CAMPUS PLANNING - Roger Williams University

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: 

CAMPUS PLANNING 

by Edgar Adams 

Associate Professor 

School of Architecture, Art 

& Historic Preservation 

Spring 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio 

Daniel J Alexander 

Maryellen Anderson 

Timothy Bailey 

Daniel Braca 

Meghan Brennen 

Timothy Brennan 

Kyle Harrison 

Rich Krenzer 

Talal Mahmeed 

Christopher Nardi

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning 

Table of Contents 

Preface: 

Acknowledgements 3 

Introduction: 

Why is Campus Planning Important 4 

Managing Growth vs. 5 

Planning for Excellence 

The Master Planning Process: 

Major Steps 

1. The Vision 

• Mission 6 

• History/Identity 7 

• Institutional Mission/ 8 

Physical Form 

2. The Team 

• The Master Planning 9 

Committee 

• The Professional Team 10 

3. The Process 

• Institutional Planning 11 

• Facilities Planning 11 

4. The Agenda 

• Principles/Values 12 

• Objectives 13 

5. The Plan 

• Analysis 14 

• Design 14 

6. Implementation 15 

7. Conservation / Stewardship 16 

Table of Contents 

The 2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio: 

Existing Conditions / Site Analysis: 18 

Summary 30 

Research / Benchmarking 

(see presentation on enclosed CD) 

Interim Proposals 34 

Scheme A 35 

Scheme B-1 37 

Scheme B-2 39 

Final Planning Strategies 41 

Scheme A 43 

Scheme B 46 

Precinct Plans 49 

Concluding Recommendations 56 

Appendix A: Aerial Photographs 57 

Appendix B: Previous Plans 62 

Bibliography 65 

1


Preface 

“The delicate thing about the university is 

that it has a mixed character, that it is 

suspended between its position in the 

external world, with all its corruption and 

evils and cruelties, and the splendid world 

of our imagination.” Richard Hofstadter, Columbia 

University 

This document is a product of a yearlong RWU Presidential 

Fellowship, established by Roy J. Nirschel to involve 

faculty in the advancement of key initiatives embodied, 

either explicitly or implicitly, in the university’s ongoing 

strategic planning process. It was indeed an honor to be 

counted among the initial recipients and am most grateful 

to President Nirschel for this opportunity and for 

establishing a climate that supports and encourages faculty 

initiative and seeks to engage faculty more directly, not 

only in shaping future Roger Williams Alumni; but also in 

shaping the physical and intellectual environment that 

supports us as we do that important work. 

This 2003 RWU Campus Planning Fellowship Report 

arises out of a myriad of unique circumstances that have 

informed this work and establish an essential backdrop for 

the ideas represented herein. The role of a campus 

planning document, however, is to be prospective and not 

to be too rooted in the seemingly inextricable challenges of 

the moment. That said, this document tries to walk a line 

between the particular needs and aspirations of a particular 

university at a particular time in its development; and the 

traditions and forms that have shaped the development of 

this unique form of community in a more general sense. It 

is not an official Master Planning document; however since 

that document is not informed by the level or range of 

design intentions that the campus deserves it should be seen 

as part of larger master planning process. 

I would also like to acknowledge the fact that this effort 

was in many ways the first official acknowledgement of the 

work of many faculty and students who have, over the 

years, attempted to contribute to the shaping of the unique 

environment we steward. This important work has been 

carried out in studios, research seminars, and more recently 

through committees at various levels within the university. 

This is my third studio on campus and my second to look at 

it from a campus planning perspective. I am especially 

indebted to Ulker Copur for her important research and 

analysis of the campus and to Dean Stephen White. Many 

of the ideas represented in this document evolved from the 

work of the Facilities Task Force during the 2002 Strategic 

Planning sessions that Dean White co-chaired. 

This document is a Campus Planning document and does 

not reflect the full scope of a Master Planning document. It 

does not attempt to be comprehensive in scope; however, 

the strategies it employs do aspire to a comprehensive 

reach. This, hopefully, can be most clearly seen in the 

attempt to place this document within the context of a more 

inclusive, more comprehensive and more integrated 

approach to planning for the future needs of the University 

community. In recognition of the importance of the above, 

I have included a summary of the research I conducted into 

2


the Campus Planning process as a means of acknowledging 

the gaps in our efforts to date. In this work I am indebted to 

the pioneering work of Richard Dober, the founder of the 

Society of College and University Planners (SCUP) and a 

recent participant at a symposium at Roger Williams 

University entitled Campus: Mission Identity and Form. 

His writings along with those of Michael Dennis were 

instrumental in framing the overview of the Master 

Planning Process that follows. All of this is in 

acknowledgement the hybrid nature of this document. 

While this clearly mirrors the fact that my own work with 

the Master Planning Committee was divided in two phases, 

it may also be an acknowledgement of the hybrid nature of 

the task itself and of the many different hats worn over the 

last year. The most daunting hat to fill was that of 

Landscape Architect. Here, my students and I were clearly 

out of our element. As a result, my own appreciation of the 

importance of landscape in general and of the work of the 

Landscape Architect in particular, have grown 

immeasurably. 

Joyce Stewart, Steve Terrien, James Tweed, 

David Zlotnick 

2002 - 2003 Master Planning Committee 

Co-chairs: Jeffery Gillooly, Matthew White & 

Stephen White 

Members: Edgar Adams , Allison Chase Padula,, 

Margaret Church, Ulker Copur, Vincent 

Giambertone (alumnus), George Kolb, James 

Noonan, Maryellen Anderson (student member) 

And last but certainly not least: 

2003 RWU Campus Planning Studio 

Instructor: Edgar Adams 

Students: DJ Alexander, Maryellen Anderson, 

Timothy Bailey, Daniel Braca, Timothy Brennan, 

Meghan Brennen, Kyle Harrison, Richard Krenzer, 

Talal Mahmeed, Christopher Nardi 

Acknowledgements: 

In addition to President Nirschel, would particularly like to 

thank the following people for their support and active 

participation in this process: 

2001 RWU Facilities Master Plan Task Force 

Co-chairs: Stephen White, John Stout, John Tameo 

Members: Edgar Adams, Bruce Bowie, Allison 

Chase Padula, Jim Galib, Fred Gould, Robert 

McKenna, Dawn Occhi, Betsy Peck-Learned, 

3


Introduction 

" The building of cities is one of man's greatest 

achievements. The form of his city always has been 

and always will be a pitiless indicator of the state of 

his civilization."..." I contend that human will can 

be exercised effectively on our cities now, so that 

the form that they take will be a true expression of 

the highest aspirations of our civilization." 

Edmund Bacon 

Campuses, like cities, tell us much about our collective 

values and are, like cities, powerful symbols of our highest 

aspirations. Yet they also represent a unique and distinctive 

form of community that is dedicated to higher values 

(higher education). They therefore hold a special place in 

our hearts and minds and are increasingly important 

symbols of our country’s leadership in an increasingly 

knowledge based global culture. 

Why is Campus Planning Important 

SCUP Statement of Principles 

Society of College and University Planners, 1991 

1. A campus is a work of art whose stewardship 

should command the attention and respect of 

successive generations. 

3. Appropriate campus designs define and celebrate an 

institution’s purpose, territory, accomplishments 

and aspirations. 

4. Appropriateness is achieved by addressing and 

resolving the issues of continuity and change in the 

physical elements and forms which generate the 

campus design. 

5. To deny or demean the campus design is to 

diminish the institution’s vitality – symbolically or 

actually. 

6. In support of this statement of principle, each 

institution should undertake an assessment of its 

campus design heritage – identifying those 

buildings and landscapes which are or could be 

essential components in creating or sustaining the 

campus image and the sense of place. 

7. Incorporated in the overall campus plan, the 

assessment should be used to seek and encumber 

funds to conserve, enhance and enlarge the campus 

design legacy – a legacy that legitimizes, facilitates 

and proclaims the institutions existence. 

