The idea of greater density on college campuses almost always meets with opposition. The Latin word “campus” translates into English as “field,” suggesting open green space and unencumbered vistas. The concept of collegiate learning amid nature — rolling lawns, beautiful fall foliage — is ingrained into the American psyche. But a closer look suggests that, strategically applied, density supports, rather than fights, our ideal of a campus.
In the pre-World War II era, American cities and towns were dense by necessity. Things were in proximity to allow easy access by foot. Uses were mixed: One might find residential units above retail stores, light-manufacturing plants side by side with business offices. Colleges followed that paradigm, with easily walkable green spaces surrounded by academic buildings next to dormitories, libraries, and athletics facilities. Both town and gown were, to use the evocative phrase of the architect Robert Venturi, filled with a “messy vitality.” The campus in particular facilitated interaction and lively debate.
After the war, however, dispersal, segregation, and isolation became the watchwords in both city and college planning. Ownership of single-family homes, retail trends, and greater access to the automobile significantly altered the civic landscape. Similarly, campuses began to be dispersed to such an extent that many now look and operate like suburban retail-and-office districts, with isolated buildings, makeshift access drives, large parking lots, graceless and underused walkways, and leftover remnants of open space.
We all need to question our presumptions about density. In the city-planning and urban-design fields, density is usually defined as the ratio of built space to land area, known as the “floor-area ratio.” That denotes the percentage of buildings covering the land or the number of people per unit of land area (typically, per square mile). But although those terms can be used to make comparisons and to record facts about places, they do little by themselves to predict whether one community will be more livable or vibrant than another. A high-rise laboratory building surrounded by a sea of parking spaces may have the same floor-area ratio as Harvard Yard, and yet most people would consider the latter far closer to the American collegiate ideal. The core areas and centers of great campuses often have densities that are equal to, or greater than, what would typically be viewed as “too dense.”
Two pressing issues we hear about on campuses are the lack of community and the desire for meaningful contact among students, faculty members, and administrators. In dense environments there are more chance encounters, more a sense of being part of a far larger whole wherein the arts and sciences mingle. Academic research thrives in such serendipitous environments. Close proximity among the visual and performing arts can facilitate a vibrant cross-pollination. The campus itself can act as muse, as a facilitator of the exchange of ideas that is the essence of academic life.
In addition, empirical evidence suggests that denser campuses can even be more conducive to learning. In a survey by the University of Maryland in 2000, three-fourths of the students described adverse impacts from an insufficiently compact campus. The problems they identified included classroom disruptions — with some students forced to arrive late to class or leave early — and the unwillingness of other students to attend class at all.
Greater density not only enhances community and learning, but it provides other benefits as well. For example, on campuses with sufficient land, it is often more environmentally sound to build up the core area densely rather than spread structures out over all of the available space — thus preserving the land for future opportunities and limiting initial development costs. In addition, although some facilities administrators believe that they are keeping options open by spreading out campus development, the opposite is true. More future choices for development are available, at less cost, for unbuilt land than for land already occupied by scattered buildings, roads, and parking lots.
More density can also increase energy efficiency. Buildings placed close together can create microclimates that conserve energy. They can provide adjacent shade and protection from the hot summer sun, thus cooling both interior and exterior environments. In the winter, those same buildings can store and capture warmth or shield people from icy winds.
At the same time, the cost of utilities to support a new building — heating, cooling, water, electricity, telephone and computer wires and cables — can be well over $1,500 per linear foot. That initial expense, as well as the maintenance of such utility systems, can be minimized by placing structures in greater proximity.
Moreover, the denser the campus area, the smaller the percentage of land that is required for roads and parking. The average construction cost of a two-lane street, including street surface, pedestrian walkways, curbs, and lighting, can be $700 to $800 per linear foot, and those roads must be maintained. Placing buildings too far apart also forces people to drive, which often requires additional parking areas, which in turn can cost $3,000 to more than $18,000 per space for above-ground garages.
Last — and of great importance today, given the softening of disciplinary boundaries — flexibility in the academic core is becoming a requirement on more and more campuses. Greater density, by improving the closeness of buildings and departments, helps create that flexibility.
How can colleges determine the most appropriate density for their campuses? In the past decade or so, some colleges have begun to look at floor-area ratios and other measures to evaluate how their space is being used. Although such measures can serve as guidelines, they should be considered along with other approaches to density. Each campus has its own character of space. The attributes of a place that affect the feeling of density include its degree of enclosure or openness, the distances between buildings, the quality and opaqueness of building facades, the size of the open space compared with the heights of buildings around it, the amount of land covered by buildings, and the extent of sunlight and vegetation.
When planning the design and spaces of our campuses, we must stop shying away from density per se and consider all of those aspects. In addition, every college should:
Set guidelines for appropriate density. Colleges should visualize their campus plans in three dimensions, using tools like models and renderings. Some precincts of a campus might be more suitable to high density than others. In response to a commitment to a walking campus or to sustainability — together with the “feel” of a place appropriate to its location, region, and the character of the campus — institutions can start to establish their own standards for floor-area ratios, height, building coverage, and other qualities that will guide development in the future.
Look for opportunities to fill in spaces. Colleges should seek out ways to add buildings within the existing campus framework to enhance proximity, intensity of use, and vitality. Such development should capitalize on the adjacency of existing pedestrian routes and open spaces.
Enhance the heart of the campus. A well-designed campus usually has a special place that is clearly identified as its center. It may provide important functions that draw people to it, or it may be a space of iconic significance readily identifiable as the college’s heart. Colleges should find ways to develop even more uses for those areas. Buildings and open spaces should be restored and well maintained. New structures may be added — yet respectfully.
Repair undefined areas. Institutions should identify the features that work best in favored areas and consider how to apply them in the weaker ones — avoiding copying specific styles but replicating their densities, mixture of uses, and ways of approaching open space.
Create additional campus districts. If a campus takes more than 10 or 15 minutes to walk across, it might be better divided into two or more districts. Each district should have its own distinct identity and central space.
Group buildings appropriately. Colleges should envision major campus programs like recreation, performance, and other student activities as taking place in groups of buildings rather than in single, massive structures. By planning such large uses as if they were small districts of independent but linked buildings, colleges can weave them into the existing fabric of their campuses around courtyards and other spaces.
Balance density with openness. The planning process must reach a balance between an institution’s desire to respect site conditions and preserve green space, beloved vistas, and a sense of openness, on the one hand, and its need for convenient parking, accessibility to academic programs, greater sense of community, increased vitality, and the cost-effective use of resources, on the other.
Campuses can and should serve as models of collegiate excellence, cultural richness, physical benefits, and fiscal common sense. The right amount of density can help them do just that.
Ricardo Dumont is a principal at Sasaki Associates, a multidisciplinary design company. He is an author, with Daniel R. Kenney and Ginger S. Kenney, of Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community Through Campus Design (ACE/Praeger, 2005).
http://chronicle.com Section: Campus Architecture Volume 53, Issue 25, Page B28