Advertisement

URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 363–381 | Cite as

Master-planning the American campus: goals, actions, and design strategies

  • Amir H. Hajrasouliha
Original Article

Abstract

This research identified common goals, actions, and design strategies of university campus master plans in the USA, by analyzing 50 randomly selected master plans. Four design strategies were distilled, based on the top goals and actions: transition from (1) a deficient campus to a complete campus, (2) an isolated campus to a contextual campus, (3) a fragmented campus to a cohesive campus, and (4) a brown campus to an ecological campus. In addition, seven campus form dimensions were distilled: (1) land use organization (arrangement of space and facilities), (2) compactness, (3) connectivity, (4) spatial configuration, (6) campus living, (7) greenness, and (8) context. These seven dimensions can provide a theoretical framework for analyzing campus form and guide future empirical research in this area.

Keywords

campus masterplan content analysis learning environment design strategy 

References

  1. Banning, J.H. (1993) The pedestrian’s visual experience on campus: Informal learning of cultural messages. The Campus Ecologist 11(1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  2. Banning, J., and Bartels, S. (1993) A taxonomy for physical artifacts: Understanding campus multiculturalism. The Campus Ecologist 11(3): 2–3.Google Scholar
  3. Beyer Blinder Belle Architects and Planners. (2008) Princeton campus plan, the next 10 years and beyond. Retrieved from http://campusplan.princeton.edu/sites/campusplan.
  4. Boyer, E.L. (1987) College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York, NY: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, S.M. (2009) Harlem vs. Columbia University: Black student power in the late 1960s. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, M.P. (2006) American places: In search of the twenty-first century campus. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  7. Coulson, J., Roberts, P., and Taylor, I. (2010) University planning and architecture: The search for perfection. Westport: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Coulson, J., Roberts, P., and Taylor, I. (2014) University trends: Contemporary campus design. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, B.E., and Orehovec, E. (2007) Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a residential college. The Review of Higher Education 30(4): 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dober, R.P. (1996) Campus planning. Chem: ReinholdGoogle Scholar
  11. Etienne, H.F. (2012) Pushing back the gates: Neighborhood perspectives on university-driven revitalization in West Philadelphia (p. 170). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gilderbloom, J.I., and Mullins, R.L. (2005) Promise and betrayal: universities and the battle for sustainable urban neighborhoods. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  13. Griffith, J.C. (1994) Open space preservation: An imperative for quality campus environments. The Journal of Higher Education 65: 645–669.Google Scholar
  14. Haar, S. (2011) The city as campus: Urbanism and higher education in Chicago. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hajrasouliha, A. (2017) Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning 158: 166–176.Google Scholar
  16. Hajrasouliha, A.H., and Ewing, R. (2016) Campus does matter: The relationship of student retention and degree attainment to campus design. Planning for Higher Education 44(3): 30.Google Scholar
  17. Jessup-Anger, J.E. (2012) Examining how residential college environments inspire the life of the mind. The Review of Higher Education 35(3): 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelbaugh, D. (2003) North Campus, campus planning and architecture (pp. 18–22). Michigan: Portico, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  19. Kenney, D.R., Dumont, R., and Kenney, G.S. (2005) Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  20. Lafer, G. (2003) Land and labor in the post-industrial university town: Remaking social geography. Political Geography 22(1): 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Long, L.D. (2014) Does it matter where college students live? Differences in satisfaction and outcomes as a function of students’ living arrangement and gender. The Journal of College and University Student Housing 40(2): 66–85.Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, W.J., and Vest, C.M. (2007) Imagining MIT: designing a campus for the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pope, R.L., Reynolds, A.L., and Mueller, J.A. (2014) Creating multicultural change on campus. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Scheer, B.C. (2010) The evolution of urban form: Typology for planners and architects. American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  25. Schuetz, P. (2005) UCLA community college review: Campus environment: A missing link in studies of community college attrition. Community College Review 32(4), 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinmetz, C.A. (2009) Universities as place: An intergenerational perspective on the experience of Australian university students (Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia 2009).Google Scholar
  27. Stern, R.A. (1986) The campus: A place apart. Films for the Humanities.Google Scholar
  28. Strange, C.C., and Banning, J.H. (2001) Education by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  29. Temple, P. (2008) Learning spaces in higher education: an under‐researched topic. London Review of Education 6(3): 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thelin, J.R., and Yankovich, J. (1987) Bricks and mortar: Architecture and the study of higher education. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research 3: 57–83.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, P.V. (1984) Campus: An American planning tradition. New York: Architectural History Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations