A FRAMEWORK FOR CAMPUS RENEWAL AND ......Kansas University has a long and distinguished history,...

University of Kansas Lawrence Campus A FRAMEWORK FOR CAMPUS RENEWAL AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

Chancellor Robert Hemenway Fall, 1997

i

OUTLINE OF DOCUMENT BY SECTION AND TOPIC

Page

FOREWARD .................................................................................................................................................... v

CAMPUS PLANNING PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................ ix

TRIBUTES TO R. KEITH LAWTON ...................................................................................................... xi

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... A‐1

A View to the Past in Defining the Future Continuity and Change Planning Values State Funding/Private Funding Campus Planning Versus Project Planning

HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................................................. A‐5

Lawrence Campus: The Past 130 Years The Region A history of Facilities Development at KU The Initial KU Planning Documents World War II and the Modern Era The 1973 Plan to the Present The Growth of the University and the Community THE 1997 PLAN ....................................................................................................................................... A‐15

Institutional Initiatives

CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ....................................................................................... A‐21

Planning Elements and Processes Relationship of Activities Buildable and Accessible Sites Core Campus Activities and West Campus Campus Access, Mobility, and Wayfinding

ii

THE PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................................................................... B-1 Assumptions for Planning Purposes Task Force Review of Issues Building and Building Sites

KU/Lawrence Relationships Student Needs Transportation Environmental Issues Campus Utilities and Infrastructure

THE ELEMENTS OF PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ..................................... B-11 Land Use, Access, Image LAND USE ................................................................................................................................... B-13 Adjacencies and Affinities Campus Density Open and Green Space Central Versus West Campus Development Land-use Principles Land Use Planning for Parking Near-campus Neighborhoods Property Acquisitions LAND USE OPTIONS ................................................................................................................ B-23 Central Campus: Areas of Campus Expansion Central Campus Land Use Central Campus Open and Green Space West Campus Schematic Development Plan ACCESSIBILITY ........................................................................................................................ B-29 Transportation and Campus Mobility Principles for Transportation Planning

iii

THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ B-31 Developing Multimodal Transportation Systems A History of Parking Parking in the Future Campus Traffic Circulation Plan Campus Transit Circulator Routes Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Routes Existing and Proposed Bike Routes IMAGE AND ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................ B-43 Composition of the Built Environment Features of the Campus Landscape Architecture INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. B-51 Demands for Expansion and Mandates for Improvement Electrical Distribution and Campus Lighting Central Heating Plant Utility Tunnels and Steam Distribution Systems Air Conditioning and Chilled Water Capabilities Storm Sewers Sanitary Sewers Water Mains Fire Protection Natural Gas SCENARIOS FOR CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... C-1 Evaluation of the 1973 Plan Future Scenarios Scenarios as a Tool to Guide Future Decisions INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... D-1 Connecting Vision to Action Assessing Proposals for Capital Projects

iv

CAMPUS PLANNING STEPS TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION ........................................ E-1

Quality of the Academic Environment ........................................................................................ E-1

Research Support and Administration ........................................................................................ E-2

Student Support ............................................................................................................................. E-3

Campus Access and Mobility ........................................................................................................ E-4

Campus Landscape ........................................................................................................................ E-6

Auxiliary Enterprises ..................................................................................................................... E-8

Institutional Support Activities .................................................................................................... E-9

Campus Signage ............................................................................................................................. E-9

Mandates from the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) ................................................. E-10

Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... E-10

Buildings and Building Sites ....................................................................................................... E-11

v

FOREWORD

Kansas University has a long and distinguished history, including a history of Lawrence campus plans. Since 1904, planners have tried to imagine what the Lawrence campus should look like, and how KU’s physical future can best be shaped. The last serious effort was in 1973, and it set in place many of the planning assumptions we hold today: Jayhawk Boulevard as the academic center of the campus, green spaces a high priority, facilities not integral to the class hour day located outside the core campus.

It is appropriate, however, for KU to continue to evolve on its main campus, so that KU students, faculty and staff in the 21st century will have as beautiful and as functional a learning environment as in the past.

The 1997 Campus Plan has been four years in the making, and has been widely circulated and discussed on the campus and in the Lawrence community. It is a plan with many authors, and everyone who has responded to the various drafts has contributed to its final form. The purpose of this 1997 Campus Plan is to codify planning principles that everyone can recognize and identify with, planning principles that will be in the front of everyone’s mind as we make decisions about the physical space we will occupy for the next 20 years.

There are two guiding principles to this process, which we must pledge to hold inviolate. These two principles will inform all of our efforts so long as I am Chancellor, and I hope for Chancellors to come:

1. PRESERVE THE BEAUTY OF MT. OREAD 2. CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHICH SHOWS RESPECT FOR LEARNING

Fifty years from now, we will be judged by how well we achieved these goals. When memories of individual personalities have faded away, when the daily political battles for university funding have receded into the pattern predicted by the state’s motto, when the fierce immediacy of a momentary academic conflict has cooled to an amusing anecdote at alumni gatherings, our legacy to KU will still be judged by whether or not we preserved the university’s beauty, and whether or not we perpetuated and enhanced the university’s learning and scholarship.

The principles articulated here will guide the $155 million dollars of capital construction and landscaping which KU currently has committed to--funding for which has been secured, or is in the process of being sought--and will guide the $100 million of future projects which we hope to build, assuming funds can be identified, in the next 5-7 years. The lists of current and future projects may evolve, and projects may be added to the list, others dropped, as circumstances and realities change. These lists include projects almost complete, and projects which reflect our best judgments, given current conditions, of what KU needs to do to preserve the beauty of its main campus. Done well,

vi

our physical planning will communicate to all, through the media of architecture, landscape, and space, the respect for learning and growth of knowledge which characterize a great university. I ask that all of you take notice of this plan, not because we need to march in lockstep toward particular goals, but so that our future planning in the KU marketplace of ideas will include the values expressed here.

Robert Hemenway Chancellor August 5, 1997

vii

CURRENT PROJECTS – LAWRENCE CAMPUS

Budig Hall $ 24,000.000

Adams Alumni Center Renovation 1,300,000

Watkins Student Health Center Addition & Renovation 4,500,000

Campus Landscape Master Plan & Implementation 2,000,000

Crumbling Classrooms Projects Campus-Wide 16,700,000

Budig Hall Completion 6,000,000

JRP Hall Renovation and Addition for School of Education 14,000,000

Murphy Hall Addition 10,000,000

Child Development Facility 3,300,000

Dole Institute for Public Service and Public Policy 6,000,000

Templin Hall Renovation 5,000,000

Visitors Center Renovation -- Templin Hall 1,100,000

Parking Garage North of Kansas Union 10,100,000

Continuing Education Relocation 3,000,000

Jayhawker Towers Parking Structures Razed 1,200,000

Memorial Stadium and Allen Field House Renovation 32,000,000

Baseball Stadium Improvements 2,700,000

Strong Hall ADA & Fire Code Improvements 2,400,000

Malott Hall ADA, Fire Code Improvements, Research Labs 4,500,000

Lewis Hall Renovation 5,900,000

$155,700,000

viii

FUTURE PROJECTS – LAWRENCE CAMPUS

Jayhawk Boulevard Improvements $ 2,000,000

Campus Entries Improvements 1,000,000

Annex Buildings Razed; i.e., Lindley, Blake 800,000

Facilities Operations Relocation to West Campus 7,000,000

Bailey Hall Renovation 6,000,000

Undergraduate Science Teaching Building - Phase One 25,000,000

Twente Hall Renovation 3,000,000

Learned Hall Addition 13,000,000

Allen Field House Annex 3,000,000

Electrical Distribution Improvements 15,000,000

Library Repository Facility 7,600,000

Wescoe Hall Renovation 10,000,000

Watson Library Renovation 9,000,000

$102,400,000

SUMMARY

Current Projects $155,700,000

Future Projects 102,400,000

$258,100,000

ix

UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION** Robert E. Hemenway, Chancellor David E. Shulenburger, Provost Kathleen McCluskey-Fawcett, Associate Provost Lindy Eakin, Associate Provost David A. Ambler, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs William Crowe, Vice Chancellor of Information Services Robert Barnhill, Vice Chancellor for Research and Public Service Theresa Klinkenberg, University Director of Administration Marlin Rein, University Director of Budget and Government Relations Bob Frederick, Director of Athletics Ann Victoria Thomas, General Counsel of the University Warren Corman, University Architect Rodger Oroke, University Director of Facilities Management **The planning initiative begun in 1993 also includes the chancellorships of Gene A. Budig and Delbert M. Shankel

PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS

Physical Development Task Force Members

Arthur Anderson, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods Laura Brophy, Student Senate William Crowe, Vice Chancellor for Information Services, Dean of Libraries Lindy Eakin, Associate Provost, Steering Committee Stephen Fawcett, Professor of HDFL & Research Associate @ Life Span Institute, SenEx Marci Francisco, Office of Institutional Research and Planning, staff support Jaisri Gangadharan, Graduate Student Council Edwyna Gilbert, Retired Professor of English, Steering Committee James Hamilton, Graduate Student Council Abbas Haideri, Graduate Student Council Marlin Harmony, Professor of Chemistry, Steering Committee Hobart Jackson, Associate Professor of Architecture Joe Lee, Professor of Civil Engineering and Director of Transportation Center Max Lucas, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Task Force Chair Donna Luckey, Associate Professor Architecture/Urban Design Mike Miller, Assistant Director Mechanical Systems - F.O., UPSA Jean Milstead, Chairperson - Lawrence/Douglas County Horizon 2020 Planning Linda Mullens, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Jerry Nossaman, Alumni Association Cindy Riling, Classified Senate Mike Russell, Environmental Health and Safety Officer, Campus Safety Committee Chris Schumm, Student Senate Robert Senecal, Dean of Continuing Education Sam Shanmugan, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, SenEx

x

Glee Smith, Alumni Association Peter Thompson, Dean of Fine Arts Fred Van Vleck, Professor of Mathematics, SenEx Fred Williams, President of KU Alumni Association Edward Zamarripa, Director of Finance and Administration - Life Span Institute

Professional Staff Support for the Work of the Task Force

Greg Wade, Site Development Manager Thomas Waechter, Campus Planning Coordinator Allen Wiechert, University Architect (Retired)

Administrative Planning Group David Ambler, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Maurice Bryan, Director of Office of Equal Opportunity Andrew Debicki, Dean of the Graduate School and International Studies Lindy Eakin, Associate Provost Tom Hutton, Director of University Relations Richard Mann, Former University Director of Administration Edward Meyen, Former Executive Vice Chancellor Rodger Oroke, University Director of Facilities Management Dave Shulenburger, Provost Stephen Schroeder, Director of Life Span Institute Deborah Teeter, University Director of Institutional Research and Planning Ann Weick, Dean of the School of Social Welfare

DEVELOPMENT OF PRESENTATION MEDIA

Kay Albright, Oread Editor, University Relations Barbara Barratt, Graphic Design

DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Roger Martin, RPS, Writer/Editor of revised draft Greg Wade, Site Development Manager, Development of draft document Thomas Waechter, Campus Planning Coordinator, Production of maps, composition of draft and final document Don Whipple, Design and Construction Management, Aerial photography

CONSULTANTS

BRW Inc., Transportation Consultants, Minneapolis, Minn.

xi

TRIBUTE TO R. KEITH LAWTON

The physical presence of the campus is a tribute to the contributions of many individuals over an extended period of time. The individual accomplishments of R. Keith Lawton, however, deserve to be specially acknowledged.

In thirty-four years of work for KU in a number of senior administrative and liaison positions, Mr. Lawton has served as advocate, articulator, and interpreter for nearly every aspect of campus development. He identified processes determining viable solutions for capitol development. He matched physical solutions with academic and research needs. He was involved in the generation of a comprehensive campus plan as far back as the 1950’s.

In well-focused planning initiatives over several decades, Mr. Lawton, in collaborative efforts with many other professionals, pushed forward the physical development of the KU campus. The goal was to meet the needs unique to a public institution of higher education, in times of tremendous social and economic transformation.

Lawton’s successes came despite the preoccupation with the day-to-day tasks expected of an individual who was titled alternately as Director of Facilities Planning, Administrative Assistant to the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Operations, Vice Chancellor for Campus Planning and Development, director of Parking and Facilities Operations. It is the management of details across a broad spectrum of administration and campus development issues that underlie Mr. Lawton’s contribution to the physical qualities of the institution today. The two decades of change since the campus master plan of 1973 reflect Mr. Lawton’s breadth of vision. Even though he retired in 1982, his legacy is everywhere.

It has been said by those published in the field of management science that long term planning does not deal with future decisions, but with the future of present decisions. This practice marks the professional career and personal wisdom of Keith Lawton. Our jobs today as planners for the coming generations are much more clearly defined because of these past successes.

INTRO

Many reaof KansaKansans programsenhancemenvironmany prop Planninglong-term20 years.

Campus pplanning evaluatiobased onthose decis to becoimprovemmaking. Physical and to sucampus. I

ODUCTI

asons exist fas. The reaso

who form ths or activitiement and supment reflectivosed physica

g for specificm planning m. The last com

Purpo

• Involve c• Provide

environm• Docume

enhance• Establis

physical• Identify

institutio• Identify f• Address

campus.• Integrat

planning is amust be flex

on of the pre trends, needcisions must ome. Physicaments into th

developmenupport other It must look

ION

for a compreons are as divhe communites have implipport of progve of the insal developm

c program nemust occur pmprehensive

oses of the

campus consa statement

ment of the cent a plan forement and ovh campus del developmenneeds for fa

onal supportfuture buildlong term c

te transporta

an effort to sxible, for unsent physicads, and projerespect the

al developmhe foreseeab

nt planning iactivities. Bu

k backward a

hensive reviverse as the nty of constitications for bgrams and actitution's val

ment projects

eeds should operiodically; e plan was c

e Physical

stituencies int for the futurcampus. r the visual qverall campuevelopment gnt patterns.

acilities fromt programs.

dable sites anconcerns reg

ation needs w

set an institunanticipated cal environmeected develospirit of the

ment planningle future and

is about the wut it's also ab

as well as for

A-1

iew of the phneeds of thetuents servedbuildings, opctivities, as wlues and trad.

occur withinhistorically,ompleted in

Developm

n the formulre quality an

quality of thus beautificaguidelines re

m academic, r

nd adjacent agarding the s

with the phys

utional directchange is ineent and inforpment. Decicampus as i

g provides a d identifies p

wise use of pbout sustainrward.

hysical deve students, fa

d or touched pen sites, anwell as a comditions, shou

n the framew, a new plan 1973.

ment Plann

lation of a cand character

e campus ination. egarding futu

research, stu

areas of possafety and ph

sical layout a

tion that willevitable. Sucrmed statemeisions on prot is and adheframework

projects that

physical spaing tradition

lopment plaaculty, staff,

by KU. Neand green spacmmitment tould be the po

work of a grahas been art

ning Proce

ampus plan. r of the phys

cluding land

ure land use

udent service

ssible growthhysical desig

and use of th

l accommodch planning ents about fuojects can't bere to the profor requiredmay be man

ace to fulfill pns and time h

ans of the Unalumni, and

arly all campces. The o a campus int of depart

and design. Bticulated abo

ess

ical

dscape

e and

e and

h. gn of the

he campus.

date change. requires an

uture conditibe made piecojections of

d physical ny years in th

programmathonored featu

niversity d other pus

ture for

Broader, out every

Such

ions cemeal; what it

he

tic needs ures of a

A View Because which thatoo muchpressuresgeneratioindividua Because continuitand featuwhen devsensitive campus, strong seframewo

ContinuThus, futbalancingand chancomplexiplant, plaand respepatterns oeducating Howeverplan muscontinualby novel How do winnovatioaspiration In our quorganizinand frien Neverthecampus lare takingmainstaypast, comchanging

to the Pastof the inevitat change is h. In part, this experienceons of studenals, including

of the expecty, time-honoures are oftenvelopment pfashion. Onhistory, trad

ense of placerk for future

uity and Chture developg the needs f

nge. Despite ity and size oanning helpsect existing cof interactiong its students

r, in additionst, as well, tally evolve. Fmeans; stru

we reconcileon? This requn towards qu

uest to preseng element fonds share rem

eless, there ilife because g place away

y, those who me upon a difg patterns of

t in Definintability of choccurring. A

is expectatiod by entities

nts pass throg faculty, sta

ctation of ored elemenn reiterated roceeds in a

n the KU dition, and a e provide thee developme

hange ment requirefor continuitgrowth in of the physic

s to maintaincampus n. One such s in classroo

n to respectinake into accoFor example,uctural chang

e these someuires a commuality.

erve the tradifor 100 yearsmembrances

s a significanof increasingy from this texperience tfferent arranaccess.

ng the Futuhange, it is imA university'on arises becs outside the ugh the instiaff, and othe

nts

a

e nt.

es ty

cal n

pattern, for oms along Ja

ng the naturaount certain i, the technolges in the phy

etimes contramitment to p

itional camps has been Jas tied to this f

nt change ocg campus detraditional cethe campus t

ngement of b

A-2

ure mportant to d's constituen

cause a campuniversity. T

itution. Theser citizens.

example, is ayhawk Boul

al and humaninevitable chlogical revolysical enviro

ary needs to principles an

pus, we mustJayhawk Bou

feature.

ccurring in thensity. In addenter. Despittoday, comp

built space, h

develop a sents tend to hopus is not subThese expecse expectatio

that KU is alevard.

nly wroughthanges. The ution is allowonment will

respect tradnd goals, a de

t acknowledgulevard. Gen

he relationshdition, constte the boulevpared with thhigher densit

ense of the hope that a cabject to the sctations intenons are also h

a university t

t features of ways we leawing us to einevitably fo

dition and incefinition of o

ge that its merations of K

hip of the botruction and vard's continhose who expties of peopl

istorical conmpus won't same developnsify as succheld by man

traditionally

the campus,arn and teachexchange inffollow.

corporate objectives, a

ost promineKU alumni, v

oulevard to ea flurry of a

nuing to be aperienced it le and structu

ntext in change pment

cessive ny other

y given to

, any h formation

and an

nt visitors,

everyday activities a in the ures, and

For examNow thoscampus; slope of Mmajor crobrief time These chstudy, ana long-te

PlanninPlanningthat acknto the unconstituesystem eselectricaltake priomission oindividuaidentifyin

Planningprocess. within th

State FuBecause fulfillmenFund. Asfunctionainitiativefunding f The pursprojects. private mresponsib(projects A currenwater supreview ofproposedavailable

mple, 20 yearse trips origithe developmMount Oreaoss-city route, will contin

hanges have nd visit here.rm perspecti

ng Values g should be bnowledges fuiversity's mi

encies and instablishes prl distributionrity over theobligation) oal. These valng the physi

g is a social pConsensus-b

he framework

unding/Privof limited stnt of the acas a consequeal requiremee during the 1for maintena

uit of grant mIn many cas

monies suppobility for bassometimes

nt list of needpply systemsf steam gene

d central utilie maintenanc

rs ago the minate from thment and co

ad; the develotes like 23rd nue to impac

made a prof Still, we wiive that acco

based on a deunctional reqission, and pnstitutional leriorities. Forn (a functione addition of or the visionalues must becal developm

process. Conbuilding amok of an instit

vate Funditate funding,ademic missience, improvents-are some1996 sessionance and reh

monies and pses, private mort projects tsic facilities.construed as

ded improves, and storm eration and dity systems oce funds and

majority of trihe south and

onsolidation opment of thStreet and I

ct patterns o

found differeish to ensureommodates t

efensible valquirements, opreferences oeaders. This r example, thnal requiremef classroom sary project o

e applied whment needs o

nsideration, dong studentstutional valu

ing , only those ion are targe

vement of othetimes delayn of the Kansabilitation.

private contrmonies havethat complem Unfortunate

s unglamoro

ments wouldand sanitary

distribution, on west cam

d may require

A-3

ips made to Kd west. That'sof academiche surroundiIowa Street. f campus de

ence in the de the preservthe needs for

lue system obligations of

value he need for ent) must space (a of a single en of individual

debate, discus, faculty, staue system.

projects thateted for stateher facilitiesyed or not cosas Legislatu

ributions fore enhanced Kment academely, basic neus or unnece

d include upy sewers. Suboth for exi

mpus. Long-te capital dev

KU came fros because of

c, research, ang communThese chang

evelopment.

daily experienation of the r continuity

l programs.

ussion, and daff, and com

t are deemede funding thrs and maintenompleted. In ure arose bec

r capital devKU's developmic programseeds for infraessary) may

pgrades to eleuch a list wousting systemerm infrastru

velopment m

The mo

of camp

been Ja

acknow

traditio

om the northf the overall and support sity; and the ges, occurrin

nce of indivtraditional eand change

dissension armmunity mem

d absolutely rough the Ednance of infrfact, the Cru

cause of a ch

velopment is pment. Both s; they do noastructure imbe neglected

ectrical distruld also incl

ms on the maucture needs

monies.

ost prominen

mpus growth in

Jayhawk Boul

wledged if we

onal campus.

h and east ofgrowth of thspace on the establishmen

ng in a relativ

iduals who wexperience byalike.

re all part ofmbers should

necessary foducational Bufrastructure--umbling Clahronic shortf

essential to grant funds

ot supplant smprovementsd.

ribution systude a compl

ain campus as now exceed

nt organizing

n the last cen

levard. This m

e are to preser

f campus. he

south nt of vely

work, y taking

f the d occur

or the uilding -assrooms fall in

many and tate s

tems, lete

and for d

element

ntury has

must be

rve the

SecuringTo raise pdovetaileissues, opidentifiedcritical tostate.

CampusIt's imporlimitationprovidedproposalinstitutiodecisions It is a frafinished sprojects.

g private fundprivate fund

ed with fundptions for ded by need. Ao the future q

s Planning rtant to diffens of a plann

d options givls will inevitanal initiatives over many

amework forstory or a pr

ding for projds for these a-raising cam

evelopment, Although thisquality of th

Versus Prerentiate betwning documeen the informably be re-eves. Nevertheyears.

r action, a starescription fo

jects other thand other pro

mpaigns. Incland propose

s list is not ine institution

roject Plannween the neeent. This docmation availvaluated in teless, this do

atement of thfor one, but a

A-4

han significaojects requireluded with thed solutions,ntended to b. They will r

ning ed for initiatcument has rlable at the tithe light of fu

ocument will

he best direcan outline to

ant new buildes that physihis documen, as well as ae comprehenrequire fundi

tive in day-torecorded the ime it was w

future opportl provide a re

ction for the o guide indiv

dings is a difical developm

nt is a sectiona list of recomnsive, many ing from sou

o-day activitbest-case sc

written. Thesetunities and eference poi

foreseeablevidual campu

fficult propoment planninn on institutimmended prof these pro

urces other t

ties and the cenarios and e ideas and well-directent for thousa

e future. It is us improvem

osition. ng be ional rojects ojects are han the

ed ands of

not a ment

HISTO LawrenThe first Mount Ojanitor, achancelloacclaimesignifican When ancampus-pgrowth infacilities,Respect fthis plann In 1997, by the citstudent ehalf of Kcitizens.

The RegWhen setfound onindigenou The Kanspioneers area in wand the Wstate's eaLawrenc

ORIC PE

nce CampuKU building

Oread. At thaand 55 studenor, was consd as the finent place in c

n ambitious nplanning effon the near pa, conversionfor the acadening effort.

KU includety of Lawren

employees. KKU's building

gion ttlers arrived

nly along theus cottonwo

sas City-Lawtraveling we

which LawrenWakarusa rivastern third. e and vicinit

The e

ERSPEC

s: The Pastg was old No

at time, KU wnts. About sitructed; it w

est structure ampus histo

new period ofort. The mosast as well asn of significaemic mission

s more than nce. The camKU, today asgs have been

d in eastern K rivers. Now

ood and lowl

wrence-Topeest on the Ornce developevers. Today,

ty have alwa

early attemp

TIVE

t 130 Yearorth Collegewas sparselyix years later

was west of toof its kind in

ory.

of constructist recent sucs to the futur

ant buildingsn and a caref

120 buildingmpus compris in the past,n financed, in

Kansas, it ww it is covere

and trees in

eka corridor regon and Ced, meanderof the 2.5 m

ays been amo

t to build a c

A-5

rs e Hall, constry populated: r, Universityoday's Frasen the Midwe

on began in ch effort, comre. Plans inc to modem ufully structu

gs on approxises about 24is supported

n whole or p

as largely pred with hardwthe valleys.

is sited alonalifornia wa

ring along thmillion Kansa

ong the mos

college on th

ructed in 18three profes

y Hall, later r Hall. Univ

est. Razed sin

the 1950s, Kmpleted in 19luded replacuses, and tec

ured vision o

ximately 9504,000 studend by state funpart, by funds

rairie-grass cwood trees i

ng the covereagon trails. She ridge betwas residents,

t scenic

he hill (artist

66 on the nosors, a hygienamed Frase

versity Hall wnce then, it s

KU undertoo973, looked

cement of agchnological if the future a

0 contiguousnts and 8,000nds. Neverths from stude

country, withn upland are

ed-wagon roSome of thesween the two

well over h

t unknown),

orth promontene lecturer,er Hall for a was widely still holds a

ok an extensback at rapi

ging, inefficiimprovemenare the legac

s acres surro0 faculty, staheless, moreents and othe

h wooded areas and the

oute followede trails cross

o valleys of thalf reside in

1859

tory of a KU

ive id ent

nts. cies of

ounded aff, and than

er private

reas

d by sed the the Kaw the

areas in eOccasionsolution tthe entirepurchaseas a recre Other camBreidenthRobinsonnorth of tplant neaaround thintegratioongoing away frothe Edwahas implidevelopm LawrencKaw Rivhistory. Iposition bunique anconsideralocated. Luniversityfew excecity/camp

A HistoThe 1863point" in A gift of Emigrantbrow of Mannounce A charterravages obuilding.used for NresidenceBoard of EnrollmeLawrenc

eastern Kansnally, the rivto flooding-te region. KUed through theation resour

mpus lands ohal tract soun reserve andthe Kaw Riv

ar Desoto; anhe state. Theon, in order tadministratim its traditioards Campusications for dment.

e, founded inver, has had aIts pioneer hbetween Topnd stimulatinable benefit Lawrence ciy's cultural a

eptions, this hpus planning

ry of Facil3 Legislatureor near Law

f $ 10,000 frot Aid CompaMount Oreaded that the u

r for KU waof Quantrill's The RegentNorth College halls for wf Regents setent increasede responded

sas because oers here havthe construc

U owns abouthe Endowmerce and outd

outside Lawuth of the cityd the Lawrenver; part of thnd smaller piese propertieto minimize ve concernsonal center--s in Overlanddecisions rel

n 1854 on tha stormy, coeritage, attrapeka and Kang characterfrom the regtizens greatland aesthetichas resulted g ventures.

ities Develoe passed an a

wrence, if its om Amos Laany and a $5d was chose

university wa

s passed in 1s Raid on Lats acquired sge Hall. (Th

women.) The t an opening d from 55 stud by voting to

of the viewsve surged beytion of Clintt one-half se

ent Associatidoor laborato

wrence includy, near Baldwnce Airport phe Army ordieces of props require carmaintenanc. The growth-the establishd Park, for elative to mai

he south banlorful, and pactive settingansas City ler. KU derivesgion in whichly appreciatec contributioin successfu

opment at act allowingcitizens wou

awrence of 5,000 loan frn because of

as in Lawren

1864, but noawrence werseven acres ehe site is now

Legislature date of Sept

udents in 186o issue $ 100

A-6

of prairie toyond their baton Lake-hasection of landion and calleory for KU.

de the win; the property dnance perty reful ce and h of KU hment of example-in campus

k of the progressive g, and nd it a s h it is e the ons. With ul

KU for the estabuld contribu

rom Gov. Thf its magnifi

nce to stay.

ot until 1865,re repaired, weast of the or

w occupied bappropriatedtember 12, 166 to 265 in 0,000 in bon

o the west ananks and caus provided ad on Clintoned the Adam

blishment ofute a $15,000

homas Carneicent views.

, after the Ciwere the restriginal site; a

by Corbin and $7,000 for1866.

1871. Northnds for new u

The first

nd a valley toused memora major recren's south sho

ms Campus, h

f a university0 endowmen

ey formed thOn Novemb

ivil War hadt of the fundan existing f

nd Gertrude Sr salaries and

h College Hauniversity bu

building, No

o the east. able damage

eational resouore. This prophas been dev

y at "some ent and a 40-a

the New Enhe endowmenber 2, 1863, C

d ended and ts raised for afoundation thSellards Pead equipment.

all overflowuildings. The

orth College

e. The urce for perty,

veloped

eligible acre site. ngland nt. The Carney

the a here was rson . The

ed, and e

e, 1867

Regents dtract and In comindepartmeand the Sthe univeas the ScSchool w1905, it hSchool oDesign inWelfare i

As the mauthorizeallocatedclassroombuildingsStadium,saw littlecontribut World Wwould beresearch planning The 1950Oread anRobinson

decided to unaming it U

ng years, degents of PharmSchool of Enersity ... connchool of Artswas organizehad expandef Business inn 1960. The in 1969.

The camp

mission of theed the use ofd funds for a m buildings s, two museu, the first rese constructiotion of $2 mi

War II greatlye used for demoved into effort, and t

0s and '60s snd at the basen Gymnasium

use all the funUniversity Ha

grees and coumacy and of ngineering wnected with s"; today, it'sd in 1897. T

ed to a four-yn 1924, the Sdepartment

pus, about 1

e university ef the Williamnew physicsextended theums, a gymnsidence hall fon; the state million by Mr

y affected coefense work new quarterthe campus d

saw much nee of the hill tm, and Haw

nds for one mall.

ursework wof Law were dwere establish

the work leas known as thThe medical cyear programSchool of Joof Social W

900

enlarged so m Spooner bes and electrie campus wenasium, an aufor women, made no apprs. J.B. Watk

onstruction. Tduring the c

rs in 1943. Indoubled in s

ew constructthere. Malotorth Hall we

A-7

magnificent

ould be orgadesignated sched in 1891. ading to a Bahe College ocourse becam

m. The Schooournalism in

Work establish

did the demaequest for a cal engineerestward. Alsuditorium, aand a studen

propriations kins helped d

The federal gonflict, and ncreased posize with acq

ion, especialtt Hall, Allenere all part o

structure, si

anized and rechools. The In 1893, the

achelor of Aof Liberal Arme the School of Educat1948, the Shed in 1947

and for buildlibrary and a

ring buildingso constructea new librarynt hospital. Tfor building

during this p

government geology, mi

stwar enrollmquisition of n

lly, after 195n Field Housof this expans

iting it on the

eorganized. ISchool of Me regents vot

Arts be organrts and Scien

ool of Medicition was estaSchool of Arc

became the

dings. The 1a chancellor'g. Between 1ed were two y, a student uThe Depressis between 19eriod.

helped pay ilitary sciencments led to new land to t

54, on the sose, Murphy Hsion. Land w

e original un

In 1890, the Music and Fin

ted that the "nized and estnces. The Grine in 1899,

ablished in 1chitecture anSchool of S

893 Legisla's residence,

1899 and 192laboratory

union, Memoion years, ho928 and 193

for buildingce and engina long-range

the south and

outh slope ofHall, Learnewas acquired

niversity

ne Arts "part of ablished raduate and, by 909, the nd Urban ocial

ture and it 28, eight

orial owever, 38. A

gs that eering e d west.

f Mount ed Hall, d for

constructConstrucadditionsLibrary acomplete DevelopmHall and was dedihealth scKansas G Main camaddition School oFacility; ConstrucHall, for built, neaMarvin Hto HaworAnschutz Non-statethe acquiDevelopmwhich hoCenter; thand the A

tion of six laction in the cs to the Kansand Dyche Hed new Frase

ment of the wthe Printingcated in 196iences; Nich

Geological S

mpus construto Haworth f Law; the Aand the Burg

ction projectsthe biologic

ar Allen FielHall, Flint Hrth Hall, Graz Science Lib

e funds contisition of Oldment Centerouses the enghe first phas

Anschutz Spo

R

arge residenccore campus sas Union. A

Hall were buier Hall and th

west campusg Services bu69. The earlyhols Hall, a survey's Moo

uction in theHall; and an

Art and Desigge Union we

s in the 1980cal sciences. ld House, forall, Wescoe ace Sellards brary was al

tinue to play dfather Hallr; an additiongineering libse of renovatorts Pavilion

Renovated S

ce halls and included the

A new Blake ilt on the cenhe Spencer R

s also beganuilding were y 1970s brouspace technoore Hall.

e 1970s inclun addition to gn Building;ere complete

0s included aRobinson Gr 750 cars. MCafeteria, anPearson andlso finished.

an importan. They have n to Summerbrary; the Lietion of the Kn. The KAN

Snow Hall

A-8

an apartmene CampanileHall for soc

ntral campusResearch Lib

n in the 1960occupied in

ught the consology buildin

uded WescoeLearned Ha

; the Spenceed.

additions to Gymnasium wMajor renovand Snow Ha

d Corbin resi

nt role in theprovided su

rfield Hall, fed Center fo

Kansas Union-U transmiss

nt building coe, two additiocial sciences s in the earlybrary.

0s. Youngbern 1968. A phstruction of Mng partially f

e Hall; the Sall. In the lateer Museum o

Malott Hall,was expandeations of Waall were comidence halls,

e growth of tupport for cofor the Schoor the Performn; the Universion tower, t

CoThbeegen ProcomincAuDyrencafAllconHaTe

omplex for mons to Snowand addition

y 1960s. Dur

rg Hall was bharmaceuticaMcCollum Lfunded by N

tewart Childe 1970s New

of Art; the Co

, for pharmaed, and a paratson Library

mpleted, alon, and Broadc

the physical nstruction ool of Businesming Arts; thrsity Press othe Kansas Gore Library, ahermodynamen paid for fnerated reve

ojects undermpleted as oclude the Buuditorium recyche Hall stonovations to feteria, the Klen Field Honstruction ofall, Amini Scmplin Hall,

married studw Hall, and tw

ns to Watsonring the late

built in 1962al research faLaboratories

NASA; and th

dren's Centerw Green Halomputer Ser

acy, and to Hrking garagey, Lindley H

ng with renovcast Hall. Th

plant. They f the Dole Hss; Spahr Hahe Adams A

of Kansas buGeological Sand the Kura

mics Laboratofrom universenues.

r way or justof this writinudig Hall/Hoconstructionorage additioLewis Hall

Kansas Unioouse; and f the Bales Rcholarship HAnschutz Sp

dents. wo n '60s, KU

2. Parker acility for the

he

r l, for the

rvices

Haworth was

Hall, vations he

paid for Human all,

Alumni uilding; Survey ata ory have sity-

ng ch

n; the on;

n and

Recital Hall, ports

Pavilion Pearson S Despite tmajor renprogramsKU's acarenovatio

The InitIn 1904, developmnow occu

Areas we

The Kesscurrentlygymnasiurunning bwas envisits today By 1910,Laborato

Figure A

and WagnonScholarship

the vigor of tnovation. Tes are constraademic strengons and new

tial KU PlaGeorge E. K

ment plan. Aupied by Flin

est and south

sler plan appy occupied byum occupyinbetween the sioned to bey, Kessler's p

, the campusories (razed i

: Kessler Pl

n Student AtHall, Stouff

this programemporary facained by crowgth. To provconstruction

anning DocKessler and C

At that time ont and Bailey

h of campus

pears in Figuy Wescoe Hng the bowl main academ

e a grand maplan envision

s had buildinin the 1970s

lan, 1904

thlete Centerfer Place apa

m, many facicilities proviwded or outmvide for the un be carefull

cuments Company, laonly the eastey halls--was

were open p

ure A. It projHall. In additi

in which Memic buildingll. It would bned residenc

ngs as far weto make roo

A-9

r. On the draartments, and

lity needs reide interim spmoded faciliuniversity noly planned.

andscape arcern end of ths developed.

prairie.

jected the mion, the planemorial Stadg and the recbe flanked bce halls.

est as Marvinom for the A

awing board d Daisy Hill

emain unmetpace for impities. Adequaow and in the

chitects, conche campus--e

ain academin envisioned dium is sitedcreation facilby parks. On

n Hall and thArt and Desig

are schedulresidence ha

t. A number portant KU pate facilities e future requ

ceived a KUextending as

c building aa football st

d today. An imlities below wthe site whe

he Mechanicgn Building)

ed improvemalls.

of buildingsprograms; otare essentia

uires that

U long-range s far west as

s occupyingtadium and maginary linwas an axis ere Carruth-O

cal Engineeri. A streetcar

ments to

s need ther al to

the sites

g the site

ne for what O'Leary

ing r linked

the downon the noand north BetweenNew builabout theparents m

"Tdrehsica

The 1920constructlandscapBoulevar

ntown with Morthern and eheast slope o

n 1920 and 1ldings were e use of vehimakes this pl

The Universdemocracy, toecreation, anelp much byimply, honesar."

0s and early ted were Snoing characterd.

Figure B

Mount Oreadeastern edgeof the hill.

930, Jayhawplanned for

icles on camplain:

sity is using eo concentratnd to hold to

y making it cstly, and who

'30s were exow Hall, Hocerizes this pe

: Hare and H

d. Old Frasers of the cam

wk Boulevardsites north apus surfaced

every effort tte students' ao a minimumlear to your olesomely wh

xtraordinarych Auditoriu

eriod, as does

Hare plan, 1

A-10

r Hall was thmpus. Most st

d emerged aand south of d. A 1922 let

to keep amoattention upo

m practices frsons and dahile in the U

y years for thum, and nums the paving

1928

he anchor oftudents lived

s the camputhis campustter from Ch

ng students on serious st

fraught with maughters thatUniversity. Fo

he universitymerous fraterg of Mississip

f the campusd in large ho

s' dominant s thoroughfarhancellor Ern

a fine spirit tudy and heamoral risks..t their part i

For this they d

. Among thernities and soppi Street an

. The city hames along th

orienting feare. The first nest Lindley

of althful ... You can is to live do not need

e buildings ororities. Exnd Jayhawk

ad grown he north

ature. conflicts to

a

tensive

The secoThis planas the camdevelopepreventioPlan. By Hare's plstreets, pB.

World WModernThe perioproliferatexception1940 andof academand livincampus l In the falstudents later, the the inclusenrollmeconstruct From 195Fowler Sland use interest in In 1952, needs. It Haworth Endowm In the latdevelopeconceivemanagembooths thresidenceuniversitybecame a

ond campus dn, like the Kempus center

ed around theon, as areas tnow, Jayhawan, of a landarking, and

War II andn Era od from 194tion of tempn was Lindled occupied inmic buildingg units was life.

ll of 1945, thon the Lawrenrollment j

sion of returnt was, by thted for housi

50 to 1960, Shops, Malotand parkingn planning.

the Universprojected a Hall in the

ment Associat

te 1950s anded, and a newed planning pment was to ehat limited ace halls helpey housing. Tan integral p

developmentessler Plan, frpiece. And, e turn of the to preserve. wk Boulevardscaped, pedautomobile

d the

0 to 1950 beorary structuey Hall, erecn 1942. The gs to officer ta major featu

here were onrence campujumped to 5

rning veteranhe fall of 194ing and othe

a vigorous btt Hall, and h, of vehicula

ity's Planninrevitalized c1950s ushertion investm

d early 1960sw system of tprinciples weemphasize pccess to cam

ed to define tThis providedart of many

t plan was pfocused on alike the prevcentury, andIt did not, hord had becom

destrian-orienaccess. A gr

egan with a ures. An cted in conversion training ure of

nly 3,000 us. A year

,200. With ns the 47, approach

er uses. Some

building proghousing facilar and pedes

ng Board laucore campused in an era

ments helped

s, new builditraffic controere the fram

pedestrian usmpus. The dethe student lid the basis fKU students

A-11

repared in 1a main acadevious plan, itd Potter Lakowever, presme the "spinnted campusraphic of the

hing 9,000. Pe of these "te

gram transfolities sprungtrian traffic.

unched an ex. The removof higher-deKU acquire

ings sprung ol was estabework for th

ses during thevelopment oiving experi

for a hilltop cs' academic

928 by Hareemic buildint reinforced

ke, created foserve the nor

ne" of the cams, failed, howe Hare and H

Prefabricatedemporary" s

ormed the sog up. KU beg Campus gro

xtensive studval of old Roensity constre more land t

up, parking blished on Jahese projectshe school dayof nearly a mence; almostcommunity; experience.

Old

e and Hare, ong--by now, F

a commitmeor the purposrth-south axmpus. The vwever, to forHare plan is p

d Quonset hstructures sti

uth face of Mgan to struggowth engend

dy of facilitieobinson Gymruction on thto the west.

lots were coayhawk Bouls. The goal oy by building

million squart one in threthat sense o

d Fraser Hal

of Kansas CiFrank Strongent to Marvises of fire is of the Kes

vision in Harresee the imppresented in

uts were hasll stand.

Mount Oreadgle with the idered renewe

es and programnasium andhe main camp

onstructed orlevard. Well

of traffic andg traffic-conre feet of hige students li

of community

ll

ity, Mo. g Hall--n Grove,

ssler re and pact of Figure

stily

d, issues of ed

am d pus.

r -

d parking ntrol gh-rise ved in y

West camconstructNASA-sp

The 197The 1973the LegisinstitutiocarefullydevelopmKansas, a Before thkey indivtheir detefor an era

mpus develotion of the Cponsored Sp

73 Plan to t3 planning efslature, whicn. The schoo

y drawn, coorment. The edand the phys

his, the contividuals withiermination toa of more fo

oped as a reseCenter for Enpace Technol

the Presentffort was the

ch wanted lools were reqrdinated, sta

ducational prsical facilitie

inuity in visiin KU's capio make thourmal facilitie

Fi

earch campungineering Rlogy Buildin

t e result of a ng-range pla

quired to makatewide plan rograms of thes to meet th

ion that guidital developmughtful decises planning.

igure C: 197

A-12

us during theResearch, a bung, and biolo

funded mandans for the pke all future designed to

he institutione needs of th

ded KU's expment sector. ions had ben

73 Campus P

e 1960s. Projuilding for t

ogical scienc

date from thphysical deve

capital expe assure bothns were requhe schools' p

pansion had Through sev

nefited KU;

Plan

jects there inhe U.S. Geo

ce laboratorie

he Kansas Boelopment of enditures in ah orderly anduired to meetprograms.

resulted fromveral decadenow, that wo

ncluded the ological Surves.

oard of Regeeach Regentaccord with

d timely t the needs o

m the long ses of rapid chork became

vey, a

ents and ts a

of

ervice of hange, the basis

The 1973initiativebuildingsrequiremaccepted documen The firmstatewidecomprehsystems, firm, prosystems. The evalphysical were madat the timprocess.

The GroLawrencthe city hbetween mutual pcity and ttransportmakes to In a largebehind. Tand activgrowth, a

3 plan, a sche. Teaching as. Future spa

ments, and Restandards. T

ntation conce

m of Caudill, e planning efensive land-and recommduced the fin

uations that developmende at that tim

me, as stabiliz

owth of thee has grown

has primarilythe city and roblems aristhe universittation systemo the metropo

er context anThe transitiovities, of conand future in

hematic is shand research ace needs weegents guideThe Office oerning presen

Rowlett, Scffort for the -use plan formended futurnal KU docu

were made int policies wme now needzing around

e Universitn significantly been to theKU adminis

sing from thety. Mutual co

ms, and the qolitan area ar

nd with a vien requires a

nvenience annstitutional n

hown in Figuactivities w

ere projectedelines. Acadeof Institutionnt and projec

ott, of HoustRegents sch

r both main are improvemument and h

in 1973 havewere created. d to be reeva

18,000. Thi

ty and the Cy in recent d

e south and wstration has be continued oncerns rega

quality of there reviewed

ew to the futplanning eff

nd accessibilineeds. This w

A-13

ure C, was thwere evaluated, based on inemic discipli

nal Research cted facility

ton, Texas, phools. The Kand west cam

ments. Van Dhelped in the

e served the However, so

aluated. For eis figure alon

Communitdecades. Phywest of the cbeen pursueexpansion, iarding pattere contributioin this docu

ture, the city ffort that conity, within thwill continue

he first comped, as was thnspection, qines were asand Planninneeds.

produced theKU Office of mpuses, evalDoren-Hazard

evaluation a

institution wome of the aexample, stune illustrates

ty ysical expansampus sinced and will coin both physirns of land un that the ph

ument.

and the univnsiders such ihe context ofe to be a chal

prehensive phe physical co

quantificationsigned space

ng produced

e workbook Facilities Pl

luated transpd-Stallings-Sand mapping

well. Designassumptions udent populas the need to

sion of the ine 1973. For yontinue to beical size and

use, the expanhysical prese

versity haveissues as denf tradition, hllenge.

hysical deveondition of en of square fe on the basiextensive

that guided lanning deveportation andSchnacke, a g of campus

n guidelines aand projecti

ation was prorevisit the p

ncorporated years, coordie needed to

d numbers, onsion of

ence of the u

left our ruransity of build

historic patte

elopment existing footage is of

the eloped a d parking Topeka utility

and ions that ojected, planning

area of ination solve

of the

university

al pasts dings rns of

THE 1InstitutiThe currefacilities administr In late 19faculty, scourse ofoffering p Althoughin late 19planning K.S. "BoLawton, Facilitieshis thougcampus awith a seevolved athe futurevideotapepurposes Before inhad compReview. informatiwork of tProgramsManagemsystems. and comm We begaearnest. Tsuch matConsiderthe found In the plawould neenvision

1997 PLAional Initiaent planningplanning sta

rators.

992, a Physicstaff, and aluf more than fproposals, an

h organizatio992, the offic

process wasoots" Adams former direc

s Planning anghts on the dand providedense of how tand the imple. Lawton's ped for archiv.

nitiating this pleted an evaA report aboion. It providthe task forcs, and, subsement. The taBRW Inc., a

munity plann

n to gather pThe task forctters as land-ration of instdation for the

anning proceeed in the futa campus th

AN atives g effort, whicaff, outside c

cal Developmumni, includifour years innd reviewing

on for the effcial kickoff os April 11, 1Alumni Cen

ctor of the Ond Operation

development d those in attthe campus hlications of tpresentationval and futur

planning efaluation of aout Programded an overv

ce was suppoequent to a rsk force recoa Minneapolning process

public input ce and other -use patternstitutional stree resulting p

ess, some attture, but less

hat is functio

ch began in consultants,

ment Plannining Lawrenc

n identifyingg elements o

fort began of the 993, in the nter. Keith

Office of ns, shared of the

tendance had the past for n was re planning

ffort, KU academic and

m Review waview of acadorted with preorganizatioommended tlis-based trases, conducte

for this docupersonnel h

s, accessibiliengths, as w

plan.

tention was ps so than dur

onally sound

A-15

1992, is the representativ

ng Task Force residents. g major issueof the emerg

d support prs made avail

demic and inrofessional inon, the KU Othat an outsidansportation ed the review

ument in 199have, in bothty, transport

well as of teac

paid to projering the 1973and aestheti

work of a plves of consti

rce was appoThis group

es, framing ging plan.

rograms throlable to the t

nstitutional sunput from bo

Office of Desde consultanconsulting fw.

