Program Agenda

Much recent literature on architecture has been dedicated to notions of buildings as symbols, as cultural commemorations, and lately as sustainable constructions. There has been little attention to architectural settings as human experiences, as spaces in which we live and work — that is, as constructs that become a part of our emotional material. Professor Hildebrand argues for the importance in our lives of architectural settings that serve, and are informed by, our human preferences and emotions. For if the appeal we find in many settings is innate, then the quality of those settings—our homes, our cities, our university campuses--is no trivial matter; rather it is fundamental to our well-being. Travers Nelson will relate how this principle has been seen in the benefits to Johns Hopkins arising from recent improvements at its Homewood campus.

Learning Outcomes:

1. Review architectural trends in recent literature.
2. Determine ways in which architectural settings should be informed by human preferences and emotions.
3. Recognize the influence that human perception and behavior should have on design.
4. Relate the wellbeing of humans to the built environment.

What were university leaders and their architects thinking when they shaped American campuses in the twentieth century? By exploring a sampling of important campus plans and architecture, professor Margaret Grubiak will show that, in the first half of the twentieth century, university leaders and their architects made a concerted effort to inscribe the university’s mission and ideals on the physical fabric of the campus. Indeed, regardless of the styles of architecture and planning chosen, institutions and their designers strove to make their campuses an extension of the university’s mission. Professor Brian Kelly and architect Adam Gross will show how these histories have meaning today in their presentation of Emory University’s master plan. Emory’s prewar Beaux Arts campus, with its pedestrian orientation and legacy of spatial order and aesthetic unity,  was compromised by postwar modernist architects, who focused on vehicular traffic and functional needs while ignoring vital exterior relationships.  By recounting that history, Kelly and Ayers/Saint/Gross helped Emory rediscover the positive values of its original plan and inject them into its new one.

Learning Outcomes:

1. Review the history of architectural design on campuses in the 20th century, with a particular focus on Emory University.
2. Relate the mission of a campus to its choice in architectural themes.
3. Discuss how the history of a campus' architecture affects campus planning today.
4. Consider how your campus' architecture reflects the mission of your institution.

The university architect—or any architect working on a college campus—has to be parent, psychologist, diplomat, historian, artist, and efficiency expert all at once. Examples from a few different institutions can help you figure out whom to listen to for what—and maybe even help you talk an important player out of a really bad idea.

As planning professionals, we all have our favorite stories about transcendent places deriving from an extraordinary pairing of client and professional. Many of us search for the moment when we can make that kind of difference for the campuses on which we work, but we're challenged with any number of obstacles. What can we do to set the stage for great design? By focusing on an actual case study in small groups, we will be able to bring our own campus experiences to bear on how to find and eliminate the obstacles to great design.

Process Leader:
Melissa McEwen, Vice President | Education Practice Leader, Haley & Aldrich

Case Presenter:
Lynda Kane Rothermel, Campus Architect & Director of Planning, The College of New Jersey

Facilitators:
Elissa Kellett, Project Executive, Principal EYP Architecture & Engineering
Kelly Meade, Manager of Client Value, Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Bob Reid, President, Elevate architects + collaborators
Tom Wheeler, Associate Principal, cox graae + spack architects
David Zaiser, Partner, KSS Architects, LL

Learning Outcomes:

1. Determine what constitutes 'great design' for your campus.
2. Identify the obstacles to executing great design on your campus.
3. Discuss the difference you perceive great design makes for a campus.
4. Consider how to ensure that architects and clients both are invested in great design.

Dedicated to transforming the University of Baltimore from a part-time commuter school to a 4-year residential institution, President Bogomolny is building a supportive urban campus. One of the notable achievements of his administration of this state institution has been the successful use of a design competition to select Behnisch Architekten of Stuttgart, Germany, in partnership with Ayers Saint Gross, to design a new landmark building for the School of Law. 

Learning Outcomes:

1. Review the steps taken to transform an urban commuter campus into a residential, four-year, campus.
2. Evaluate the merits of design competitions for selecting an architect.
3. Consider the value to an urban campus of creating a landmark building.
4. Discuss the process of partnerships between architectural firms for the design of buildings.