mas
terp
lanVALERIO DEWALT TRAIN ASSOCIATES
SEARL AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
GOODy CLANCy AND ASSOCIATES
MASTER PLAN TEAM
COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGOAlicia Berg, Vice President of Campus EnvironmentAnne Foley, Associate Provost for Administration
ARCHITECTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENTValerio Dewalt Train AssociatesJoe ValerioRandy MattheisBill KissingerBrad PaushaTom DalyJoanne GraneyAndrew KerrAna Stojanovic
Searl and AssociatesLinda Searl
PLANNINGGoody Clancy & AssociatesDavid DixonDennis Swinford
MARKET RESEARCHReal Estate Planning GroupLarry Lund
BENCHMARKING AND PROJECT GOALSPersis Rickes Associates, Inc.Persis Rickes
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATINGTurner Construction Company
WRITERSChristine ManganBrian O’Connor
APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEESDecember 2005
ISSUEDMarch 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO
Senior AdministrationWarrick L. Carter, Ph.D., PresidentAlicia Berg, Vice President of Campus EnvironmentMichael DeSalle, Vice President of Finance and CFOSteven Kapelke, Provost and Vice President for Academic AffairsAnnice Kelly, Vice President and General CounselMark Kelly, Vice President of Student AffairsEric Winston, Vice President for Institutional Advancement
Board of TrusteesAllen M. Turner, ChairmanAndrew AlexanderEllen Stone BelicGary R. BelzLerone Bennett Jr.Dr. Warrick L. Carter, Ph.D.William Cellini Jr.Warren K. Chapman, Ph.D.Debra Martin ChaseBarry S. CrownSteve DahlSteve DevickAllan R. Drebin, Ph.D.Richard B. FizdaleJohn GehronSydney Smith GordonMary Louise HaddadAlton B. HarrisBill HoodGary Stephen HopmayerDon JacksonTom KallenBill KurtisMarcia LazarGloria LehrAverill LevitonBarry MayoRenetta McCannHoward MendelsohnJoe PeyronninSamuel E. PfefferStephen H. PughMadeline Murphy RabbJohn P. RijosCraig RobinsonShelley RosenJanice ScharreRobert ShayeVictor SkrebneskiLawrence K. SniderDavid S. Solomon, M.D.Patrick A. SweeneyNancy TomDempsey J. TravisPamela TurbevilleTony G. WeismanHelena Chapellin WilsonRobert A. Wislow
Columbia Advisory Committeeplease see inside back cover for a list of committee members
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01
INTRODUCTION 05
PROCESS 11
COLUMBIA’S SPATIAL NEEDS 15
RETHINKING THE COGNITIVE CAMPUS 21
BUILDING PROJECTS 27
PROJECTING COLUMBIA’S IDENTITY 35
FINANCIAL STRATEGY 41
THE NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE 42
TABLE OF CONTENTSCONTENTS
PAGE
C O L U M B I A
C O L L E G E
C H I C A G O
M A S T E R
P L A N
01 MASTER PLAN PROCESS CHART
02 COLLEGE STATISTICS 03 SCHOOL STATISTICS COMPARISON
04 KEY INDICATOR TRENDS COMPARISON
04 UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT AND RESIDENCY
05 LEARNING INSTITUTION GROWTH COMPARISON
06 STUDENT ENROLLMENT SUMMARY
07 CREDIT HOUR SUMMARY
09 INTERVIEW SUMMARY AND PARTICIPANTS
12 CAMPUS SURVEYS 13 NEIGHBORHOOD MAPPING
17 COMPARATIVE CAMPUS SIZES
19 COGNITIVE MAPPING
24 BUILDING EVALUATION
25 BUILDING SPATIAL ANALYSIS
41 DEPARTMENTS BY BUILDING
42 CURRENT DEPARTMENT AREAS
48 BENCHMARKING REPORT
55 PROJECTIONS 56 PROJECTION FORMULA DESCRIPTION
57 PROJECTED DEPARTMENT AREAS
58 PROJECTED SPATIAL NEEDS
62 BEST PRACTICES REPORT
85 BRAINSTORMING REPORT
99 STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING OPTIONS
A P P E N D I XA P P E N D I X C O N T E N T S
This document is a summary of the research and recommendations of the Master Plan team. More detailed information and complete research data may be found in the APPENDIX.
PAGE
C O L U M B I A
C O L L E G E
C H I C A G O
M A S T E R
P L A N
01EXEC
UTIV
E SUM
MA
RY
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Columbia College Chicago is currently undergoing an
important transformation. Over its one hundred year
history it has moved from a small commuter school
to a nationally recognized arts and media college.
With the adoption of the Columbia 2010 strategic
plan in 2004, Columbia became poised to challenge
institutions with established reputations and
considerably more resources. To achieve its full
potential, Columbia 2010 contends that
Columbia should do many things, but
one of the most important changes is to
transform its campus.
02
EXEC
UTI
VE
SUM
MA
RY
Today Columbia occupies twelve buildings of roughly
1.2 million square feet in Chicago’s South Loop
neighborhood. For the most part, the campus is barely
visible, even though roughly 11,000 students move
through the area on a daily basis – living, learning and
experiencing this non-traditional urban campus. As
envisioned in this plan, by 2010, Columbia’s presence
in the South Loop will be highly visible and its brand
well recognized.
This plan is the product of a study that began in late
2004. It details the work itself, lists the findings of
our research and offers detailed recommendations
for achieving the goals outlined in the Columbia
2010 strategic plan. Those goals describe a physical
environment that is cohesive, possesses a sense
of place and is made up of flexible and adaptable
facilities.
RESEARCH PHASE
The planning team knew that it needed to form a
complete understanding of the current campus before
it could begin planning for the future. Research
undertaken to develop that understanding included:
Stakeholder Interviews: The design team
interviewed Trustees, administration, faculty, staff,
student and alumni representatives, neighbors and
community officials.
Campus Survey: Each of Columbia’s twelve academic
buildings was inventoried for physical condition and
space allocation.
Benchmarking: Columbia’s facilities were compared
with competing and/or comparably sized arts and
media institutions around the country.
Best Practices: Case studies of recently completed
campus centers were prepared to shed light on the
range of campus centers opening across the country.
Neighborhood Mapping: An inventory of the
Columbia College Chicago neighborhood was
prepared, documenting the existing infrastructure and
character of the area.
Cognitive Mapping: Hundreds of Columbia College
Chicago students participated in a survey that
detailed their daily use of the campus and its facilities.
Brainstorming: Experts in South Loop real estate,
campus planning, development and marketing spent a
day discussing the future of Columbia and its plan for
growth.
FINDINGS
The research and design activities yielded several
key findings which form the heart of this report.
Highlights of the findings follow.
Spatial Needs: Columbia provides significantly less
academic and student services space per student than
the institutions with which it competes. The shortfall
affects teaching as well as non-teaching space.
Overall, in order to meet the goals of Columbia 2010,
the college needs an additional 427,000 net square
feet of space.
Suitability of Facilities: Because of Columbia’s long-
standing commitment to renovating older buildings,
many of its current facilities, because of their small
structural grids, proximity to the El tracks and
inadequate building systems, are not suited to the
curriculum. The suitability issue is especially acute in
the media arts, which require a large scale production
facility.
Need for a Campus Center: The College’s current
lack of common space hinders its ability to offer an
environment that supports collaboration. A Campus
Center would provide a common ground for the
Columbia community, facilitating interdisciplinary
interaction. A centrally located Campus Center would
also bridge the north and south nodes of campus
activity, making the campus more connected.
E X E C U T I V EE X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y S U M M A R Y
03EXEC
UTIV
E SUM
MA
RY
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report offers several specific recommendations
at the campus level and at the building level. It also
recommends specific projects designed to address
Columbia’s identity in the South Loop.
Campus Recommendations:
Campus Zones: The campus should be planned to
reflect two distinct zones of activity. An academic
zone east of the El tracks between Roosevelt and
Congress is recommended to consolidate and
concentrate student activity and to help focus
Columbia’s identity on Wabash Avenue. A second
residential zone should overlap the academic zone,
but cover a larger area to allow for flexibility in
acquiring residential facilities.
Campus Hubs: Four distinct campus hubs are
recommended. These hubs – Administrative,
Studio, Campus Center and Performance – will act
as focal points within the larger campus, creating
concentrations of activities.
Remote Facilities: The media production facilities,
which require large column-free space, are probably
not economically feasible in the academic zone. These
should be located near public transit, where affordable
property is available. There may be other facilities not
yet identified that should also be located away from
the South Loop campus.
Building Recommendations:
Campus Center: A campus center of approximately
225,000 net square feet is recommended for the
centrally located College-owned site at 8th and
Wabash. As envisioned, the Campus Center would
contain a Student Center that would support a variety
of activities designed to encourage interdisciplinary
collaboration. It would also provide general
classrooms and academic space, primarily for the
School of Liberal Arts and Sciences but with some
facilities for the School of Fine and Performing Arts as
well.
Media Production Center: In order to maintain
its leadership position in Media Arts instruction,
Columbia needs a 36,000 net square foot production
facility than can support its film, video, television, and
interactive media programs. Such a facility requires
column-free, high-ceilinged space not available or
practical in the academic zone .
Performance Hub: A critical mass of performance
venues, classrooms, workshops and rehearsal space
should be developed in a single facility. At this
time, the preferred site for this facility is on the
College-owned property at 11th and Wabash. The
Performance Hub is planned for a later phase of
Columbia’s development so other sites may be
considered at that time. Such a facility, which will
total approximately 166,000 net square feet, will
encourage collaboration and interaction between
different performing disciplines and will connect the
performance-going public to Columbia.