93, when theh meeting andtation, parkinching, learni

ecting quanti3 planning pically pleasin

Task Force

lanning task ituency grou

ointed, compof 30 has be

goals-and-ob

ough a procetask force asupport activioth the KU Osign and Connt review camfirm with exp

e task force'sd interview fng, and the cing, and rese

ities of spaceprocess. We ng.

e Meeting, F

force, a proups, and KU

prising studeeen involvedbjectives stat

ss called Pros backgroundities on camOffice of Capnstruction mpus transpoperience in c

s work beganformats, attecampus enviearch needs,

e that prograhave endeav

Fall 1995

fessional

nts, d over the tements,

ogram d

mpus. The pital

ortation campus

n in ended to ronment. provides

ams vored to

The resuthan 25 pStudent Salumni anMany chversion o The finalinto accofuture ca

The re• Ma• Eli

red• Co• Re• Est

orn• Pro• De• De• Ho

The ev• Int

the

The beThe fo• 15t• 15t• Ore• Mi• Na• Th

Site de• Ev

prin

Infrast• Ma• Ext

cam• Co

ult was a drafpublic presenSenate and itnd endowmeanges were

of the plan w

l test of any omplishable pampus. The f

evitalization aking physiciminating theducing confliommitting a pducing the otablishing conamentals, seoviding higheveloping a ceveloping a conoring the tr

volution of cegrating acc

e core campu

eautificationllowing shouth Street easth Street wesead Avenue ississippi Straismith Drivee triangle of

evelopment faluation of tnciples

tructure aintenance, rtension of inmpus will grompletion of

ft document ntations durits transportaent groups, asuggested an

was complete

plan comes projects with

following are

of Jayhawkcal and functe congestionicts betweenportion of thoverall widthonsistent deseating, walk

h quality gathconsistent imcomprehensiraditional pe

campus accecessible transus

n of major cauld be consit of Iowa as st of Iowa, tobetween 12t

reet north, bee south, begif land at Indi

for main andthe developm

replacement,nfrastructurerow f a telecomm

shared with ing 1995-96,ation board, cand organizand many wered.

at the point hin a framewe significant

k Boulevardtional changen caused by pn pedestrian ahe boulevardh of pavemensign in the mkways and othering and p

mage in termive landscapedestrian ori

ess to accomsit and parki

ampus entrydered: a pedestrian

o Kasold, asth and 13th, eginning at 1inning at 19tiana and Sun

d west campment potentia

, and repair oe into develo

munications/in

A-16

the public in, the documecity and counations represre made. Du

of implemenwork of factot ideas discus

es so that Jaypersonal vehand vehicula

d for the use nt to gain pe

matter of landther elementspedestrian sps of buildinge plan entation of t

mmodate growng systems t

y points

n campus s a major cor

as an entryw11th Street, ath Street, as nflower stree

puses al of individ

of existing sping areas a

nformation f

n Septemberent was sharnty administ

senting neighuring the 199

ntation. Our ors that will,ssed in the c

yhawk Boulhicles, parkinar traffic of bicyclists

edestrian, wadscape planns aces g signs and l

the boulevard

wth to accommo

rridor of comway reflectivas a major va major veh

ets as a mino

dual areas by

ystems and undevelo

fiber optic sy

r 1995. In thed with govetrators and chborhoods cl96-97 school

goal is to tr, no doubt, shcourse of this

levard is a sang, and two-

s aiting, and grning, includin

lighting

d

odate increas

mmunity accve of the tradehicular entr

hicular entry or campus en

y reference to

oped areas in

ystem

he course of mernance grou

commissionelose to campl year, this fi

ansform goohape and ress document.

afer environmway traffic a

reen space ng trees, dur

sed activity w

ess ditional campry

ntryway

o site plannin

nto which the

more ups, ers, pus. inal

od ideas shape the

ment and

rable

within

mpus

ng

e

The planof land uImpleme The procongoing.

nning initiativuse, provisionntation of th

cess of projec This is the n

ves mentionn for access he initiatives

cting future nature of lon

ned above wito campus, a may require

needs, impleng-range pla

A-17

ill be developand maintene years, deca

ementing pranning.

ped within anance of KU'ades, or, in s

ojects, and e

a framework's image andsome cases, g

evaluating re

k of existing d environmengenerations.

esults will be

patterns nt.

e

CAMPPlanninTo this psome of ofor plann There areclassroomspaces, suto, but norecreationenterpris These elerelationshwould beeach otheand easilresults frprinciple A secondexample,provide aacademic A third pand popuactivitieswhen con This planthem by gactivities

RelationThe folloneeds of the "corethe southschemati 1) On thegraduate

PUS DEVng Element

oint, we havour planning

ning purpose

e many suchm, laboratoryuch as librarot, strictly spn, for exampes, and park

ements are thhip by a large to site depaer. People ony. Unfortuna

rom the geoges become ev

d problem is, adding an eadjacency foc activities a

problem deriulation. Evens and alliancenstruction is

n honors the geography, t

s for which p

nship of Acowing list idethese core a

e campus." Th by Sunnysiic diagram o

e KU campuresearch spa

VELOPMs and Proc

ve discussed g objectives.es.

h elements. Ty, and researries, is the sepeaking, manple. The four

king. More di

he building bge governingartments andn this campuately, the prigraphical limver more diff

that future peast wing to or administraand is also a t

ves from an n modest groes among pewarranted, i

principles otradition, an

plans must b

ctivities entifies activ

activities. ThThe term refeide Avenue, f the core ca

us, thousandsaces several

MENT PAcesses

the history o The next ste

The composirch space is econd. The thndatory in anrth, fifth, andiscussion of

blocks with g principle thd disciplines us who are ninciples of a

mits of the mficult to resp

patterns of dStrong Hall

ative activitietraditional c

assumptionowth guarantersonnel are it should tran

of affinity and the likelihe made.

vities and elehe activities aers to the somon the east b

ampus area i

s of studentstimes each d

A-19

ATTERN

of campus dep is to estab

ition of the cthe first of thhird includen academic ed sixth elem

f each of thes

which plannhat planners that have a natural neighb

affinity and aain campus;

pect.

developmentto create ne

es but threatampus featu

n that KU wiltees both theforged, and nslate functi

nd adjacencyhood of grow

ements cruciare largely cme 140 acresby Fraser Has included in

s and facultyday. Plannin

NS

development blish the elem

core activitiehese. The res a complimenvironment

ments are studse elements a

ners work. Tcall "affinitynatural affinbors should

adjacency are when optim

t must respecew space for ten Bailey Hure.

ll experiencee emergencethe inevitab

ional affiniti

y but acknowwth. We now

ial to the acaonducted ons bounded onall and on thn Figure D.

y move amonng is necessa

and made tements that m

es of a campulationship of

ment of spacet-space for cdent housingappears in th

The blocks ary" and "adjanity for each be able to coe not easy to

mal densities

ct what alreaadministrati

Hall, which pr

e modest gro of new affinility of new

ies into phys

wledges the l turn to the r

ademic missin what is refen the north b

he west by G

ng classroomary not only f

entative menmust be cons

us includingf academic ses that are imconversation g, auxiliary he next secti

re brought inacency." The

other adjaceommunicateo honor. In p

are surpasse

ady exists. Five activitiesrovides spac

owth in its acnities, as newconstruction

sical adjacen

imits imposerange of cam

ion and the perred to, hereby Strong Hareen Hall. A

m, laboratoryfor building

ntion of idered

g support

mportant and

on.

nto e ideal ent to e quickly part, this ed, the

or s might ce for

ctivities w n. Thus,

ncies.

ed upon mpus

planning eafter, as all, on

A

y, and space,

however,teaching movemen 2) Acadelibraries, 3) Activifunctionsopen, andfor becau 4) Campuuniversitystudents traditiona

5) The stpsycholosupport smaintenanecessaryspeakinginstructiois to site main camto campualways p 6) Parkinaccommoindividua Each of thas to beand will staff with This prin

, but for outdand learningnts of people

emic support are best site

ities importas need to be d green spacuse they pres

us housing hy housing; alive in univeal academic

tudent unionogical, medicservices; storance operatioy, yet they ar

g, geared to eon. While thesuch activiti

mpus, their dus life meansossible.

ng must be dodate a broaal needs.

these activitie evaluated bcontinue to shin the core

nciple was es

door areas ug spaces are e during clas

t spaces, incled adjacent t

ant to an acadconsidered.

ces for relief,serve the felt

has diminishat that time, Kersity housinexperience.

ns; various socal, and acadrage facilitieons are all ren't, strictly

education or e general priies outside o

daily contribus that this is

designed to d range of

ies and elemby reference site, those accampus.

stablished in

sed for instrneeded. Con

ss changes is

luding onesto classroom

demic enviroIncluded he

f, relaxation, t sense of the

hed in populaKU was a reng. Neverthe

Plans for th

ocial, demic es; and

y

inciple of the ution not

ments to its centralctivities inte

n the 1973 pl

A-20

ructional andnnecting thos another nee

for study, ofm, laboratory,

onment but nre are placesand conteme traditional

arity. Two desidential cameless, convene renovation

lity to KU's gral to the d

lan and is res

FFiigguurree DD:: DDiiaaggrraamm ooCCoorree CCaamm

d recreationaose spaces ined.

ffice, and ad, and gradua

not pointedlys for convers

mplation. Thecampus.

ecades ago, mpus. Todaynient, accessin of existing

academic puday-to-day ne

spected here

ooff tthhee mppuuss

CCoorree CCaammppuu

al activities. Hn ways that a

dministrativeate research s

y related to tsation, as weese must be c

a third of thy, less than aible housinghousing are

urpose. The eeds of stude

e.

uuss

High-qualityaccommodate

e activities, aspaces.

the teachingell as develoconsciously

e students lia fourth of thg is a part of e under way.

university hents, faculty

y e the

as well as

/learning oped, planned

ved in he the

has sited, , and

BuildabDefiningExisting programsassumpti(Referen A plan fodeploymbuilding changes iaccess, anmany timfootprint For examsquare feacre-yet texample common In some low-rise maintaindevelopmJayhawk Infill prorenovatiogreen spa1973 planenrollmeenrollmein excessthan two This planto defendestablish developmbeauty it face of fuclass dayfuture ac Refer to LDevelopm

ble and Accg buildable si

facilities ands, and the coions of modece Assumpti

or campus deent. Rarely wdemands moin topographnd parking.

mes the space.

mple, the Lieeet of space. the developeis exceptionfor sites to b

cases, buildibuildings wied, future gr

ment of openBoulevard s

ojects, additioons would--aace. The landn were basednt of 18,000nt is more th

s of 2 milliondecades.

n must look d the integrit

a sound basment will sig

has sustaineuture growthy don't overwademic facil

Land Use Mment Plannin

cessible Sitites within a d previous d

ommunity unest increasesions for Plan

evelopment will proposeore space thahy, site drainIn total, these committed

ed Center hasIts footprint

ed site is abonal given thebe several ti

ing sites willill give way rowth may, tn and green sshould, how

ons, adaptivas opposed td-use patternd on the assu

0 to 20,000 shan 24,000, n gross squa

forward 50 yty of the tradsis for futuregnificantly ched despite vih. Another chwhelm studenlities may in

Map for Centrng, page B-2

es 130-year-ol

developmentndergo chang in growth a

nning Purpos

provides a sed sites not han that whicnage, servicese can consu

d to the build

s 88,000 grot totals aboutout 20 acres.e provision fomes larger th

l need to be to larger on

therefore, invspace. The pever, always

ve reuse of hio new constrns shown in umption of atudents. Todand KU has re feet in litt

years or morditional campe growth. Thhange its chaigorous growhallenge wilnts. This is a

nvolve reloca

ral Campus 26.

A-21

ld campus is establish prges that forcand density cses, page B-

stock of potehave implicath appears on

e ume ding's

oss t an This or 1,000 parkhan the build

developed aes. Where a volve the rem

preservation s remain a pr

istorically siruction on emthe

a steady day's added

tle more

re if it is pus and e core camparacter. Thiswth. The chall be to ensura campus in ation of activ

at the end of

b

g

m

s rarely a strarecedents. Ne alterations

can redirect d4)

ential sites antions for adjn its floor pla

king spaces dings that ar

as buildings aratio of opemoval of somand renovatiriority.

ignificant bumpty land--h

pus is reachins institution iallenge will bre that distantransition. Fvities from th

f the section

The land-use

were based o

enrollment of

Today's enro

This instituti

beauty it has

growth. Prese

must be a pri

aightforwardevertheless, s and adaptatdevelopment

nd parameteracent spacesan: for pede

close to the re their focus

are replacedn space to bume buildingsion of existin

ut outmoded help maintai

ng a point wis blessed bybe to maintainces traveledFinding sites heir current

n on Element

e patterns sho

on the assump

of 18,000 to 2

ollment is mo

ion is blessed

sustained de

erving the be

iority.

d propositionindividuals,tions. Even t over the lo

rs for their s or buildingstrian routes

center, yet is.

d. Small-footuilt space is s for the longng buildings

structures, ain open spac

where further y unusual bein that beautd in the courto accommosites.

ts of Physica

own in the 19

ption of a ste

20,000 studen

ore than 24,00

d by unusual b

espite vigorou

eauty of Mt. O

n. ,

ng term.

gs. A s,

it is

tprint, to be g-term s along

and other ce and

auty, a ty in the se of the odate

al

973 plan

eady

nts.

00.

beauty, a

us

Oread

Core CaIn generasupport srelocatedauxiliarywest camestablish West camIowa andand absenresult, weon a sprathe compfor the co

Refer to L

CampusIt is a chathousandaccess arindividuaneeds. Mpriority. Alends a b Part of thof the acamajor pocommunilong-termparking twith themcosts. Thcampus wsometimeaccessibi The neceroutes, anexistent. pedestria An exammultipliccampus.

ampus Actal, west campservices, incld to west camy enterprises,mpus hasn't b

ed independ

mpus developd 15th streetsnce of a planest campus l

awling 400-pponents of laore campus.

Land Use M

s Access, Mallenge to pr

d acres in sizre used for evals by the ph

Mandated impA well-desigroad sense o

he planning tademic day.

oints of entryity, and the c

m impact on to office or cm needs signhe pedestrianwill continuees conflictinility.

essary long-tnd signage rAs building

an routes. KU

mple here wilcity of informWayfinding

tivities and pus hasn't beluding the pr

mpus. This p, recreation fbeen constraidently of each

pment has os. Mixed usenned infrastrlacks identityplus acre tracand use, acce

Map for West

Mobility, anrovide accese. Streets, roveryday acti

hysical desigprovements lgned systemof orientation

task here is tThe configu

y to campus fchoices for scampus acc

classroom. Tnificant finann-centered que, even as we

ng-needs for

term developarely receive density incr

U continues

ll help make mation systemg systems inc

West Cameen developerinting servi

pattern of usefields, and thined by the dh other and t

occurred on tes by researcructure give y. The plannct that will bess and imag

Campus, pa

nd Wayfinds into and efoads, pedestrivities and spgn of these felike those re

m of routes non and of plac

to determineuration of rofrom the storing cars aess and prox

These elemenncial and mauality of the e work to mconvenience

pment and me funding prreases, so doto work to m

the case. "Wms that orienclude directio

A-22

mpus Develed with undece and facilie reflects prihe Lied Centdemands of tthe patterns

the perimeterch, support aa sense that

ning challengbecome homege will be jus

age B-28.

ding fficient passarian and bikepecial eventseatures and tequired by thot only provice.

e the optionsoadways that

all have ximity of nts carry anagement main eet other-e and

maintenance oriority. West oes the need meet its acce

Wayfinding" nt and guideonal signs on

lopment ergraduate eities operationciples fromter also are pthe class dayof developm

rs of the lanand auxiliary

happenstancge is to achiee to a wide vst as importa

age through e routes, servs. It's necessto accommodhe Americanides access t

for accommt network the

of streets, rocampus pedfor bike roussibility nee

is a plannine drivers, pedn and off cam

The pede

main cam

work to m

and acce

education in ons and main

m the 1973 ppart of west cy. Activities ment reflect t

d tract--predy enterprises;ce has shapeeve a coherevariety of acant for west c

a complex cvice drives, ary to orientdate a variets with Disabto specific de

modating aute campus, th

oads, parkingdestrian roututes and rackeds.

ng term that ddestrians, anmpus, signs

estrian-cente

mpus will con

meet other ne

essibility.

mind. Instituntenance, halan. Researccampus. Grothere have b

this.

dominantly a; perimeter aed this area. Aent pattern oftivities. Intecampus as it

campus abouand emergent and direct ty of individubilities Act aestinations, b

tomobiles in houghtful des

g, sidewalkses are virtua

ks, parking, a

describes thed other to anat major poi

ered quality of

ntinue, even

eeds for conv

utional ave been ch units, owth on been

along access; As a f growth grating t will be

ut a ncy

ual are a high but also

support sign of

, bike ally non- and

e nd on ints of

of the

as we

venience

entry to cbeen 20 ywas deveinformati

Part of thprocess bimprovemdevelopmboundaryuncoordiwith each Moreoveand campclassroomlots or strcars, theythat is de The campletter of tcity and uintention

campus, andyears since aeloped in 197ion kiosks ex

he reason forby which KUments. For ement projectsy of a buildininated and frh other. And

er, issues of apus image. Tms and officructures, andy enter into aeeply rooted

mpus of the futhe law. To euniversity. A

n can easily b

d building-naa comprehen75. Today, thxists and nee

r this kind ofU develops axample, indis provide sidng site. Thusragmented acd redesign is

access can't This plan canes. When cad the creatioan experiencin the histor

uture must beffect that wAbove all, thbe eroded by

ame and roomnsive review he opportuneds to be con

f tag arises fand funds accividual capitdewalks onlys, after severctions, theseunlikely to b

be considerennot have asars have enten of those af

ce--of peoplery and traditi

e more accewill require a his campus my increases in

A-23

m signs. Thiof campus sity to integransidered.

from the cessibility tal y as far as thral decades o independenbe funded.

ed in isolatio its sole focu

ered campus,ffects land-ue walking to ions of this p

ssible to evegreater fina

must be presen traffic, pop

is system is csignage occuate electroni

he of ntly wrought

on from two us the delive, they must b

use patterns. and from th

place.

eryone, abidiancial investmerved as a stupulation, and

Above

as a stu

crucial to caurred. The laic technologi

changes ma

other cruciaery of cars tobe accommoWhen stude

heir classes a

ing by both tment and cooudent-center

d density of b

all, the camp

udent-centere

ampus accessast signage sties in the for

ay be inconsi

al concerns: o lots adjacenodated by parents or staff land their offi

the spirit andoperation bered place. Thbuildings.

pus must be p

ed place.

s, yet it's tandard rm of

istent

land use nt to rking leave ices--

d the etween he

preserved

B-1

THE PLANNING PROCESS

THE D

Institutiofuture anstudents,opportunof. Memba perspecinvolved subcommconsultan As the grtrends in technolognetworkspopulatioimpact onthe studecultural deducation

DEVELOP

onal administnd an assessm faculty, staf

nities--and wbers of the sctive that looearly on in m

mittee membnt's early fin

roups mulledhigher educ

gy and of infs; the changion, with nonn the social,

ent body; anddiversity thatn institutions

PMENT O

tration contrment of curreff, alumni, a

was less tempecond group

oked far beyomeetings wi

bers exploreddings. Finall

d future plancation: the chformation aning composit

n-traditional sethnic, age,

d the increast will characs in the next

F THIS D

ributed to thient facilitiesnd commun

pered by the p, who constond immediith a task ford town-gownly, they were

ns, they kepthanging natund communition of the ststudents hav, and economsing racial, socterize highe century.

B-2

DOCUMEN

is document and future nity interests,limiting fact

tituted the Phate universit

rce subcommn issues. Thee presented e

t in mind ure of ication tudent

ving an mic mix of ocial, and

er

NT

by providinneeds. A sec, was focusetors that admhysical Devety need. A th

mittee. Togetese officials early drafts o

Universi

A FRAMRENEWDEVELO

Draft of Docume

Questions Planning COffice of D114 Carru

ng a set of ascond group, rd more on p

ministrators aelopment Tahird group, cther, the offialso revieweof this docum

ity of Kansas

MEWORK FWAL AND P

OPMENT

the 1997 Cant

or comments tCoordinator Design and Co

uth-O'Leary Ha

ssumptions arepresenting

possibilities aare so keenly

ask Force, pocity officialsicials and ed the transpment.

s: Lawrence

FOR CAMPUHYSICAL

ampus Plann

to

onstruction Manall

about the g and y aware ossessed , were

portation

e Campus

US

ning

nagement

TASKAfter an asked to this, the tKU/Lawr Subcommcampus gwere dev

BuildingThe subctwofold. requires rspace, 2) The combetween objectivehistoric cenvironm

The Role

Planningto networwhether tessential deliveredtechnolog

Space UtKU shouassignmeattention space tha

Campus DBecause use facilioccurs no

K FORCEinitial reviewdevelop stattask force derence relatio

mittees weregroups. Assuveloped. Brie

g and Buildcommittee idFirst, a lackreconciliatio access to it,

mittee also dphysical qua

es statementscharacteristicment.

e of Technolo

g must assumrked informathey are siteto differenti

d effectively gy and those

tilization uld develop bent and reassto the renov

at opens up w

Density, Actof a lack of ities. Buildinot only durin

E REVIEw of academtements abouecided to foconships, stud

e appointed tumptions andef summarie

ding Sites dentified builk of space seron of several, and 3) sust

developed stalities of poss were genercs of campus

ogy

me that indiviation and reld on or off ciate betweenand efficien

e that will re

better methosignment of vation of exiwhen functio

tivities, and Fcapital deve

ngs will needng the class h

EW OF ISmic and supput the goals acus on six indent needs, tr

to study eachd principles s of the work

ldable projecriously constl needs. Thesainment, des

tatements cossible sites arated on the s, site selecti

iduals will nlated technocampus. It wn programs thntly by the usquire trips to

ds and policspace, givinsting faciliti

ons are disco

Facilities elopment fund to be desighour day but

B-3

SSUES ort program and objectiv

nterest categoransportation

h area. The swere discusk of each su

cts and discutrains core cse needs inclspite these ch

oncerning paand proposedtopics of tecion, and hea

need access logies

will be hat can be se of o campus.

cies for the ng particular ies, mandateontinued sho

nding, the ungned and sitet into the eve

informationves the plan sories: buildinn, environm

subcommittesed and goal

ubcommittee

ussed faciliticampus growlude 1) justihanges, of a

arameters ford facilities mchnology, spalth and safet

d improvemould be alloc

niversity willed to accommenings and w

Buildin

sited to

that oc

hour d

weeken

n, the planninshould reinfong and buildent, and utili

ees met withls-and-objecfollow.

ies siting. Thwth. Second, fication of a

a high-quality

r proposed famust be asses

ace utilizatioty related to

ments, and acated to highe

l need to focmodate expaweekends as

ngs will need

o accommoda

ccurs not only

day but into th

nds as well.

ng task forceorce. To ach

ding sites, ities.

h various on-ctives statem

he siting chaany given p

additional buy environme

acilities, Thessed. Goals-aon, campus dthe built

ccess. In parter priority us

cus on more anded activit

well.

d to be designe

ate expanded

y during the c

he evenings a

e was hieve

and off-ments

allenge is project uilt ent.

e fit and- density,

ticular, se.

shared- y that

ed and

activity

class

and

B-4

Assumptions for Planning Purposes In the early stages of this document's formulation, KU administrators made the following assumptions and commitments.

1. KU will work to ensure that the students who study here have appropriate academic preparation and capabilities.

2. KU will take steps to limit undergraduate enrollment increases on the Lawrence campus to no more than 10 percent of current levels by the year 2005. Enrollment elsewhere will be allowed to grow in accordance with resource availability.

3. The student body will be characterized by greater diversity in age, career objectives, ethnic origin, and instructional-delivery needs. KU will offer more evening and weekend course work to accommodate student needs.

4. KU will rely more heavily than in the past on information technology for instruction and

research and will budget for this.

5. In the next 20 years, the state's Educational Building Fund will focus on renovation of existing buildings. If capital outlays are proposed, the proposing unit will help identify possible funding sources.

6. Instructional programs will have priority on the core campus; research and support

programs will, when appropriate, be consolidated on west campus.

7. Increased technology-transfer efforts will require business-incubator space on west campus and/or the Edwards campus in Overland Park.

8. KU academic, research, and service programs will expand. To support this expansion KU

must develop a long-range plan for land acquisition.

9. Additional child-care services will be required to meet expanding child-care needs.

10. An increasingly crowded campus will make the closing or conversion of Jayhawk Boulevard important to any planning effort.

11. KU will likely be more involved in graduate instruction in Topeka.

12. Federal and state requirements will create a stronger focus on safety, environmental, and

access issues.

