The complexity of campus development was revealed Tuesday afternoon as the Campus Planning Committee met to discuss proposed revisions to the Campus Plan.
The plan is being updated for the first time since 1991, and the Campus Planning Committee’s 12 members spent an hour and a half discussing the proposals, making suggestions for improvements and questioning the review process’s effectiveness.
Some members are concerned the review process ignores the conceptual planning process that project organizers have set in stone before going to the committee.
Architecture professor and committee member G.Z. Brown questioned why the plan concentrates on many small individual projects rather than focusing on the overall development of the University and trying to connect the different “synergies” on campus.
University Planning Associate Christine Thompson said the individual-project focus the plan may seem to incorporate could be a result of the “piece by piece” way in which the campus was constructed.
The 102-page draft campus plan includes a process to examine proposed sites for stand-alone building projects that would include a Campus Planning Committee review.
Committee members questioned the review process, expressing concerns that problems can arise when a project is up for review after it has already gone through a considerable conceptual planning process.
English department graduate secretary Michael Stamm asked whether projects such as the basketball arena University officials are hoping to build on the newly acquired Williams’ Bakery site would be included in the off-campus review process. Committee member Chris Ramey, who is the University Planning director and architect, said it would.
Thompson said after the meeting that because the arena project is already in the planning process, the proposed review process would not retroactively apply to it.
“That project is already started; the question of whether it will be subject to these new requirements is highly unlikely,” Thompson said.
Much discussion centered on the problems that can arise if the committee is only able to review a project after it has already been through the conceptual planning stage and has the backing of powerful donors.
Brown said if the University
is truly interested in planning development at all levels, “it seems to me … we would want the advice of the committee for conceptual projects.”
But Thompson said just because a project has gone through a considerable conceptual process does
not mean alterations cannot be made to the plan.
“We cannot be out there so-called policing,” Thompson said, emphasizing that the review process can be very effective.
Ramey agreed.
“Almost every project I can think of has gone through radical revisions,” Ramey said.
Thompson said it is important
for committee members to remember that the proposed campus plan is only a proposal and is not a
reflection of the quality of the
previous plan.
“What we tried to do is make it very clear,” Thompson said. “It was difficult to understand in the past.”
Thompson said many small details have been removed from the plan in order to make it more efficient, such as details about light fixtures and a section devoted to describing the mandatory setup of a janitor’s closet.
“We’re trying to get the policy aspect out there versus the detail,” Thompson said.
Committee examines proposed plan update
Daily Emerald
February 22, 2005
Campus Planning Committee member and professor of architecture G.Z. Brown expresses his concern that the long range Campus Plan concentrates too much on individual parts rather than the whole.
0
More to Discover