COLUMBIA’S IDENTITY
In response to Columbia 2010’s call to create a campus
with “a distinct sense of place with a recognizable
street presence,” we propose two strategies:
A Network of Icons: Through the use of three
elements – iconic architecture, arcons and super-
graphics, Columbia would establish a strong presence
in the South Loop. Such elements would create unity
among the various buildings without obscuring the
rich variety of architecture that characterizes the
neighborhood. In so doing, they would strengthen
Columbia’s brand and signal to the community that
Columbia is a hotbed of creative activity.
Sidewalk Art Installations and Creative Street Furniture: By allowing Columbia’s creative energy
to spill onto the street in the form of storefront
installations, public art and street furniture, the
College will further project its identity to visitors,
passersby and neighboring institutions.
04
Columbia Campus Properties
CTA Green Line
CTA Orange Line
CTA Brown Line
CTA Purple Line
CTA Blue Line
CTA Red LineCTA Red Line
Metra Lines
Lake Michigan
Millennium
ParkThe “Loop”
Sears Tower
The Art Institute of
Chicago
Buckingham Fountain
Field Museum
Shedd Aquarium
Soldier Field
Adler Planetarium and Science
Museum
Northerly Island
Chicago River
O R I E N TAT I O N M A P
OR
IEN
TATI
ON
MA
P
RANDOLPH STREET
CONGRESS PARKWAY
ROOSEVELT ROAD
MIC
HIG
AN
AV
ENU
E
N
05INTR
OD
UC
TION
The Columbia 2010 document is a strategic vision that outlines
Columbia College Chicago’s aspiration “to be the best student-centered
arts and media college in the world.” This physical Master
Plan focuses on those Columbia 2010 goals that can
be achieved through improvements to Columbia’s
physical environment, ultimately resulting in a
“coherent, student-centered campus” with a “distinct
sense of place.” The plan focuses on student services, academic
spaces, and on the creative community of Columbia College Chicago’s
physical campus as a whole.
P U R P O S E O F S T U D Y
I N T R O D U C T I O N
06
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
C O L U M B I A 2 0 1 0T H E S T R AT E G I C P L A N O F C O L U M B I A C O L L E G E C H I C A G O
In 2004, Columbia College Chicago
completed Columbia 2010, the
strategic plan for the growth and
development of the College. In
it, the Vision 2010 Committee
set goals for the College that
focus on “rigorous student
learning outcomes, instructional
excellence, service to students
and an engaged, diverse campus
community with the purpose of
being a student-centered college
providing the best arts and media
education in the world.” (Columbia
2010 p.3) This Master Plan
proposes changes to the physical
environment of Columbia College
Chicago that support realizing the
strategic goals of Columbia 2010.
“Columbia 2010 sets an exciting
new direction for Columbia College
Chicago that is anchored in the
College’s historic mission and values.
It sets the stage for Columbia to
achieve national and international
recognition for excellence in arts and
media practice, as well as excellence
in arts and media education in the
context of liberal arts. The plan
also reinvigorates the principles
of Columbia’s democratic mission
for the new century. To realize
these aims, Columbia 2010 defi nes
institutional objectives, establishes
a framework by which those
objectives will be achieved and
posits a set of measurable criteria
by which to evaluate success.”
from the Columbia 2010
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
C O L U M B I A 2 0 1 0 C A M P U S E N V I R O N M E N T G O A L S
Develop a coherent campus layout with a focal axis on Wabash Avenue.
Create a distinct sense of place with a recognizable street presence.
Develop flexible and adaptable facilities.
Work with the City and South Loop community to develop a Wabash
Avenue arts/education corridor.
Acquire expansion space on and around Wabash Avenue.
Add space primarily through adaptive reuse; use new construction
selectively.
Develop a campus life that enriches learning and builds strong bonds
to the college community.
Develop facilities that support a campus life that enriches learning
through increased inter-disciplinary collaboration.
These goals are woven throughout this Master Plan as guidelines for the achievement of the Columbia 2010 vision.
07INTR
OD
UC
TION
S T U D E N T D E M O G R A P H I C S
GENDER ENROLLMENT STATUS
86%full time
14%part time
54%full time
46%part timepart timepart
52%female
48%male
71%female
29%male
ETHNICITY
American Indian/Alaskan Native
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White Non-Hispanic 63%
Black Non-Hispanic 16%
Hispanic 10%
Unknown 5%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3%
Non-Resident Alien 2%
1%%% 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander4%
Non-Resident Alien5%
Unknown7%
Hispanic11%
Black Non-Hispanic15%
White Non-Hispanic57%
International 2%
United States 13%
Midwest 12%
Metro Chicago 38% Chicago 27%
PLACE OF ORIGIN (UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY)
18
22
30
40
50
Undergraduate average age is 22Full time average is 21
Part time average is 28
1%
58%
35%
4%
1%
1%
1%
59%
28%
5%%
8%
Graduate average age is 30
0 (years)AGE
Undergraduate students
Graduate students
08
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
C O L U M B I A B U I L D I N G I N V E N T O R Y
33 E. CongressAcademic
600 S. MichiganAcademic
618 S. MichiganAcademic
619 S. WabashAcademicAcademic
623 S. WabashAcademic
624 S. MichiganAcademic
731 S. PlymouthResidence
1014 S. MichiganAcademic
72 E. 11th StreetAcademic
1104 S. WabashAcademic
1306 S. MichiganAcademic
1415 S. WabashAcademic
Existing Floors
Existing Gross
Square Footage
Original Building
Name Year Built Historic Status Architect
Year Acquired by
ColumbiaOwned Buildings
Alfred S. Alschuler
Christian A. Eckstorm, additional work by Holabird & Root
William C. Zimmerman (original), McClurg Schumacher & McClurg (renovation)
Solon S. Beman
Christian A. Eckstorm (first 7 stories), Alfred Altschuler (7 story addition)
Howard Van Doren Shaw
Christian A. Eckstorm
Holabird & Root
Jenny & Mundle
Anker S. Graven
1999
1975
2006
2003
1983
1990
1993
1998
1981
1999
1999
1996
7
15
10
3
10
14
7
4
6
8
3
1
166,571
189,120
105,000
21,000
196,592
156,909
162,000
26,348
75,778
176,791
31,029
17,854
Congress-Wabash Bank
Harvester Building
Arcade Building
N/A
Second Studebaker
BuildingBuilding
Musical College Building
Lakeside Press Building
Sherwood School of Music
Chicago Women’s Club
Ludington Building
Paramount Publix Film Exchange
N/A
1925-26
1907-08
original 1913, major
renova-tion 1958
N/A
1895
1908 (first 7 stories),
1922 (7 story ad-
dition)
1896-97 and 1902
1912-13
1927-30
1891-92
1929-30
N/A
No
Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District
Non-contributing building in the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District
No
Potentially eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status
Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District
Individually listed on National Register (1976), Contributor to the South Loop Printing House Chicago Landmark District
Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District
Eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status
Individually listed on National Register 1980), Chicago Landmark (1996)
Potentially eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status
No
600 S. Michigan 600 S. Michigan
33 E. Congress
619 S. Wabash
618 S. Michigan 618 S. Michigan
623 S. Wabash
624 S. Michigan 624 S. Michigan
731 S. Plymouth731 S. Plymouth
1014 S. Michigan S. Michigan 72 E. 11th 1104 S. Wabash 1306 S. Michigan S. Michigan 1415 S. Wabash
09INTR
OD
UC
TION
Academic Building (Owned)
Academic Building (Leased)
Student Residence (Leased)
Student Residence (Owned)
Columbia Owned Property Lot
CTA Station
Metra Station
CTA Green Line
CTA Orange Line
CTA Brown Line
CTA Purple Line
CTA Blue Line
CTA Red Line
Metra Lines
C U R R E N T R E A L E S TAT E H O L D I N G S
Media Arts
Fine and Performing Arts
Graduate and Continuing Studies
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Student Services
Administration
444
33 E. Congress
623 S. Wabash
624 S. Michigan
600 S. Michigan
University Center
1306 S. Michigan
1014 S. Michigan1006 S. Michigan
754 S. Wabash (Buddy Guy site)
11th and Wabash (Sculpture Garden)(Sculpture Garden)
1104 S. Wabash
731 S. Plymouth
2 E. 8th
1401 S. Wabash (parking lot)
1415 S. Wabash
24 E. Congress
619 S. Wabash
1112 S. Wabash (in negotiations)
72 E. 11th
20 45 8 12 15
4441
26 49
45 12 11 274441
33
8 8 16 4916
92 8
100
85 11
70 15 15
100
64 36
building use by percentage
20
618 S. Michigan
Congress
Harrison
Balbo
8th
9th
11th
Roosevelt
13th
14th
Mich
iga
nM
ichig
an
Wa
ba
shW
ab
ash
State
Dea
rbo
rn
10
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
C U R R E N T C A M P U S E N V I R O N M E N T
Columbia College Chicago is located in twelve academic buildings
that stretch from Congress Parkway to 14th Street in the South Loop.
Most buildings are commercial loft construction and many were
built prior to 1930. Five of Columbia’s buildings are within Chicago
Landmark Districts and one is an individually designated Chicago
Landmark. For more information on the history of Columbia’s
buildings, please see the Appendix. Columbia’s facilities, primarily
owned by the College with some leased, have been acquired over
time. The College’s traditional scarcity of resources resulted in buildings being purchased in response to an immediate need for space. This organic growth, while resolving immediate space shortages, has resulted in a campus without an overall organizational strategy.