13. Only concerted efforts will ensure the campus' beauty and traditional features as time, weather, and expansion take their toll.

Budig Hause than 2,000 stuspace on the day. T

Historic PIn an effotransportbuildingsconsult wpossible Site SelecFor the mproximityassociateeducationinnovatioadjacency Building All univeheating, creuse wahealth an

KU/LawThe relatCommunof consis

Student, FStudents,convenieprovisioncreate accompatibaccess to

PedestriaThe campefforts wuniversity

all is a goodwas true of f

udents. Such campus. Th

They will in

Preservationort to reconctation with cs and open spwith the camas it plans si

ction most part, facy between ac

ed support unn, unforeseenons will dictay.

Environmenersity plannincooling, and

astes. In genend safety of p

wrence Reltionship of thnity access tostent lines of

Faculty, and, faculty, and

ent access to n of parking cess to the to

ble with exiso parking, be

an Accessibipus should b

with the city ty should be

d example of facilities deslarge, share

hey will havenevitably affe

n, Campus Ccile the evoluoncerns abopace on the

mpus communignificant ch

cility siting scademic uninits-the notion innovationate new patt

nt, Health, ang for buildi

d lighting; eferal, such plapeople on th

lationships he universityo and use of f communica

d Staff Accesd staff shoulareas they uspace. Any op of the hil

sting architecetter traffic fl

ility be safe and ato improve sencouraged.

f a structure dsigned in theed-use facilite to be desigect the comp

Character, aution of instiut environmcampus, KUnity as earlyhanges.

should promts and their on of adjacenns will occurerns of site s

nd Safety ings and bui

ffects on the anning shoule campus an

y to the surrof the campus ation betwee

ssibility ld have modeuse, includinlots construcl should be cture. Improvlow, and ped

accessible dastreets, sidew.

B-5

designed in e past. Its seaties won't simgned for heavposition of th

nd Campus Iitutional pro

mental issues U should

as

mote

ncy. But becr in academiselection tha

ilding sites mair, water, ald promote t

nd in the com

ounding comwas one aren city gover

erately ng the cted to

ved destrian safe

ay and night walks, and lig

anticipation ating capacitmply affect tvier pedestrihe campus ar

Image ograms and c

and about th

cause of factc programs a

at may not co

must take intand soil; and the well-beinmmunity.

mmunity wasea of concernrnment and K

ty are high p

to students, ghting in nei

Shared-us

the compo

The campu

day and ni

of more extty during anythe ratio of ban traffic duround them.

changes in mhe use and p

tors influencand their suponform with

to account ththe opportu

ng of the env

s the focus on. Another wKU.

priorities.

faculty, andighborhoods

se facilities w

osition of the

us should be

ight to studen

tended and iny single clas

built space touring more h

modes of preservation

cing the delivpport service

h the older no

he use of eneunity to reducvironment an

of this group.was the main

d staff. Coops leading to t

will inevitably

campus arou

safe and acc

nts, faculty, a

ntensive ss hour is o open ours in

of

very of es. These otions of

ergy for ce or nd the

. ntenance

perative the

affect

und them.

cessible

and staff.

NeighborNearly alcity and tContinuaplanners should besurround

Open SpaOpen areenhanced

West CamThe devefor bikingin highly

PropertyAreas adjand a pla

StudentStudent ifrom studa structurrecomme Focus grolong-rangeating, enhours of and objec

Student HKU has ahousing oaffordabl

rhoods ll issues invothe neighboral cooperatioand represene the rule. Th

ding neighbo

ace eas for recread for the ben

mpus Develoelopment of g and joggin

y visible loca

y Acquisitiondjacent to caman for acquis

t Needs input into andents as possred survey oendations.

oups were coge plans. Thntertainmentoffices and pctives emerg

Housing an investmenother than trle accommod

olving univerhoods arounon and commntatives of nhe protectionrhoods is in

ation and leinefit of the en

opment west campu

ng trails and ations should

n mpus that cosition encour

ny planning esible. The su

of students, f

onvened. Mhe following t, meeting wprograms seged.

nt to maintairaditional dodations for a

ersity land usnd the unive

munication wneighborhoodn and preserKU's interes

sure that crentire commu

s should enhshould be re

d be discoura

ould serve thraged.

effort is esseubcommitteefaculty, and s

eetings withissues were

with other sturving studen

in and a needrmitories. Th

a more diver

B-6

se affect the rsity.

with city d groups rvation of st.

eate a park-liunity.

hance the unetained. The aged.

he academic m

ential. The sue assessed exstaff as a bas

h student-servaddressed: c

udents, on- annt needs, and

d for an initihe steps that

rse student b

ike environm

niversity's phcurrent prac

mission in th

ubcommitteexisting facilisis for formu

vice professiclassroom lend off-campd parking. Th

iative to devet KU takes sody in the co

Natura

biking

should

ment should

hysical imagectice of sitin

he future sho

e decided to ties and serv

ulating a set

ionals were earning, studpus housing, he following

elop additionhould providoming centu

al areas exist

and jogging

d be retained.

be maintain

e. Natural arg low-cost f

ould be iden

elicit as muvices and conof goals and

held to ask tdying, recrea

health servig recommend

nal high-quade suitable a

ury.

on west camp

trails, and th

ed and

reas exist facilities

ntified

ch input nducted d

their ation, ces, dations

ality and

pus for

hese

Quality oGuidelinalready in

Campus AKU shouclassroomof safety

Student RThe univto accom

Student MFormal adistributeuse is ma

Other SeServices demand, services sconsider

TranspoDevelopiplanners enrollmeoperationfactors arcommuti AddressiSolutionscommunitopograpand west This subcoutside cplanning

of the Campues for the qun existence n

Access, Conuld distinguism operationsis one that r

Recreation Fversity shouldmmodate the

Meeting, Stuand informal ed equitably aximized.

rvices support the demographishould be ththeir relation

ortation ing an accesof 1973. At nt exceeds 2

n on the weere likely to cing students,

ing the issues to long- staity. Problemhy and by th

t.

committee bconsultant ex, BRW Inc.,

us Environmuality and quneed to be re

nvenience, ansh between ss and those irequires cons

Facilities andd address therecreational

dy, and Offistudy and macross camp

class-hour dics, student n

houghtfully snship to the

s plan for KUthat time, en

24,000 studeekdays and incomplicate th and visitors

s of transporanding probl

ms of access ahe existence

benefited fromxperienced in Minneapoli

ment uantity of opetained, and

nd Safety structures than which morsideration of

d Spaces e need for minterests of

ce Areas meeting spacpus. The am

day should bneeds, and idsited and accclass-hour d

U in 1997 isnrollment w

ents, and the nto the weekhe issue of cs, along with

rtation and alems must taare complicaof two camp

m the advicen campus trais, Minnesot

B-7

en and greenrecreation a

at require pure restricted f the entire c

more and varia diverse an

ces, as well amount of spac

e expanded deas of convcessible. In dday.

s a different mas projectedcampus face

kends. Even campus accesh the demand

access are cruake into accoated by puses, main

e of an ansportation ta.

n space needareas need to

ublic access activities, su

campus and o

ied formal and growing s

as graduate sce should be

or reconfiguvenience anddesigning the

matter from d to reach a mes the likelihwith a projess: an increads of special

ucial to KU'ount the loca

An acc

necessa

1973, w

reach a

d to be establo be develope

and are comuch as researof surroundi

nd informal student popu

student officeminimized w

ured to reflecd service. In ese services,

the same tasmaximum of hood of extenection of modasingly diver events.

s efficient fuation of the c

cess plan draw

arily differ fr

when enrollm

a maximum o

lished. Spaced.

mmitted to gerch, occur. Ting neighbor

spaces and ulation.

e space, neewhile its effe

ct changes ingeneral, on- KU also sh

sk faced by tf 18,000. Todnding its houdest growth,rse group of

unctioning. campus in th

wn up in 199

rom that devis

ment was proj

of 18,000 to 2

es

eneral The issue rhoods.

facilities

d to be fective

n campus ould

the day, urs of , these users,

he

97 will

sed in

jected to

20,000.

B-8

Campus Access A well-coordinated system of access to campus needs to be developed and implemented. The present access model focuses on getting cars to campus and across campus, as well as providing parking. This model is costly in financial and aesthetic/environmental terms.

Streets The street system, little improved in two decades, will be the major provider of campus access. Near-term and long-term improvements that assure a safe, efficient street network are necessary. Major corridors of automobile access should be coordinated with major parking facilities. Where possible, investment in streets should accommodate alternate forms of transportation, such as bus or bike lanes. This may require funding and coordinated efforts by various state, university, and municipal bodies.

Pedestrians on Campus A growing campus population makes the achievement of a safe mix of auto, bus, bike, and pedestrian traffic more difficult. Pedestrian access to and use of campus should be promoted by providing safe and efficient routes to and from facilities.

Alternate Transportation Where alternatives to the use of private automobiles have been implemented--KU on Wheels, the student bus service, for example--success has been limited largely by the investment that has been made. Providing alternatives to the use of cars or the necessity of inconvenient walks will protect the campus environment; these alternatives deserve to be promoted. There is also a need to provide incentives that promote ride-sharing.

Bicycles Bicycles are most often used by people under 35; thus, the bicycle commute with the heaviest volume in Lawrence is to and from the KU campus. Encouraging the use of bicycles on campus may be as simple as providing adequate bicycle lanes, routes, lockers, and so on.

Conveyances of Convenience Elevators, escalators, moving sidewalks, and other "people movers" ease travel over long distances or up steep slopes. Providing such conveyances at strategic locations is a necessity.

Special Events Because of the location of major sporting and recreational facilities and the traffic they engender at the time of their use, cooperation between the campus and the city will be an ongoing necessity during special events. Such cooperation will help to assure safe use of pedestrian and vehicle routes.

Where alternatives to the use of private

automobiles has been implemented,

success has been limited largely by the

investment that has been made.

KU will engineer a transportation system

whose components include bicycles, buses,

shuttles, and single-occupancy vehicles.

B-9

Environmental Issues The definition of "environmental issues" varies from person to person. For one, the preservation of beauty is important; for another, health and safety; for still another, both. The work of this subcommittee focused on the idea that physical development planning should steer the campus away from potentially negative environmental or health and safety impacts.

General Conditions of Campus Planning KU needs to make environmental impact an important consideration in campus planning and decision-making. Proactive measures to reduce negative impacts are the most cost-effective means of lessening environmental degradation and potential liability. A KU environmental policy statement giving assurance that impacts are considered would be a good first step.

Transportation KU will provide a transportation system that includes bicycles, buses, shuttles, and single-occupancy vehicles. A non-automotive transit system will lower construction and maintenance costs, reduce negative environmental impacts, increase pedestrian safety, and improve air quality.

Parking KU will provide parking that takes heed of the environment. For example, a parking lot shaded by plantings in accordance with established formulas of landscape design reduces heat that radiates from the lot surface and saves utility costs in nearby buildings. Because land is a finite and valuable commodity, when it is used for parking lots, those lots should be constructed with several factors in mind: their accessibility, their potential for service not only to present buildings but to future ones, and their anticipated users.

Open and Green Space KU will develop and maintain unpaved open and green space. It will seek to minimize the effect of the built environment on these spaces. Green space improves campus views and vistas and preserves and enhances the campus climate.

Building Sites KU will need to site buildings so as to use financial and infrastructure resources efficiently and to lessen the university's environmental impact on areas surrounding the university. When possible, buildings should be clustered around shared points of access and parking, thereby consolidating bus stops and making pedestrian movement to and among buildings convenient. Through effective siting, KU can reduce operating and maintenance costs for roads, parking facilities, utility tunnels, and other infrastructure.

Utilities KU needs to pursue technologies and management methods that minimize use of energy and water resources. The state budgeting process should provide KU the flexibility to return a portion of energy savings to individual units that conserve. This would reward reduced utility use.

Buildings should be clustered so that bus stops

can be consolidated and pedestrian movement to

and among buildings made convenient.

B-10

Campus Environment and Community Health and Safety All KU-related facilities, activities, and programs should be designed, conducted, and operated in a manner that promotes and protects human health and safety.

Campus Utilities and Infrastructure Various utility and infrastructure systems pose problems for KU. Recent studies on electrical distribution, water supply, and storm and sanitary sewers have identified the need for several significant improvement projects. This subcommittee's focus was on goals and strategies that are applicable across the campus for a variety of systems. The specific deficiencies of campus utility systems are addressed later in the plan.

Campus Utility Systems Funds should be set aside each year for upgrades of campus utility systems. The amounts set aside should be based on estimated depreciation and future capital costs. These projects should extend out several decades.

Energy Utilization and System Efficiency The cost of purchasing and installing energy-efficient fixtures and equipment should be covered by savings that result from decreased energy utilization. Although some of the savings will, as an incentive, be returned to units that conserve, most of the savings will be reinvested in these energy- saving measures.

Technoloqy The university should continue to develop and implement plans for the installation of proven energy- efficient equipment. It should also incorporate monitoring networks for utility distribution systems and building equipment.

THE E Land UIn this seplanning necessaryinitiative For examand deveplace. Pespaces, rocampus eexperiencuse changoccupiedIn the abpatterns oand meaninherent image maenvironmurban feapaving, a Yet if it imust be rthat the pcampus mchanges taccompaand growperspectiand far atmeet neaand cons The failumodel foenvironmchoose tofuture ge Developmbalance afunctiona

ELEMEN

se, Access,ection we add

elements shy investment

e involving th

mple, in termeloped green erhaps these outes and mestablishes pces providesges dramatic

d. sence of respof land use ans of access,quality of thay be lost to

mental changatures of buiand parking.

is true that trrespected, it physical imamust accommthat inevitab

any a period wth. We musive; we mustt once. We w

ar- term needider today's

ure to attend or access to ament--can imo effect chanenerations--o

ment on the among the baal considerat

NTS OF

Image dress elemen

hould be conts for this cahe built envi

ms of current spaces--the ratios are coethod of trav

patterns. Thes a unique imcally--for ex

pect for and ways , the he physical o ges such as lding,

radition is also true

age of the modate the bly of transitiont maintain a t see near will need to ds with near-choices in a

to each of thand mobility

mpose the necnge consciouor leave matt

south slope asic needs. Ttions in the d

PHYSIC

nts of land unsidered a coampus. Theseironment. A

KU land usebasic eleme

omfortable bvel inevitable individual'smage. It is vexample, if spa

n

-term plans--a context of g

he three basiy on campus,cessity to mausly, with a vters to chanc

of Mount OThe environmdecision-mak

R

B-11

CAL DEV

use, access, aonceptual moe elements sdiagram of t

e, there are rents of a camecause they

ly evolves ovs perception ery possible ace on the co

-look to the pgenerations o

ic needs-for , and preservake expensivview to the lce and, instea

Oread raises iment of the cking process

Relationship

VELOPM

and image. Todel for evalshould be conthe model is

ratios amongmpus--that ar

are familiarver time. Ththat results fthat we'll losore campus b

past for persof growth an

thoughtful lvation of imave remedies ong-term, anad, earn thei

issues regardcampus in ths. As a result

p of Land U

MENT PL

The relationsuating varionsidered in as shown belo

g built structre important r. The compoe way we cofrom the quase a sense ofbecomes mo

spective and nd change.

land use, theage expresseto achieve a

nd merit the r opprobrium

ding how to his area revet of construc

Use, Access,

LANNIN

ship betweenous componeany institutioow

tures, open sto our sense

osition of buome and go fality of thesef familiarity ore densely

forward in t

evolution ined by a campa balance. Wapprobation

m.

strike a propeals a series oction on sites

and Image

NG

n these ents and onal

paces, e of uildings, from the e if land

time--

n the pus

We can n of

per of s

identifiedbuilt to oDevelopmsquare fe Higher dfunctionamatters o

d in the 1973open space. Tment Centereet of built sp

densities, of cal and aestheof land use, a

3 plan, the laThe construcr, along with pace to the l

course, can betic concernsaccess, and i

and south of ction of the A

the additionand there-in

be supporteds. In the sectimage.

B-12

f Jayhawk BoAnschutz Scns to Malott less than 20

d. But an idetions that fol

oulevard hasience Librarand Haworth

0 years, an in

eal solution rllow we expl

s seen an incry and the Dh halls, has ancrease of ne

requires resplore our futu

crease in the ole Human added 500,0early 60 perc

pect for both ure options in

ratio of

000 gross cent.

n the

B-13

LAND USE The components of the KU campus land-use model are these:

• Open space. This is land uncommitted at present to any university activities. West campus, owned mostly by the KU Endowment Association, falls into this category. • Developed green space. This is land that has been landscaped and is crossed by pedestrian paths. The land serves the buildings adjacent to it, and activities related to those buildings. It is land whose use may change. The space around Anschutz Science Library is an example. • Traditional areas. These spaces have been preserved for generations. This preservation is expected to continue. The lawn in front of Strong Hall is an example. • Areas for academic, research, and support facilities. These are spaces committed to the fulfillment of KU's academic mission. On the core campus, these spaces are committed to existing buildings and possible additions. The south slope of Mount Oread is an example. • Housing. These include residence halls, apartment dwellings, and faculty duplexes. • Athletic facilities and fields. These serve student intramural and instructional needs, as well as providing practice and competition facilities for NCAA sports. • Buildable areas. These areas have potential for construction but are not yet dedicated to that purpose. They may be created from parcels of open or developed green space.

For a depiction of the projected land-use plans, see the "Central Campus Land Use Options" map on page B-26.

Each of these components will be considered by reference to principles, some of which are formulaic and some of which are more subjective in nature, when land-use plans are made.

1. Land atop Mount Oread is at a premium, and buildable spaces within the core campus are limited. These factors should inform decisions about land uses that would preserve convenience for individuals and accommodate activities that are central to the overall academic mission. The past twenty years have seen very few changes in the configuration of space at the top of Mount Oread as the limit in terms of density of buildings and activities has been reached in previous decades.

Land Use Factors to be considered:

• Density of activities and the ration of built area to open space

• Adjacency of campus facilities

• Affinity of academic disciplines

• Accessible routes and parking

• Buildable areas and future sites

• Possible areas of acquisition

2. Open individuaover the 3. Activitfor each were estacomplemor reloca 4. Classrclass to tJayhawk to this prservices, 5. Space support acommitmChanges An examcommitmscarcity oStadium students,distance of space The patteassociatecity routecareful p 6. Margidocumenexist andas shop, scomplex ones cou 7. The uncrowdingof the un In the secnecessary

space shouldal differencelong term fo

ties that are other should

ablished in thmentary, yet eated to areas

rooms shouldthe next withBoulevard f

rinciple is thashould be e

must be dedany develope

ments alreadyin grade and

mple of land uments to sitesof land atop and Allen F faculty and of the top ofto parking w

ern of develoed with acceses like 15th alanning of st

inal facilitiesnt identified md are in use. Estorage, andon the main

uld help main

niversity musg of the coreniversity. Bot

ctions belowy to impleme

d be about thes among varor the core ca

complemend, where poshe 1973 planexist near eaat the perim

d be near enhin the time afor classroomat academic asily accessi

dicated for thed tract. They made to bud elevation r

use decisions for surface Mount Oreaield House (staff with p

f the hill. Futwith ready ac

opment on wss, from streand Iowa strtreets and ro

s must be remmore than twExamples in

d administratn campus. Thntain current

st plan for p campus necth a policy a

w, we apply tent the princ

hree times arious sites onampus area a

tary should ssible, be phyn and exist toach other, sh

meter of the c

nough to eacallotted for cms, establishsupport actiible.

he streets, roe main campuildings, offerestrict the ar

ns regarding lots, decked

ad envisione(the lot southarking near ture land useccess to the h

west campus-ets within threets. Develooads given th

moved to crewenty 1940snclude Baileyive buildinghe removal ot ratios of op

property acqucessitates proand a plan wi

these principciples and ch

B-14

as plentiful asn campus in and relates f

be sited sideysical neighboday. On the

hould be buffore campus,

ch other that class changehed in the 19ivities, such

oads, parkinpus, because ers few alterreas that can

the future cod lots, and gad the develoh of Robinsomajor event e models shohill.

--around thehe tract, like opment of buhe limitation

eate buildings vintage temy, Blake, Mi

gs that constiof antiquatedpen to built s

uisition adjaoperty acquiill be require

ples to some hallenges tha

s built area.this regard.

floor area to

e by side; acbors. A nume other handfered from e, west campu

students on es. The decis973 plan, reflas libraries,

g and sidewof the topog

rnatives to esn be committ

onfigurationarages. The opment of laron Gymnasiu

centers andould identify

e perimeter oCrestline an

uildable areans of topogra

g sites or opmporary or obilitary Sciencitute the Depd structures wpace.

acent to the misition that wed.

specific casat are likely t

There are oIt is a princitotal area of

ademic discmber of functd, activities thach other byus or to sites

foot can mosion to use laflects this pri

study areas,

walks that aregraphy of Mostablished rigted to parkin

n of parking, 1973 plan, arge parking um). The ide

d also within y parameters

of the 400-plnd Constant as on west caaphy and maj

pen space. Thbsolete strucce, and Lindpartment of Fwithout repla

main campuwill uphold th

ses, citing steto arise alon

obviously wiiple to be cof developed s

iplines with tional adjacehat are not y intervenings off-campus

ove easily froand adjacentinciple. A co, and some s

e necessary tount Oread aght-of-ways

ng for autom

would involanticipating aareas near Mea was to proreasonable w

s for the com

lus acre tractavenues, to mampus will rjor points of

he 1973 planctures. Severdley annexesFacilities Opacing them w

s. The inevithe academic

eps that willng the way.

de onsidered sites.

affinities encies

g space s.

om one t to orollary student

to and .

mobiles.

lve a

Memorial ovide walking

mmitment

t--is major require f access.

nning ral still , as well

perations with new

table c mission

be

AdjacenThe implon the hiResearchmoved to There wi"mixed uactivitiesprogramscomprisethese buidedicatedcontrast, adjacent There arecampus. occupy b

FFiiCCoo

((AAPPeeSSccLLaa

ncies and Alementation ll. Activities

h, teaching, ao the periphe

ill, of courseuses" will bes. For examps with stronge a mix of claildings are sid to use by aBlake, Fraseto them. Con

e clearly areOne such ar

buildable site

iigguurree DD:: oonncceeppttss ooff AA

AArreeaa AA:: AArrcchheerrffoorrmmiinngg AArrcciieenncceess,, UUnnddeeaabboorraattoorryy AArr

Affinities of principles

s less relevanand services ery of the ma

e, be exceptio sited adjace

ple, Marvin ag affinities: aassroom spaimilarly variarchitecture ser, and Watsncepts of aff

as that couldrea would bees for future

AAffffiinniittyy aanndd

hhiitteeccttuurree,, FFiinnrrttss;; AArreeaa BB:: eerrggrraadd TTeeaacchhrreeaass;; AArreeaa CC

s stated in thnt to undergrthat aren't ti

ain campus a

ons to this geent to each oand Murphy architecture,ace, laboratoried--the courstudents for son Library afinity and ad

d be put to be the southeaacademic fa

dd AAddjjaacceennccyy

nnee AArrttss,, aanndd PPhhyyssiiccaall hhiinngg aanndd

CC:: SSoocciiaall SScciiee

B-15

he 1973 planraduate progied to undergand to west c

eneral rule. Iother. These

halls, along performingry, and perfortyard next toproducing smare more hom

djacency are

better use conast sector, whacilities.

yy

eenncceess))

AA

n has consoligrams will cograduate educampus.

In some situ"mixed uses

g with the Ar arts and finormance areo Murphy Hmall-scale cmogeneous ishown in Fi

nsidering thehere facilitie

BB

idated undergontinue to beucation will

uations, whats" are, in factrt and Designe arts. Still, as. The land

Hall, for examonstructionsin activities igure D.

e academic fes-operations

CC

graduate acte relocated. continue to b

t appear to bt, compatiblen Building, hthese buildin

d use patternsmple, or the ss behind Marand the spac

function of ths support act

tivities

be

be e house ngs s around space rvin. By ces

he main tivities

Campus Buildablspace. Thface of Mthe kind Haworthof open a

Open anThese increlief frolawns, m We have landscaplike the lgreenspathose plaviews anhall.