2. The art is expressed through the melding of 

buildings and landscapes into a physical 

environment called the campus design. 

4


Managing Growth vs. Planning for Excellence 

This plan did not develop in a vacuum. The current 

administration is very focused on establishing more regular 

and more comprehensive planning procedures. The Town 

of Bristol and outside accrediting agencies now require 

long range planning reports as a part of their oversight of 

the University. Many universities have departments of 

institutional research or planning. In spite of an impressive 

record of growth and achievement the University’s 

entrepreneurial approach did not value long-range thinking. 

The Facilities Management Department, as its name 

suggests, is reactive and not proactive and is not equipped 

to deal with the demands now being placed upon it. 

These types of growing pains are to be expected and are 

compounded by the fact that the University now finds itself 

in a unique position. A University with many outstanding 

professional programs and a liberal arts core, it represents a 

distinctive blend which has few precedents. It’s beautiful 

setting also offers unique opportunities and challenges. The 

University can no longer afford to continue to grow simply 

in response to market forces; but must now confront the 

physical limits of its remarkable site. 

All of this requires various modes of planning or research 

at various levels within the University. What is the role of 

satellite campuses, what is the ideal enrollment, what is the 

carrying capacity of the site, what is the impact of graduate 

programs Is Roger Williams a niche player in a larger 

regional or international market or is it a prized local 

resource 

5


The Master Planning Process 

Primary Steps: 

1. Create a Vision 

2. Establish a Team 

3. Establish a Process 

4. Develop a Campus Plan 

5. Implement the Plan 

6. Conserve and Maintain the Vision 

7. Repeat as necessary 

As the outline above indicates I am placing the Campus 

Plan within the context of a larger Master Planning Process 

in order place emphasis on the unique role of the "Plan" as 

something which can give real physical expression to the 

goals and aspirations of the University, something that 

transcends the immediate private concerns of any one body 

and looks at the physical environment in a comprehensive 

way. It links past and future, natural and manmade (nature 

and culture) and offers and clear vision for the future form 

of the institution. I realize that in placing so much 

importance on the plan I am setting rather high 

expectations; but I am doing so with the knowledge that, in 

an ideal sense, the campus plan is but one component of the 

physical design process. There should be precinct plans and 

ultimately individual building site plans. All of these 

inform, elaborate and even modify the "Campus Plan". Yet, 

a good Campus Plan has the power to inspire future 

designers for generations to come. Our plan will reference 

past plans and there will be other plans to overlay this one. 

1. The Vision 

Mission 

“Roger Williams University is a community 

devoted to teaching and learning wherein students 

pursue both personal and intellectual growth. The 

University’s mission is to teach students to think, 

reason, and communicate; to develop expertise in 

their chosen fields of study; to appreciate 

established disciplines and to investigate 

interdisciplinary connection; to experience study 

and life abroad; to value cultural diversity; to 

develop ethical awareness; and to preserve 

intellectual curiosity throughout a lifetime.” 

“Roger Williams University is committed to the 

creation and delivery of distinctive undergraduate 

and graduate programs that involve discovery and 

curiosity and that are characterized by an ethos of 

inquiry and civic responsibility.” 

More recently, Roger Williams University’s President Roy 

J. Nirschel defined the “core values” at the center of the 

University mission as follows: 

6


1. Building a love of learning as an intrinsic value 

2. Preparation for careers and future study 

3. Development of undergraduate research 

opportunities 

4. Service to the community 

5. Creating a global perspective 

6. Nurturing a caring and respectful community 

History / Identity 

Institute 

The University’s roots can be traced back to 1919, when 

Northeastern University School of Commerce and Finance 

opened a branch at the Providence YMCA. The next year, 

Northeastern’s School of Law opened a Providence 

division, offering a LL.B. degree. Northeastern’s presence 

in Providence grew again in 1938, when the University 

opened the Providence Technical Institute, offering a 

certificate program in mechanical engineering. 

After an amicable agreement to separate from Northeastern 

in 1940, the YMCA Board of Directors established the 

Providence Institute of Engineering and Finance. The new 

institute was only in its second year when the outbreak of 

World War II forced its closing for the duration of the war. 

The School reopened in 1945 under a new name: The 

YMCA Institute of Engineering and Finance. Over the next 

five years the Institute grew, serving veterans through both 

the evening division and the newer day division. An 

important milestone was reached in 1948, when the state 

authorized the Institute to grant an Associates Degree. 

Junior College 

As the Institute grew, the need for its separation from the 

YMCA became increasingly apparent, and in February of 

1956, it received a state charter to become a two-year 

degree granting institution under the name of Roger 

Williams Junior College. The new Junior College, the 

states first, began offering liberal arts studies in 1958 and in 

1964 the liberal arts program was established leading to an 

Associate in Arts degree. 

College 

By the early 1960s, the institution, still based at the 

Providence YMCA, was growing rapidly. As a result of 

that growth, and the state’s decision to create its own public 

junior college, the school sought approval to become a 

four-year college. The College acquired 63 acres of 

waterfront land in Bristol from the Fulton family and in 

1969 completed construction of its new campus. The 

Providence campus, 1,000 students strong, continued to 

house the Business and Engineering Technology programs. 

The new Bristol campus offered a full liberal arts program, 

enrolling 1,500 students. In addition, the College offered 

evening programs in both Providence and Bristol. 

University 

Today, full-time day and evening program are offered at 

the Bristol Campus and evening courses and selective day 

courses are offered at the Providence Campus. The College 

of Arts and Sciences and the Schools of Business, 

Engineering, Justice Studies, Law and the School of 

Architecture, Art & Historic Preservation are now housed 

7


on the Bristol Campus. With the founding of the School of 

Law in 1993 the College became a University. Graduate 

programs are now being offered in Architecture, and 

Justice Studies with programs in Education and Historic 

Preservation soon to follow. The University is accredited 

by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges 

and has accredited programs in Architecture, Education and 

Law. Rapidly expanding facilities have accompanied the 

impressive growth of the institution, causing ever 

increasing demands to be placed on its unique and sensitive 

site. In its rapid development there have been sporadic 

attempts to produce a Campus Plan. The Plan for the 90’s 

produced two such Plans, but these, and the many isolated 

initiatives which have been undertaken since then, have 

underscored the need for a more comprehensive and 

integrated approach to managing the special resources and 

the unique site which distinguish the University and have 

been instrumental in its rise to prominence. 

Source: Institutional Master Plan 

Institutional Mission / Physical Form 

The historical survey above tells a remarkable story; 

however in that story are also the seeds of an ongoing 

struggle to come to grips with the current identity and 

future goals and aspirations of the institution. These are 

perhaps best summarized in the following key goal and 

value: 

• Goal: “To become the premier liberal arts university 

in the region.” 

• Core Value: “to create an ethos of inquiry and civic 

responsibility” 

The aspirations and values above are worthy to be sure; 

however the history of the institution suggests that the 

hoped for transformation is neither complete or even a 

natural consequence of the current trajectory of the 

University. How do you go from being a niche player to 

being a premier liberal arts university, not to mention the 

premier liberal arts university in a region which contains 

several of the world’s best institutions of higher learning 

The answer to the above question is important in framing 

the more immediate goals and initiatives of the institution. 

One of the most challenging aspects of the hoped for 

transformation is the fact that the institution still “feels” 

like a Junior College. This is a direct consequence of 

history above and the way that this history has been 

manifested in the built environment we call the Campus. 

This poses unique challenges for the continued growth and 

development of the Campus and should be viewed as an 

integral aspect of achieving the core mission of the 

University as it emerges through the ongoing Institutional 

Planning Process. This linkage of Institutional Mission and 

Planning with the Physical Form of the Campus must be 

consciously maintained if the aspirations of the institution 

are to be realized. This is what distinguishes University 

Campuses and gives them the unique place that they hold in 

American society – the ability to embody that which is 

most cherished in our aspirations as a people. 