The classic American university campus bears no resemblance to
the roots of the modern university which began in Italy, France
and England during the Middle Ages. The University of Paris (now
known as the Sorbonne) was founded in 1150 A.D. Because it was
a guild of teachers who taught wherever space was available, the
university was not a place but a collection of individuals bound
together as a universitas or corporation. There was no campus. Even
today the buildings of the Sorbonne are embedded in the city of
Paris. The student experience was and is remarkably diverse, with
the city serving as an important part of the educational experience.
Like the Sorbonne, Columbia College Chicago is also rooted in the
city. It has had a growing presence in Chicago’s historic South
Loop neighborhood since the mid-1970s. The South Loop’s distinct urban quality is well suited to the Columbia College Chicago community. Over the past ten years, the South Loop has
undergone significant change. New residential construction and
commercial redevelopment have energized the neighborhood
street life and increased the market value of neighborhood
properties. As the neighborhood evolves, Columbia remains a driving force behind the revitalization of the South Loop.
Columbia 2010 expressed the desire to “create a coherent, student-
centered campus.” To achieve this goal, the Master Plan team
recommends establishing a clearly understandable physical campus
organization and a strong identity in the neighborhood and city.
By comparing Columbia’s campus with
those of other Chicago-area institutions,
the Master Plan team learned that Columbia
is no more spread-out than other area
institutions and, in many cases, has a greater
student population density. More campus
comparisons can be found in the Appendix.
DePaul UniversityLincoln Park Campus
Columbia College Chicago
11PR
OC
ESS
The Master Plan team is composed of Columbia College Chicago
staff working with professionals from the fields of architecture,
campus planning, real estate planning, and higher education
planning. Over the course of a year, the team has
worked to develop a detailed understanding of
Columbia’s current campus use, the challenges
posed by continuing enrollment growth, and
the desire to improve the quality of its learning
facilities and student experience. This understanding
is what allows the team to make recommendations that will best
help Columbia achieve its Columbia 2010 goals.
PROCESS
12 The Master Plan team’s recommendations were
informed by a variety of data-collecting strategies. The
studies were undertaken concurrently. These included:
RESEARCH : Stakeholder InterviewsThe design team interviewed members of the board of trustees, administration, deans, faculty, staff, student and alumni representatives and community leaders and officials about Columbia’s
current performance as an educational institution
and individual visions for the future of Columbia. The
opinions voiced during these conversations were
instrumental in developing a full understanding of the
needs of the campus.
More information on these interviews can be found in the Appendix.
RESEARCH : Campus SurveyThe design team conducted a survey of Columbia’s
current campus buildings to create a data bank. Each of Columbia’s twelve buildings was surveyed for condition, use, and distribution of space to academic departments and schools. The design
team also interviewed the facility managers of
each department to assess how well the current
facilities are satisfying departmental needs and what
improvements are necessary or desired. Please see the
Appendix for a complete record of Campus Survey results.
RESEARCH : Benchmarking
As Columbia develops its national reputation, it is
competing more and more with other institutions
for students. The benchmarking study compared Columbia College Chicago to similar institutions across the United States. The schools selected
for the study are comparably sized or are known
competitors in the field of arts and media education.
Each school responded to a statistical survey, focusing
on the number of students as well as how much and
what type of space is provided for the education of
students (for teaching and for student services). The
survey results establish a reference for Columbia
College Chicago to understand what the “norm” is
for similar institutions and how Columbia might be
evaluated by a prospective student.
The full Benchmarking report can be found in the Appendix.
RESEARCH : Best PracticesColumbia College Chicago has a culture that is defined
by its history, its arts and media orientation, and its
urban location. As the campus continues to grow,
these characteristics distinguish Columbia from most
other colleges. The Master Plan team sought out
campus buildings at other institutions that provide lessons to be learned. The design team prepared a series of case studies on several recently completed campus center-type facilities. campus center-type facilities. campus center-type facilities. The studies focused
on three areas: the building program and the three areas: the building program and the three areas:
connection between academic and student space,
the use of iconic architecture as a communicator
of campus identity, and the relationship to the
surrounding urban context.
A summary of the Best Practices study can be found on page 25; the full
report is available in the Appendix.
RESEARCH : Neighborhood MappingAn inventory was taken of the neighborhood in
and around the Columbia College Chicago campus.
Locations of transportation services, nearby educational institutions, restaurants, stores and shops serving the student population, and historic architecture were collected and mapped. These
maps show where community infrastructure needs
development. The design team responded to many
anecdotes about the challenges of sustaining campus
facilities over areas distant from each other by
comparing the size and scale of Columbia’s campus
with other campuses in the Chicago region.
The results of these surveys cam be found in the Appendix
RESEARCH : Cognitive MappingThe team’s market research consultant conducted a
survey that sought to understand the way students use the campus. Specifically, students described their
arrival, use of, and departure from campus. The results
provided a clear understanding of the movement of Columbia’s students over the course of an average day,average day,average day including where they arrive on campus
and at what time, how much time they spend in which
buildings and on which activities.
PR
OC
ESS
M A S T E R P L A N P R O C E S S
13RESEARCH : Brainstorming
The design team gathered experts in the areas of South Loop real estate, real estate development, campus planning, and marketing for a day-longsession to discuss the future of Columbia College Chicago and its plan for growth. The brainstorming
discussions came to focus on six primary topics:
the educational experience, the Columbia College
Chicago community, the financial plan, Columbia’s
outside image, the campus plan, and the South Loop
neighborhood. While many of the comments voiced
during the brainstorming session affirmed our other
research of the campus, some insights were unique,
pointing to unexpected ways to realize the Columbia
2010 goals.
To review a summary of all the Brainstorming discussions, please see the
Appendix.
DESIGN : Campus IdentityBased on research findings and the Columbia 2010
goals, the design team developed recommendations
for increasing Columbia’s presence in the South Loop. These recommendations include consolidating
the campus and using various “branding” techniques
to promote Columbia’s identity.
These recommendations are discussed in depth in the “Rethinking the These recommendations are discussed in depth in the “Rethinking the These recommendations are discussed in depth in the “
Cognitive Campus” and “Projecting Columbia’s Identity” sections of this
document.
DESIGN : Building Projects SequenceAfter determining the amount of additional space
needed at Columbia, the team created and tested a series of possible solutions to challenges for future growth. These solutions were reviewed with
Columbia’s stakeholders to confirm that all facets of
the problems of growing in the South Loop can be
resolved. From there, the best solution was further
developed and priced for construction.
All strategic programming options can be found in the Appendix.
PR
OC
ESS
S T A K E H O L D E R I N T E R V I E W S
8 Trustees of the Board
3 deans
6 members of the administration
15 program directors and chairpersons
4 alumni
22 faculty and staff
5 student leaders
S U M M A R Y
Columbia College Chicago is
unique as an arts college in
an urban center with a liberal
admissions policy and tuition-
based funding that has
never been supplemented
by endowments or capital
campaigns.
There is a strong consensus
among deans, faculty, the
administration and students
that Columbia College needs
a center for student activities
and college gatherings.
Columbia College desires
to be a “student-centered”
institution, but currently
does not have the resources
to fulfill that goal.
The student residences
on campus have had an
important impact on the use
of the campus, and the need
for more student-oriented
facilities. One result of this
change is that the retention
rates and graduation rates
are improving.
14
The University of Notre Dame’s Giovanini Commons is
a flexible work space
within the Mendoza
College of Business
Administration.
Walls and furniture
can be easily
moved to create different room sizes with power
and teledata infrastructure everywhere. The
spaces are designed to be flexible allowing
users to adapt space to spontaneous needs.
The City University of New York’s Baruch College has
recently completed a “Vertical
Campus” - a center that gathers the
primary functions of a traditional
campus center and academic
program spaces as well as student
services, student life functions,
and administrative offices all into
a single vertical building. The
Vertical Campus is a center of
activity for up to 4,000 students
at a given time, placing student amenities at the heart of the campus.
The Kimball Center for University Life at New York University (NYU) contains the traditional
functions of a student center with emphasis on arts-related functions including
rehearsal and performance
space and a large theater. NYU’s student services
and student life functions are also in the Kimball
Center. The center’s location adjacent to Washington
Square Park gives it a position of significance for
the surrounding neighborhood, acting as a hub
for exhibiting studio work and performance.
Maryland Institute College of Art’s Brown Center is a
campus center that does not contain student amenities.
On the ground
floor are a large
performance hall
and gallery space.
The arrangement
of the space
makes it a hub for creative activity visible to the public at the intended
center of campus. The architecture of the building
is iconic; creating visibility and a presence for the
campus as a whole that it has not had in the past.
PR
OC
ESS
DePaul University’s student center contains
the classic functions of a
campus student union: a
large gathering room, a food
court, and offices for student
government or clubs. This
student center is a clubhouse for studentsand does not contain academic spaces. The
architecture matches surrounding buildings.
The new McCormick Tribune Campus Center at
the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) also has
a classic student
union program
of functions.
Faculty dining
and alumni/
donor space along with student dining, computer
lab facilities, student services and student life
offices are all in one place. A traditional student
center provides a social hub for the campus. The architecture of the campus center is iconic, and the center has quickly become an emblem that is stimulating to everyone passing by. The center visibly connects the campus by
incorporating paths between sides of the campus.