Aerial ph

s Density le sites on thhus, past bui

Mount Oreadof landscape, and Dole-thand green sp

nd Green Sclude a numm the built e

malls, courtya

made the foe elements: tawns in fron

ace, such as aaces on campd vistas, suc

hoto of main

he main campilding practicd, where the e that has trahere is little

pace must be

Space mber of traditi

environmentards, pedestr

ollowing destraditional a

nt of Strong Hareas aroundpus that are ach as the ope

campus loo

pus are few.ces are facinamount of b

aditionally chopen space come an imp

ional areas at. They also rian corridor

signations ofareas as founHall, Watson

d Potters Lakassociated wen areas alon

oking north o

B-16

. A competinng a challenguilt space coharacterized and virtuallyportant varia

and open andsupplement s, and specia

f green spacend in areas wn Library an

ke and Marvwith the adjacng Jayhawk B

on Naismith

ng need is thge. The challompared witKU. In som

y no high-quable in discu

d developed the built enval landscapin

e and relatedwith notable cnd Allen Fielin Grove; opcent architecBoulevard or

Bouldevard,

hat for open slenge is evidth open spac

me places-sucuality green ussions about

green spacevironment inng.

d areas of opcharacteristicldhouse; exipenspace feacture or are nr the area in

, 1995

space and grdent on the soe doesn't proch as aroundspace. Preset campus den

es that providn such forms

en space andcs and boundsting signifi

atures, referrnecessary to front of Lin

reen outh ovide for d Malott, ervation nsity.

de visual s as

d daries, cant

ring to preserve

ndley

We have have idenFinally wpedestriasites on wopen spa

See the C

CentralInvestmefor expanuses as pThis areatotal squagross squconsiderecampus o Experienan effectiin the tra

Aeri

also designantified two a

we have incluan routes, andwest campusace is shown

Central Camp

l Versus Went in a substnsion withouroposed in t

a was substanare footage ouare feet. Thed. West camoffers option

nce over the live transport

ansportation

ial photo of W

ated areas eaareas of futuruded the need planting ans and to mainfor central c

pus Landsca

West Camputantial tract out acquisitionhis documenntially develof west camp

he possibilitympus develons and flexib

last 20 yearstation systemsection of th

West Campu

ast of Robinre significaned for streetsnd/or buffersntain and precampus and

ape Features

us Developmof land westn, in instancent. loped in the pus building

y of construcopment will rbility that the

s has shown m between thhis report.

us looking ea

B-17

son Gymnasnt greenspacescape elemens as related ceserve them incorporated

s map on pag

ment t of Iowa Stres where tha

last 20 yearsgs has doublecting more threquire a come main camp

that to use whe campuses

ast down 15t

sium as acade proposed onts, the enhaconcerns. Thon the main

d in land use

ge B-27.

reet in the 19at expansion

s but still coed in the lasthan 200,000 mmitment tous does not.

west campuss. Developm

th Street

demic/recreaon the south ancement of here is a neen campus. Sce plans for w

950s gives thn accords wit

ntains roomt two decadeadditional s

o good mana

s for academment of such a

ation open spslope of the new and prod to establish

chematic revwest campus.

he campus opth west camp

m for growth.es, to nearly quare feet is

agement, but

mic activities a system is i

pace and hill.

oposed h these

view of

ptions pus land

The 500,000

s being t this

requires included

This landRecreatiothat incluand greenon the m On both designedplan as broadway intended with a vasuch as pwater, asinfrastrucmodifica Above alacademicnatural afthe camp Referenc

Land-usLand-usecampus aenvironmprinciple • The

instcondec

• Inst

the relo

• Ope

shoand

• Cam

sho

d resource, laon and sceniudes steep grn space. Vieain campus.

campuses, gd and useful,

uildable havdesign, presas restrictiv

ariety of site-parking, acce well as nececture System

ations in plan

ll, future devc mission; reffinities with

puses, both d

ce West Camp

se Principle principles aactivities. Lament. To altees that accom

e options fortitutional usenstraints on tcades.

tructional anmain campu

ocated.

en space andould remain sd defended fr

mpus topogrould be prote

argely owneic open spacerades and flo

ews and vista

great care munot the prod

ve been chosserve pedestr

ve footprints -specific devess, drainageessary ties to

ms. All of thens.

velopment shespect the prh each otherday-to-day an

pus Zoning M

les are the basisand-use patteer these pattempany the wi

r developing es are limitethe future. Th

nd research us is limited

d green spacso. Lawns, prom convers

raphy makesected.

ed by the Endes should beood plains was, if careful

ust be taken duct of happesen to take adrian corridorof future de

velopment ree, and retentio utility and ese may forc

hould recogninciple of sit; and effect snd during sp

Map on pag

s for decisionerns evolve serns is difficuise use of lan

main and wed. The dedichis means th

activities ha, so non-inst

ce have tradplazas, greension to occup

s views and v

B-18

dowment Ase preserved.

will limit devly developed

to site structenstance or odvantage of rs, and compvelopment. Tequirementsion of storm

ce

nize the functing side by smooth vehi

pecial activiti

ge B-28.

ns that relateslowly, definult and expend.

west campus cation of lanhat choices s

ave priority itructional an

ditionally been and gardenpied space.

vistas an imp

ssociation, isIn some placelopment and, have the p

tures so that of poor site topography,

plement viewThe fact is th,

ctional requiside those p

icular and peies.

e functional nning and red

ensive. Here

in order to mnds to signifishould reflec

in laying cland non-resear

en significann spaces need

portant part

The tot

buildin

s not an unlices, an unbu

nd should be potential to b

related opendesign. Sites, be accessibws. The siteshat every bu

rements impprograms andedestrian mo

needs to posdefining the c

are some co

meet presenticant structurct a perspecti

aim to buildarch activitie

nt features ofd to be ident

of the enviro

tal square foo

ngs has doubl

mited one. uildable topo

preserved abe as arrestin

n spaces are s proposed in

ble given ants proposed aruilding site c

posed by the d activities thovements bet

ssible sites focampus

onsiderations

t and future res places ive that enco

able sites. Sps may have t

f the campustified, develo

onment. The

otage of west

led in two dec

ography as open ng as any

well-n this ticipated re not omes

hat have tween

or

s and

ompasses

pace on to be

s and oped,

ese assets

t campus

cades.

• Camdev

• Stu

supdete

Land UTo manabuilt. Thefor buildivalue of on that siindividua The challtwofold. managemcomplicaIt must dparking sparking w The secoconsideravehicularthese pro A long-te

Near-caThere arewhich winorth, theneighborconfigura The Oreaof the unfamily unnear-camhomes haimplied bparallel tAmini Sc

mpus housinvelopment ne

dent intramupport the instermine whet

se Planninge parking re value of laing sites andland on whicite. Thereforals are willin

lenge for sitiOne challen

ment system ated parking develop criterspaces withinwith ready ac

ond challengeation about tr routes, inteoblems is as

erm strategy

ampus Neige four distingill affect ande Universityrhood to the ation of lots,

ad neighborhniversity. Monits has prov

mpus parkingave front driboundary forto Ohio and Lcholarship H

ng is importaeed to be lin

ural and rectitutional mither these en

g for Parkresources reqand for parkid for open anch the parkinre, in assessing to pay for

ing lots or stnge is the crethat can hanscheme thanria for allocan walking diccess to cam

e is to providtheir impact egration of trdependent o

y is to reduce

ghborhoodguishable ned be affectedy Place and C

west. Each h, and its own

hood has beeore recently, vided housing poses ongoveways, andr university gLouisiana st

Hall, which is

ant to a sensnked to plans

creation fieldission but arnterprises are

king quires assignng purposes

nd green spang is sited anng proposed

r convenient

tructures is eation of a pandle a more n currently eating and priistance of a u

mpus-bound p

de these parkon the camp

ransit optionon thoughtful

e the pressur

ds eighborhoodd by the mainCentennial nehas its own pn way of giv

en a residentconversion

ng for studenoing problemd off-street pgrowth on thtreets, and has sited along

B-19

e of communs for property

ds, auxiliary ren't central e contiguous

ning values ts must be assace. Charges nd the cost od parking site

access to th

arking

exists. icing user's destinpublic transp

king optionspus environmns, and accesl parking ma

e on valuabl

ds adjacent ton campus, areighborhoodplace in Lawing access to

tial area for Kof residence

nts. The use oms. The situatparking tendshe east is mialfway betwg this bounda

b

nity. Any play acquisition

and supportto it. In the f

s to the main

to land on whsessed by reffor parking

of the parkines, it is impo

heir workplac

nation and alsportation.

s within a frament and lanss to safe pedanagement a

le land sites

o the main care the Oread ds to the soutwrence's histoo vehicles an

KU faculty aes and constrof neighborhtion is comps to be accesdway down een those strary, respects

The value of

by reference

ans for futurn.

t enterprisesfuture, it wil

n campus or

hich lots or ference to a must be set

ng accommodortant to estaces from tho

so provide lo

amework of nd-use patterndestrian routas on the ava

for use as pa

ampus. The neighborhoth, and the Wory, its own nd accommo

and staff froruction of highood streets plicated by thssible only vthe hill; an areets, marks s the resident

f land for park

to competing

e housing

s, and parkinll be importasited elsewh

structures mcompeting dby referencedation that isablish how mose sites.

ow-cost, rem

careful ns, access to

tes. The soluailability of l

arking.

four neighbood to the eas

West Hills size and

odating pede

m the earliegh-density, mby outsidershe fact that fia alleywaysalleyway thathe boundar

tial neighbor

king must be

g demands.

ng ant to here.

might be demand: e to the s built

much

mote

o major ution to and.

orhoods, st and

strians.

st days multi- s for few s. The at runs ry. rhood.

assessed

UniversitBufferingspaces, inrequire th Also to threnters. Idevelopmadditiona West Hilthat sharesites for adevelopm The westAs of thidevelopmundevelolandscapsignificanboundary

C

Co

Ap

Fa

28

Ne

Dia

ty Place is ang this neighbn the form ohe addition o

he south, CeIt is separatement of the aal activity at

lls neighborhes the ridge a number of

ment at its no

t campus shas writing, th

ment in and aoped areas one--amenitiesnt landscapey.

entral Cam

ore Campus:

pproximately 1

acilities with

8 major buildi

early 3,000,00

agram of est

n establishedborhood fromf intramural of significan

entennial is ad from the c

athletic fieldsthe boundar

hood abuts thof Mount Or

f fraternity anorthern edge

ares a boundhe neighborharound their n west camps found in fee features and

mpus

140 Acres

hin the Core:

ings

00 gross sqft

tablished cam

d neighborhom the univerfields. Any

nt and well-e

a neighborhocampus by a s and facilitiry between u

he main camread and is rnd sorority h

e. Patterns of

dary with a nood has, fromarea but is o

pus. Its lots aw places witd open-spac

Core Cam

Limited Direof Future Gr

mpus bounda

B-20

ood that servrsity are welldevelopmenstablished la

ood largely omajor city th

ies adjacent university lan

mpus along Wreadily acceshouses and, mf access lead

neighborhoodm time to timonly loosely abut large arethin the city e buffers wh

mpus

Area t

Area

ectionrowth

aries and pe

ves both longl-landscapednt on this flaandscape ele

occupied by horoughfareto 19th and nds and the n

West Campussible from cmore recentl

d to concerns

d that has grme, revieweorganized. I

eas of open slimits. It wi

here the univ

Limi of F

to the Sout

to the No

erimeter

g-time residd surface parank of the unements.

long-time ree, 19th Streetwest of Naisneighborhoo

s Road. It iscampus. As wly, higher-des regarding tr

rown up on itd concerns rIt benefits byspace and naill be necessaversity and n

ted Directionuture Growth

th

orth

ents and renrking and opniversity wou

esidents and t. Recent smith has prood.

a residentiawell, it provensity apartmraffic and pa

ts southwestregarding they its siting native Kansasary to establ

neighborhood

Implied Boundary

nters. en uld

some

oduced

al area ides

ment arking.

t edge. e

next to s lish d share a

y

The neiga stable, They've aplanning universityconcerns

PropertAll privaIt is in thbuffers. Pwhen sucThese fac

• T

• T

• Tp

• T

• Tn

hborhoods ahigh-qualityalso experienventures mu

y and the ne for the futu

ty Acquisitate propertieshe interests oProperty shoch acquisitioctors should

The need for

The need for

The improvemarking facili

The consolida

The acquisitioo affinity wi

adjacent to thy campus andnced the desust include ceighborhood ure. Cooperat

ion s adjacent to

of both KU aould not be pon is necessad inform disc

sound struct

new facilitie

ment of traffities

ation of scat

on of spacesith existing a

he central cad the downsistabilization concerns of norganization

tion between

o the campusand adjacent purchased soary for the fucussions abou

tures that wi

es and assoc

fic flow on th

ttered proper

s that are notactivities on

B-21

ampus have eide of high vthat results f

neighborhoons to define n these group

s should be rneighborhoolely because

ulfillment of ut possible a

ill fulfill spec

iated parkin

he perimeter

rties on the p

t adjacent to main or wes

experienced volumes of trfrom high de

od. It's in theplans clearlyps will need

respected andods to estable it is availabthe academi

acquisitions:

cific needs

g and servic

r of the camp

perimeter of

the main or st campus

both the benraffic and paemand for ho

e best interesy and addresto be ongoin

d protected alish well-defble. Land shoic mission.

ce space

pus and the n

the campus

west campu

nefit of beinarking problousing. KU-

sts of both thss shared potng.

as much as pfined boundaould be acqu

need for larg

us for uses th

ng next to ems. -city he tential

possible. aries and uired

ge

hat have

B-23

LAND USE OPTIONS Central Campus: Areas of Campus Expansion Summary of condition/criteria for areas selected: The seven areas described below are depicted on the attached land use map for central campus. These are areas to be considered as options for expansion of academic and support activities. Each has unique characteristics related to the present use, topography, potential for change, etc. Few are without significant concerns requiring the staging of a series of improvements to accommodate future projected use. Areas shown in red are proposed for possible academic expansion. The area shown in blue is proposed Services/Auxiliary Enterprise expansion.

Area 1: Southeast Academic Core

• This is a primary expansion area for activities with direct ties to the core campus.

• Site development may require removal of marginal facilities such as Blake Annex or small foot-print facilities such as Watkins Home.

• Development of sites for academic activities requires relocation of Facilities Operations shops, storage, and eventually administration, probably to West Campus.

• Relocation of infrastructure may be needed. Further study may also determine that refitting or reconfiguring of steam distribution and other utility infrastructure in this area may be possible.

• The significance of Prairie Acre as a traditional landscape feature needs to be evaluated.

Area 2: Northwest Area-West Campus Road and 11th Street

• This area will undergo significant transformation in terms of activity given the conversion from residential to academic use with the near-term plans for renovation of Joseph R. Pearson Hall for the School of Education and future sites for academic facilities.

• By being on the hill, the east slope overlooking Memorial stadium provides additional building sites contiguous to significant open and green space areas of central campus. Potential development of this area should be evaluated by considering the principles for locating activities not focused solely on the undergraduate academic day outside of the core campus but within proximity to the central campus.

• The subsurface geology of this east facing slope will need to be evaluated to determine the limitation of specific sites.

• Expansion on the southern end of the east slope is limited by preservation of the greenspace and openspace around Potter's Lake.

B-24

• The distance from the core campus points to the need to accommodate the movement of students, faculty, and staff to and from areas south of Jayhawk Boulevard.

• The proximity of this area to the West Hills neighborhood may be problematic. This may be viewed by those living adjacent to the campus as a significant change in the pattern of campus use of land adjacent to the neighborhood given the potential, over the long term, for significant growth.

Area 3: Northeast Campus/Oread Avenue

• This area is a historic campus entry where public access to the campus is integrated with academic activities. This area has long been a traditional entry to the campus, but development of the last twenty years continued to move the center of classday activity further south and west.

• This area contains the last few buildable sites for any type of facility on the hill adjacent to Oread Avenue and Jayhawk Boulevard. Sites committed to future development will need to be preserved.

• Given a change in grade from Oread to Mississippi Street of more than sixty feet, the topography in this area is a significant limitation when considering the future use of the land. Manageable pedestrian connections are critical and require integrating grade changes with built solutions.

• Future building in this area includes areas for Union expansion, proposed Alumni Center expansion, proposed site for Continuing Education, and a proposal for a parking structure.

• A solution for integrating parking and the movement of pedestrians may be necessary. For example, it would be possible to construct a significant northwest entry to the Union from Mississippi Street with a crossover connection to a large structured parking area in the vicinity of the stadium.

• Oread Avenue should be considered limited in the capacity to carry increased traffic.

• Additional acquisition of property is ongoing in this area.

Area 4: South Campus/Naismith Corridor

• This area encompasses space important to academic programs using outside facilities such as tennis courts and intramural fields. Most of these areas will need to be maintained as long as academic activities take place in Robinson Gymnasium. See Open and Green Space Map below.

• This area may provide sites for limited development contiguous to the academic core.

• Areas of existing surface parking provides a potential site with good access from a major campus entry to additional high density parking.

• The major pedestrian route east of Robinson Gymnasium is a significant feature connecting the core campus to areas to the south. This route should be reinforced in planning for site development in this area.

B-25

• The proximity to the University Place neighborhood will require the creation of a significant border/buffer. This improvement would be initiated as part of a comprehensive campus landscape project.

• Connection of the campus to the south provides access to 19th Street, a major thru-city route, and major campus entry.

Area 5: Memorial Stadium Renovation

• The stadium and surrounding area will be part of a renovation of facilities for Athletic and special events. The support areas under the stadium that are not specifically tied to special events will need to be accommodated near term but will migrate to other on- and off-campus locations in the longer term.

Area 6: Central campus areas for Athletics

• If coordinated with planning to accommodate the needs of intercollegiate athletics, this area may be considered as potential space for additional central campus growth for a variety of activities beyond the next 20 years.

Area 7: Irving Hill Road Development

• This area is critical to the long-term development pattern which ties central campus to west campus. It should be viewed as a development corridor for activities which will be shared between these two areas of campus.

• The most immediate development should establish a right-of-way to support additional lanes of traffic and pedestrian routes. This will mean providing a roadway designed to support increased use of Irving Hill Road.

• Longer term development of buildable sites adjacent to Irving Hill Road may require removal of those structures in Stauffer Place which are both adjacent to the roadway and have not undergone significant renovation.

• An increase in the numbers of people and vehicles moving between the areas of central and west campus is expected in the near term with the completion of Crestline Drive on west campus. The longer term implications of a campus circulation system, as recommended in a plan for campus access in the following section, may warrant development of additional lanes which would span Iowa Street.

ACCETranspoA univernetwork on campuis more thfactors asrequirem The tradiquality exof campucreated lobetween difficult tperiod ofmultimodacross cabuses, bik Existing affect anyprincipleintegrateaccessibi Movemewith the accommophysical

FFiigguurreeMMaaiinn CCaammppWWeesstt CCCCoonnnnee

ESSIBILIortation anrsity must beof transportaus for studenhan the idens topography

ments, and en

itional campxperience fous activities dong trips acrthe two camto cross the f a class chandal systems tampus. It takkes, and ped

and plannedy circulation

es developedd into the coility discusse

ent of peoplegrowth of Lodate heavy design of ca

ee FF::

puuss—— CCaammppuuss eeccttiioonnss

ITY nd Campuse accessible tation and trants, faculty, ntification any, human dem

nvironmental

pus design fuor pedestrianduring the across the main

mpuses. It hasmain campunge. This plato transport

kes into accodestrians,

d land use win network. Td ii the previoonceptual moed hereafter.

e and vehicleawrence andtraffic volum

ampus. Unde

s Mobilityto the individaffic circulatstaff, and vi

nd resolutionmands for col impact.

urnishes a higns. The expancademic dayn campus ans become mo

us within thean reviews people to an

ount automob

ill significanThus, the landous section aodel of camp

es to campusd an increasime well intoerlying the p

peacchO

CapItTUta

B-29

duals who teion systems sitors. Plann

n of traffic pronvenience a

gh-nsion y has nd ore

e

nd biles,

ntly d-use are pus

s and mobiliting number oo the eveningractical concedestrian rouccessibility. hallenge to thread.

Campus andand intertwinpotential croIowa, and Nathe campus aThe most sigU.S. Highwathat a circulaand coordina

each, learn, smust provid

ning for acceroblems. It mand accomm

ty on campuof campus acg has significcerns of roadutes are the iFinally, topohe provision

d city traffic-ned. The cam

oss-city routeaismith provand deliver dgnificant roaay 59), dividation systemated with the

FFiigguurree EE::SScchheemmaattiiccCCaammppuuss ““GGaatteewwaayy

study, and wde good mobess, mobilitymust take intmodation, ma

us has becomctivities. Thecant implicatd-way designissues of conography impn of access to

circulation smpus hinderses. Road-wayvide access tdrivers to maad in Lawrendes the camp

m for the came circulation

cc ooff

yyss””

work there. Ability to, from, and transpoto account suandated

me more come need to tions for then, parking, a

nvenience anposes a long-o and across

systems are cs developmeys like 15th,to the perimeajor campusnce, Iowa Strpus. It is imp

mpus be compsystem of th

A m, and ortation uch

mplex

e and nd -term Mount

complex ent of , 19th, eter of entries.

reet (or ortant patible he

B-30

surrounding community. Working in tandem with the city on planning and implementation of road-way and intersection-design projects will be necessary. There are difficult and costly problems to be solved over the long term. Present practices will have to change. Investment in cost-effective alternative systems for moving people may be warranted, and new strategies for management and financing may need to be pursued.

Principles for Transportation Planning

• The ability to move significant numbers of people on a daily basis is part of the solution to the problems of campus growth and density.

• The development of systems of transportation and campus access are evolutionary.

• Effective multi-modal transportation solutions are based on established priority and policy decisions.

• The important feature of the campus is the quality of the pedestrian experience. It is integral with the image and environment created by the physical features of this traditionally rich and distinctive campus.

• Future campus transportation planning will involve a closer coordination with city traffic planning professionals.

