Learning Resources

Abstract: Book Review: Prospects for Faculty in the Arts and Sciences: A Study of Factors Affecting Demand and Supply, 1987 to 2012 by William G. Bowen and Julie Ann Sosa. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Abstract: College and university architecture and campus reflect tradition and history. Thomas Jefferson called these institutions "academical villages." They appear in a myriad of forms, where building "modern structures within the context of historical styles always presents a unique design problem." Thus, universities must relate building design with the historic character of older buildings and with the campus layout. The new sensibility concerning campus architecture can be seen in building arrangment, walkways, plant groupings, and gateways. Historical structures must match landscape design as well. However, this approach discards adding new buildings that look exactly like old ones. Instead, the new sensibility tries to preserve buildings through renovation and adaptive use. The new sensibility is based on two major movements: (1) Historic preservation, which tries to preserve the past in the present and (2) Contextualism, which integrates new buildings into the existing order to reinforce it. Institutions can plan better by enacting design ordinances that preserve their scale and character. Colleges and universities should adopt the following principles to preserve their architectural character: (1) The institution should require a current survey and conduct a historical analysis to determine the character of the buildings. (2) Insitutional leaders should require the architect to determine the important qualities of existing buildings in relation to campus layout. (3) All new construction should develop in relation to features identified as characteristic of the original buildings. (4) The relation of new buildings to the entire campus should be shown. Essentially, the new sensibility requires architects and campus planners to focus on campus character to represent the tradition and history to the public.

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.

Abstract: Book Review: Opportunity from Strength; Startegic Planning Clarified with Case Examples, by robert G. Cope. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1987.

Abstract: There has always been a demand for land surrounding the campus. Business people have been drawn to these areas, seeking to make a profit from the provision of goods and services to students. As financial support from federal and state sources decreases, today's colleges and universities are beginning to look beyond traditional sources of funding. Development of real estate holdings near campus is a means of generating an income and providing long-range financing of operations. Private institutions have known the advantage of acquiring and selling real estate. Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, George Washington, and Princeton Universities have been at the forefront of land development to fiance higher education. On the other hand, public universities have traditionally received monetary support from state tax dollars and tuition. However, universities must look to alternative investment, including stocks, bonds, and real estate holdings. The University of Virginia looked to real estate development as a source of income and long-range fiscal policy. It employed the Washington-based consulting firm Urban Land Institute (ULI) for advice. ULI required the institution to develop a community profile study (land use, population, and employment). The university, incorporating ULI's recommendations, instituted a successful real estate program to acquire property beyond the campus confines. Cooperative land use planning with the city and county and the university's promise to keep procured property on the tax rolls have made this venture a success. Its concern for the community, foresight to invest in off-campus property, and quest for better economic opportunities will be of interest and profit to other institutions.