The University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business has gathered all of the functions of
its premier business school into a single iconic building in the midst of the University of Chicago’s Hyde Park campus. The building
is uniquely
designed
among the
typical classroom buildings on campus with the typical classroom buildings on campus with the
intention of creating an intersection between students and faculty. Organized around a central
sky-lit space are lecture rooms, seminar rooms,
lounge spaces, a sit-down restaurant, student
services offices and the pick-up for mail. These
provide a variety of spaces in which to meet,
for any size or character that is comfortable.
BEST PRACTICES : CAMPUS CENTERS
15SPATIA
L NEED
S
Columbia College Chicago has always faced pragmatic challenges to providing
facilities for teaching its students. Columbia provides less teaching
space and less space for its student community than
most of the schools that it competes with for students.
A major component of progress toward the Columbia
2010 goals must be made through improvements to
the physical spaces of the learning environment.
The learning environment includes traditional classrooms and studio
spaces as well as gathering spaces, critique areas and performance
venues. In addition, Columbia 2010 sets collaboration between students
and between students and faculty as a priority. y. y. Physical space must be
provided for the non-traditional spaces needed to realize this goal.
SPATIAL NEEDS
CO LU M B I A’ S C U R R E N T L E A R N I N G E N V I R O N M E N T
16
SPA
TIA
L N
EED
S
The design team documented both the physical
condition of the campus and how the existing
space is being used. This survey revealed
that the current state of Columbia’s learning
environments varies from building to building.
Most of Columbia’s historic buildings are structurally sound and in relatively good condition for their age. While some of Columbia’s current learning spaces are state-of-the-art, almost half of Columbia’s buildings need renovation. These range from cosmetic
improvements to upgrades to the base building
mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems.
Although the Master Plan focuses on planning
for growth, the current facilities are an important
part of Columbia’s future. There should be an ongoing investment to maintain and upgrade Columbia’s current facilities. Historic buildings are a unique resource
that should be maintained and restored.
Many of Columbia’s buildings have small column
grids that are typical of buildings built prior to
1940. Small column bays are difficult to use for classroom, rehearsal or lab space. Although
departments have made these teaching spaces in
older buildings work for them, some classrooms
are cramped or have awkward proportions due
to the small column grid; many have obstructive
columns within the space. Buildings with
small column grids yield less teaching space
than buildings with large column grids.
Some of Columbia’s learning environments are
uncomfortable or distracting. Their problems
include noise interference from passing El trains
and inadequate room temperature control.
While many of Columbia’s programs are cutting edge, providing infrastructure to support them is a constant challenge. Infrastructure issues include
providing back bone for computer technology and
wiring, providing adequate ventilation hoods for
science labs and providing theaters with fly space.
A detailed summary of these learning environments
by building is provided on a chart in the Appendix.
CAMPUS SURVEY SUMMARY EXISTING USE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE (SF)
Academic Departments 447,343
General Classrooms 40,197
Student Support 106,085
Administration 68,435
Subtotal 662,060
Circulation/Core (37% of total) 393,610
TOTAL 1,055,670
17C O L U M B I A N E E D S M O R E C O M M O N S PA C E
Columbia 2010 lays out a sophisticated goal for teaching creative disciplines that emphasizes collaboration and encourages learning that takes place outside of structured class situations. These types of learningf learningf help prepare students
for the real world; providing experiences similar to those that
students will have in their professional careers. This experience
supports the student’s production of a “body of work”.
In the past, Columbia has provided space as needed to make
classrooms available to deliver credits. Space was added
in response to specific departmental class loads and as a
result, space for extracurricular education is constantly in
short supply. At off-peak times, classrooms are used for
extracurricular education, but as demand for classrooms space
grows, neither extracurricular nor classroom function is well
served. Improved scheduling and tracking of available space
will make the most of limited resources. The current lack of dedicated common space hinders opportunities for collaboration and general interdisciplinary interaction.
The need for, and benefits of, space for extracurricular activity
was cited in interviews with faculty and students and in the
expert brainstorming session. Extracurricular spaces include
structured venues like performance space and galleries,
collaborative fabrication spaces and meeting rooms where
students from different disciplines can work together, and
casual spaces like student lounges. Spaces would be flexible
and adaptable to meet constantly evolving needs.
SPATIA
L NEED
S
SUPPORTING A “BODY OF WORK”
A primary goal for improving
the quality of students’ learning
experience, universally agreed
upon by administrators and
school deans, is supporting the
production of a “body of work.”
A “body of work” should evidence
a well-rounded curricular and co-
curricular education, preparing
students to enter the job market
after graduation. Columbia 2010
seeks to expand collaborative
projects that extend learning
beyond classroom teaching but
few current facilities support this;
students do not have enough
opportunities to practice their
art, or “learn by doing.” The
types of spaces needed to
support the production of a
“body of work” reflect a shift in
Columbia’s profile of a learning
environment. Until recently, the
College’s focus was primarily
on classroom teaching spaces.
This Master Plan proposes
increased attention to multi-use,
multi-disciplinary spaces such as
group study rooms, presentation
and critique areas, flexible “open
plan” areas and generic raw
“messy” spaces.Multi-disciplinary
spaces should be distributed
throughout campus, avoiding
School, department or individual
ownership as much as possible.
In addition, the quality of
education provided by
Columbia would be improved
by adding facilities to support
student and faculty research,
showcase spaces of various
sizes and degrees of formality,
meeting rooms, community
gathering spaces, and space
for students to produce work.
Planning Principle: Flexible
learning spaces
18 S PAT I A L I M P R O V E M E N T S A N D A D D I T I O N S
In estimating the amount of space Columbia College Chicago
needs to add, the Master Plan team has considered two factors:
the gradual increase of the number of credit hours provided to support a growing student population and an improvement in the quality of the students’ learning experience. The qualityof students’ learning experience is supported by facilities that increase the faculty’s ability to fulfill program goals and spaces faculty’s ability to fulfill program goals and spaces faculty’that provide for Columbia 2010’s goals for collaboration and co-curricular learning.
KEEPING PACE WITH THE GROW TH IN STUDENT POPULATION
Columbia College Chicago’s student population has been steadily rising
since the 1960s with over 10,000 students currently enrolled. Columbia’s
liberal admissions policy is an important part of its mission for arts and
media education, enabling all qualified applicants to attend. Consistent with Columbia 2010, the student population is conservatively expected to grow at a rate of 2% each year to reach nearly 13,000 students by 2015.
From a total of 500 beds in Fall 2003 to over 2,000 just two years later in
Fall 2005, Columbia’s residential population is transforming the College.
Columbia anticipates that a steadily increasing number of students will
want to live on campus. Currently, Columbia’s residences are at maximum
capacity, serving roughly 20% of the student population. It is estimated that
housing demand will begin to exceed the secured supply of beds in 2007 as
the student resident population continues to rise.
This rise in the student resident population increases the College’s need
for student services facilities as well as the hours those facilities are open.
Evening theater performances, guest lecture programs and film screenings
have increased on-campus resident student participation along with
demand for services provided by the health center and counseling.
330
762
5,5935,5935,5935,5935,6955,6955,6955,695
4,6724,588
625
271
ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY SCHOOL 2005* - 2015
Fine a
nd
Perform
ing
Arts
Med
ia A
rts
Gra
du
ate a
nd
Co
ntin
uin
g Stu
dies
Libera
l Arts a
nd
Sciences
1,996 2,433
38,442 46,86046,86046,86046,860
42,423 51,71351,71351,71351,713
48,614 59,26059,26059,26059,260
CREDIT HOUR GROWTH BY SCHOOL, 2005* - 2015
Fine and Performing Arts
Media Arts
Graduate and Continuing Studies
Liberal Arts and Sciences
SPA
TIA
L N
EED
S
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2,039 2,240 2,357 2,456 2,548 2,638 2,727 2,816 2,905 2,993
HOUSING DEMAND
number of beds
secured available housing
* 2005 figures are 2004 + 2% growth
19
KEEPING PACE WITH COMPETING INSTITUTIONS
The Master Plan team commissioned a benchmarking
study comparing Columbia with similar institutions. The
study confirmed that the College needs to expand facilities
well beyond its base growth needs to remain competitive
with other institutions. Columbia currently provides 105
gross square feet (gsf ) per student, which is substantially
lower than the 337 gsf per student average for competing
institutions. Most schools with comparable student populations have more space overall as well as more space devoted to student amenities. Schools provide
an average of 10.1 square feet per student of student
amenities. Columbia currently provides 3.3 square feet per
student. A more detailed explanation of this study as well
as the associated statistics can be found in the Appendix.
Allocating total credit hours provided by Columbia
College Chicago to classrooms available, Columbia uses
its classrooms 28 hours each week, less than the widely
accepted standard of 35 set by the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board. By optimizing class schedules across
schools and departments, the College can find greater
resource in its existing classrooms, and limit the resources
dedicated to building additional classroom space. Class
schedule optimization would primarily affect general
classroom usage, making the School of Liberal Arts and
Sciences (LAS) its greatest beneficiary. Although fewer
students are enrolled in LAS degree programs than in
the School of Fine and Performing Arts and the School
of Media Arts , LAS provides classes required by students
from all schools, using classrooms that are often shared
between schools. The credit hours provided and growth
in credit hours provided is similar for all three schools. If class schedules are not optimized, Columbia will need an additional 23,000 square feet of classroom space to meet the demand for class credits.
