possibility of a Change in the Composition of Sports Sponsored

Possibility of a Change in Conference Affiliation and Competition Level

Resource Availability

42

HOWARD UNIVERSITY2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/ Recreation

JUNE 30, 2010

PHYSICAL PLANNING CRITERIA43

1 HOWARD UNIVERSITY 2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/...

Documents

Transcript of 1 HOWARD UNIVERSITY 2010 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Existing Conditions Overview Housing / Athletics/...