THE T

DevelopTypicallyabout halMississipother rou

A long-teland-use multimodefficient

A transpotransporthave conautomobi

The revieKU campimprove features ocope withthe plan r

Some of

•

•

•

•

•

•

TRANSP

ping Multimy, there are mlf that trafficppi Street, wutes in and ou

erm transpormodels and

dal transportcampus acce

ortation plantation commnducted a reviles, buses, b

ew paid partpus is orientand encouraof the KU cah a challengirecommends

the principl

The need tocongestion problems no

The accommthe configurlong-term p

KU will neecampus witAvenue as aindividuals

Safety concaccess to ca

A bigger cafaculty, and

Moving peopart of any

PORTAT

modal Tranmore than 60c: Naismith D

with 6,000 triput of the cam

rtation plan hinstitutional

tation planniess and mob

nning consulmittee, includiview of campbikes, and pe

ticular attented to pedestr

age pedestriaampus; it maing terrain. Fs an expande

es and objec

o address pedon and adjacow exist on

modation of ration of roa

plan.

ed to expandthout a campa cross-city rheaded to an

cerns as wellampus.

ampus requird staff.

ople to and fraccess/mobi

TION PLA

nsportation0,000 vehicleDrive handleps per day, a

mpus carry th

has to addresl concerns reing is the intbility.

ltant, BRW, ing memberpus access syedestrians.

ion to the mrians; thus, tan circulationakes accommFinally, anticed role for a

ctives that in

destrian/vehcent to Jayhathe southern

f traffic to, frads and inter

d efforts to mpus destinatiroute, causinnd from cam

l as accessib

res increased

from remote pility plannin

B-31

AN

n Systemse trips to andes about 16,0and 11th Strhe rest.

ss campus acegarding imategration of v

Inc., of Minrs of the Phyystems. The

movement of the transportn. The plan t

modations focipating modcampus tran

nform the pla

hicle conflictawk Boulevan edge of cam

om, and acrrsections. Th

manage traffion. For examng vehicle-p

mpus.

bility concern

d transit offe

parking areng.

d from camp000 trips; 15eet, with 4,0

ccess and mage and envivarious trans

nneapolis, Msical Develoreview mak

people rathetation plan mtakes into ac

or the differindest physicansit system.

an follow:

ts is a prioritard at that simpus, along

ross campus he required i

fic problems mple, many dedestrian co

ns should inf

ferings to abe

eas is likely t

pus each day5th Street, ab000, are othe

mobility needironment. Thsportation sy

Minn., and theopment Plannkes recomme

er than persomakes recomccount the unng abilities o

al and enrollm

ty. With Budite is a conceSunnyside A

will requireinvestment n

caused by vedrivers now

onflicts at a m

form the man

et the movem

to be an incr

y. Two routebout 14,000. er major rout

ds. It must suhe goal of ystems to pro

e KU standinning Task Fendations co

onal vehiclesmmendations

nique physicof individualment growth

dig Hall openern. Similar Avenue.

physical chneeds to be p

ehicles that cuse Sunnysi

major crossin

nagement of

ment of stude

reasingly imp

s carry

tes. Ten

upport

omote

ng orce, ncerning

s. The to

cal ls to

h at KU,

n,

anges to part of a

cross ide ng for

f vehicle

ents,

portant

•

•

•

•

The recoJayhawk The onlyroadway the curb. north sidbike lane Additionbe used fwould exAvenue nstreet witHall and This alte

• P

• P

• P

A successfudependablyand shuttle links to the

Effective anare dependeincluding wentry, and tadjacent to of pedestriawill be reco

Successful dsystem will KU and thecampus is atraffic in La

Jayhawk Botraditional emake signifsignificantlyand movem

ommended trBoulevard w

y vehicles allwould be 16The excess

de of the roades.

nal excess rigfor walkwayxtend from thnorth of the th access conSpooner Ha

rnative for J

rovides dire

rovides addi

rovides a de

ul campus tray and comforservice; accpedestrian f

nd pleasing pent on many

widths, relatithe quality ofthe routes. A

an trips chanonfigured.

developmentrequire coop

e city of Lawa primary deawrence.

oulevard wilelement on aficant chargey alter the ch

ment of peopl

reatment of Jwould be a olowed on Jay6 to 18 feet wright of way

d. With one-

ght-of-way (ys or enhancehe Chi Omegintersection ntrol at Oreaall would stil

Jayhawk Bou

ct transit acc

itional pedes

edicated bike

ansit system rtably. Featuommodationfeatures of th

pedestrian roy variables, onship to buf the environAs the destin

nge, these rou

t of a bike-roperation betrence. The stination for

ll continue toa campus is ues in the conharacter of thle is central t

Jayhawk Bouone-way eastyhawk wouldwide which wy would be uway transit o

(6 to 8 feet) wed bus waitinga fountain owith Missis

ad and 13th. ll be possible

ulevard is re

cess to the h

strian circula

e path with r

B-32

will deliver ures of such an for visitorshe campus.

outes

uilding nment nations utes

oute tween

r bike

o be central unique despi

nfiguration orhe heart of thto proposals

ulevard is shtbound exclud be buses, swould allow

used to provioperations, b

would be avng areas. Thon the west tsippi/SunfloVisitor accee.

commended

heart of the c

ation space

reduced pote

people to tha system wils to campus;

to KUs imagite the problr to abandonhe campus. B

s for enhance

hown in Figuusive transitwservice and e

w a vehicle toide an 8-footbus moveme

ailable to wihe proposed oto Bailey Ha

ower Street wess to the Alu

d because it:

ampus

ential for bik

Proposa

he top of the ll include a chigh-quality

ge. The use oems associat

n it as a throuBalancing thement of this

ure G. Underway during temergency vo pull aroundt exclusive bents would n

iden pedestrone-way tranall on the easwould operatumni Center

ke/vehicle co

al for Jayha

hill efficientcombinationy waiting are

of a street asted with vehugh route wohe need for ss campus fea

r this proposthe academi

vehicles. Thed a bus stoppbike path alonot conflict w

rian space annsit operatiost. Jayhawk/te as a two-wr, the Union,

onflicts

awk Boulevar

tly, n of bus eas; and

s a hicles. To ould safety ature.

sal c week. e ped at ong the with the

nd could ons /Oread way , Dyche

rd

• R

• R

A HistoIn 1866, drawn vemagnificdifficult t In the 18TennesseDowntowthe top o A 1908 pKansan rautomobiafter Jayhplates pe AutomobWorld Wthe war, p Neverthefuture, de

Reduces the n

Reduces the n

ry of ParkKU faculty,

ehicles. Mouent views, cterrain.

880s, streetcaee Street to 1wn Lawrencef Mount Ore

photograph ireporter obseiles appearedhawk Boulevrmitted cars

bile ownershWar II becaus

personal veh

eless, immedespite a grow

Figure G: Proposal t

number of ve

number of bu

ing staff, and st

unt Oread haonsideration

ar tracks that17th; the exte secured "mead by 1910.

is the earlieserved in 191d in greater vard was pavto park in re

hip dropped dse of producthicles becam

diately after twth in the nu

to convert J

ehicles on Ja

uses on Jayh

tudents weread been chosns that, at the

t had servedension gave

modern" stree. In fall 193

st known ima5 that sevennumbers, anved in 1925.estricted are

during the Gtion controls

me widely av

the war, therumbers of ve

Jayhawk Bo

B-33

ayhawk Bou

hawk Boulev

e pedestriansen as the sitee time, ranke

d the downtowstudents ser

etcar service3, buses rep

age of automn faculty ownnd parking oc. Licensing bas only and

Great Depress on automob

vailable.

re was little ehicles that m

oulebard to a

ulevard

vard

s, horseback e for KU beced above issu

wn since 18rvice to the fe in fall 1909laced the str

mobiles on caned automobccurred haphbegan in sprinot on the m

sion, and aubiles and gas

parking expmatched enro

a Transit M

riders, and dcause of its pues of acces

71 were extefoot of the hi9. This servireetcars.

ampus. A Unbiles. After Whazardly. Thing 1926. Sp

main drive.

uto use was csoline ration

ansion or plaollment grow

Mall—BRW

drivers of hoprominence sibility pose

ended south ill at 14th Stce was exten

niversity DaWorld War Ihe problem gpecial KU lic

curtailed durning. At the e

anning for thwth. Existing

Study

orse-and its

ed by a

along treet. nded to

aily I grew cense

ring end of

he g lots

weren't inunrestrict With enrplanningother studreport an The planBecause topograpNonetheldisabled addition,people wthe hill ancosts, andbased on

FigurDaily

ncreased muted traffic an

rollment incr. The councidies, and con

nd plan were

had three macademic buhy makes coless, hilltop pand for facu note was tak

who service thnd developind aesthetic c real need an

re H: y Vehicle Tr

uch in size, snd two lanes

reasing rapidil analyzed pnsidered thereviewed by

major componuildings havonstruction dparking need

ulty and staffken of an obhe campus, ang additiona

considerationnd not be a f

raffic Count

so Jayhawk Bs of parking

dly, a Univerparking condse in the cony the counci

nents. The fie priority fordifficult and ds were recof who neededbligation to vand invited g

al parking wins. The geneform of prefe

ts—Fall, 199

B-34

Boulevard bocaused a con

rsity Planninditions and dntext of enrol in 1972-73

first identifier space on thexpensive, t

ognized for pd transportatvisitors, espeguests. The pithin the con

eral idea waserential treat

94

ore the brunngested and

ng Council wdemands, conollment and a3.

ed hilltop parhe main camthe intentionpeople who wtion access tecially parenplan called f

nstraints of bs that access tment.

nt of the growdangerous s

was appointenducted survacademic pla

rking possibmpus and becn was to limiwere elderlyto perform thnts of studentfor maintainibuilding-site

to hilltop pa

wth. Two lanituation.

ed to do longveys, counts,anning. A pa

ilities and necause the hillit parking ony and/or physheir duties. Its, state taxping some parneeds, const

arking should

nes of

g-range , and arking

eeds. l's n the hill. sically n

payers, rking on truction d be

B-35

A second component of the plan was a scheme for creating parking at the base of the hill. It identified three areas, each within a 10- to 12-minute walk of the top of the hill, for the siting of large reservoir lots. The proposed sites were the play fields northwest of the Kansas Union (with plans to develop new play fields), an area southeast of Allen Field House (which was then under construction), and an area southwest of the intersection of Sunflower and Sunnyside (then the site of a temporary housing project). These sites were selected because they were expandable, accessible, and well-distributed around the main campus. They would accommodate the bulk of the class-day parking load, provide visitors with parking, and serve at times of high-volume special events, performances, and lectures. The lots, it was argued, would constitute a simple system whose users would feel that they were sharing a walk with others up the hill to campus. As well, the volume of spaces would permit all students to register their vehicles. It was believed that these parking sites would consolidate the approach of traffic to campus. A general goal was to preserve the possibility of walking from one location of reservoir parking to a majority of the campus buildings within the 10-minute interval between classes. Because concentrated pedestrian movement was regarded as an ongoing feature of campus life, particularly during class changes, the plan's third component addressed the traffic problem on Jayhawk Boulevard. At that time, there were no restrictions on vehicular access to the boulevard, which carried bumper-to-bumper traffic. This third component noted that closing Jayhawk Boulevard completely would be ideal. The proposed solution restricted access to campus, via the installation of traffic-control booths, and routed traffic around the hill. Staff members working at the booths would not only control access; they would serve as campus guides for visitors. The booths would close after the last class hour of the day, permitting general traffic to cross campus then. During the class day, the system permitted access to campus by buses, taxis, and emergency vehicles, as well as by vehicles with campus-access permits. With the opening of Allen Field House in 1955 came construction of the first reservoir lot. The parking plan itself was reviewed in a 1962 planning update and found valid. When the administration published the 1962 plan, it announced that traffic control stations would be in place and operating by fall 1963. Implementation of the plan continued as funds permitted. It was again reviewed and validated during the 1973 planning effort. In 1986, a long-range plan for parking was completed. As a result, a 770-space parking structure was built north of Allen Field House. Then, in 1993, west campus gained a thousand additional spaces in conjunction with the completion of the Lied Center for the Performing Arts. The most recent study of campus parking needs shows a parking inventory of 11,545 spaces. Almost 9,500 are on the main campus and more than 2,000 on west campus. There are 8,865 permit spaces, 602 metered spaces, and 2,078 other spaces. The number has increased by more than 2,000 since 1989.

The mospercent oas well aoccupancabout 3,0

ParkingIt's estim7,449 in added to state-own1998, a d The peakfaculty an3,300 spawork, stuarea to hi Because adjacent consideranumber odevelopmsurface pstructure Followinrequired parking gbounded projected Access toentry/existructure the musefor the Spacademic

The follo

• P

• To

t recent parkof all availabs vehicles pacy rate of 75000 spaces d

g in the Futmated that pea

1995 and wieach of thes

ned vehiclesdeficiency of

k-hour demand staff, andaces. Parkingudy, or visit high-priority

of topograpto the hill haation. The diof access poiment. Clearlyparking will ns on existing

ng a restructurevenue, a s

garage. The pon the east b

d to be near 1

o this facilityits on Missisto the top o

eums of Natupencer Art Mc and special

owing observ

Parking and a

The demand ff space used

king study, cble spaces. Rarked in area percent of c

during the pe

ture ak-parking dith the nearlyse numbers, s. In additionf more than

and on the cod more than 4g in this areahere. As a reneeds.

hy and compas been a proifficulty of cints to campy, the land-uneed to be reg lots should

uring of parksite north of tproposal is tby Oread Av1000 parking

y will be prossippi Street.f the hill to p

ural History Museum as wl events.

vations and a

access to ca

for parking id by people l

completed inRates varied bas not designcapacity, theeak hour, stu

demand will y 7,300 in 19given the pr

n, peak-hour 1,000 spaces

ore campus w400 visitors-a has not kepesult, admini

petition withoblem for dechoosing siteus from maj

use patterns teconsidered.

d be evaluate

king fees begthe Kansas Uto design an venue and ong spaces on

ovided for ve The site proprovide betteand Anthrop

well as provi

assumptions

mpus must b

is tied to cameads to addi

B-36

n April 1995,by location. nated for pare west campudents about

be about 7,7993. For a mresent practic

demand by s is projected

would includ-about 4,200pt up with thistrative poli

h building precades. Addies for structuor city route

that have per. Buildable sed further.

ginning in thUnion has beaesthetically

n the west bymultiple lev

ehicles both ovides the oper access to pology. The iding student

s should gov

be considere

mpus growthitional deman

, showed peaSome showe

rking. Overaus 18 percen4,000 space

700 vehiclesmore accuratece of providiother visitord for the cor

de parking fo0 spaces, withe parking deicy has attem

rojects, the citional parkinures is compoes and the parmitted creatsites for acad

he Fall semeeen selected y compatibley Mississipp

vels.

from the toppportunity toactivities incgarage will t, faculty, sta

vern parking-

ed together a

h and relatednd for parkin

ak-occupanced 100 perce

all, the main nt. Faculty ans.

s by 1998, coe count, aboing parking rs is projectere campus an

or about 1,80th existing caemands of almpted to lim

creation of pang structureounded bothaucity of sitetion of relatidemic as wel

ster of 1997 as the site f

e structure opi Street. The

p of the hill ao move peopcluding the Kalso serve aaff and visito

-related plan

as part of a w

d developmeng.

cy rates of abent occupanccampus hadnd staff occu

ompared witut 260 shoulon main camed to increasnd adjacent a

00 students, apacity at jull the users w

mit parking in

arking on ans are under

h by the limites for any typively inexpenll as parking

to provide tfor an additioon the hillside parking ca

and from lowple through tKansas Unios additional or parking fo

nning.

whole system

ent. The cons

bout 65 cy rates-

d an upied

th the ld be

mpus for se. By areas.

2,000 st under who n this

nd

ted pe of nsive

g

the onal e

apacity is

wer level this on and parking

for

m.

struction

B-37

• Parking should be provided in the lower levels of structures built in the future. In many areas, campus topography is conducive to this.

• Parking should be managed according to these criteria: the need that some users, such as ranking administrative officers, have for quick access to automobiles; the willingness of users in general to pay differing fees for differing levels of convenience; and the general costs incurred by a parking system that permits use by 7,000 to 8,000 cars during peak hours.

• The development of shuttle systems must be considered as part of the solution to parking problems.

Parking on Jayhawk Boulevard, early 1920’s

B-40

Figure I: Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Routes

B-41

Figure J: Existing and Proposed Bike Routes

B-43

IMAGE AND ENVIRONMENT The characterizing features of the KU campus include its buildings, views and vistas, and landscaping. These features reflect the tradition of higher education in general and also are a testament to the vision and investment of previous generations of students, graduates, and state residents. The rich and vivid experiences of students and alumni are tied to the physical attributes of Mount Oread, the well-developed and high quality "signature" features hereabouts, and the steady enhancement, since the founding of the university, of one of Kansas' most notable public institutions. The KU experience is one defined by the physical surroundings, a sense of tradition, and the individual pursuit of personal and professional development in a secure environment committed to learning, research, and service.

Here are some objectives in the realm of image and environment:

• Creating a high-quality learning environment in which classroom experiences and the positive features of a residential campus are mutually supporting

• Enhancing campus amenities in support of both curricular and extracurricular activities

Aerial view of the core campus from the northeast

B-44

• Ensuring the ability of students, faculty, staff, and guests to orient to, and to find their way around, campus

• Addressing environmental concerns to preserve campus beauty and to assure health and safety

The fulfillment of these objectives would lead to a strong and positive sense of place. The enhancement of the basic KU experience, beyond the obvious teaching and research components, derives from a well-composed campus.

Composition of the Built Environment A university's image is linked to its physical assets but it is not just the sum of those assets. A university is also a series of experiences that occur in physical space, experiences that derive from thoughtful composition of the built environment. A new visitor might come first to a visitor center-plans for which are being made now and are discussed later in this document. Or that visitor might experience the campus by driving around campus. A university graduate returning to visit would have a much different set of experiences, many of them tied to his or her memories of the built environment. When any individual arrives here, he or she experiences the campus not only as a place that educates students, but also as a campus, whose architecture and landscaping lend it an identity beyond mere functionality. The physical elements integral to this self-projection include the following:

Figure K

B-45

• Buildings, with their diverse functions, scales, material constituents, colors, fenestration, enclosures, and entries

• Planted materials, outdoor furnishings, lighting, and signs

• Topography and landscape, which, depending on location, may include views and vistas, open and green spaces

• Other elements, such as campus entries, streets, walks, lawns, patios, and traditional spaces

When visitors arrive, they also experience a campus that has accreted in a unique way, historically and aesthetically. In this accretion, vision has been layered upon vision, but always with respect to what has come before and with respect to higher-education traditions and models. As a result, no place precisely like this one exists on earth, even among educational institutions, and it is our honor and duty to preserve that sense of tradition and of place. Thus, we must do more in our planning than ensure our routine functioning as an institution of higher learning; we must preserve the sense of this place.

Student-centered Environment on Jayhawk Boulevard

B-46

Features of the Campus Landscape The term "landscape" refers to outdoor elements on campus. The term encompasses these features: campus entries, streetscapes, walks and pedestrian ways, open and green spaces between and adjacent to buildings, views and vistas, plantings of all kinds, pavements and lawns, malls, plazas, and courtyards. Utilitarian aspects of landscape include lights, benches, and signs. The incorporation of signs into an information system is an important component of the campus landscape. Integrating all of these elements is a significant task, and the integration must occur within the framework of an institution that is continually evolving. A lack of coordination in this task is harmful. Here are some objectives and principles regarding the composition and character of the campus landscape: • Campus design results from an interaction of topography and placement of significant features. In combination, these engender views and vistas. These views and vistas can be accented, altered, and manipulated for long-term benefit or detriment. See Figure K for diagram of major campus views and vistas.

• It is desirable to consider the addition of simple elements on the campus skyline to maintain its traditional image.

• Streetscapes, pedestrian ways, and sidewalks should be viewed, first and foremost, as corridors for effecting pedestrian and vehicle mobility on campus. They should be scented and defined by plantings, buildings, and landscape features.

• Open courts, lawns, plazas, and the spaces between or adjacent to buildings require careful analysis in regard to the functions, movements, and scale of activities that occur there.

• High-quality open and green spaces are the result of successful building and site design.

• Landscape features may be as significant to a sense of tradition as signature buildings.

• As the main campus becomes more urban in its ratio of built to open space, areas between buildings should be committed to activities and to high-quality gathering places that are thoughtfully oriented to pedestrian circulation.

• Building entries must be placed not only by reference to a building's internal layout but by reference to the building's connections with vehicle and pedestrian routes.

As the main campus becomes more urban,

areas between buildings should be committed

to gathering places that are thoughtfully

oriented to pedestrian circulation.

Core Campus Skyline from Daisy Hill

B-47

• The system of walks should be functionally adequate: Walks should be sufficiently wide and thoughtfully managed so that they are usable by all people despite changes in grade. Yet functional adequacy is not enough.

• A design sense must be brought to the construction of walkways as much as to the construction of buildings. Primary walkways, those that parallel Jayhawk Boulevard, for example, will have one look and feel, while those paths less traveled, such as a walk that skirts Prairie Acre, should have a different, perhaps more meandering, design.

• Design choices for routes of access to campus and mobility on campus should be made on the basis of anticipated use by individuals with differing physical abilities. Obviously, some designs will have dominance over others; this will lend an overall sense of coherence to the campus and reinforce the idea that the campus welcomes pedestrians.

• Plantings should be thoughtfully designed. They should have definite objectives and specific functional and/or aesthetic purposes. They also should be native to this area, in order to avoid the need for excessive maintenance. The removal of diseased and damaged plantings and trees should be followed by replanting in accord with a long-range plan.

Design choices for routes of access to campus

and mobility on campus should be made on the

basis of anticipated use by individuals with

differing physical abilities.

Proposed mid-hill pedestrian route on south slope

B-48

• Good design considers such features as benches, planters, terraces, retaining walls, steps, and stairs as part of the total landscape, not individual entities.

• Illumination is an aesthetically and technically complex field that requires careful design. Lighting should be conceived in a coordinated, campuswide fashion in order to provide safety and orientation.

• The placement of campus signs should be coordinated. Signs should be consistent in their design, shape, typography, color, texture, and size. Text and wording should be governed by campus policy. A comprehensive system that permits people to find their way around campus should be developed following a review of present signing standards and practices.

• Information kiosks should be placed where high volumes of traffic occur. The use of information technologies should be considered as a means of expanding information access.

Architecture Buildings are elements in spatial composition. Besides fulfilling functional requirements, they must complement each other and enhance the campus. It is a challenge to maintain a continuity of appearance and, at the same time, accommodate the inevitable change that comes with new building projects. The emphasis must be on the achievement of compatibility with the historically and architecturally significant buildings and surrounding areas, as well as the preservation of views and vistas. A sense of overall organization and design will lend a sense of coherence despite differences among individual buildings. The design of buildings and landscape features should take into account such elements as function, appropriateness to site, and materials. These criteria should not limit the imagination and originality of the architect; they should only provide a framework for proceeding. Here are principles we believe should be followed as the environment is developed and structures are created: • Existing campus architecture should influence subsequent development; future buildings must defer to characteristics inherent in existing buildings, which define the nature of the main campus.

• The characteristic colors of the traditional campus are well-established, and materials should be chosen to match existing colors. Pitched roofs should be red.

Entry to Lipincott Hall

B-49

• Buildings should be designed with attention to scale and sited with sensitivity to their heights and to the distances between them.

• The size of buildings should be in keeping with a pedestrian campus. A few significant facilities have set time-honored standards for the buildings here: certain window-to-wall-surface ratios and, tied to those, certain proportions of window-height-to-width. These ratios, as well as choices of building materials, should be respected in an effort to maintain a traditional look for campus.

• Strong composition will be achieved by matching the construction materials already found on campus. A lesser variety of materials used in a straightforward fashion will lead to a more distinguished overall design.

Above and beyond the aesthetic quality of buildings, spaces, and landscapes, campus planners are increasingly subject to regulation of the physical environment by governmental agencies. These regulations can affect function and services. Energy use, waste management, paving and storm water management, air quality inside buildings, and clean air outside are significant issues for the coming decades. Addressing these concerns will assure the overall quality of the campus, its buildings and spaces, and the health and welfare of students, faculty, and staff. The guidelines set forth above should be supplemented with more detailed requirements for future design, and these should be enforced as criteria for individual projects.

B-51

INFRASTRUCTURE

Demands for Expansion and Mandates for Improvement The term "infrastructure," as used hereafter, refers to the utility systems that serve campus. Although frequently out of sight, these systems demand resources to maintain because of the continual need for evaluation, repair, replacement, relocation, and expansion. Today, for example, a new and demanding element of infrastructure is the network required for electronic information management, including fiber optic cable, equipment, and wiring. Maintenance and updating of infrastructure is a costly business. The systems of an institution more than 130 years old are subject to immense wear and tear and will incur the need for a significant, ongoing investment. Also costly is the expansion of the institution and the correlated need to add utility capacity. Finally, new regulations emerge to govern the built environment, as do new standards that aim to improve building systems and assure safety, and these, too, incur costs. Several individual studies of infrastructure have been completed. Moreover, the university is engaged in many repair and rehabilitation projects--usually in cases of obvious deficiency. For example, we live in an era of federally mandated improvements to building cooling systems that employ chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Many KU buildings are affected by these mandates. In terms of infrastructure, at this stage, we're dealing with present problems as well as pursuing the ongoing need to identify the scope of deficiencies, anticipate future need, and expand systems to support growth in demand for utility service. The campus needs an integrated infrastructure plan for the next several decades, one that will encompass its water and electrical distribution systems, sanitary and storm water collection, steam and chilled water distribution, and tunnel systems. The future will impose many obligations upon KU in terms of management of energy utilization and related infrastructure improvements. Pressures for efficiency in use of energy, water, and other natural resources are already significant and will likely increase. If the goal is a viable utility structure well into the next century, the piecing-and-patching approach of the last few decades won't do. It is anticipated from studies completed in recent years that significant sections of piping and wiring systems, as well as aging equipment, will have to be replaced. A new infrastructure for communications technology will require the same kind of funding as the installation of any campuswide system. The funding will have to cover anticipated and unanticipated repairs, replacement, growth, and changes in levels of service. Today's infrastructure systems are more sophisticated, specialized, and regulated than they were in the past. These systems are routinely included in new building and capital improvement projects, yet the capitalization of many projects extend the systems only to the boundary of the new building site. When the new systems and old systems meet at that boundary, incompatibilities and inefficiencies arise. Our aim should be efficiency throughout any given system. Several systems discussed in the following sections have been studied by outside consultants and information on water distribution and tunnel systems is provided in the form of a map shown below. An overall assessment of the campus infrastructure and development of an infrastructure management system would be good first steps towards achieving a comprehensive program for maintenance and expansion of campus utility systems.