8


2. The Team 

The Master Planning Committee 

The existence of an inclusive “Design Authority” is seen as 

critical to the development and implementation of a 

successful Campus Plan. In 2002 President Nirschel took 

the important step of establishing such a body in the 

structuring of the university Master Planning Committee. 

This committee includes senior administrators, alumni, 

faculty, academic deans and students. The committee is 

chaired by the Executive Assistant to the President along 

with the Director of Facilities Management and the Dean of 

the School of Architecture. This committee serves the 

important role of balancing the competing interests of the 

various university constituencies and acting as a 

representative forum for the discussion of issues related to 

the facilities and space needs of the campus community. In 

some cases this type of committee includes representation 

from the Board of Trustees, such as the chair of the Board’s 

own Facilities Committee if such a committee exists. The 

following mission / objectives of the Roger Williams 

University Master Planning Committee were developed 

during the Fall of 2002: 

• To link Campus Planning and Facilities initiatives 

to the core values and mission of the University. 

• To link Physical Planning and Institutional 

Planning. 

of issues related to the facilities and space needs of 

the campus community. 

• To foster a comprehensive, integrated and 

environmentally sensitive approach to campus and 

facilities planning and development. 

• To advise the administration on the development of 

guidelines and principles that will provide greater 

continuity and will shape the future development of 

the Campus. 

• To advise the administration and provide input to 

professionals and consultants during the 

development and review of campus planning 

proposals, landscape proposals, precinct plans and 

individual building proposals. 

• To provide the institution with a sense of place 

which reinforces its mission, goals and identity and 

which celebrates community and the beauty of its 

natural setting. 

• To provide safe and supportive facilities for all 

members of the campus community and for all 

university sites “on campus” or off. 

• To foster interaction and dialogue with the 

surrounding community on issues of interest and 

opportunities of mutual benefit. 

• To act as a representative forum for the discussion 

9


The Professional Team 

The list of consultants involved in a given Master Planning 

process can be many and varied. To date the university has 

relied on a rather limited group of such consultants in 

planning for and implementing facilities initiatives. 

Primary among these omissions is the absence, in the 

history of the University, of a dedicated Campus Planning 

effort. Such efforts have been limited to supporting specific 

building initiatives or have been completed by Architects 

whose primary focus is on the provision of architectural 

services. This over reliance on a specific entity from a 

specific field (regardless of the range of services provided) 

can inhibit the kind of integrated and comprehensive 

thinking required in the consideration of the complexities 

of the Campus environment. At the same time, isolated and 

uncoordinated consultants, left to their own devices, can be 

equally ineffective. 

This brings us back to the importance of a coordinating 

entity on the professional side as well as on the university 

side. On the University side, this entity could be a Director 

of Planning, a Campus Architect, or could be drawn from 

the membership of a Committee such as the current Master 

Planning Committee. Ultimately the Master Planning 

Committee can provide a vital forum and can ensure a 

representative and comprehensive grasp of the issues 

involved and in the formulation of standards and guidelines 

that aid professionals in the development of proposals that 

will be in step with the larger goals and aspirations of the 

University. 

It is also critical that a representative professional team be 

brought on as early as possible. Recent building projects on 

campus have suffered from the lack of a strong and 

consistent attention to the importance of the landscape. The 

landscape is the glue that holds a Campus together and 

should be treated as an integral aspect of any building 

project regardless of the scale. The original Campus, in 

spite of its dated architectural expression, shows a strong 

integration of building and landscape that is lacking in 

current undertakings. The professional team may include 

representatives from any of the following, including 

various specializations within the listed fields: 

• Facilities Planning / Space Planning 

• Traffic Planning / Parking 

• Campus Planning (often integrating the fields of 

Planning, Landscape Architecture and Architecture) 

• Landscape Architecture 

• Architecture 

• Public Art 

• Interior Design 

3. The Process 

Institutional Planning 

An institutional vision is of obvious importance to the 

success of any Master planning process. The linkage of this 

vision to Facilities or Campus Planning is not automatic or 

linear. There needs to be a clear feedback loop, an iterative 

process that allows for the one to influence the other and 

10


vice-a-versa. This is where the central role of the Master 

Planning Committee (and its corollary on the Board) are so 

important. It is also interesting to note the increasing 

number of Departments of Institutional Research on 

campuses in this light. 

Facilities Planning 

Inventory / Assessment 

In order to understand the current status of facilities and 

their usage on campus it is often helpful to conduct a 

regular inventory and assessment of these facilities. This 

could include the following types of assessment: 

• Quantitative / Qualitative Assessment 

• Accreditation Standards 

• Maintenance Needs 

• Energy Efficiency 

• Suitability to current use 

• Utilization / Scheduling Efficiency 

• Code Compliance, ADA, BCOA, DEM, etc. 

• Inter - Departmental Comparisons 

• Peer Comparison 

Future Needs 

In order the understand the future facilities needs it is 

important to have access to various types of information 

linked to the Strategic Planning initiatives of the university 

and to the research which supports those efforts. This can 

include the following: 

• Trends w/in Universities 

• Departmental / Discipline specific Trends 

• Financial Constraints / Opportunities 

• Enrollment Projections 

• Faculty / Staff Needs 

• Program Development / Retrenchment 

• Impact of Technological Advances / Change 

• Environmental Impacts 

4. The Agenda 

It is important here to acknowledge that rarely are such 

processes strictly linear. However, the task of establishing a 

clear and quantifiable set of goals or agenda for the 

Campus Plan is essential for the success of that Plan. It is 

equally important to recognize that these parameters 

frequently change and that the success of a Campus Plan 

should not be tied to an arbitrary existing condition or 

perceived need, which may be subject to change. The task 

of the Agenda may be broadly defined as bringing together 

Institutional Mission / Planning (Vision / Analysis) and 

Facilities Planning (Current inventory / Projected need) and 

may include the following: 

• Identity: guiding Principles and Values 

• Set Priorities, Identify Problems 

• Establish Parameters 

• Identify Constraints 

• Target Opportunities 

• Demographics 

11


Principles / Values 

The 2002 Facilities Task Force clearly linked its objectives 

and recommendations to the Core Values enumerated by 

President Nirschel, in summarizing the University Mission 

Statement as follows: 

RWU Core Value #1: Learning for its own sake as 

an intrinsic value 

• Establish aesthetic and ergonomic guidelines, 

including comprehensive plan based on ideas of 

an established academic core of collegiate 

quadrangles/open spaces and perimeter parking, 

consistent architectural themes, and allocation of 

a percentage of construction costs for public art. 

• Create interior and exterior spaces for formal and 

informal meetings, including multiple study 

spaces, gathering spaces, exhibition spaces, 

auditorium 

• Continue the tradition of the library as the focal 

point of the academic core 

• Take advantage of waterside location—views, 

selected facilities enhancements 

RWU Core Value #2: Preparing students for 

professions and further study 

• Establish and enhance dedicated state-of-the-art 

facilities (labs, courtrooms, studio spaces) 

appropriate to professions and further study 

• Confirm pattern of interdisciplinary main library, 

with selected branch and departmental libraries 

• Establish facilities standards applicable to 

specific educational programs, including 

accreditation guidelines for professional and 

graduate programs. 

RWU Core Value #3: Making Available 

Opportunities to Conduct Research 

• Clarify teaching models in relation to research 

and related space needs 

• Internet access in all classrooms, offices and 

student residences 

• Explore wireless technology 

• Establish comprehensive IT plan inclusive of 

space, staff, training, hardware and software 

lifecycles, Digital Image Lab, and educational 

technology training 

• Establish facilities standards applicable to 

research activities on and off-campus 

RWU Core Value #4: Serving the larger community 

• Enhance or create spaces for gatherings of 

various sizes for non-RWU campus 

• Enhance or create spaces for activities at night 

• Study the possibility of establishing an urban 

campus in Providence 

• Create auditorium for public and special events, 

and conferences in the Campus Center 

12


RWU Core Value #5: Developing a global 

understanding and perspective 

• Establish space for intercultural/spiritual life 

activities 

• Establish comprehensive campuses in 

Providence and in Study Abroad locations 

RWU Core Value #6: Maintaining a caring 

community with respect for each individual 

• Establish housing standards with common areas 

• Establish call boxes throughout the campus 

• Relocate road to establish pedestrian campus 

environment 

• Create an accessible campus—for existing and 

new facilities as well as programs 

• Minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at busy 

intersections. 

