Learning Resources

Abstract: This book thoroughly reviews the fundamentals of campus planning. It is divided into three sections: “Prospectus,” “The Campus and Its Parts” (such as instructional facilities, housing, and parking and circulation), and “Campus Plans,” (such as expanding the campus, building a new campus, and renovating). It is rich in concepts and specific solutions, with hundreds of photographs and drawings. It should be on the bookshelf of any campus planner. This classic was first printed in 1963 and is the work of Richard P. Dober, a charter member of SCUP, who influenced campuses worldwide as a planner and consultant to more than 350 educational institutions.

Richard Dober (1928–2014) was a planning and design advisor to more than 450 colleges, universities, and cultural institutions worldwide, as well as to foundations and government agencies, the World Bank, and UNESCO. He wrote nine books and numerous articles on planning and design and was a founder of the Society for College and University Planning. He led consulting firms since the early 1960s, including most recently, Dober Lidsky Mathey, a firm specializing in campus planning and facility planning services.

Abstract: In this article, we discuss a method for developing and writing scenarios for a college or university. We begin by reviewing the general literature on scenarios; we then detail a scenario development project at Arizona State University. This project, conducted in 1988–89, was Arizona State University's first institution-wide, futures-based planning and scenario development effort. The focus of the project for Arizona State University was planning and programming for affirmative action. An outside consultant facilitated the group-process portion of the project and instructed university staff in scenario development. Staff in the university's Office of Institutional Analysis then developed and wrote a set of three scenarios to guide the university's affirmative action programming and planning during the decade of the nineties.

Abstract: There are good reasons—educational, economic, sociological—for educational institutions to coexist on the same site or even in the same building with governmental, residential, or commercial functions. At the same time there are roadblocks to such joint-occupancy arrangements, particularly for public institutions, in the laws governing the financing of public buildings and in bureaucratic inertia. This article is a profile of one institution—the new Inner Harbor campus of the Community College of Baltimore—that tried to share its facilities with commercial interests—and failed.

Abstract: The concept that innovation and change in curriculum and teaching patterns will affect the arrangement and utilization of physical facilities is hardly novel in 1972. But perhaps nowhere has the principle been demonstrated more dramatically than at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. The college, with a faculty of 125 and a student body of 1,650, in September 1970 adopted a comprehensive plan that involved an almost total revision of the concepts of a course, a classroom, a contact hour, a unit of credit, scheduling procedures, and definitions of academic and non-academic space. This article is adapted from one by Dr. Glenn Brooks, professor of political science and assistant to the president, and Malcolm Ware, administrative assistant to the dean, describes both the planning process and the ultimate results. The original appeared in Higher Education Facilities Planning Manuals, published by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.