CAMPUS PLANNING - Roger Williams University

2002-2003 RWU Presidential Fellowship Report: Campus Planning
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