• Ergonomic design for offices, residences and 

classroom uses 

• Safe, comfortable, scheduled RWU and public 

transportation between Bay campuses and 

residence locations 

• Facilities for commuter students 

• Spaces for religious services 

• Dining space for faculty and staff (in Campus 

Center) 

• Adjunct office space standards for faculty, and 

for private meetings with students 

Source: 2001 RWU Facilities Master Plan Task Force, Report to 

the RWU Strategic Planning Steering Committee 

Objectives 

These concerns were consolidated in the form of the 

following list of objectives handed down to the Master 

Planning Committee and RWU Campus Planning Studio 

by President Nirchel. This list of priorities may be 

summarized as follows: 

Establish a comprehensive Campus Plan looking at 

building parameters, traffic patterns, ergonomics and 

artistic enhancements. 

• Redesign entry and exits to campus 

• Parking Issues 

• Pedestrian space, walkways, etc. 

• Building of new/renovated Academic Building 

• Building of new/renovated campus 

center/performing arts center 

• Review needs for more housing on Campus 

• Review signage on campus (not addressed) 

• Relocation of Facilities to North Campus 

• Meets needs of Admissions for logical path to 

welcome and inform visitors 

• Look at the utilization of the waterfront 

• Preservation of “brand” views (bridge) and look at 

green space usage 

• Review athletic/wellness field needs and locations 

• Physical improvements to Metro Center consistent 

with the developing mission of the site (not 

addressed) 

• Committee mission, goals and direction 

13


5. The Plan 

Campus Planning 

At the heart of any memorable Campus is a strong sense of 

“place” and of “community”. These are two increasingly 

difficult terms to define in today’s fast paced global 

society; yet, I cannot think of two more important qualities 

for an institution that seeks to create a lasting bond with its 

students. If the student is to “identify” with the University 

then it is important that the intellectual, social and physical 

landscapes they encounter are each crucial components of a 

larger sense of community and place. The memories they 

take away from their brief time with us will last a lifetime. 

These memories can run the gamut from bad food to good 

friends. Creating memorable spaces and instilling a sense 

of pride in what they have accomplished are critical 

measures of any institution of higher learning. Cheap and 

impersonal buildings or environments alienate students and 

undermine the proclaimed values of the institution. 

Analysis 

Understanding seemingly intangible aspects of our built 

environment like “Place” requires careful analysis and a 

comprehensive approach. We know a memorable place 

when we see it; but how do we create, complement or 

maintain one A range of analytical tools are needed. Many 

of these forms of analysis were conducted for the CEIS and 

are not included in this document. The Following forms of 

analysis are fundamental to understanding the complexities 

of the Campus environment: 

• Environmental Analysis (CEIS) 

• Figure Ground 

• Campus Growth 

• Circulation: Pedestrian/Vehicular 

• Land Use 

• Design Constraints: Natural / Legal 

• Spatial Structure 

• Open Space / Green Space 

• Views 

• Topography 

• Axis / Grids 

Design 

In this case the design of the Campus Plan was undertaken 

within the context of an Architectural Design Studio. This 

posed some unique challenges and many opportunities for 

learning and growth. While many students had participated 

in studios that used sites on Campus, this was the first 

where the campus itself was the object of the investigation. 

In addition to the jump in scale, students were also faced 

with the challenge of inverting their modus operandi. 

Rather than working from the inside out, from the 

individual to the collective they were forced to look at the 

space between – the spatial structure of the campus. This 

required that they work with a new language with its own 

vocabulary and syntax. The prototypical process is outlined 

below: 

14


• Identify / Test Strategies 

• Develop Alternatives 

• Choose Direction 

• Develop Final Plan 

• Develop Guidelines 

In order to assist in this process, a number of exercises 

where undertaken which allowed the students to explore the 

entire range of scalar relationships. We started with a series 

of loose collage exercises that allowed the students to gain 

an intuitive understanding of the structure of the campus. 

The strategies that emerged where tested and developed at 

a schematic level. Thirty studies were reduced to three 

basic strategies with variations. Precinct plans were then 

developed to test strategies and explore alternatives at a 

scale between that of the individual building and that of the 

Campus. These studies then informed the testing, selection 

and development of two final schemes. This movement 

between scales and modes of investigation was critical to 

the development of the final plans. 

institutional memory and values. The particular demands of 

the end users, of facilities or other imbedded interests must 

be in dialogue with the established principles shaping the 

whole. At the most mundane level the implementation 

phase involves the following: 

• Establish project committees (sub-committees) 

• Develop Precinct Plans 

• Review Building and Landscape Design Proposals: 

- Review Programming 

- Design Process: Concepts, Schematic Design, 

Design Development, Final Documentation 

• Manage Costs 

6. Implementation 

Continuity of process allows for continuity of the built 

environment. The Campus should not be viewed as a 

collection of disparate projects, but as “The Project” with a 

series of interdependent pieces, each of which answers to 

the whole. This requires communication and shared 

understanding among the various parties participating in 

the shaping of this larger environment. The “design 

authority” is instrumental in the communication of 

15


7. Conservation / Stewardship 

The cyclical nature of this process is increasingly 

recognized by requirements of governmental and 

accreditation authorities. However, without the 

commitment and participation of all members of the 

campus community it is hard to make the tough choices and 

sacrifices that are often called for in the implementation 

and maintenance of a shared vision. If we say that we value 

something we must be willing to commit the resources and 

energy to make it possible. Sacrifices will only create 

resentment unless the vision is a shared one that is 

communicated consistently and effectively. A 

representative Master Planning Committee serves a vital 

symbolic and real practical function in shaping a shared 

vision, in aiding in the consistency of its implementation 

and in maintaining the continuity of valued assets and 

principles. The stewardship of the Campus environment is 

a task that takes constant vigilance and involves the 

following basic tasks: 

• Identify and maintain key assets 

• Evaluate changing needs 

• Maintain Values / Principles 

16


The 2003 Campus Planning Studio 

Edgar Adams, Instructor 

Daniel J Alexander 

Maryellen Anderson 

Timothy Bailey 

Daniel Braca 

Meghan Brennen 

Timothy Brennan 

Kyle Harrison 

Rich Krenzer 

Talal Mahmeed 

Christopher Nardi 

17


Existing Conditions 

Figure Ground Fig. 1 

Campus Growth Fig. 2 

Building Use Fig. 3 

Circulation: 

Vehicular Fig. 4 

Pedestrian Fig. 5 

Parking Fig. 6 

Views Fig. 7 

Spatial Structure: Stepping Fig. 8 

Green Space Fig. 9 

Topography Fig. 10 

Geometry Fig. 11 

Conclusion 

18


Existing Figure Ground Fig. 1 

19


Fig. 2 

20


Fig. 3 

21


Fig. 4 

22


Fig. 5 

23


Fig. 6 

24


Fig. 7 

25


Fig. 8 

26


Fig. 9 

27


Fig. 10 

Topography 

Drawn by Jason Laterneau 

28


Fig. 11 

29


Existing Conditions 

Fig. 1: Figure Ground 

The figure ground shows the basic structure of the campus 

by highlighting the relationship between the buildings 

(solids) and the spaces (voids). It also allows one to easily 

appreciate the grain of the campus based on reading the 

size, proportions and space between buildings. One can 

also begin to understand issues such as griding, edges, 

clustering and the hierarchy of buildings and spaces. In 

short, the figure ground once decoded gives one the DNA 

of the campus. 

