�鶹��ý

Spring 2001 update

Table of contents

• Introduction and summary
• Key issues and constraints
• Primary goals
• Fundamental concepts
• Implementing and institutionalizing

The �鶹��ý Master Plan, at the initiation of President Elson Floyd in 1999, was developed under the leadership of Mr. Robert Beam, vice president for business and finance; the Department of Campus Planning, Ms. Evie Asken, director; and the Campus Planning Council of the Faculty Senate (renamed Campus Planning and Finance Council, fall 2000). The Campus Planning and Finance Council reviewed and accepted the final draft of the plan in October 2000. It was presented to, and accepted by, the Faculty Senate in November 2000. The Master Plan was accepted by the �鶹��ý Board of Trustees in December 2000.

One of the first actions to result from the discussions and recommendations of the master plan was to rename the South Campus as the Oakland Drive Campus, and to designate the Lee Baker Farm property, the site of the new College of Engineering building and the Business, Technology and Research Park, as the Parkview Campus. The summary and technical reports for the master plan will reflect these changes, as will all future University documents.

I. Introduction and summary

In the fall of 1999 President Elson Floyd charged Vice President Beam to initiate a process to develop a master plan for the physical development of the �鶹��ý campus. Master planning consultants SmithGroup JJR of Ann Arbor, Michigan, were contracted to provide the master planning services for the University. The organization, process and schedule were determined in discussions between the consultants, Mr. Beam, Evie Asken, Director of Campus Planning, and the Campus Planning Council (of the Faculty Senate).

Campus Planning Council members and the Department of Campus Planning staff formed the core of the master planning process. The master plan became the top agenda item for the Council for the duration of the process. Regular council meetings were suspended in lieu of the master plan workshops and meetings.

Three focus groups were established to address and represent West Campus (all areas of Main Campus west of Stadium Dr.), East Campus (those areas east of Stadium Drive and north of Oliver Street, including historic East Campus buildings) and Oakland Drive (South) Campus (those areas east of Stadium Drive, south of Oliver Street, north of Howard Street and west of Oakland Drive). All outlying University properties, non-contiguous with Main Campus, including the Parkview Campus, were not included in the scope of the master planning process. Individual master plans for development would be generated for each of these areas as needed. The focus groups' memberships were balanced to represent all the campus constituencies. Each contained at least two members of the Campus Planning Council (two of the groups were chaired by a member), and representatives from non-planning WMU staff and faculty, the American Association of University Professors, �鶹��ýs, the Department of Campus Planning and the community. The Advisory and Policy Committee, which reviewed and set direction for the process, included a member of WMU's Board of Trustees and representatives from the city of Kalamazoo. A complete list of participants is found in both the Technical and Summary Reports.

The master planning process relied on four methods of receiving, sharing, discussing and evaluating information. There was constant interaction between SmithGroup JJR and the Department of Campus Planning, which provided all information and support needed by the consultants to conduct the process. The regular, formal visits to campus involved meeting with established focus groups and committees, conducting interviews with individual and special interest groups, and holding open-campus and open-community meetings. A website, www.wmich.edu/masterplan, was developed to display current planning materials and analysis, meeting and schedule information and other general information related to the master planning process. The web was also used to send preview materials to the members of the focus groups and the Advisory and Policy Committee. Articles about the plan and campus visit information were distributed regularly to various media on and off campus, and the Bernhard Center Dining Room bulletin board contained the latest plans and information relating to the master planning process.

The master planning process was formally organized around a series of nine “campus visits”, conducted by the SmithGroup JJR consultants, which occurred between February 1999 and March 2000. Each visit built in layers upon the information received in the previous visit. In the early visits time was spent with broad topics and regional issues. Each successive visit dealt with more detail and specific campus issues. The website contains a timeline of the campus visits, and illustrations of the materials presented at each visit.

The last campus visit occurred in March 2000. Over the next several months, the SmithGroup JJR team assembled the final materials of the master plan, including a summary report and a comprehensive technical report. The final version of the master plan was presented to the Board of Trustees at the December 2000 board meeting. The completed documents were published in 2001.