SPATIA
L NEED
S
ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SPACE NEEDED
(all figures in NSF(all figures in NSF( )all figures in NSF)all figures in NSF
Based on Population GrowthFine and Performing Arts 5 7 , 0 0 0Liberal Arts and Sciences 7 , 0 0 0Media Arts 5 0 , 0 0 0Graduate and Continuing Studies 4 , 0 0 0General Classrooms 2 , 0 0 0Student Services General Offices 3 , 0 0 0 Library 1 8 , 0 0 0
Student Activities 1 6 , 0 0 0Administration 2 3 , 0 0 0
TOTAL 180,000
Based on Quality Growth Fine and Performing Arts 4 4 , 0 0 0Liberal Arts and Sciences 2 2 , 0 0 0Media Arts 4 3 , 0 0 0General Classrooms + Meeting Rooms 1 2 , 0 0 0Student Services Library 2 1 , 0 0 0 Food Services 1 1 , 0 0 0 Student Activities 7 5 , 0 0 0
TOTAL 228,000
Area to be Replaced 95,000
Purchase of 618 S. Michigan (-) 76,000
TOTAL 427,000
* assumes optimized schedule
*
*
HOW MUCH SPACE IS NEEDED?
The Master Plan team has concluded that, to
accommodate growth and increased quality,
Columbia should add 427,000 net square feet. “Net square feet” accounts for the functional ” accounts for the functional ”
learning spaces and does not include area
required for circulation and building services.
20
SPA
TIA
L N
EED
S
RETHINKING THE CAMPUSthe “go forward” costs of buying and
renovating are more than building
new on sites Columbia already owns
new buildings are a more efficient
use of space and resources
using available building stock would
compromise the College’s program needs
the College already owns property for
two new buildings
Planning Principle: Minimize Capital
RENOVATE OR BUILD NEW
Columbia College Chicago has typically added
space to its campus by purchasing existing
buildings, usually 60 or more years old, and
renovating them over time to meet the college’s
functional needs. Although Columbia 2010recommends that space should continue to be added through adaptive reuse, the Master Plan
team compared this strategy with new construction and found building new to be less expensive and more effective.
As evidenced through surveys of existing
buildings and interviews with faculty, the
spatial requirements of some spatial requirements of some
current learning environments
do not fit well into available
building stock. Spaces currently
most desired by the schools
– theater and studio space,
large classrooms, and lab space
– have not been provided in
part because they cannot be
accommodated in the existing
stock of buildings.
A plan to use existing buildings
would lead to inefficiencies, making it
necessary to compensate by purchasing
and renovating more buildings than
would be required of new construction.
An evaluation of recent projects in which
buildings were purchased and renovated revealed
that purchase-plus-renovation costs are nearly the
same as the cost of new construction. The College
currently owns property that is ideal for two needed
campus buildings, thus removing the need to raise
capital for land purchase for these projects. In the
future, Columbia’s need for space and opportunities
available may make adaptive reuse a viable option.
At present, however, the Master Plan team believes that the Columbia 2010 goals can be best met through new construction projects.
21RETH
INK
ING
THE C
AM
PU
S
RETHINKING THE CAMPUS
To better understand the campus as it
is today, the team interviewed faculty,
students, college staff and neighborhood
leaders, conducted an inventory of
Columbia’s buildings, and commissioned
a Cognitive Mapping survey.
22
RET
HIN
KIN
G T
HE
CA
MP
US C O G N I T I V E M A P P I N G S T U D Y
CAMPUS ACTIVITY TIMELINE
46% of commuter students arrive at the Harrison El stop
23% of commuter students travel using Metra
The top five Columbia building destinations for students are: the (three) 600 block buildings 33 E. Congress University Center of Chicago residence
86% of students visit one or two buildings in a day
47% of student activity from 9 AM to 9 PM is class time
outside of class, residents spend more time dining, studying, and hanging out while commuter students spend more time traveling and working
In March 2005, a survey was emailed to all Columbia
students inviting them to track and report their
movements around campus over the course of one
week. The survey results sh showed that commuter
students arrive at public transportation terminals
and parking lots while residential students walk from
dormitories to academic buildings. Throughout the
day, traffic is concentrated around the 600 blocks of
Wabash and Michigan Avenues. Some students travel
further south to the specialized facilities around the
intersection of Wabash and 11th Street. Most students
visit just one or two buildings in a day. In the evening,
commuter students return home while resident
students study or participate in cultural activities on
campus.
Interviews revealed that the Columbia College Chicago community is largely separated into departmental areas. For example, photography
students are unlikely to cross paths with graphic
designers even though the departments are near
each other. Routes between classrooms or buildings
do not offer opportunities for encounters between
students of different disciplines. There are few areas
for students to meet and “hang out” while on campus.
Columbia 2010 sets a goal for collaboration between
students in different disciplines, but the physical
campus does not support this goal.
CLASS
WORK
DINING / RECREATIONDINING / RECREATION
STUDY
9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0%students
23RETH
INK
ING
THE C
AM
PU
S
CAMPUS TRAVEL PATTERNS
Roosevelt
Congress
Wa
ba
sh
MOST COMMON CAMPUS DESTINATIONS
Ogilvie Station
Union Station
Adams / Wabash Adams / Wabash Green LineGreen Line
IC Metra
Michigan
Wabash
Dearborn
Congress
Harrison
Balbo8th
9th11th
Roosevelt
13th14th
State
Clark
Mich
iga
n
academic buildings
residential buildingsresidential buildings
transit stations
24
RET
HIN
KIN
G T
HE
CA
MP
US
As surveys from the cognitive mapping exercise showed,
there are currently two disconnected hubs of activity at the
north and south ends of campus. Based on these findings, the
participants in the brainstorming discussion on Columbia’s
financial and real estate planning encouraged the College to
focus its real estate strategy, consolidating its campus facilities
from both the south and the west. Consolidation would
concentrate student activity over a smaller area, enhancing
the vitality of the campus community by intensifying the
activity on campus. activity on campus. activity on campus. The campus zone boundaries proposed
by the Master Plan team reflect these recommendations.
Academic and administrative facilities should be
concentrated into a zone east of the El tracks that are
mid-block between State and Wabash, south of Congress
and north of Roosevelt. Most of Columbia College Chicago’s
current facilities are within this area. Future growth of
academic and administrative functions should be within these
boundaries. The zone for residential facilities overlaps the
academic zone, but as these facilities are less critical to the
active daytime energy of the campus, residential facilities
may be located within a larger area. This allows more
flexibility to make use of real estate opportunities that arise.
Over time, as Columbia acquires property focused within the recommended zones, the campus will naturally have a more vital campus community and a stronger presence in the South Loop.
Some Columbia programs require functions that are
incompatible with the South Loop central campus. For
example, the spaces required for Media Production are
large, column-free, ground-level sound stages with high large, column-free, ground-level sound stages with high large, column-free,
ceilings. This type of facility, which is limited to one or two
stories because it is not financially viable to build above the
clear-span sound stages, is not economically practical in a
neighborhood with steadily rising property values. For this
reason, some facilities, on a case-by-case basis, will be
sited at a remote location.
The current real estate pattern of acquiring property
throughout the South Loop has inadvertently isolated the
various academic programs. Under the recommendations of
the Master Plan team, the concentration and overlap of the
campus zones will bring students from different disciplines
together. The conscious juxtaposition of the variety of uses on Columbia’s campus increases opportunities for encounter, discussion and collaboration outside the classroom, embracing the development of a campus life that enriches learning.
C A M P U S Z O N E S
Planning Principle:
Academic Campus
Boundaries
Planning Principle:
Residential Zone
Planning Principle:
Remote Facilities
CongressCongress
Harrison
Balbo
8th
9th
11th
Roosevelt
13th
1414thth
Jackson
Van Buren
Mich
iga
n
Wa
ba
sh
State
Dea
rbo
rn
25RETH
INK
ING
THE C
AM
PU
S
A second recommendation for the reorganization of
Columbia’s campus is the development of campus hubs.
Hubs are facilities that act as focal points within the
larger campus, creating concentrations of activity.
The Master Plan team envisions four hubs: a Campus
Center, a Studio hub, a Performance hub, and an
Administrative hub.
The hubs grow from existing patterns of use of campus
buildings. The current administrative hub should remain at
the 600 block of South Michigan. The cognitive mapping
study and building surveys showed studio art and liberal
arts and sciences programs concentrated around the
intersection of Wabash and Harrison. Performance-based
programs are concentrated around Wabash and 11th
street. Few students travel between these concentrations
of activity. The team recommends that studio activities
and performance activities continue to be focused at their
current locations but that the related creative disciplines
are expressed at street level. A proposed Campus Center, A proposed Campus Center, A proposed Campus Center
containing liberal arts and sciences programs, space for
studio arts, and new student activity functions, is located
between these two academic hubs, central to all activities
on campus. The Campus Center will be a destination for the Columbia community, increasing the student traffic along Wabash and providing a vital link between the concentrations of activity at the north and south ends of the campus.
The concept of campus hubs grew directly out of the
brainstorming session, where participants discussed the
need for the campus to have a central focus in addition
to smaller, School-based hubs. School-based hubs allow
each school to develop and maintain an individual identity
within the larger framework of Columbia College Chicago.
Although each hub is the nucleus of School-specific
activities on campus, no hub is the exclusive domain of any
one School. The hubs express the public aspects of each specialty, encouraging participation from students and faculty from all Schools and the neighborhood community.