Fig. 2: Campus Growth 

The unique pattern and scale of the original campus 

buildings and spaces can be read in the Campus Growth 

and Figure Ground diagrams. Latter dormitory buildings 

did not follow the grid of the academic structures but 

established a clear dialogue with the topography and 

contour of the shoreline. This pattern was somewhat broken 

by the Bayside dormitories, but was picked up again by the 

Stonewall complex. The scale and footprint of the more 

recent buildings changes dramatically and one can begin to 

appreciate how the parking which once was on the edge of 

the campus, now finds itself in the center as the campus has 

grown to the North. 

Fig. 3: Building Use 

The basic pattern of academic buildings along the crest of 

the peninsula and the dormitories along the water has 

remained intact with the exception of the stonewall 

dormitories which wrap around the southern edge of the 

campus along Ferry Road. Administrative and Public 

buildings are not organized in a clear manner and are 

difficult to locate. 

Fig. 4: Vehicular Circulation 

Vehicular circulation on campus reflects the more relaxed 

attitudes of the 70’s and the more commuter oriented nature 

of the original campus. As the campus has grown and the 

number of both cars and pedestrians have increased, the 

inability of this original vehicular infrastructure to cope has 

become increasingly serious. The main entrance to the 

campus remains the original entrance to Ferrycliff Farm. 

Landscaping and improvements have not kept pace with 

increasing amounts of parking and radically increased 

traffic volumes. 

Fig. 5: Vehicular / Pedestrian Conflicts 

Pedestrian circulation has not been expanded in a manner 

consistent with the quality and integrity of the well 

developed network of pedestrian pathways within the 

existing academic core. As new sources for pedestrian 

traffic have been developed (parking lots) and new 

destinations (buildings) planned there has been no 

comprehensive effort to plan for the increased volumes of 

pedestrian traffic and to mitigate the conflicts between 

pedestrians and vehicles. 

New parking areas are constructed with no consideration 

for how people get from these parking areas to their 

destination (the academic core). People walk in the 

roadways because there are no pedestrian paths or those 

paths are not adequate and do not offer compelling 

30


alternatives. If we want to move parking out of the center 

of the campus we must make the walk from the parking 

areas as pleasant as possible. If we treat pedestrians 

(students, faculty and staff) with respect, that respect will 

be repaid tenfold. 

Fig. 6: Parking 

As the previous diagrams have shown, there is a serious 

need for the proper planning and placement of parking on 

this campus. Parking should be considered integral to the 

planning and placement of buildings and not just an 

afterthought. Buildings are not only destinations for 

vehicles, they can also define pedestrian areas and screen 

out and break up unsightly parking areas. 

Fig. 7: Views 

Views to and from the campus need careful consideration 

in the planning of future development on campus. The 

original campus had panoramic views in all directions. As 

new buildings were added these views were cut-off and the 

spaces between the buildings lost their connection to the 

water. Buildings do not only offer views for their 

inhabitants, but also frame views for others. 

The campus has developed in a linear pattern parallel to the 

slope and to the water. This has prevented the exploitation 

of the slope by placing buildings perpendicular to the water 

and allowing views to penetrate into the heart of the 

campus. By allowing oblique water views from buildings 

perpendicular or at a slight angle to the water there is also 

the potential for lateral views of the coastline or views of 

the bridge to the South and Mount Hope to the North. 

The library tower is also an increasingly important marker 

for the heart of the academic core of the Campus. Views of 

the Library tower can be an effective means of visually 

connecting to outlying areas and orienting visitors. 

Fig. 8: Spatial Structure: Stepping 

The original campus was planned on a grid with buildings 

arranged in an informal stepping manner. This allowed for 

an openness that allowed for the continuity of the existing 

landscape. Since the 90’s there has been an attempt to 

compose more traditional academic quadrangles. This has 

led to a bit of a split identity with some of the original 

building being retrofitted to define a main quadrangle. An 

infill strategy would be a more successful approach to 

solving this problem. In the original campus the 

landscaping was also an integral part of the spatial structure 

of the campus. This orchestration of buildings and 

landscaping working in concert has also been lost in recent 

additions to the campus. 

Fig. 9: Green Space 

The openness of the original farmlands has been 

maintained in the lawn in front of the campus along Old 

Ferry Road and in the stepping and scale of the original 

campus and its buildings, which grow out of the site, using 

local stone and horizontal wood roof overhangs. 

The construction of the recreation center, the addition to the 

architecture building and the proposed student dinning 

facility will significantly transform the openness of the 

original entry sequence. While this openness was primarily 

31


the result of landscaped parking areas, the original farm 

complex is now dwarfed by the recreation center and 

pending additions to the campus. It, is therefore 

increasingly important, as the core of the campus fills in, to 

maintain the openness at the fringes of the campus. 

This pastoral setting is one of the most powerful aspects of 

to the identity of the University as perceived by visitors and 

local residents alike. The north campus represents a unique 

opportunity to extend that identity to the water. The careful 

placement of buildings along the high ground overlooking 

this meadow as it rolls down to the Bay offers a spectacular 

setting for the next phase in the evolution of the University. 

It is not a question of preservation of the existing meadows, 

for their own sake, as much as a question of how to use 

buildings to frame activities and views that will make the 

meadow a vital extension of the Campus, while preserving 

the pastoral sense that is such a magical aspect of this 

region. I this regard, I believe we should aspire to the 

precedent established by our most prominent neighbors, 

Blithewold and Mt. Hope Farm. 

Fig. 10: Topography 

The campus sits on a powerful and dramatic landform – a 

peninsula. A peninsula has a strong directionality and 

campus participates in that directionality in a unique way. 

Route 114 occupies the crest of a ridge that, along with the 

water's edge, are the most prominent features of the site. 

Fig. 11: Grids 

The grid of the original campus conforms to the orientation 

of the original farm plots and the orientation of the grid of 

the town of Bristol dating from colonial times. When Rt. 

136 was connected to the Mt. Hope bridge, that connector 

cut diagonally through this grid roughly parallel to the 

coastline. The former Nike missile silos are at a slight angle 

to 136. The resolution of these grids, their relation to the 

topography and to views represent the key design 

challenges for the northward expansion of the campus. 

Conclusion: 

Roger Williams University enjoys a dramatic natural 

setting. Many people comment on this without a true 

appreciation of what it is that they find so appealing. How 

do we protect or build upon something if we do not know 

what it is What are the unique qualities of the landscape 

that resonate with the general public and how do we design 

buildings that reinforce or support the existing fabric of the 

campus I hope the preceding analysis has offered some 

clues. 

The campus core is expanding and becoming denser at the 

same time. This density is important in building a sense of 

community and creating a strong pedestrian core with a 

variety of outdoor gathering spaces to suit different needs. 

Views from buildings at the fringe of this core should be 

maintained and new building sites should respect existing 

open space corridors, while also exploiting the topography 

to allow for new building sites to take advantage of water 

views while maintaining or framing views from above. 

Inadequate attention to the design and planning of the 

automotive infrastructure on the campus has and will 

continue to be a significant problem unless a major effort is 

32


made to address it. The piecemeal efforts of recent years 

have not helped. A study of parking on other campuses has 

revealed that it is possible to service a pedestrian core 

without resorting to large fields of parking (figs. 12, 13). 

This, coupled with larger remote satellite parking remain 

key strategies, provided that adequate pedestrian 

infrastructure is provided to make the walks from this 

remote facilities pleasing and safe. 

Fig. 12: Johns Hopkins University 

(Source: base maps by Ayers, Saint & Gross) 

Fig. 13: University of Rochester 

33


Research / Benchmarking 

See presentation on enclosed CD 

Design Process 

After studying the preceding analysis, previous strategic 

planning documents and reviewing the President's goals for 

the campus plan, the students started by doing a collage 

exercise which also allowed them to become more 

comfortable working at a larger scale. Because of the 

unique structure of the campus, they were not only given 

other campus plans to draw from, but were also encouraged 

to look at famous gardens in order to understand the 

vocabulary and structure of larger, more "picturesque" 

environments. Each student produced three plans. From 

these thirty plans we distilled them down to 10 and six and 

finally three strategies (with some variations). These we 

also evaluated and combined to come up with two 

distinctive strategies, one with two options. These were 

presented to the Campus Planning Committee at the 

midpoint of the studio semester. 

