When the Oregon State Board of Higher Education approved the Westmoreland property sale in July 2006, there was one stipulation: the University had to design a new housing plan to fit the needs of all students.
“This study is intentionally comprehensive,” said University Planning Associate Christine Thompson. “It is not a study of residence halls (or) graduate housing. That’s the big difference of this study versus other improvements and things that have been done in the past.”
Seven months after the approval, Phase 1 of the Housing Strategic Plan is complete and the Housing Strategic Planning Group is preparing to begin Phase 2.
“No commitments have been made because we’re working to design what the best investment of those dollars will be,” said Frances Dyke, Vice President of Finance and Administration. “We’re in the early stages of making those plans.”
The group hopes to figure out what exactly is the best next step for University students in need of campus housing.
“We hope to identify what are the trends of housing on University campuses and particularly those with our peers and competitors, and how does that relate to what the University of Oregon goals would be with regards to housing,” said Thompson.
And if University Housing wants to remain competitive (and judging by the Housing Strategic Plan’s statement that housing should be used as a student recruiting tool, it does), identification of those trends is critical.
All-inclusive lifestyle housing has become a big draw for potential college students.
The Chronicle of Higher Education last week ran a feature on the new, innovative residence halls at Universities all over the nation. These buildings are becoming more than just a place for students to live: They are becoming a lifestyle of their own.
The feature included a story about the Living-Learning Center, whose designers took a new residential approach in “creating a student culture of learning and scholarship,” according to the planning committee.
Now, the Campus Planning Committee faces the pressure of living up to the expectations set by the success of the LLC. The University’s unprecedented residence hall set a new standard for University housing.
“It was always our intention from the time that planning started with the LLC that we would want to improve all of our housing stock,” said Housing Director Mike Eyster. “We recognized that it was old and even though it was ahead of its time at the time it was built, our students have changed a lot since the 1960s.”
As in the case of the LLC, the housing development is designed to meet certain objectives, but this time they don’t focus on student-faculty interaction.
“Our goal is to create residence investments that match the needs of the University given our enrollment goals for the mix of undergraduate and graduate students, resident and non-resident students, and any of those other parameters you can imagine,” Dyke said.
Eyster noted the movement toward “modernized residence facilities.” He said the department is striving to create residence facilities that bring educational value to the students living on campus. Those facilities would be based on ideas shared by many Universities across the nation.
“The trend that I see is for campuses to realize that it’s critical for those residence halls to be more than just a place for students to sleep and eat,” said Eyster. “They should be an integral part of the academic experience.”
The planning group will most likely keep that trend in mind while doing its job.
During Phase 1, the group formed by Provost Linda Brady worked to identify objectives for the new housing development. The research is meant to guide longer-term housing actions.
The Housing Strategic Planning Group is led by co-chairmen Chris Ramey and Dennis Howard. Members Carole Daly, Mike Eyster and Laura Hubbard make up the remaining membership. The group is under Brady’s direction.
Phase 2 will provide recommendations for a 10-year housing facilities plan based on the housing objectives identified in Phase 1. Thompson said Phase 2 will consist of committee members questioning their goals, resources and recommendations.
Now that Phase 1 is finished and the committee made the intended identifications, Phase 2 is set to begin. Brady expanded the committee, involving constituents and community members who “will design what we need to do with regards to residence living situations in the campus,” Dyke said.
The design will be built around the objectives identified in Phase 1.
“The provost is expecting to accomplish a plan for the investment in renovation and new construction that will best meet the academic and strategic goal over the next several decades,” said Dyke.
The housing trend seems to be moving toward an integrative living situation in which academics and University residents are intertwined. Eyster said he wants the new housing to enhance students’ academics while they’re on campus.
Similarly, Dyke said the development will “strengthen aspects of campus that make it more than a residence place for students.”
Dyke said the final plans will be presented to the State Board in August or September, and will be formed of the findings from Phases 1 and 2.
A public Campus Planning Committee meeting will take place tomorrow from 2 to 3:30 p.m. in the Johnson Hall Conference Room. The agenda consists of a Housing Strategic Planning Group comment and a site selection process discussion. Thompson said the Campus Planning Committee will be updated and provide feedback on both phases.
Contact the higher education reporter at [email protected]