B-53

Electrical Distribution and Campus Lighting A 1990 study suggested a major upgrade of electrical service for the campus. The study identified $12 million to $13 million worth of work. Of that, almost $5 million was designated for what was deemed a critically needed repair: initial development of a loop feed system and replacement of a cross-campus feed that had exceeded its life expectancy. Also addressed in the study was the need to rewire and re-equip the eastern portion of the core campus and to upgrade electrical service to various buildings. The design of electrical distribution and the issue of future energy costs and efficiencies are part of physical development planning. The campus distribution system and its metering affect the KU rate structure and long-term expenses related to electrical service. This fact must be considered before KU commits itself to an electrical-distribution plan. Input from electrical suppliers might help KU determine capacity relative to projected needs. Because of the diversity of electrical use within the institution, including the demands of computers and other equipment, building and outdoor lighting, housing, and special events, KU is one of the area's largest consumers. Significant savings in overall energy costs could be achieved. Under a favorable state energy policy, those savings could be invested in other capital development or maintenance projects within the institution. The improvement of campus lighting is one of the more successful long-term campus projects. Through the use of student fees and matching state appropriations for lighting, significant portions of the campus have been improved in terms of appearance and safety. This work will be completed over the next several years. Here are some additional planning considerations: • The extension of improved lighting to include routes taken by pedestrians traveling to and from campus, perhaps in cooperation with the city or other funding agencies

• The development of major electrical distribution hubs for campus lighting service

• The development of an approach to reduce or avoid power-quality problems generated by electronic equipment

Central Heating Plant The central heating plant produces steam for about 58 buildings on the main campus area. The floor area of these buildings totals more than 3 million square feet. Steam is provided year-round. The central heating plant houses two 48,000 pounds/hour boilers, one 50,000 pounds/hour boiler, one 15,000 pounds/hour boiler, and one obsolete, non-serviceable boiler. The 50,000 pounds/hour boiler was once rated for 70,000 pounds/hour but burner modifications have reduced its capacity. The 15,000 pounds/hour boiler was once rated for 60,000 pounds/hour; its capacity was reduced when its stack was shortened. Because of its limited size, it's rarely used. The total steam capacity of the plant is 146,000 to 161,000 pounds/hour; peak demand is about 110,000 pounds/hour. Thus, with one boiler out of operation, the plant may not be able to handle the peakload.

B-54

Issues that should be addressed to determine the capacity to meet present need and future growth include the following. • Studies of the useful life and safety of the boilers, conducted in 1993-94, estimated 10 to 15 more years of use for three of the boilers. Plans for boiler and/or building replacement should identify funding sources. Studies of standby and redundant capacity may be necessary to determine the ability to meet present needs and future demands.

• Environmental mandates will continue to require advanced technological modifications for equipment that controls the boilers. This need should be anticipated in future plans.

• There are two tanks for on-site storage of standby/alternate fuel (currently a 26- to 28-day supply). Their capacities are 259,000 and 230,000 gallons. Future patterns of energy use and storage, as well as environmental regulations linked to underground storage tanks, warrants review of these reserves.

• To make steam, KU relies on natural gas fueled boilers. At times in the past, it's been necessary to replace the natural gas with fuel oil for brief periods in order to continue making steam. During the transition from natural gas to fuel oil firing, a possibility of plant shutdown because of the inability to atomize the fuel oil exists. Equipment now in use should be modified to provide a margin of safety that disallows such a shutdown.

• A study should be made to answer three questions crucial to steam distribution in the future: How much additional capacity do we need, given various projections of future growth? Where would that capacity ideally be sited? Should west campus be served by a centralize facility or according to the existing model, in which each building provides for its own needs?

Utility Tunnels and Steam Distribution Systems Utility tunnels are located throughout main campus but not on west campus. Most are the walk-through type, housing steam and condensate lines, communication and electrical power lines. To a lesser extent they serve as passageways for domestic water lines, chilled water lines, and sanitary sewer lines. Generally speaking, the tunnels are in adequate condition. High pressure steam is distributed throughout the main campus from the central heating plant by a piping system that runs primarily through the utility tunnels. The steam is distributed at a pressure of 90 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The condensate is returned to the central heating plant by a series of pumps. The system that handles the condensate also is located primarily in the tunnels. Although sections of the distribution and condensate collection systems are buried and subject to deterioration, the capacity of the piping system for distribution of steam should be adequate to accommodate present and anticipated loads of facilities projected for construction on the main campus. West campus, on the other hand, has no steam or condensate piping outside of individual buildings.

B-55

Engineering investigation is recommended for the following purposes. • To identify the work necessary to preserve the long-term structural and functional integrity of the tunnel system. Concerns about ventilation and fire protection of the tunnels and adjacent facilities should also be considered. These levels of protection should be assessed by reference to standards mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

• To review the condensate collection and return system of piping which is suspect in its ability to handle present and future capacities. Some pumps are currently working against high downstream back pressure, indicating that the system may be exceeding design capacity. A comprehensive study of the condensate collection and steam distribution systems should be undertaken for assessment and planning purposes.

• To determine how much piping is insulated with asbestos-containing material and how many abatement projects remain.

Air Conditioning and Chilled Water Capabilities Over the next several years the mandated replacement of systems that employ CFCs will force KU to consider alternative cooling systems. Areas of campus that might be served instead by large chilled water units should be reviewed. The advantage of centralized cooling facilities is the lower long-term maintenance cost of a single unit versus multiple systems. The challenge is to zone the campus for service from several cooling-distribution points and to choose sites where the accompanying noise can be managed. Similar schemes have been discussed in the past but little has been implemented. Service to west campus should be studied carefully, as should installation of a central cooling facility when the dormitories on Daisy Hill are renovated. Storm Sewers The storm sewer system was studied in detail in the early 1990s. Projects to correct problems of surcharging and erosion were identified and prioritized. Work began in 1993 to minimize surcharging along Naismith Drive from 19th Street north to Schwegler Drive and north of the Robinson Gymnasium tennis courts. Here are some other observations and recommendations about issues related to the campus storm sewer system. • At present, Potter's Lake and the pond on west campus near the Kansas Geological Survey building help retain storm water. Ponds might be used elsewhere on campus to increase storm-water holding capacity.

Over the next several years the mandated

replacement of systems that employ CFCs will force

KU to consider alternative cooling systems. Areas of

campus that might be served instead by large chilled

water units should be reviewed.

B-56

• Retention/detention facilities should be reviewed to verify capacities, rates of flow to and from ponds, the stability of dams, and the integrity of spillways.

• Any new projects being considered for development on central campus or west campus should be studied for their potential impact off-campus as well as on.

• Maintenance activities, such as cleaning inlets to keep them free of grass, leaves, and trash, are an ongoing necessity.

Sanitary Sewers The sanitary sewer system was studied in detail in the early 1990s. Projects to correct deficiencies in surcharging lines and structural problems in manholes were identified and prioritized. Manhole repair began in 1994, as did work to increase flow capacities in various sections of the main campus collection system. Continued funding of these projects will minimize problems on campus. But their impact on city collection systems also should be monitored. Maintenance will be required to sustain the effectiveness of the system. Water Mains The university power plant is the chief conduit for city water on the main campus. That water is pumped by university equipment through university-owned water lines. West campus, dormitories along Iowa Street, Stauffer Place Apartments, Memorial Stadium, Carruth-O'Leary Hall, and JRP and Oliver halls receive city water directly. Water is supplied to the power plant at two pressure levels. The primary level is about 15 pounds per square inch (psi); a backup, high-pressure system supplies water at 85 psi. All lines have backflow-prevention devices installed at the points of connection between city lines and university lines. The power plant distributes water to campus at a pressure of 100 psi. The system has four pumps. They provide 500 gallons per minute (gpm), 750, 1,200, and 2,000. The 1,200 gpm pump, controlled by a variable frequency drive system, is the primary one used in water distribution. As of this writing, the variable frequency drive system was not operational. Several distribution mains were upgraded in the early 1990s by increasing line sizes, adding more internal loops, and adding a pressure-regulating valve vault to reduce the pressure at facilities at lower elevation, such as Allen Field House. The project also provided additional capacity for the central campus. The city meters all the water supplied to KU. The university has installed meters at various campus facilities for usage monitoring and/or internal reimbursement purposes. City lines supply water to west campus through a meter sited north of the 19th and Iowa Street intersection, near the southeast corner of Pioneer Cemetery. Many buildings on main and west campus have had backflow prevention devices installed. Such devices are also part of campus landscape-watering systems. The installation began in the early 1990s and is ongoing.

B-57

The aging of distribution pipes is a major concern. As is typical for a campus of this size, water mains were installed at various times over the last nine decades. For example, the lines shown to be running along Jayhawk Boulevard in the map shown above are known to be some of the oldest distribution lines on campus. A line-replacement schedule based on installation dates should be developed. The university can anticipate breaks in water distribution lines, especially older, more deteriorated ones, and should plan for the necessary maintenance.

Fire Protection Water lines for fire protection are generally the same as those used for water distribution. All water for fire protection is supplied and metered by the city. Fire-fighting equipment is furnished and operated by the city through its fire stations. An engineering study in the early 1990s led to an improvement project that provided a significant increase in water flow and fire protection capacity. The project involved adding internal loops so that there were major water feeds from two directions rather than from one. In some places, line size is less than the 4-inch diameter piping recommended to meet flow requirements. Numerous fire hydrants are smaller than those recommended by the state fire marshal. The high water pressures needed for fire-fighting would increase the potential for failure of old distribution piping.

Natural Gas Natural gas is supplied to the main and west campuses by high pressure lines owned and operated by Kansas Public Service. The main supply to the power plant is metered and pressure is reduced just west of the power plant to make it usable by the campus. Additional points of supply are sited throughout the two campuses, and all are metered. KPS upgraded a significant portion of the supply and distribution lines in the early 1990s. The overall natural gas distribution system on campus is in relatively good condition. Its capacity appears adequate for the predictable future. Where deficiencies in capacity exist, the service can be readily upgraded by the gas supplier.

C-1

SCENARIOS FOR CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation of the 1973 Plan The 1973 plan led to the successful consolidation of academic activities along the ridge upon which the university sits. Undergraduate classes were centralized in facilities like Fraser and Wescoe halls. The plan also succeeded in designating building sites on the core campus, and those sites have, for the most part, been developed; it envisioned developing more research facilities on west campus. Indeed, it is our successes that force on us the need, now, to re-evaluate the visions of 1973 from a new base of facts and assumptions. Since the formulation of the 1973 plan, academic activities on the hill have expanded, east to west--but that expansion cannot go further. Only so much distance can be covered in the brief time between classes. The limiting factor on expansion north or south is the willingness and ability of people to walk further, from either direction, up a fairly steep grade. Overall, adding more area to the campus has made for a more difficult day; the geographic expansion has increased the typical commitment of time necessary to come and go from here, study here, and conduct business here. The plan's strategy of designating and developing sites within the core campus arose when KU was a community of 18,000 students and a place that could still accommodate growth within a fairly compact core campus. If the strategy of adding built space to the core campus were to continue, we would significantly alter the campus environment and disrupt what we have grown used to. In the course of the current evaluation, we discovered some desirable aspects of the 1973 plan that have not yet been implemented. For example, that plan envisioned an expansion of graduate student and faculty research activities to west campus, yet those activities remain sited, by and large, on the main campus. A necessary component of that plan, a transportation infrastructure for moving people between the campuses, is not yet in place. As history demonstrates, planning strategies must consider and respond to the interrelationship among issues of land use, access, and image.

Future Scenarios The following discussion of the three scenarios explores the effects each would have on land use, on parking and transit needs, and on image and environment. Evaluation of each scenario needs to include consideration of the following. • How and whether the scenario preserves the principles of adjacency and affinity--the siting of like activities (from a universe of activities that includes teaching, research, support services, parking, housing, and athletics, for example) within proximity of each other

• How the scenario would affect the mix of transportation modes to and across campus

• How the scenario would affect people's perceptions, derived from experience, of the campus image and environment

It is our successes that force on us the need,

now, to re-evaluate the visions of 1973 from a

new base of facts and assumptions.

C-2

• How the scenario would affect property acquisition policy and planning. What follows are three development scenarios that take into account issues of land use, access, and campus image and environment. The first scenario projects a main campus that retains its current boundaries and is more densely built and populated; during the class day, it is committed solely to pedestrian use. The second projects a geographic expansion of the main campus so that its ratio of built to open space is much like today's. In this scenario, the core campus, which continues to be focused on the academic mission, is enlarged yet remains in one piece. The third scenario projects an expansion of academic activities on parcels of land that are not contiguous with the main campus. The graphics in the following figures depict schematic land use models for the central campus, not specific areas of development. In addition the scenarios illustrate the interconnection of land use, access, and image. It is that interconnection which must be respected as the university shapes and reshapes the campus. It is what creates a workable, physical environment unique to the institution. Scenario One: Increased density within the core campus/No significant increase in area

Major features of this scenario are as follows.

• The removal of nearly all parking from the core campus • The replacement of low-rise buildings by multistory facilities and replacement of small footprint facilities with larger, higher density development • An increase in value of, and increased competition for, every buildable site • Less open and green space and more paved plazas providing a more urban quality of space • Durable, well-maintained plantings need to replace areas of lawns which can be worn out from the higher densities of activities.

The Basic Elements of Campus Development Scenarios

FFiigguurree LL:: SScceennaarriioo OOnnee:: IInnccrreeaasseedd DDeennssiittyy iinn tthhee ccoorree ccaammppuuss

CCoorree CCaammppuuss

C-3

Scenario Two Increased area of the academic core/comparable density Major features of this scenario are as follows. • Preservation of historically significant smaller footprint buildings like Bailey, Stauffer/Flint, and Lippincott halls • A ratio of built to open space comparable to today's • Possible relocation of some programs less central to the academic day to facilities at the periphery of the core campus or to west campus • Acquisition of property adjacent to campus becomes a priority. Scenario Three Central campus/west campus development

Major features of this scenario are as follows.

• The need for a coordinated transit system to connect areas of campus development. • Dedication of the central campus to undergraduate classes or lengthened periods between class sessions to permit time for students to move between the campuses Scenarios as a Tool to Guide Future Decisions A commitment at this point to one of these scenarios is less important than a realization that the absence of guiding principles and of conscious decision-making can lead to undesired consequences. Consider, for example, the interlocking consequences that would propagate from a decision to close Jayhawk Boulevard. Such an option, along with a decision to convert the former boulevard site to a pedestrian mall, was raised in the 1973 plan. In terms of land use, this would have provided for a more densely built main campus, and a building site northwest of Watson Library. Yet it would have been ill-considered to have made that change without taking a broader perspective.


FFiigguurree MM:: SScceennaarriioo TTwwoo:: CCoonnttiigguuoouuss eexxppaannssiioonn ooff tthhee ccoorree ccaammppuuss


FFiigguurree NN:: SScceennaarriioo TThhrreeee:: DDeecceennttrraalliizzeedd DDeevveellooppmmeenntt

C-4

For example, any construction northwest of Watson would have affected the traditional "look" of one of the most established areas of campus---one that carries a traditional significance and is a critical component in creating a sense of place. Had alumni from previous generations been confronted with a new building there, they might have been disturbed by the sight, remembering old Blake Hall, which once occupied this area. Had recent graduates seen that building, they might have noted, with sadness, the loss of an open space that was part of their KU experience. Either graduate would have found his or her perception of this place challenged, for better or for worse. A decision to close the boulevard also would have engendered new patterns of campus access and challenges to existing ones. Lengthy walks to and from the heart of the campus, from bus drop-off points, might have devalued the bus system. Many of the some 4,000 students who use the KU-on-Wheels system each day would search for other options. A significant number might choose to drive. The need for road improvements, based on a higher number of vehicle trips, would place additional demands on university funds for streets, traffic control, and protection of pedestrian routes. It would be necessary to provide parking for several thousand more cars in proximity to the campus. Even the option of remote parking, in these circumstances, appears less feasible; with Jayhawk Boulevard closed, it would be more difficult to provide convenient shuttle rides. The wait for a shuttle and the long walk afterwards would increase frustration levels. The demand for parking garages would increase the ratio of built to open space, as pressures arose to provide those garages as close as possible to the main campus. Of course the perimeter of the campus would be the best site for these garages. The environment at the perimeter would be transformed as parking consumed open space and potential buildable sites. Because of the increase in numbers of vehicles to specific sites, the patterns of access on campus would change. In the table on page C-5, we show some of the ramifications that might result, under the subject headings of land use, access and image, with enactment of the various scenarios.

Area in front of Strong Hall

C-5

Im

age

Imag

e is

tied

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t cre

ated

on

the

cam

pus

Hig

h qu

ality

ped

estri

an

envi

ronm

ent i

s nee

ded

Virt

ual e

limin

atio

n of

au

tos f

rom

the

core

ca

mpu

s

An in

crea

sing

urb

an

qual

ity o

f cam

pus

Qua

lity

not s

olel

y de

fined

by

bein

g “o

n th

e hi

ll”

May

invo

lve

defin

ing

(or r

edef

inin

g) a

reas

of

cam

pus

May

requ

ire tw

o (o

r m

ore)

dis

tinct

ive

area

s of

dev

elop

men

t

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Tran

spor

tatio

n in

clud

es a

cces

s to

cam

pus,

mob

ility

on

cam

pus a

nd g

ener

al is

sues

of

acce

ssib

ility

Maj

or c

ity ro

utes

adj

acen

t to

cam

pus

Hig

h de

nsity

par

king

at t

he

perim

eter

Tran

sit s

ervi

ce fo

r acc

ess t

o ca

mpu

s—lim

ited

circ

ulat

ion

Auto

des

tinat

ions

cho

sen

on

city

rout

es a

nd d

istr

ibut

ion

is a

llow

ed a

cros

s cam

pus

Park

ing

dist

ribut

ed a

nd lo

w

dens

ity

Tran

sit s

ervi

ce to

and

acr

oss

cam

pus

Tran

sit i

s cri

tical

to th

is

scen

ario

Patte

rns o

f Lan

d U

se

Land

use

incl

udes

issu

es o

f de

nsity

, adj

acen

cy, a

nd

prop

erty

acq

uisi

tion

Bui

ldin

g A

rea

Rat

io:

> 30

%

Fl

oor A

rea

Rat

io:

Bui

lt sp

ace

to O

pen

Spac

e >

1 : 1

Bui

ldin

g A

rea

Rat

io:

< 30

%

Fl

oor A

rea

Rat

io:

Bui

lt sp

ace

to O

pen

Spac

e <

1 : 1

Prio

rity

on

Acqu

isiti

on

Adj

acen

cies

eva

luat

ed

and

less

cen

tral a

ctiv

ities

m

ay b

e re

loca

ted

Pr

oper

ty is

Ava

ilabl

e

Maj

ors E

lem

ents

of t

he P

lan…

Lan

d U

se S

cena

rios

: Sc

enar

io O

ne:

Incr

ease

d D

ensi

ty—

M

odes

t inc

reas

e in

are

a U

rban

qua

lity

of c

ampu

s

Scen

ario

Tw

o:

Sam

e O

vera

ll D

ensi

ty

Sign

ifica

nt in

crea

se in

are

a C

ontig

uous

to c

entra

l cam

pus

Trad

ition

al c

ampu

s qua

lity

Scen

ario

Thr

ee:

Incr

ease

d de

velo

pmen

t of a

reas

re

mot

e fr

om c

entra

l cam

pus

C

entr

al c

ampu

s – W

est C

ampu

s

D-1

INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Connecting Vision to Action We see a number of challenges for the future: preserving a sense of place; preserving and refurbishing our most historically significant areas--the northeast corridor, which is discussed below; recognizing and addressing problems arising in areas that are subject to wear and tear because of heavy use; weaving together the traditional campus and the more recently developed south slope of Mount Oread; conducting transportation planning in which needs for access to campus and for parking are reconciled with other land-use demands; planning for open and green space; developing west campus in a thoughtful manner; devising a comprehensive space management program; and dealing with structures that have deteriorated. The traditional organizing element of the campus has been Jayhawk Boulevard, making KU one of the few campuses in the nation with a street as the principle focus. It creates a strong sense of place, both because of the architecture of many of the buildings that line it and because of certain landscape features, including views and vistas through and across undeveloped areas. Land-use patterns and significant features along the boulevard have changed little in 20 years. The challenge is to add to this community of structures and spaces and still preserve the image of the core campus. The most irreplaceable buildings on campus, historically and architecturally speaking, are in the northeast corridor area. Lippincott Hall, Dyche and Spooner museums, Danforth Chapel, and the most recent generation of the Memorial Union, embodiments of the tradition of Jayhawk Boulevard, are sited in this area. The northeast corridor carries a high volume of pedestrian traffic. Dyche Museum is the most visited tourist attraction in Kansas. This area provides a grand and historic public entryway to campus from the north, as well as views and vistas to Marvin Grove and to the river valleys below. Patterns of growth in the last 20 years have brought increasing traffic from the south and west, yet tradition has deemed the point at which Oread Avenue becomes Jayhawk Boulevard as an historic campus entryway. The challenge will be to develop this part of campus with a respectful eye to its modest scale and not to invite more traffic into an area where the ridge of Mount Oread narrows. The physical characteristics of the northeast corridor have changed little, with the exception of additions and renovations at the Union and the construction of the KU Alumni Center. The architecture, the stone and terra cotta, and the traditional red tile roofs establish an aesthetic standard that new construction should strive to match. Despite the preservation of many building facades, open and green spaces, and views and vistas in the last two decades, there have been losses. Many alumni and longtime campus visitors note the absence of towering elms, for example, many of which have been lost to disease and the impact of wind and weather. But this planning effort is about much

Jayhawk Boulevard

D-2

more than that. The entire length of Jayhawk Boulevard is in need of revitalization including the landscape elements and areas subjected to wear and tear from the increased levels of activity that the boulevard supports on a daily basis. High levels of activity have taken their toll. Paved and concrete areas, such as the terraces, planters, stairs, and seating near Wescoe Hall, present hard edges rather than softer landscape features. The transportation plan proposed in this document would greatly improve the environment by reducing vehicle trips to the heart of campus. The opening of Budig Hall greatly multiplies class-hour-day activities in this area of campus. During class changes, as many as 4,000 to 5,000 students move within the area between and around Budig and Wescoe halls. The increase in activity appears enormous. There will be problems with access, with bus and bike traffic, and with increased demand for food service and study areas. In the last 20 years, the heart of the campus has suffered from significant wear and tear, the loss of plantings to disease and age, and the lack of a well-developed plan for landscape replacement and renewal. The use of Budig Hall will introduce a more profound change. The transportation plan addresses the safety and accessibility concerns posed by the hall's opening. In addition, the hall's completion invokes a need to design high-quality outdoor spaces and adequate pedestrian routes to serve it. Since 1973, a second major area of the main campus has evolved in a way quite different from the northeast corridor. The portion of the campus that is on the south slope of Mount Oread and that borders Sunnyside Avenue has emerged as an area critical to the teaching mission. Large buildings have been constructed. Some, like the Academic Computing Center and Green Hall, are freestanding; others, like Haworth and Malott, have evolved into structures made of interconnected pieces. This part of campus, compared to the part on top of the hill, is characterized by a higher

density of structures relative to green and open space. The result is an urban feel. Research facilities take up a large portion of the space in several of these buildings, including Malott and Haworth halls and the Dole building. Unfortunately, these facilities are not in character with the pedestrian scale of the campus elsewhere. The lack of landscaping here is a problem that will require an effort to remedy. The areas around Malott and Haworth halls are heavily used by pedestrians, as are the routes leading up

Area of recent campus development

Pedestrian Spaces

D-3

the hill from reservoir parking south of Robinson Gymnasium. An east-west, mid- hill pedestrian route, running from Watson Library to north of Murphy Hall and intersecting the established north-south routes in the vicinity of Anschutz Science Library, should be considered. We propose a long-term investment in such amenities as plantings, seating, and conversation areas. Few places on the main campus are so rich in their potential for such development. (We also need to initiate consistent and coherent development of the open and green spaces elsewhere in the core campus.) Additions, renovations, and new construction on the south slope of Mount Oread have occurred in patchwork fashion over the course of many years. This area, along with others on campus, has suffered from a lack of funding for practical and aesthetic enhancements. As stated in the transportation study, many campus roads are now operating near their capacity and, in some cases, are in serious conflict with pedestrian movement. Problems with parking space and distribution are likely to increase, and proposals for parking garages may compete directly for a limited stock of building sites. This problem has been exacerbated, in the last 20 years, by the loss of surface parking to building sites at the same time that campus population has increased. Another aspect of the problem is a high expectation among users that they will be able to park near their place of work. Thus, to accommodate the increased demand, parking management must set out to define user needs in the clearest possible terms. This plan emphasizes access to campus for all people. Yet as we grow, the ability to ensure that access within the present model of the campus will diminish. We have met the letter of the law in terms of accommodations for people with disabilities, but to meet the spirit of this plan--the desire for universal access--we will need to do more. Despite the enormous barrier posed by campus topography, such access can be effected by many means. A circulation system within the campus, linked to routes off campus, is illustrated in the transportation plan. The system addresses the practical, long-term need to move more people over greater distances. Open and green spaces are crucial to the identity of the Lawrence campus. The siting of KU's older buildings emphasized the value of high-quality open space on and adjacent to Mount Oread. In the newer portions of the campus, however, open spaces are less well-defined, more incidental, and play a less significant role in the overall design. Along the 15th Street entryway to campus, buildings have been sited adjacent to streets, with little heed paid to the positive elements of lawn or plazas. Sunnyside Avenue is an even more

In the newer portions of the campus, however,

open spaces are less well-defined, more

incidental, and play a less significant role in the

overall design.

