SCUP
 

Learning Resources

Where planning comes together. T​he power of SCUP is its community. We learn from one another, sharing how we’ve achieved success and, maybe more importantly, what we’ve learned from failure. SCUP authors, produces, and curates thousands of resources to help you prepare for the future, overcome challenges, and bring planning together at your college or university.
DISPLAYING 2375 RESOURCES

FOUND 2375 RESOURCES

REFINED BY:

Clear All
ABSTRACT:  | 
SORT BY:  | 

Establishing a Historic Preservation Framework Within Campus Management and Planning

From Volume 18 Number 4 | 1989–1990

Abstract: Recently, campus planners have become more aware of historic preservation issues. This is due in part to the increasing number of buildings on many campuses that are reaching eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places. Campus expansion more often also means the need to deal cautiously with surrounding historic neighborhoods. A discussion of historic preservation, even when an insitution is in a financial crisis, can help avoid both public outcry and potential irreversible illegal actions. The effects of Modernism in the 1950s and expansion in the 1960s and early 1970s show the damage that can be done if preservation is not taken seriously. Many insitutions since then have made preservation a priority. The following framework is suggested as a way creating a preservation program: (1) "Survey": this "involves an inventory of potential historic properties owned or which may be aqcuired." (2) "Plan": a preservation guideline that "accommodates insitutional goals and assesses potential benefits/consequences." (3) "Nominate": prepare nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. (4) "Preserve": make conscious effort to maintain these elements. (5) "Repair and Rehab": keep historic properties in good condition and "guarantee future vitality as productive facilites." A balance must be found and "guarantee future vitality as productive facilites." A balance must also be found between preserving historic sites and allowing for growth. Finding this balance is the role of the planning professional. An awareness of the importance of these sites will prove to be in the best interest of the professional, the college, and historic preservation.

Member Price:
Free | Login

Member-only Resource

Join now to have access

eBook icon

Published
November 30, 1988

Financial Planning Guidelines for Facility Renewal and Adaption

This publication provides executive managers and trustees with guidelines for long-term financial planning for plant renewal and adaption.
Abstract: Skillful management of an institution's physical assets is crucial to the institution's financial well-being. This publication provides executive managers and trustees with guidelines for long-term financial planning for plant renewal and adaption. It provides these strategic decision makers with a better understanding of the financial planning requirements necessary to protect the value of their institution's plant assets in relation to evolving institutional missions by giving them a clearer way to think about those assets. Readers are furnished with guidelines, examples of campus plans that incorporate them, and analytic tools.

A joint project of Society for College and University Planning (SCUP), The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), The Association of Physical Plant Administrators of Universities and Colleges (APPA), and Coopers and Lybrand.

Member Price:
Free | Login

Nonmember Price: $40

Member-only Resource

Join now to have access

Campus Facility Site Selection and Matrix Evaluation of Weighted Alternatives: A Methodology

From Volume 17 Number 4 | 1988–1989

Abstract: Too often, site slection decisions for college and university facilities are limited to previously designated sites, using standard architectural, engineering, and landscape design. While the least cost method project completion is correct, frequently the site selection decision is not easily justified to adminstrators, client departments, and community leaders. Campus planners must make selection recommendations based on qualitive factors that are not easily comparable to alternatives (criteria such as visual effect, parking access, and site development costs are part of the decision making process). Thus, a matrix evaluation model is a means of alternative site selection. It is a system of weights and scores that are "easily managed and publicly defendable." The site selection process has two parts. It deals with alternative site selection and developing selection criteria for comparable evaluation. The second part includes organization of a weight scale and quantitative site evaluation. The process consists of eight steps. These include (1) Clarify programmed site requirements and criteria; (2) Select preliminary sites; (3) Establish selection criteria; (4) Develop a site list; (5) Make a preliminary recommendation; (6) Secure a final decision; (7) Perform a weighted evaluation; and (8) Make a final recommendation. Facility site selection decisions made using a matrix model with its system of weights and scores is easier to justify to administrators, client departments, and community organizations. Once they are involved in the decision making process the reason for the site selection is more readily understood, thus increasing the likelihood of site decision approval.

Member Price:
Free | Login

Member-only Resource

Join now to have access