Common Themes: 

The preceding analysis revealed a number of challenges for 

any Campus Plan. The integrity of the campus core and its 

connection to external parking resources were essential. All 

schemes also pursued a strategy of infill within the campus 

core to preserve valuable open space elsewhere. 

It was also important that cars be removed from the core 

and that this core be clearly connected to the more recently 

acquired land to the North of the campus. The mass of the 

newly expanded Campus Recreation Center was a major 

impediment to this effort; however all plans sought to 

create a north loop to connect the campus core and the 

main entrance to parking resources also to the north. The 

existing loop feeding bayside was seen as inappropriate for 

public traffic (the dorms being a more private usage) as it 

did not take advantage of the views from above the soccer 

field. Conflicts with pedestrian traffic from Bayside were 

also a major concern. 

Scheme A 

Campus Core 

The existing south loop in front of the Student Union is 

abandoned in favor of a northward loop and the access 

from the south becomes two way with a turnaround in front 

of Maple Hall. Additions are proposed to the wings of 

FCAS, the rear of the Engineering building, the 

Administration building, Architecture Library and the 

current Student Union. The Administration would be 

moved to a new building closer to the main entrance and 

would be expanded to include Admissions. The current 

Administration Building would be converted to academic 

usage. Parking would be maintained in front of the new 

Administration Building; but eliminated behind to allow for 

a new quadrangle between this building and Marine and 

Natural Sciences. The Student union would be accessed by 

a limited access "fire lane/service access" in front of 

Marine and Natural Sciences. 

34


Interim Proposals 

Scheme A 

35


North Campus 

Scheme A seeks to preserve the current soccer field near 

bayside by locating the northward loop as close to the 

Recreation Center as possible. This also pulls the access 

road to the Maher Center back toward Rt. 136 freeing up 

additional land to the water side of this important link. 

A new Performing Arts Center serves as a hinge between 

the geometry of the North Campus and the N/S orientation 

of the Campus Core. This building serves as the focal point 

of a reoriented North Entrance and would be easily 

accessible to the public for performances. A reconfigured 

tennis facility separates surface parking to the right of this 

new North entrance from a structured parking facility 

which could use the drop in topography to hid a level of 

parking partially below grade (without ramps) and have 

room for one or two above grade levels. Additional surface 

parking is accommodated to the north. 

The existing classroom facility and Nike Dormitory have 

been incorporated into a new series of dormitory structures 

that build on the language of the Bayside dormitories, while 

also serving as a backdrop to the proposed Performing Arts 

building and anchoring the North Campus. These 

dormitories are carefully modulated to transition from the 

geometry of Bayside to that of the North Campus, while 

maximizing views from within the dormitories, framing 

views between structures and preserving views from 

Recreation Center above. The central portion of the U- 

shaped configuration across from the parking structure 

would be a natural location for a satellite dining facility 

and/or classroom facility. 

Scheme A: Circulation 

Scheme A: Use 

36



Scheme B-1 

37


Scheme B-1 

Campus Core 

The core shows subtle variations in relation to scheme A. 

The most significant departures are the use of two building 

behind the existing Library in lieu of the single U-shaped 

building in the previous scheme. These two buildings work 

with the main library and the Recreation Center to form a 

parking court. By hiding the parking in a courtyard this 

allows a pedestrian mall to extend from the main entrance 

to the main quadrangle. This open space loops around the 

library forming a U-shaped open space sequence free of 

automobile traffic. The Student Union would be serviced 

from behind the M&NS building. 

North Campus 

Both Scheme B alternatives use a sweeping curve to tie into 

the existing alignment of the access road to the Maher 

Center and connect to the main entrance by a roundabout 

that would provide a comfortable drop off point with 

impressive views. Scheme B-1 features an "inboard" 

location for the dormitories on the terrace currently 

occupied by the Bayside Field. This allows us to tie-in the 

existing Bayside dormitories to this sweeping roadway 

through a series of terraced courtyards and walkways 

providing a range of outdoor spaces and views over and 

through the existing buildings. Careful attention was paid 

to respect water views toward M&NS from the fitness 

center. This allows for the north campus to be reserved for 

athletic fields including a parking structure with built-in 

grandstands overlooking a major new soccer/lacrosse venue 

and Mount Hope Bay. 

Scheme B-1: Circulation 

Scheme B-1: Landscape Plan 

38



Scheme B-2 

39


Scheme B-2 

Campus Core 

Scheme B-2 is similar in most respects to B-1, but with 

dormitories along the water. A new configuration for the 

proposed Administration Building at the Main Entrance is 

offered (see additional alternative below) and the parking in 

front of SAAHP reverts to its existing configuration. 

North Campus 

The inboard location for the dormitories is abandoned in 

this alternative for a location below the access to the Maher 

center. This keeps the dormitories lower in elevation 

allowing for views to the water from above. A link building 

is proposed to tie into the geometry of Bayside and the 

main campus. 

Scheme B-2: Landscape Plan 

Alternate Classroom/Admin. Building Configuration 

40


Final Planning Strategy 

Two-pronged Strategy 

The uncertainty regarding the feasibility of moving the 

access road to the Maher Center was such that we did not 

feel we could devote all of our effort to this proposal. 

While the advantages of this scheme are substantial it is 

also clear that there are logistical hurdles to be overcome. 

The current access road cuts through the most desirable 

portion of the site and makes the use of the land to the east 

of it difficult but certainly not impossible. 

Northward Loop 

In order to eliminate pedestrian conflicts in front of the 

current student union, and to minimize or eliminate traffic 

exiting from the main entrance (not a safe condition) both 

schemes make use of a northward loop. This loop allows 

for access to parking to the north and aids in making 

vehicular and pedestrian connections to any new facilities 

to the north. While the expansion to the Recreation Center 

makes such connections difficult, it is also important that 

we not create further pedestrian conflicts in front of the 

Bayside Dormitories. We believe that it is possible to 

maintain the current Bayside field and add a raised 

roadway; however the opportunity for an improved venue 

to the north would be the most prudent as it would allow 

greater flexibility for future growth. Bayside may be an 

attractive (if cramped) setting for games; however, if we 

are ever to make meaningful use of the land to the north of 

the campus core we can not afford to make further 

impediments to its future integration. 

North Campus Studies 

Earlier studies looked at accommodating dormitory space 

while also accommodating the need for improved practice 

fields or a new major venue altogether. In many campuses 

these are combined to illustrate the integral nature of 

athletics with campus life. If we add in parking the problem 

gets more complicated. One campus that incorporates all of 

these elements to great success is Carnegie Melon 

University. Here the Student Center (which includes 

athletics), Dormitories and a Parking Garage (incorporating 

grandstands) are all integrated into one cohesive precinct. 

Carnegie Mellon University Master Plan 

by Michael Dennis & Associates 

41


Preliminary North Campus Alt. (by E. Adams) 

Carnegie Mellon University 

East Campus Dormitories and Garage/Grandstands 

by Michael Dennis & Associates 

Comprehensive & Integrated Planning 

The above study was an early schematic response to 

preliminary discussions within the Master Planning 

Committee regarding the North Campus dormitories. While 

it does not reflect the proposed alterations to the campus 

circulation, it does illustrate the principles of 

comprehensive and integrated planning applied to the 

existing campus infrastructure. A single formal strategy is 

used to accomplish multiple goals. The buildings frame 

views, respond to the geometry and language of 

neighboring structures, guide pedestrian movement, 

organize athletic fields (or structured parking, gray is 

grandstands) and define vehicular movement. 

