Learning Resources

Abstract: While historic preservation of campus architecture has become widely supported within the last generation, it has at the same time become more complicated. Ehrenkrantz and Eckstut have suggested a three part planning strategy. Part one: planners should gather basic informationon each campus building. Next each part of the building should be rated for preservation. 1 might mean a detail or space of great importance which should be carefully restored, while 5 might be an unimportant space which should be modernized to suit current needs. Part two: A phased plan should be develop which spans the next decade with proirities established and a clear sequence including cost estimates. Flexibility should be built into renovations and new construction as anticipation of further renovation. Part three: The next step is to identify athe means and methods weighing such as availability of materials and suitablility of today's program. If a preservation campaign is well planned it can be done well at the same cost of even under the cost of new construction, and will demonstrate the respect for history and culture embodied in the institution.

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: Leveling or even declining enrollment and the current economic recession in higher education have forced many colleges to suspend or cut back plans for new construction and to consider the re-use and recycling of existing buildings. One candidate for rehabilitation: the campus chapel. The possibilities were examined at a two-day conference at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio February 26-27, which provided the basis for this article.

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.