C A M P U S H U B S
Academic Zone
Acceptable Residential Zone
Administrative Hub
Studio Hub
Campus Center
Performance Hub
Planning Principle: Campus Hubs
CongressCongress
Harrison
Balbo
8th
9th
11th
RooseveltRoosevelt
13th
1414th
Mich
iga
n
Wa
ba
sh
State
Dea
rbo
rn
Jackson
Van Buren
26
Columbia’s campus has two distinct faces. The
campus “front yard” is the more formal and
historic Michigan Avenue. The campus “back yard”
is the casual, funky spontaneity of Wabash Avenue.
The front yard and back yard each have important
messages to communicate about Columbia
College Chicago, but each plays a different role.
Michigan Avenue and Grant Park are Chicago’s
front yard; a traditional grand boulevard and the front yard; a traditional grand boulevard and the front yard;
location of many of the city’s cultural institutions. location of many of the city’s cultural institutions. location of
The status and reputation of Michigan Avenue makes Columbia’s front door at 600 South Michigan an impressive welcome for parents, visitors, and prospective students. The front
door should be open, welcoming, and also
substantial.
Grant Park provides open green space for an
otherwise hard-surfaced urban college campus.
The campus planning experts who participated
in the campus brainstorming session stressed the
importance of maintaining a connection to the
park as a vital resource for students. At the end of
each year it is a primary location for the Manifest
celebration. The park is a place for students to study, relax, or simply escape the intensity of the rest of the campus throughout the year.
In the campus “back yard”, along Wabash Avenue the focus will be on Columbia’s sustaining creative community. Focusing
Columbia’s real estate expansion within campus
zones would concentrate student activity in a
smaller area, making street life more vibrant.
With an increase in the student presence on
campus, the College needs to become more
permeable at street level, making the creative
process and works of art visible to passersby.
Columbia College Chicago should actively place
creative activity in as many storefront windows
along Wabash as possible. Galleries, fabrication
workshops, active studios, theater or dance
rehearsal space or performance art venues
are possible functions. Featuring the creative
process in a storefront window will facilitate
communication between the different disciplines
and with the neighborhood population in general.
F R O N T YA R D / B A C K YA R D
RET
HIN
KIN
G T
HE
CA
MP
US
27To achieve the Columbia 2010 goals, the
Master Plan team proposes three
building projects: a campus center,
a media production center, and a
performance hub. Completed over the
course of ten years, the renovated 618 South
Michigan building and these three projects
will add 503,000 net square feet, satisfying the
College’s projected need for additional space
to accommodate both growth and quality
improvements.
BUILDING PROJECTS
MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTERThe new home for Columbia’s
film, animation, and post-production programs in a
remote location.
CAMPUS CENTERProvides academic
facilities and student amenities at the
crossroads of Columbia’s campus.
PERFORMANCE HUBCentralizes Columbia’s
performance-based disciplines and connects
them to the public.
BU
ILDIN
G P
RO
JECTS
618 S. MICHIGANExpansion of library
and related uses, limited classroom,
administrative, and faculty space
Congress
Harrison
Balbo
8th
9th
11th
Roosevelt
Mich
iga
n
Wa
ba
sh
State
Van Buren
Jackson
28 RECOMMENDED REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES
The three building projects highlighted in this Master
Plan are specific solutions based on specific needs. As Columbia and the South Loop continue to change, the College should remain flexible to real estate opportunities that fall outside these building projects.
To guide this development, the Master Plan recommends
an overall real estate strategy that grew out of
the brainstorming discussions and has been refined
throughout the process.
NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE
Columbia College Chicago is committed to
environmental sustainability for all future building
projects. Not only are sustainable construction practices
better for our planet, environmentally conscious buildings
use fewer energy resources and are less expensive to
maintain. Although construction costs may be higher,
Columbia believes that the long-term benefits outweigh
the initial expense.
SPACE MADE AVAILABLE IN EXISTING BUILDINGS
The general sequence of Columbia’s development
manages growth by adding new space while renovating
and reprogramming existing space. As programs move into the new facilities, vacated spaces in existing buildings will be available for expansion of adjacent functions or the consolidation of programs currently dispersed in different places.
C O L U M B I A’ S D E V E L O P M E N T : T H R E E M A J O R C O N C E P T S
consider selling properties South of Roosevelt
continually monitor portfolio to determine which buildings to maintain and which to replace
consider acquiring additional properties “on campus” for future expansion
demolish/rebuild most inefficient or unworkable space
utilize land Columbia College Chicago currently owns for expansion
33 E. Congress 41,000
600 S. Michigan 32,000
623 S. Wabash 49,000
624 S. Wabash 36,000
1104 S. Wabash 17,000
TOTAL 175,000all figures in nsf
BU
ILD
ING
PR
OJE
CTS
Planning Principle: Environmental
Sustainability
29
MICHIGAN AVEMICHIGAN AVE
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
B
Offices
Offices
Offices
Offices
Offices
Offices
Offices
Library
Possible Temporary Student Center / Library
Possible Temporary Student Center or Gallery
Possible Gallery Mechanical
6 1 8 S O U T H M I C H I G A N
BU
ILDIN
G P
RO
JECTS
The 618 South Michigan building is
being acquired by Columbia College
Chicago. As the home of The Spertus
Institute for many years, existing
facilities in the building include offices,
classrooms, a library, and archives.
With Spertus Institute’s construction
of a new space (scheduled completion
early 2008), Columbia College Chicago is acquiring the current 76,000 net square foot, 10 story building adjacent to Columbia’s
library and significant facilities on the
600 South Michigan block.
The building will be renovated to fit
the College’s needs and a functional
program for the building is currently
being developed. Lower floors nearly
align with floors of the 624 South
Michigan building adjacent to the
south providing an opportunity for
horizontal expansion of the library. A
temporary student center or gallery
space is being considered at ground
level. The existing elevators were
designed with capacity for office
functions and limit potential high
capacity classroom use at upper levels.capacity classroom use at upper levels.
The new space will address some of
Columbia’s most immediate needs and Columbia’s most immediate needs and
will free space in other buildings as
functions are relocated giving strained functions are relocated giving strained
schools space to grow.
30
BU
ILD
ING
PR
OJE
CTS
Have an iconic presence.
COLUMBIA’S CAMPUS CENTER SHOULD:
A bold architectural gesture, reflecting the Columbia’s creative
and innovative nature, would announce the College’s identity
to the South Loop and could be the nucleus around which a
distinct sense of place for the campus could be created. The
Campus Center would be centrally located on campus, so that it
is a natural intersection for the college community.
Have flexible spaces. New construction would provide space with fewer columns,
making the building more adaptable to serve evolving needs.
It would also have an integrated technological back bone and
effective mechanical systems with flexible capabilities.
Be student-centered. It should provide places for students to collaborate on
interdisciplinary projects, to collaborate with faculty, to present , to collaborate with faculty, to present ,
work to other students and the community, places to eat and to
study and to cross paths with students from other departments.
The Campus Center will also help meet the needs of the growing
student resident population as it increases space for the services
most used by these students.
Improve learning environment quality. As Columbia’s student population continues to grow, new
teaching space will be a constant need. New construction
should provide as much capacity to accommodate growth
requirements as allowed by zoning.
Support the production of a “body of work.” It should provide students with areas to work outside of the
classroom on individual or group projects as well as multi-
disciplinary showcase spaces, performance venues, and storage
facilities.
Located at Wabash and 8th streets, the Campus Center will bring
together student-centered functions on five floors accessed
directly from the street. Its central location and student-focused
program will make it the symbolic core of the campus, providing
a point of convergence for the campus community and an
interface between Columbia College Chicago and the public. A
newly-constructed building will provide higher quality studio
space, theater space and gallery space than has been achievable
in older renovated buildings. Since all students take classes in
the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS), most of the LAS
academic space and general classrooms will be moved to this
new building making it an academic hub as well as a crossroads
for students.
C A M P U S C E N T E R2 2 5 , 0 0 0 N S F
31BU
ILDIN
G P
RO
JECTS
Student Center
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Fine and Performing Arts
Student Center
Student Center
Student Center
Student CenterMechanical
Expansion
Rooftop Space
1414
13
12
11
1010
99
88
77
66
55
44
3
2
1
GradeGrade
The Campus Center should provide new teaching space as well as Student Center functions
Floor 1
Floor 2
Floor 3
Floor 4
Wa
ba
sh
A
ve
nu
e
The “StudentThe “StudentThe “Center” could
include a wide range of facilities that
would facilitate interdisciplinary
collaboration and discussion.
Cam
pu
s C
om
mo
ns:
C
om
mo
n R
oo
m /
Mee
tin
g A
rea Student
Organizations Space
Core
Administrative Offices
Collaborative Project Space
Group Study / Breakout Rooms and Lounge / Event Space
CoreCrit
Performance Space Below
Multi-disciplinary Performance Space
Core Cafe / Study Area
Shared
Reh
earsal
Admin.Offices
Multi-disciplinary Student Showcase
Space
Service
Core
Lobby
Study Area Bookstore
Stud
ent
Act
ivity
Cafe/Study Area
Mechanical Computer Lab
Core
Stud
ent
Lockers
Stud
y Area Bookstore
Lower Level
Fine and Performing Arts
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Liberal Arts and Sciences63,00063,000
162162,000
,000
32
BU
ILD
ING
PR
OJE
CTS
M E D I A P R O D U C T I O N C E N T E R3 6 , 0 0 0 N S F
THE MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTER WILL:
offer state-of-the-art production studios
to support film, video, television and
interactive media programs
include digital studios – only one of a
few in the Chicago area
position Columbia to respond to rapid
change in the media industries
help build a diverse workforce
invigorate the local film industry
Columbia College Chicago’s Media Production Center
(MPC) would enable the College’s School of Media Arts
to offer production studios to support its film, video,
television, and interactive media programs. A “media production center” will significantly improve teaching and learning at Columbia, and better prepare its students for the highly competitive film industry.