42


Final Scheme A 

and poorly maintained exterior space between the School of 

Open Space 

Scheme A respects the openness of the existing landscape 

by concentrating development and defining important open 

space corridors. These opens spaces begin at the water's 

edge and are repeat in layers moving up the hill and into the 

campus fabric. The diagram to the right emphasizes their 

relationship to water views; however it is also possible to 

see them as moving parallel to the slope, starting below 

Bayside and above Bayside and M&NS into the heart of 

the Campus. Another layer moves between the Law School 

and Recreation Center, past SAAHP and the 

Administration Building to FCAS. Also crucial is the final 

layer along routes 136 & 114. This "front lawn" to the 

University has become an important part of its identity and 

builds on the important precedents established by the 

Blithewold Estate and Mount Hope Farm. Scheme A takes 

advantage of the relocation of the Access to the Maher 

Center to connect the 

Bayside Field to the North meadow as it rolls down to the 

water. Improved access to the waters edge is also provided 

by a series of more intimate paths and spaces carved out of 

the existing woods (see Precinct Plans). 

Campus Core 

The infill strategy illustrated in earlier schemes is 

continued. In this iteration we explored possible responses 

to the very important site occupied by the Art Building (the 

former cafeteria). This building occupies a rock 

outcropping at a high point for the lower campus with 

impressive views of the bridge. There is an underutilized 

43


Business and the Fine Art building. Various strategies were 

explored for the use of this space and the former cafeteria. 

The Student Union is split to allow a connection to the 

water and an amphitheater oriented toward the water. 

North Campus 

The use of the proposed Performing Arts Center as a pivot 

or hinge allows the North Campus dormitories to rotate off 

to the geometry of Rt. 136. The Performing Arts Center 

picks up the axis of the existing North entrance as well as 

acting as a terminus for the new North entrance, which is 

rotated perpendicular to Rt. 136. The Performing Arts 

Center thus becomes both pivot and anchor to the North 

Campus. As stated earlier in our discussion of open space, 

this is achieved by moving the access road to the Maher 

Center back, which allows for the North Meadow and its 

impressive water views to be connected to the Bayside field 

and the main campus. 

The dormitories are comprised of two open "L's" which 

exploit views to the east and southeast (every suite has a 

water view). Between these two wings is a lower satellite 

dinning pavilion with other common amenities. This is 

complimented by a bar of classrooms and offices that 

conceal a parking structure behind. This could also house 

additional dormitory rooms if required. The parking 

structure is a backdrop to a new tennis complex on one side 

and additional surface parking to the north. Particular 

attention is paid to the pedestrian connections back to the 

main campus. Additional space is also provided for ample 

practice/intramural fields and a softball diamond. 

44


Final Scheme A 

Rendered by Talal Mahmeed 

45


Final Scheme B 

Campus Core 

The precinct plans illustrate the details regarding the 

proposed treatment of the campus core; however the role of 

the reconfigured student union deserves discussion here. 

The desire to connect to the water is expressed quite clearly 

with the building drawing a direct connection from the 

tower of the Main Library to an amphitheater that looks out 

to the water. This building also defines spaces to the north 

and south and allows the space of the main quadrangle to 

connect with the space in front of M&NS. 

There is also an important sequence leading from the north 

parking past the Law school to a newly configured 

pedestrian mall between the SAAHP and a new 

Admin/Classroom building. This sequence continues in a 

stepping fashion past the FCAS to the increasingly 

important path behind the Student Services building. 

Main Entrance 

The proposed Pedestrian Mall also feeds off a reconfigured 

main entrance. This entrance provides greater access to the 

Administration building and new access the parking behind 

it. The drive features a sweeping curve through along the 

lawn in front of the campus that is mirrors the sweeping 

drive connecting to the North Campus. This sweep is also 

picked up in the pedestrian continuation of the North 

Campus link that connects the proposed amphitheater in 

front of the M&NS building to the main quadrangle. 

46


North Campus 

The inboard housing scheme represented in the earlier 

scheme B-2 was explored further; however is not included 

in the final plan (see precinct plans). The use of the current 

alignment of the Maher Center access road keeps current 

pattern of the dormitories along the waters edge. These 

dormitories are arranged in two interrelated pairs of 

buildings. The first pair makes the transition from the 

geometry of Bayside and the second frames a relationship 

to the proposed soccer/lacrosse venue and 

grandstands/parking garage. The Bayside wing of the first 

paring could be dropped to allow more of an opening to the 

north meadow. Both wings of this first pairing could also 

be dropped in favor of a site for a Performing Arts Center 

on either side of the road. 

This first pair of flanking dormitories acts as a gateway to 

the north campus and the north meadow, framing a 

spectacular water view and continuing the series of portals 

framed by the Bayside dormitories. These portals punctuate 

a stepping pedestrian walk linking to a realigned north 

entrance. The playing field would require some regarding; 

however, it would be an impressive setting for an allweather 

venue and exercise track. 

The dormitories, which frame the view from the playing 

field to the meadow beyond, also enjoy oblique water 

views to the east and southeast past the bayside 

dormitories. These dormitories also define intimate 

courtyards and forecourts, providing a variety of social 

spaces. 

47


Final Scheme B 

Rendered by Talal Mahmeed 

48


Precinct Plans 

Main Entrance: 

Timothy Bailey & Christopher Nardi 

The decision to explore the Main Entrance during the 

precinct phase reflects the complexity of the problem and 

the need to address it in more detail. This also allowed 

various strategies to be tested within the Master Planning 

Committee and by outside consultants. While I am not 

convinced that we were able to conduct a conclusive study 

the strategies we did study marked two extremes. 

The first strategy does not attempt major changes to the 

entrance itself, but creates a sense of arrival through the 

creation of a pedestrian mall in the location of a current 

parking lot. This works in concert with the idea of a oneway 

loop circulation to allow the current entrance to remain 

the "ceremonial" main entrance while allowing most 

everyday traffic to use the side entrances. The visitor 

parking area provides a clear connection to the Pedestrian 

Mall, which acts an important organizing spine. 

One-way Entrance w/ Pedestrian Mall and Proposed 

Administration Building 

The second, more radical strategy, involves bringing people 

into the campus earlier, either at a point opposite the 

President's House or at the current turn around for those 

approaching from the North. This offered a chance to 

provide better access to the current Administration 

Building, but was seen as too intrusive to the front lawn. 

Sweeping Approach 

49


Administrative operations would be consolidated into a U- 

shaped building with a portal connecting the proposed 

Pedestrian Mall to a terrace overlooking a newly formed 

quadrangle and the water beyond. We explored using the 

sloping site to maximize water views and to allow for 

parking to be incorporated under the building and its raised 

terrace. 

View from Reconfigured Entry 

View of Pedestrian Crossing at Proposed 

Administration Building 

View of Pedestrian Mall from Recreation Center 

50


Infill within the Campus Core 

Meghan Brennen & Richard Krenzer 

During the 1980's Princeton University explored a unique 

program of infill within their campus core. Land was 

available however the intention was to conserve open space 

and to build upon the density envisioned by early master 

plans that sought to establish a tight knit academic village 

along the lines of Oxford or Cambridge. During the 1960's 

& 70's prominent Architects like I.M. Pei, Phillip Johnson 

and Hugh Stubbins preferred virgin sites on the edge of the 

Campus. During the 80's and early 90's this notion was 

abandoned in favor of a more active engagement with the 

historic fabric of the campus core. A number of strategies 

where employed. New structures were inserted to clarify 

and strengthen the spatial structure of the campus and 

additions were made to existing buildings. Additions did 

not to simply mimic the originals but engaged them in a 

dialogue. Often, new buildings or additions would have to 

act as intermediaries between Buildings from the 1950's 

and 60's which shunned their gothically inspired 

predecessors. 