While only specifically addressing the WMU Main Campus in Kalamazoo, Michigan, it should be understood that these guidelines for physical organization and development are relevant to any University property. In addition, a master plan for the new Parkview Campus was completed in the summer of 2000.

back to top

II. Key issues and constraints

The physical condition of the grounds, buildings and facilities at �鶹��ý changes continuously, both in planned and unplanned ways. A physical master planning process enables planned change that accomplishes the University's goals and missions, and minimizes the amount and the impact of unplanned changes.

The following WMU campus issues were cited as critical to establishing the framework for planned change. Discussion of these issues during the master planning process led to the development of the goals and fundamental concepts:

1. Building stock dating from the 1960's and before.
2. Changing academic and �鶹��ý mix; increased diversity.
3. Increased dependence on automobile.
4. Relocation of programs to new campuses.
5. Railroad line and major roadway bisecting cause.
6. Neighborhood relationships.
7. Athletics facilities locations.
8. WMU identity—diluted by previous growth.
9. Wayfinding and circulation (pedestrian and vehicular) problematic.
10. Changing, often stricter, code requirement.
11. Changing housing needs.
12. Changing technology.
13. All season usability.
14. All-campus accessibility and Americans with Disabilities Act code compliance.
15. Inefficient road system.
16. Inadequate transit and non-motorized systems.

back to top

III. Primary goals

The following goals, developed as a result of the Master Planning Process, are intended to guide future campus development:

• Create a "sense of place": identify, emphasize, renew and build on the special features that constitute the spaces of the �鶹��ý campus.
• Develop academic "communities": develop a unified campus with viable parts. Create West, Oakland Drive, and East Campus "communities".
• Organize the campus zones: assure a people-friendly campus. Simplify the campus into zones that are easily identifiable, accessible and manageable for pedestrians and vehicles.
• Plan a four season campus: aim for a friendly, year-round campus that imparts a different vital spirit with each season change.
• Develop the campus edges: design the campus edges to be physically identifiable yet friendly and sensitive to the urban fabric. Make the campus “front door” a positive experience.
• Think ahead: plan for and protect future development �鶹��ý, responding to the demands and changes faced by educational institutions in the 21st century.

back to top

IV. Fundamental concepts

• Protect the Valleys: preserve and promote the Goldsworth and Arcadia Valleys. Enhance natural features and restrict building development.
• Develop campus edges and entrances: the University is to be easily identifiable. Develop/plan visually significant campus approaches, arrival areas, entries and edges.
• Create campus activity hubs: create activity hubs for the campus community, centrally located and visually distinct, with core open space, facilities and amenities to attract �鶹��ýs and visitors.
• Connect the campuses: maintain and enhance visual and physical connections between campuses. Improve circulation and accessibility. Protect potential connection points between campus areas.
• Develop districts: identify and develop districts that reflect a distinct identity or character, share a common function, or are self-contained in some way. Buildings are to relate to one another, both physically and through common or related functions. Maintain building massing, patterns or grids, density, height, and aesthetic values that are appropriate to each district.
• Preserve open space: plan future development to optimize use of space and preserve open space.
• Distribute housing: distribute housing throughout the campuses. Serve a variety of housing needs and markets.
• Ensure wayfinding and accessibility: create friendlier campus with upgraded signage, informational kiosks, and improved vehicle and pedestrian circulation, particularly at entrances and approaches to University. Plan compliance with ADA accessibility guidelines, and four season access to all campus areas.
• Distribute parking: distribute parking around campus perimeter to be easily accessible from main roads and near principle centers of use. Plan transit interface and pedestrian routes to destinations.
• Plan alternate forms of transportation: plan safe and efficient mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation on-campus.

back to top

V. Implementing and institutionalizing the master plan

The endurance and success of the �鶹��ý Master Plan depends on its continued review and interpretation within the University's planning, development and governance processes. The master plan is to be implemented by the administration which is obligated to involve faculty and �鶹��ýs through regular and ongoing consultation with the Campus Planning and Finance Council.

back to top