As a college with a student-centered mission, Columbia must provide its students direct experience in state-of-the-art production facilities, train them in technologies
and processes of the visual media environment, and
develop the capacity of its students and graduates to
create and produce outstanding film and video works.
The MPC physical plant would feature approximately
36,000 square feet of sound stages, production and post-production spaces, editing studios, fabrication shops, a motion-capture studio, and animation labs. The MPC would also feature suitable sound stages for
television production and digital-friendly facilities.
This includes a green stage, a computer generated
imaging environment for digital filmmaking and
other digital-based work. Digital studios, one of the
most in-demand resources by industry professionals,
would be one of only a handful in the Chicago area.
33BU
ILDIN
G P
RO
JECTS
Parking
Main Sound StageSecond Sound
Stage
Directing Stage
Fabrication Shop
Motion Capture Studio
Core + Circulation
Animation Lab
Main Sound StageBelow
Second Sound Stage Below
Motion Capture Studio Below
Ground Floor
Floor 2
The The T concentration of media production disciplines in a flexible, easy-to-use space would keep Columbia at the forefront of Media Arts education.
The current location for production does not provide the large-scale spaces
needed to help the school succeed. The current two-story facility is in a location
that underutilizes valuable real estate. The current site can be leveraged to create
significant opportunities remote from Columbia’s core campus. The media production
facility should be accessible by public transit and have ample space for loading,
unloading, and parking.
Costumes
Storage Office Loading Dock
Media Lab
Class/Lab
Core + Circulation
Storag
e
Classroom / Lab
34
BU
ILD
ING
PR
OJE
CTS
18
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
GradeGrade
Allowable Development RightsZoning laws governing building density allow new buildings to transfer unused density from adjacent buildings. A Performance Hub at 11th Street and Wabash could be taller by using rights transferred from adjacent Columbia buildings.
Fine and Performing Arts
Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts
Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts
Dance Theater
Black Box TheaterFabrication Studio
Fine and Performing Arts
Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts
Fine and Performing ArtsFine and Performing Arts
Fine and Performing Arts
Performance Theater
Alley
A new Performance A new Performance Hub would encourage Hub would encourage collaboration collaboration between performance between performance disciplines while disciplines while increasing the increasing the visibility of Columbia visibility of Columbia productions at street productions at street level.
The Performance Hub would be a focal point for
performance disciplines on campus. A critical mass of performance venues, classrooms, workshops and rehearsal space could be collected near 11th Street and Wabash, the current location of many facilities for theater, film and music. This suggested location
is based on current facility organization and property
availability, but because the Production Hub is
planned for a later phase of Columbia’s development
there may be more suitable options open at that time.
Performance disciplines collaborate in the work-
world to bring performance productions to reality, so
students should learn from similar collaborations in
the school learning environment. The Performance
Hub would create more opportunity for collaboration.
The Performance Hub would be a center where the public will meet and connect with Columbia College’s productions. Performance disciplines
are currently in the central campus, but have limited
visibility. This project would be visible and have a
strong presence on campus and in the South Loop.
P E R F O R M A N C E H U B1 6 6 , 0 0 0 N S F
35PR
OJEC
TING
CO
LUM
BIA
’S IDEN
TITY
P R O J E C T I N G
COLUMBIA’S IDENTIT Y
Columbia 2010 calls for the college to “create a
distinct sense of place with a recognizable street
presence.” The urban, hands-on texture of
the campus contributes to the students’
identification with Columbia’s non-
traditional approach to enhancing the
identity of its campus community.
Building-scaled super-graphics and presentations of
student art are striking expressions of creativity in the
South Loop; these are strong first steps toward establishing
Columbia’s identity. Clearer identification of each of
Columbia’s buildings and expressions of the day-to-day
vitality of the community will develop this idea further.
36
O V E R V I E W O F I D E N T I T Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
PR
OJE
CTI
NG
CO
LUM
BIA
’S ID
ENTI
TY
The Master Plan team recommends establishing Columbia’s distinct
sense of place in two ways. First, the College should introduce
a network of iconic elements to distinguish the campus as a unique
and unified entity. Second, by increasing the creative presence of the Columbia community in storefront windows and open locations in the neighborhood, a recognizable street presence can be developed.
Columbia’s creativity should not be limited to its buildings; it should spill
on to the street.
The importance of increasing Columbia’s visibility in the South Loop
was part of many topic discussions at the Brainstorming Session. It
was considered influential on a range of issues including the College’s
strategy for campus planning, the need to build the campus community,
and enhancing Columbia’s image in the college community, the
neighborhood and among prospective students. A comment from the
Brainstorming Session was that a “funky Wiener Werkstatte streetscape”
could emerge on Wabash. The comparison to this vibrant Viennese
artists’ movement has become a guide in the development of Columbia’s
identity.
The Wiener Werkstatte, an important 20th
century art movement, was at once highly
interdisciplinary, theoretical and practical. The
workshops produced functional objects including
furniture, silverware, dishes and plates, rugs,
linens clothing and art objects that depended
on collaboration between a variety of disciplines.
The Workshop artists sought to advance their
belief that art and beautiful craftsmanship should
be integrated into everyday objects. Artists’
creative ability was developed by the practice of
making these objects — learning by doing. Their
hope was that the availability of these objects
to the public, not just the elite, would uplift the
laboring class and be a small step toward social
equalization. Columbia’s energetic, hands-on
approach embodies this same spirit. approach embodies this same spirit.
37PR
OJEC
TING
CO
LUM
BIA
’S IDEN
TITY
PR
OJEC
TING
CO
LUM
BIA
’S IDEN
TITY
PR
OJEC
TING
CO
LUM
BIA
’S IDEN
TITY
38
Proposed art installations on non-Columbia buildings intensify the College’s presence in the South Loop
Vertical LED (Light Emitting Diode) arcons identify a building as part of Columbia’s campus.
PR
OJE
CTI
NG
CO
LUM
BIA
’S ID
ENTI
TY
A N E T W O R K O F I C O N S
A key strategy for creating a unique sense of place
is the creation of icons that exemplify Columbia’s
artistic presence in the South Loop. By conveying
Columbia’s creativity and institutional values to
both the college community and the neighborhood,
the iconic elements would mark the presence of
the school. Through repetition, these elements
would also link Columbia’s buildings into a cohesive
campus. The Master Plan team proposes threeelements: iconic architecture, “arcons” and super-graphics.
Iconic architecture conveys the message of an institution in a direct and powerful way.institution in a direct and powerful way.institution in a direct and powerful way.institution in a direct and powerful way. Many Many
institutions use iconic buildings to communicate institutions use iconic buildings to communicate institutions use iconic buildings to communicate
their presence and their core values to the their presence and their core values to the their presence and their core values to the
community. An iconic building on Columbia’s community. An iconic building on Columbia’s community. An iconic building on Columbia’s
campus will express to the neighborhood that campus will express to the neighborhood that campus will express to the neighborhood that
“Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we “Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we “Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we
do.”
A second element for establishingestablishing Columbia’s Columbia’s
presence in the South Loop is a repeated repeated repeated
architectural feature or “arcon” that marks the architectural feature or “arcon” that marks the architectural feature or “arcon” that marks the
College’s facilities. Vertical scrolling LED (Light Vertical scrolling LED (Light Vertical scrolling LED (Light Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the campus would unite the new architecture, the campus would unite the new architecture, the campus would unite the new architecture, the existing buildings, and the general campus. existing buildings, and the general campus. existing buildings, and the general campus. The
content of the arcons would be programmed at a arcons would be programmed at a arcons would be programmed at a
central location, allowing the College to maintain central location, allowing the College to maintain central location, allowing the College to maintain
constant control and also making king content content change
easier. The movement and chang and change of content e of content using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of the College’s campus life.
The current billboard-sized exterior installations The current billboard-sized exterior installations
of student and faculty artwork are an effective of student and faculty artwork are an effective
promotion of the College’s creative presence in the promotion of the College’s creative presence in the
neighborhood. This program should be expanded neighborhood. This program should be expanded
to include more locations, possibly including
installations on the façades of non-Columbia
buildings. By not limiting the artwork to College-owned buildings, Columbia is able to intensify its visible presence within its campus boundaries and engage the neighborhood in the creative life of the College.
Together, these three strategies, iconic architecture,
arcons, and the expanded presentation of artwork,
enhance the presence of Columbiaenhance the presence of Columbiaenhance the presence of College Chicago’s
campus through a network of visual connections.
These elements are deliberate communications of a
Columbia “brand.”
A good example is Eero Saarinen’s TransWorld Airlines (TWA) terminal in New York City. When this international air terminal was built, TWA and international air travel were both new. Saarinen’s terminal conveys a message of futuristic innovation. The New York terminal immediately became TWA’s symbolic heart both metaphorically and as a powerful iconic image.