In order to investigate the potential for infill within the 

Campus Core we took two of the original buildings on 

campus and used different strategies. In adding to the onestory 

portion of the Engineering School, we simply 

extended the language of the original building. In a similar 

addition to the FCAS a dialogue is established to create a 

more prominent destination to mark this important anchor 

to the south end of the campus. 

Engineering School Addition (addition by replication) 

by Meghan Brennen 

FCAS Addition (addition through contrast/dialogue) 

by Richard Krenzer 

51


The Water's Edge 

Daniel J. Braca & DJ Alexander 

Student Union 

The position of the current student union is one of the most 

puzzling aspects of the existing campus. It is a nothing 

building that is at a loss as to how to respond to its 

prominent site. In response the proposed replacement takes 

all of its clues from the site, connecting to the water, 

defining the space in front of Maple Hall and opening up to 

the space in front of MNS and the connection to the North 

Campus. It attempts to guide movement and views rather 

than block them. 

Model View from Water 

Site Plan 

52


Waterfront Paths 

Increasing access to the waters edge should be the focus of 

a specialized study undertaken by a qualified Landscape 

Architect. The clearing and maintenance of any area within 

200' of a costal feature is regulated by the CRMC. The 

guidelines are open to interpretation in some areas; 

however a prudent policy would be to conduct a regular 

review of the plans for any areas within their jurisdiction. 

The clearing of nature trails and underbrush to allow for the 

use of existing open spaces for increased access and views 

could be achieved and maintained with the cooperation of 

participating regulatory agencies. 

The following study is an illustration of the potential for the 

expansion of access to the waters edge. We believe that this 

access can be achieved while protecting the sensitive nature 

of the shoreline. Jogging trails, educational nature walks, 

picnic / study areas and potential space for a boathouse are 

but a few possibilities for this beautiful and untapped 

resource. 

Waterfront Paths 

53


54


Upper Bayside Dormitories 

Maryellen Anderson & Kyle Harrison 

The Bayside field remains an attractive location for 

additional dormitories; however it is also a desirable open 

space. The question becomes whether to advocate a 

compact campus with open space at the perimeter or to 

treat the north campus as a semi-autonomous cluster. In 

wither case the placement of a major sports venue at the 

location of the current Bayside fields would be a major 

impediment to any meaningful connection to this valuable 

part of the campus. A pedestrian fire lane was developed in 

place of the current one-way road, to facilitate a pedestrian 

linkage to the North Campus and avoid vehicular conflicts. 

Pedestrian Fire Lane in front of Bayside. 

by Kyle Harrison 

North Campus 

Timothy Brennan & Talal Mahmeed 

Floor plans were developed for each of the final dormitory 

layouts. Point access suites proved most suitable since they 

would allow of maximum access to views and allow the 

clustering of 4-6 suites. However, corridor access would 

also be possible especially in Scheme B to exploit views of 

the playing fields to the west. Placing the Dormitories on 

the lower elevation 

Dormitories framing view of meadow / water 

by Edgar Adams 

55


Conclusion 

We have attempted to establish a rational basis for understanding 

the complex environment that we encounter as we go about our 

daily routines. We have tried to solve large-scale problems in a 

way that adds to the cohesion and coherence of our communal 

fabric. We have tried to illustrate how the individual work of 

architecture, when guided by a larger idea, need not be an island; 

but can reinforce existing patterns and open up new vistas and 

possibilities for future development. This sense of 

interdependency is tangible in the inner workings of our bodies 

and in the cooperative nature of so much of what we do as an 

institution. A good Campus Plan provides the foundation for 

this to unfold in a tangible fashion that builds on our shared 

values and aspirations and meets the day-to-day needs of the 

university community. 

I would like nothing better than to say that we have reached the 

illusive heights alluded to above; but it is a complex and 

involved process. The current Master Plan document was 

formulated under difficult circumstances; however it has been 

instrumental in establishing a credible basis for future 

negotiations. This Campus Planning Report document has the 

distinct advantage of not being subject to the heat of difficult 

town / gown negotiations. This is an advantage that we can 

regain if we are able to formulate a comprehensive and 

integrated Campus Plan that addresses the legitimate concerns of 

the various constituencies involved and is strong enough to 

weather the next round of negotiations intact. We would like to 

think that this document, in spite of its shortcomings, would be 

an important part of that process as it unfolds. 

Final Review of student work 

56


Appendix A: Aerial Photographs 

Fig. 1 Ferrycliff Farm (pre–Roger Williams University) 

57


Fig. 2 Original Campus (1970's) 

58


Fig. 4 View from North (late 1980's / Pre-Library) 

Fig. 3 View from South (Late 1980's / Pre-Library) 

59


Fig. 5 View from NE (1990's / Post Law School, Pre - M&NS) 

Fig. 6 View from East (1990's / Pre - M&NS) 

60


Fig. 7 View showing addition Bayside Dormitories and M&NS 

61


Appendix B: Previous Plans 

Plan for the 90's Phase II 

62


Plan by Caesar Pelli's Office 1994 

63


Ganteaume & McMullen: Conceptual Master Plan (Sept. 2000) 

64


Bibliography 

Books 

Casebook on Campus Planning and Institutional Development : Ten Institutions, ow They Did It. Compiled by John B. Rork, Leslie F. 

Robbins. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. GPO, 1962. 

Dober, Richard P. Campus Architecture: Building in the Groves of Academe. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996. 

Dober, Richard P. Campus Design. New York: Wiley, 1992. 

Dober Richard P. Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms Features. New York: Wiley. 

Gaines, Thomas A. The Campus as a Work of Art. New York: Praeger, 1991. 

Koetter, Kim & Assoc. place/time. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1997 

Muthesius, Stefan. The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. 

Pearce, Martin. University Builders. New York: Wiley. 

Riera Ojeda, Oscar. Campus & Community: Moore, Rudle & Yudell Architecture and Planning. Rockport MA. Rockport Publishers, 

1997. 

Schmertz, Mildred F. Campus Planning and Design. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972. 

Strange, C. C., J. Banning. Educating by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments the Work. (Bryant, JWU) 

Space Planning Guidelines for Institutions of Higher Education. Columbus, Ohio: Council of Educational Facilities Planners, 

International, 1985. (URI) 

Town of Bristol, Rhode Island. Bristol Rhode Island Zoning Ordinance. Bristol, RI: Bristol Town Council, 1994. Revisions 

through September 2001. 

Turner, Paul Venable. Campus: An American Planning Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985. 

65


Periodical Articles 

Arcidi, Philip. "Inquiry: Campus Infill", Progressive Architecture, (April 1990): 100-107 

Branch, Mark Alden. "Coherence Regained", Progressive Architecture, (October 1991): 90-95. 

Chapman, Perry. “Planning The Future Campus: Opinion,” Architecture, v. 84, no. 2 (Feb. 1995): 53-57. 

Dennis, Michael; "On Campus Planning", Modulus 23, (1995): 109-127 

Markowitz, Frank and Alex Estrella. “Campus Moves: Lively Experiments In Transportation Technology,” Planning, 

v. 68, no. 4 (July 1998):14-18. 

O’Connell, Kim. “Campus Lessons,” Landscape Architecture, v. 89, no. 7 (July 1999): 32-38. 

Stephens, Suzanne. “The American Campus,” Architectural Record, v. 189, n.2 (Feb. 2000): 77-79. 

Web Articles 

Blumenstky, Goldie. "A Campus Planner who Strives to Overcome the "Curse of Asphalt"; http://www.scup.org/chron.htm 

Dennis, Michael. "On Campus Design and Planning"; 

http://www.michaeldennis.com/pages/3rd%20level/text/campus%20design.html 

Morris, Jeff. "Campus Planning: Pulling it Together"; http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfmp=112 

Rivard, Nicole. "No Parking"; http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfmp=98 

Misc. Links 

National Center for Education Statistics; http://nces.ed.gov/ 

Society of College and University Planning; http://www.scup.org/ 

66

CAMPUS PLANNING - Roger Williams University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?