15th Street entry to campus

D-4

dramatic example of this essentially urban style of development. It's necessary for the university to commit itself to preserving the few remaining open areas along these streets. West campus development poses a different problem. The buildings there have been conceptualized and constructed independently of each other. Even as the landscape is being transformed, there is an overall lack of identity. Buildings are inconsistent in scale and materials. Their wide distribution is detrimental to pedestrian access and the efficient use of transit. The challenge will be the development of a consistent image for west campus, the thoughtful design of open and green space there, and the integration of the two areas of campus.

Assessing Proposals for Capital Projects A consideration of proposals to build or renovate structures raises the issues of assessment of both quantity and quality of space. Matching scenarios for development to projected need for new and renovated facilities requires a method of assessment of utilization and identification of viable projects. During the preparation of this plan, the lack of a system of facilities management became apparent. The 1992 Program Review did provide some background documentation concerning space needs. And, as part of the current planning review, a space inventory was completed, using space requirements set forth in Kansas Board of Regents guidelines that informed the 1973 plan. But the inventory's scope was limited: There is a lack of easily accessible information on the quality and assignment of space at KU. The absence of a comprehensive space management program is a serious problem, one that needs to be remedied to ensure effectiveness in resource allocation and equitable distribution of available space. A related problem is that projections of future need are often left to individual departments, which base their expectations about space needs on anticipated changes in their academic and research programs. This makes it difficult to effect unified space management. As to the problem of quality of space, we take note here of the inevitable deterioration of facilities and the effect that has on the usability, by departments, of those structures. Some "temporary" facilities are still in use 50 years or more after their construction. These include annexes for Blake and Lindley halls, as well as the Military Science Building. Other buildings are in a fragile state. Dyche and Spooner--near or past 100 years old--are impossible to replace and a challenge to preserve; the latter is currently in need of extensive and expensive renovation. The assessment of condition and patterns of use is critical to a successful program of capital improvements. Other examples exist. The older sections of Malott Hall need to be remodeled and upgraded to meet current health and safety standards. Wescoe Hall, despite the relative recency of its construction, is a heavily used facility suffering from a serious degradation of work and teaching environments. Bailey Hall provides faculty and departmental offices, but its classrooms and other instructional areas have serious limitations. Twente Hall contains offices that once were patient rooms in a student hospital; there are storage rooms that were once restrooms. The electrical and mechanical systems in Strong

The absence of a comprehensive space

management program is a serious problem, one

that needs to be remedied to ensure effectiveness

in resource allocation and equitable distribution

of available space.

D-5

Hall are a patchwork, and that building's classrooms have changed little since the 1920s. In general, campus classrooms are in need of significant improvements in the most basic elements. Lighting, room finishes, and seating are first on a list of improvements that would also include the integration of teaching technologies. In all of these cases obvious deficiencies exist but a coordinated effort of evaluation is yet to be initiated.

E-1

CAMPUS PLANNING STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENATION The following is a distillation of the principles, objectives and needs for physical improvements outlined by the work of the Physical Development Task Force, consultants and professional staff, and University administration. It has been organized by major areas of concern and should provide a working list of projects to be completed, opportunities to be further researched, and decisions that need to be made to continue to pursue plans for the development of the campus.

This is not simply a summary of recommendations, rather this portion of the document should be considered a checklist of "action" items and tasks with the goal of preserving the beauty of Mount Oread and creating the best possible environment for learning. It will be difficult to consistently implement a plan for the campus without decisions and actions determining the viability both in terms of funding and timelines for these improvements. This is the first step at transforming a framework for campus improvements, prioritizing it based on resources, and creating "the plan" for the campus. QUALITY OF THE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT The need for improvements in the quality of spaces and management of facilities within the academic sector includes the following recommendations for resource management, project development strategies, and specific capital improvements.

A. Instructional and Academic Support Space Improve the overall quality of the instructional environment as discussed in the Kansas Board of

Regents 1994 report, Aging Campuses & Crumbling Classrooms: Capital Needs for Kansas Public Higher Education. This report formed the basis for the $163 million bond issue passed by the 1996 legislature and includes funding for:

• Major capital projects including the renovation of JRP Residence Hall for the School of Education and an addition to Murphy Hall for the School of Fine Arts. • Work focusing on classrooms, facility accessibility, fire protection/building egress, and building mechanical systems in a number of campus facilities.

Develop plans to renovate facilities and/or relocate activities to meet minimum space requirements. Two of the buildings and programs identified are Twente Hall, originally the campus hospital, now used by Social Welfare, and Marvin Hall for the School of Architecture to provide space vacated with the removal of Lindley Annex. Develop plans to renovate, expand, and/or improve the quality of space associated with specific

programs:

• Renovate and add to Malott Hall to provide safe and efficient undergraduate teaching laboratory space for the physical and biological sciences. • Renovate Wescoe Hall to improve office and teaching space for the Humanities.

E-2

• Provide an addition to Learned Hall for the consolidation of programs and to provide research space for the School of Engineering. • Consolidate and provide a stronger physical identity for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences administrative and academic offices within the core campus.

Develop plans for the following projects, with the aim of improving or enhancing academic and support spaces: Complete the unfinished portions of Budig Hall.

• Renovate Bailey Hall. • Construct a library repository facility and research reading room, perhaps on west campus. • Renovate a substantial portion of Watson Library to house core collections for instruction and research. Included in the renovation should be individual and public spaces for informal meetings and formal conferences designed to serve as an electronic media information center. • Renovate Strong Hall to provide modern, centrally air-conditioned space in one of the most heavily mixed-use facilities on campus.

B. Instructional Support Develop a Center for Teaching Excellence to be housed in Budig Hall.

C. Administration Evaluate current uses of Strong Hall and relocate activities that are not integral with the

functioning of central administration. The goal is to provide space for people and services closely tied to the academic day and the university community.

RESEARCH SUPPORT AND ADMINISTRATION There is a consistent need to determine the scope of research activities to be supported on the central campus, and what portions of research may be better served on west campus versus within the academic core. Decisions regarding location must reflect the desire of faculty researchers to have access to both teaching and research facilities.

Consider the following criteria when developing spaces and siting facilities for research, supporting equipment and technology, and related services:

• The need for programs and those involved in research to share equipment and facilities, and to be in physical proximity to each other, given the interdisciplinary trends in research and individuals ties to the academic day. • The roles of information, communication, and the supporting technology in defining scale and location of academic and applied research facilities.

E-3

• The need to place sophisticated and expensive scientific equipment in locations that can provide modern infrastructure and utility systems for the operation and maintenance of this equipment. • The need for access to activities for people both within the University and from the outside given anticipated increases in technology-transfer between KU and the private sector. As the result of the work of the Research Foundation, space will be needed to facilitate that transfer. • The need to address environmental, health, and safety requirements when deciding whether activities should be on central campus, west campus, or off-campus.

STUDENT SUPPORT Student support activities outside the classroom and still central to the academic experience require a variety of physical facilities from office space to outdoor areas for recreation. A key concept is that these services are major supporting elements of the academic mission, integral to the educational and personal development of students. These activities require a well conceived plan reflecting the need for physical proximity to both academic spaces and to divisions within the various student services.

In the past, offices, organizations, and activities involved in providing student services have been located alongside those involved in instructional activities. Objectives and specific proposals for the physical development of projects that support a variety of activities related to the academic day are noted below.

A. Student Services Consider developing an accessible full-service center for students that provides space for a range

of administrative activities related to student life.

B. Housing Continue the investment in renovation of on-campus housing according to the following strategic

decisions:

• The long-term role that the University will play in providing housing for students in a competitive off-campus residential market • In defining that role, consider the current trends toward commuter campuses and distance learning on the one hand, and the long term investment in maintaining a residential campus on the other. • The need to provide living arrangements to a more diverse group of students whose backgrounds vary in terms of age, financial resources, and social and cultural experience.

E-4

C. Child Development Center Provide a physical development plan for the first phase of construction and potential expansion of

a center for the relocation and expansion of activities from the Hilltop Child Development Center. Site selection, building configuration and accessibility will be primary concerns.

D. Visitor’s Center In a space to be renovated in Templin Hall, develop a "front door" to a variety of services focused

on campus visitors, particularly those who are here for the first time.

E. Recreation Develop and coordinate a plan with the Endowment Association for further expansion of the

Shenk Complex on west campus to accommodate additional intramural fields and recreation activities.

CAMPUS ACCESS AND MOBILITY Both in day-to-day practice and in principle for long term development, the institution will need to continue to restrict the movements of traffic passing through campus without a campus destination. This will be necessary to accommodate the expansion of the pedestrian area of the campus.

Changes will be necessary in the configuration of roadways and pedestrian crossings at various locations. Physical solutions will require additional professional study and a source of funding for construction. In some cases these changes will need to be coordinated and perhaps jointly funded with the city of Lawrence.

A. Vehicular and Pedestrian Routes The following traffic corridors and intersections were identified in the course of the transportation

planning as problematic both for the flow of traffic and for points of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. Short term mitigation and planning for intersection geometrics and traffic control need to be completed for the following:

• Naismith Drive, from Allen Field House north to the Chi Omega Fountain. • 15th Street from Naismith Drive to Engel Road. • The intersection of 15th Street and Engel Road. • Pedestrian crossings near the Chi Omega fountain. • Sunnyside Avenue from Naismith Drive east to Indiana Street.

E-5

B. Campus Access and Mobility Regarding existing bus and transit service, the University should continue a dialogue with the

student-managed KU on Wheels bus system and coordinate the efforts of the Parking Services Department to develop joint funding and management objectives. In a broader based initiative, University and city-county efforts should identify a strategy to

develop, over the long term, an articulated University and Lawrence community system of transit. In negotiations with KU on Wheels, the University should identify a method of contribution to a

transportation system to support the evolution of the campus. Some form of transit will be needed to provide access to activities on campus based on the following transit models:

• A campus circulator system to provide regular cross-campus access to everyone on campus and designed to serve larger areas of central campus with connections to west campus. • A park-and-ride option that is based on remote sites on west campus or perhaps off-campus parking locations to preserve land for development other than parking. • A point-to-point shuttle system to support specific activities like connecting the Visitor’s Center and Office of Admissions at Templin Hall to central campus locations like Strong Hall or the Union. This need will grow as activities are placed beyond the physical limits of most people traversing this campus on foot and to avoid additional cross-campus automobile trips.

C. Parking The following are strategies and management objectives related to multi-modal solutions to

providing for the use of personal vehicles and the need for transit on campus.

• Review the parking needs of campus constituencies and continue to develop a tiered parking fee system that supports the patterns of users and individual need for access to places on campus. • Increase the revenue necessary to cover the cost of building parking structures. These structures will need to be designed to optimize the use of the limited commodity of land in and around the academic core of campus. The site for an additional structure is north of the Kansas Union. • Identify additional surface spaces in existing parking lots. • Integrate planning and the generation of revenue for parking and transit systems to develop the funding mechanism for a campus-based transit system.

E-6

D. Mid-Hill Pedestrian Route Develop a mid-hill route from Naismith Drive adjacent to Murphy Hall and extending to Watson

Library. This route should be designed both for the practical problems of negotiating the grade and to bring a unifying element to the composition of this area of campus. The goal should be to provide well designed and furnished exterior spaces for people. The project should bring a consistent aesthetic quality with the use of paving, planted materials and lighting to this area of campus.

E. Pedestrian Crosswalks Develop standards and designs for specific locations for pedestrian crosswalks. Solutions should

limit the number of lanes pedestrians must cross and encourage use of medians designed for pedestrian safety. Funding will need to be available in the near term for projects including improvements on 15th

Street, along Naismith Drive, and on Jayhawk Boulevard.

F. Bike Route Development Develop a system of campus bike routes based on the fact that the campus should be a primary

destination for Lawrence bicycle commuter traffic. The system should be physically distinct from walks and streets and designated with graphics. It should be coordinated with the city’s bicycle routes.

CAMPUS LANDSCAPE Renewal of the campus landscape should include both specific projects for distinct areas, as well as plans for the general enhancement of exterior spaces and plantings on campus.

A. Develop a Comprehensive Campus Landscape Plan A comprehensive plan for the campus landscape for both central and west campus should be

completed to accomplish the following objectives:

• Establish edges or limits of land use zones, buildable sites and development densities. • Identify sub-surface geology and the limits of such for proposed areas of development. • Identify and develop special landscape features which complement the land use model. • Develop landscape elements which provide and enhance effective routes for campus access and access to principal building entries. • Develop schemes for enhancements on campus integral with creating a high quality institutional image and campus environment including: a coordinated pallet of construction and landscape materials, design motifs consistent with the traditional image of the main campus, and establishment of a consistent image for west campus. • Focus on the sustainability in terms of maintenance and longevity of built and planted elements in the landscape.

E-7

B. Jayhawk Boulevard Because of a heavier burden of traffic generated by Budig Hall and a general increase in the day-

to-day population on the hill, reconfigure the use of the boulevard to effect safe delivery and movement of people at the top of the hill. The following are steps necessary to achieve this.

• Eliminate parking from Jayhawk Boulevard in a series of staged moves including relocation of accessible parking to additional top of the hill locations. Relocate blue zone parking to Memorial Drive. • Continue to restrict the use of personal vehicles during the class day.

Maintain Jayhawk Boulevard as a high-quality environment by the following actions:

• Reduce the overall width of pavement to gain areas for pedestrians and green space. • Enforce measures to reduce the speed and number of vehicles using the boulevard. • Establish a consistency in planting and landscape enhancements and establish as many large trees as is feasible within a larger campus landscape plan. • Invest in spaces for pedestrians including areas for seating and socializing, enhance bus stops, and provide areas designed for bicycle parking. • Develop a consistent image through the use of signage and lighting. • Preserve the sense of tradition associated with Jayhawk Boulevard while enhancing the safety for the many users of the campus.

C. Designated Campus Entries Develop the landscape, signage, and plantings for central campus and west campus entries.

Through the use of materials the design should reflect the character and image of the University adapted to the scale and requirements at each location. A list of campus entries includes:

• 15th and Iowa Street to be developed as the campus gateway. • 19th and Naismith as a major campus entry. • Mississippi and 11th Street as a major campus entry. • 19th and Iowa as a west campus entry. • 15th and Kasold as a future campus entry.

E-8

D. Memorial Drive Improvements Develop Memorial Drive as a scenic route with attention to the following objectives.

• Reconfigure parking on the south side of the drive and provide additional pedestrian routes on both the north and south sides of the drive with routes developed to connect to the top of the hill. • Design a walkway to enhance the movement of people through the Marvin Grove and Potter Lake areas. • Establish consistency in landscape elements and plantings along Memorial Drive and design the landscaping to emphasize the Campanile as the drive’s focal point. • Over the long term, control vehicular access to Memorial Drive.

E. Malott Garden and Pedestrian Plaza Development Design a series of spaces that integrate north-south and east-west movements of people on the

south slope of Mount Oread. These spaces should become a node of plaza and informal seating development for relaxation and socializing along the Mid-Hill walk.

AUXILLIARY ENTERPRISES These enterprises are often in transition in terms of scope of activities and require ongoing investments in facilities usually funded from self-generated revenue. Providing space, buildable locations, and access to provide service to both the campus constituency and off-campus groups are part of the mix of needs related to physical space that these organizations present.

A. Kansas Union Entry at Mississippi Street Establish a major pedestrian entry from Mississippi Street to the northwest corner of the Kansas

Union. This pathway would create a front door to the lower level of the Union to provide a better introduction to the broad range of services available in this facility. The following related improvements should be considered.

• The creation of a more articulated lower level entry to the Union to accommodate pedestrians approaching from the north and west side and connected at grade to the proposed parking deck north of the Union. • The creation of a transition zone identified by a redeveloped entry for the Kansas Union that faces onto Mississippi Street to signal to motorists they have arrived on campus. • Any addition to the facility should provide for new pathways through the Union — especially vertical pathways, such as elevators and escalators — to allow easy movement from the Union’s lower levels up to Jayhawk Boulevard.

E-9

B. Food Service Activities Expand food services at Wescoe Terrace to serve the increased demands resulting from the use of

Budig Hall.

C. Additional Athletic Facilities Complete the renovation of facilities with a focus toward improving services and amenities for

competitive inter-collegiate athletic programs including the renovation and addition to Memorial Stadium, enhancements at Allen Field House, and improvements to the baseball stadium. Evaluate the relocation of existing athletic facilities to off-campus sites. A complete evaluation of

the requirements for facilities and the supporting infrastructure for track and field, softball, soccer and tennis should be conducted and incorporated into a master plan for Athletics. Provide the facility for practice and competition including the development of an Allen Field

House Annex for basketball and volleyball.

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES The campus plan has identified the need to relocate a number of support activities to make available additional buildable sites on the main campus. Relocation of support activities presently located on main campus will require a significant investment in utilities, infrastructure, and additional roadways if west campus sites are selected.

These projects should be initiated to preserve both the integrity of the academic campus and to support in modern facilities the day-to-day tasks of maintenance and operations for the campus.

A. Facilities Operations In planning for facilities-operations activities, focus on sites in the interior of west campus.

Continued expansion of facilities-operations activities along 15th Street should not be considered a long-term solution.

B. Central Receiving Consider off-campus locations for the siting of a receiving/warehouse facility to serve many

shipping and storage needs of the University.

CAMPUS SIGNAGE The last campuswide initiative at developing and implementing a graphics and signage standard on campus was following the 1973 campus plan.

Campus "Wayfinding" Launch a comprehensive study that includes review and development of design guidelines,

locations, and the financial requirements necessary to develop a consistent system of directional, informational, and building signage for both central and west campus.

E-10

MANDATES FROM THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (A.D.A.) Completion of the "Crumbling Classrooms" package of work will provide for significant additional improvements on campus. To date ADA-mandated projects have included development of accessible exterior routes, building entries, parking spaces, restrooms, and signage improvements.

Additional work on Projects for Campus Accessibility Additional work on campus is anticipated to include exterior improvements to pedestrian routes

and signage. Evaluation of the existing conditions and proposed projects should be included in a package of landscape improvements and as a significant portion of the work on campus wayfinding.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Recent changes in state policy regarding funding for costs associated with energy use will require changes in the way utilities are managed on campus. In addition, the demands for modern equipment as well as mandated improvements require an on-going assessment of cost and benefit regarding improvements to a variety of utility and infrastructure systems.

A. Electrical Use and Distribution In accord with recommendations in the 1990 study, complete work that addresses the critical needs

for cross-campus distribution and service upgrades.

B. Information Technologies Identify additional work and continue to fund cross-campus fiber optic installation and building

connections.

C. Steam Distribution and Condensate collection Undertake a comprehensive study of the steam distribution system. This study will determine

current condition, the system sustainability, and future capacity to support additional development. This review should include an assessment of the condition and possible expansion of the tunnel system.

D. Building Cooling Mandated changes in conversion of building systems using chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC’s, and the

potential savings in capital and operating costs for economies of size and long term maintenance of equipment point to the need to consider a strategy which may focus analysis and proposed projects and investment in the following ways:

• Review the existing central chiller plant capabilities and potential for expansion to serve additional facilities. • Study the potential for additional chilled water facilities on campus as part of a zone development to serve existing facilities and provide cooling capacity for the expansion of conditioned space on campus.

E-11

E. Water Distribution Identify additional work for the campus distribution system with a focus on the replacement of

lines projected to be beyond their useful life. Recently completed improvements on campus have added to the capacity available. But ongoing work is required to replace many decades old and deteriorated sections of water distribution lines across the campus.

BUILDINGS AND BUILDING SITES

The capacity for development on the central campus is limited by the historic context, the present density of development, and a commitment to the long term use of areas of campus for open space. Where options for academic facilities on central campus do not exist, we will look to west campus for alternatives and solutions. In every forseeable case, we should avoid solutions deemed appropriate for the near term with little thought given to problems that may be of a duration of fifty years or more.

A. Preserving the existing campus There are limited opportunities for the construction of new buildings in the central campus and

careful siting of even modest additions in this area will be important. The following are process steps and principles that need to be adopted and pursued to maintain the present composition and beauty:

• Architecturally significant facilities should be determined based on an evaluation of objective criteria conscious of both the near-term and long-term physical context of the campus. This should become the work of a historic resources committee working with a project management process for capital improvements on campus. • To the extent possible, we will need to take steps to preserve the historic buildings on the campus and protect the existing balance between built space and open space in areas adjacent to these structures. • Should a significant building be destroyed by fire or other disaster or be found structurally deficient, the replacement structure should match the scale and character of the original, respecting the relationship of building to adjacent space. • With buildable areas a limited commodity, sites for specific activities may need to be preserved for decades.

B. Future building sites Evaluate the potential type, size and scale of proposed facilities for areas identified for future development on both central and west campus. Further analysis should be focused on the following:

• Workable ratios of footprint to height where large modern buildings can be envisioned. These ratios should be identified as design criteria for the professionals involved in capital development and campus improvement projects.

E-12

• Conscious of the interests of the Endowment Association regarding land not owned by the state, right-of-ways for roadways, utility distribution and service corridors need to be established on west campus to both define and support areas for future development • The capacity of utility and infrastructure systems to support additional proposed development for both state owned and municipal systems.

C. Removal of "temporary" facilities With provisions for replacement of space for these activities, marginal facilities including Blake

Annex, Lindley Annex, and Military Science Annex should be removed to provide space for buildings or to be preserved as open space.

A FRAMEWORK FOR CAMPUS RENEWAL AND ......Kansas University has a long and distinguished history,...

Documents

Transcript of A FRAMEWORK FOR CAMPUS RENEWAL AND ......Kansas University has a long and distinguished history,...