39PR
OJEC
TING
CO
LUM
BIA
’S IDEN
TITY
sanctioned art interventions under the ‘EL’
sanctioned art interventions on buildings
S I D E WA L K A R T I N S TA L L AT I O N S
Creative presence in the South Loop can also be
established by providing areas for student art
installations. Students would submit proposals
for temporary installations at authorized locations
under the “El” tracks or on the sides of buildings. A
“speaker’s corner” sidewalk performance venue,
in a storefront or out-of-doors, could be open
for performances. Currently underway is the “Art
Escape” program, in which Columbia College
Chicago held a competition for proposals to
use exterior fire escapes as a way of identifying
the College. These moments of sidewalk art, sanctioned and yet slightly outside the norm, reinforce the idea that on Columbia’s campus, art is not limited to the studio or the gallery.
the “Art Escapes” program displays art on fire escapes
40
unique ‘EL’ entrance at the Harrison stop
C R E AT I V E S T R E E T F U R N I T U R E
As the City of Chicago makes plans to improve
the Wabash Avenue streetscape in the campus
area, Columbia’s creative community can seek to add non-traditional street furniture to standard municipal installations. standard municipal installations. standard municipal installations. Some ideas
include introducing sculptural seating options
along the sidewalks, painting the standard
street accessories a distinctly non-standard
color, installing Columbia College Chicago
kiosks, or creating a new entry pavilion to the
“El” stop most used by students. Columbia has
also proposed a design for the “El” platform
and station interior through the Chicago Transit
Authority’s Adopt-A-Station program. Together,
these elements help to identify Columbia’s
campus, not just as an area of the South Loop,
but as an area defined by creativity.
PR
OJE
CTI
NG
CO
LUM
BIA
’S ID
ENTI
TY
“Harrison Haiku” is Columbia’s CTA Adopt-a-Station Proposal
sculptural seating possibilities with painted lamp posts adds Columbia’s character to the City of Chicago’s standard palette
41FINA
NC
IAL STR
ATEG
Y
2006
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Tactical Strategic
CAPITAL BUDGET DEBT AND SALE OF PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE CAMPAIGN
Buildings Program
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
The financial strategy to achieve the master plan is based on
building momentum over time to gather money from several
sources.
Beginning in 2006, we recommend that Columbia College Chicago
begin allocating funds and exploring debt capacity.
A comprehensive public campaign should be launched for
the College that includes funding for new space, scholarships
and learning programs. Columbia should continue to seek
opportunities to acquire existing properties in the South Loop,
and also build a fund for new construction. Naming opportunities
should be identified for potential private donors for existing as
well as proposed spaces.
Federal, state and local government should be solicited for
contributions to Columbia College Chicago’s growth.
As the master plan recommends that the academic campus should
be concentrated between Congress Boulevard and Roosevelt Road,
Columbia College Chicago should allocate the proceeds from sales
of outlying property to fund new building programs.
42
THE
NEW
STU
DEN
T EX
PER
IEN
CE
THE NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE
In recent years dramatic improvements have been made in In recent years dramatic improvements have been made in
the campus environment, yet these changes have, for the the campus environment, yet these changes have, for the
most part, been tactical shifts executed on a yearly basis most part, been tactical shifts executed on a yearly basis
to respond to immediate needs. The Master Plan considers to respond to immediate needs. The Master Plan considers
the campus strategically, thinking about change in the the campus strategically, thinking about change in the
long term, suggesting a synthesis of initiatives which will long term, suggesting a synthesis of initiatives which will
differentiate the Columbia College Chicago experience differentiate the Columbia College Chicago experience
from that of any other institution of higher education.from that of any other institution of higher education.
A student’s choice to study at Columbia College Chicago is A student’s choice to study at Columbia College Chicago is
inextricably wrapped in a choice to live in and experience inextricably wrapped in a choice to live in and experience
the city of Chicago itself. A central premise of this plan the city of Chicago itself. A central premise of this plan
and of Columbia 2010Columbia 2010, is that the Columbia campus should , is that the Columbia campus should
continue to celebrate the character of the South Loop and continue to celebrate the character of the South Loop and
the College’s broader urban setting. the College’s broader urban setting. The challenge is to The challenge is to develop a distinctive identity and to offer a distinctive develop a distinctive identity and to offer a distinctive experience within this setting. experience within this setting.
If a cohesive student experience is the end, then one of If a cohesive student experience is the end, then one of the important means to this end is the campus as the the important means to this end is the campus as the student understands it and uses it on a daily basis.student understands it and uses it on a daily basis.
The Columbia campus has The Columbia campus has Grant Park as its front yardGrant Park as its front yard, a
great urban green space. The front door of Columbia urban green space. The front door of Columbia
College Chicago will remain the historic 600 South College Chicago will remain the historic 600 South
Michigan building. Considered the Administrative Hub Michigan building. Considered the Administrative Hub
of the campus, of the campus, 600 South Michigan is an impressive 600 South Michigan is an impressive welcome for prospective students and will provide welcome for prospective students and will provide current students with an array of administrative current students with an array of administrative services on the lower three levels of the building.services on the lower three levels of the building.
The Harrison Avenue CTAHarrison Avenue CTA stop is Columbia’s back door stop is Columbia’s back door
– a place where, for thousands of students, their daily – a place where, for thousands of students, their daily
experience begins. The Master Plan enhances the sense experience begins. The Master Plan enhances the sense
that this is a gateway to the campus.that this is a gateway to the campus.
Wabash Avenue is the back yard of the campus. With the Wabash Avenue is the back yard of the campus. With the
changes suggested in the plan, changes suggested in the plan, Wabash will become the Wabash will become the campus’s center of gravitycampus’s center of gravity, establishing functional and , establishing functional and
visual connection from Congress to Roosevelt. visual connection from Congress to Roosevelt.
The hub of the activity along Wabash will be the
new Campus Center at 8th and Wabash. The Campus Center will provide a critical point of exchange, drawing students from all disciplines. It will be the true center of the campus where an
individual’s relationship to the whole can be most
directly felt. It will be a place of collaboration,
encounter and creative interaction.
To the north and to the south, Columbia will
develop centers for studio and performance
activities respectively: the Studio Hub and
Performance Hub. These hubs re-think the campus along lines of artistic critical mass of activity – whether one’s work is shown or is performed.
It is this notion of layering a different organizational scheme across the campus that is intended to promote interaction between students (and faculty) of different departments. The Master Plan rejects isolation and embraces
collaboration, sharing ideas and abilities, in its
approach to providing future facilities.
As the College continues to grow, there are three
things to keep in mind as essential elements of the
student experience. First, the campus is part of the city and not a separate place. The College
will become a greater presence in the South
Loop, but it will never replace the neighborhood.
Second, as the campus becomes more of a home to
students and faculty, with places to live, work and
experience the city, the sense of belonging to a creative community will be enhanced. Third, the
campus will convey the sense that this is both a place to create and a place to present creative work in a collaborative environment.
COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO ADVISORY COMMIT TEEThe Advisor y Committee, formed in the in i t ia l s tages of the
planning process, was open to anyone interested in learning
about and par t ic ipat ing in Columbia’s Master Plan. The
Advisor y Committee held four meet ings which were open to
the ent i re Columbia Col lege Chicago communit y.
Facility Managers
Mary Badger, Theater
Kevin Cassidy, Art & Design
Shannon Epplett, Dance
Jeff Wade, Science Institute
College Council Representatives
Shanita Akintonde
Marcelo Caplan
Staff
Kari Sommers, Alumni Relations
Carol Ann Brown, Student Affairs
Stephanie Conaway, Museum of Contemporary Photography
Lona Livingston, Institutional Advancement
Nick Rabkin, Center for Arts Policy
Mary Oakes, Director of Residential Life
Greg Narlo, Finance
Gigi Posejpal, International Student Affairs
Students / Alumni
Michael Gallo, student
Mark Anderson, student
Jason Taylor, student
Sana Mahmood, student
Vanessa Torres, student
Lauren McLain, student
Bill Cellini, alumnus & trustee
Michael Orlove, alumnus
Arman Ravazi, alumnus
Marci Hughes, alumnus
City and Neighborhood Groups
Alderman Haithcock
Bob McKenna, Chicago Department of Planning and Development
Leslie Gryce Sturino, Historic Printers’ Row Neighbors
Bob O’Neill, Grant Park Advisory Council
Ty Tabing, Chicago Loop Alliance
Louis D’Angelo, Chicago Loop Alliance
Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson, Near South Planning Board
Jeff Key, Greater South Loop Neighbors
Tom Fuechtman, DePaul University
Howard Sulkin, Spertus Institute for Jewish Studies
Board of Trustees
Bob Wislow, Chairman of the Campus Environment Committee
Allen Turner, Chairman
Bill Hood, past Chairman
Madeline Raab
Rick Fizdale
Steve Devick
Deans
Jo Cates, Associate Vice President for Academic Research and Dean of Library
Doreen Bartoni, Media Arts
Cheryl Johnson-Odim, Liberal Arts and Sciences
Leonard Leher, Fine and Performing Arts
Keith Cleveland, Graduate School
Administration
Mark Kelly, Vice President of Student Affairs
Steven Kapelke, Provost / Vice President for Academic Affairs
Sam J. Ross, Vice President for Institutional Advancement
Michael DeSalle, Vice President of Finance and CFO
Paul Chiaravalle, Chief of Staff
Chairs
Bob Thall, Photography
Dick Dunscumb, Music
Bruce Sheridan, Film
Margaret Sullivan, Marketing Communication
Lynn Pena, ASL
Lisa Brock, Liberal Education
Dennis Rich, Arts Entertainment and Media Management
Sheldon Patinkin, Theater
Faculty
Joe Roberts, Arts Entertainment and Media Management
Dominique Cheene, Audio Arts
Jeff Schiff, English
Jeanine Mellinger, Television
Curtis Lawrence, Journalism
Lenore Hervey, Dance Movement Therapy
FRONT AND BACK COVER PHOTOS
BY MICHELE LITVIN
Top Related