Learning Resources

Abstract: Book Review: New Priorities for the University, by Enest A. Lynton and Sandra E. Elman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1987.

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.

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.