Learning Resources

Abstract: Book review: In Pursuit of Equality in Higher Education, by Anne S. Pruitt. New York: General Hall, Inc., 1987.

Abstract: Creating a pedestrian-oriented campus and accommodating parking needs involves the reduction of traffic flow through the campus. The space necessary for university parking lots and streets consumes "a percentage of premium interior space." Long- range planning is essential to develop a perimeter circulation pattern that joins parking lots on the edge of campus and initiates a shuttle bus system. The campus master plan at Eastern Michigan University has a goal of developing a pedestrian-oriented campus. To accomplish this, EMU--with the help of consultants-- contructed a 1,000-car parking lot and shuttle bus system. Security was a primary concern; a six-foot fence on three sides was built to keep people from entering the area, lighting was provided, two bus shelters were added next to busy thoroughfare, a television camera was installed, and a campus emergency telephone was installed. No report of assault or vandalism has occured since implementation of the project. Furthermore, aesthetic appeal was a primary concern. This was combined with "security considerations . . . to facilitate the intended function of a particular area." Multiple use of the parking area added to its success. Along with its use as a shuttle bus parking facility, the satellite parking lot is used for football tailgating, football games and other athletic events, and on-site university events. Finally, the parking area was promoted as a safe, aesthetically pleasing option to attract faculty, staff, and students. Effective planning resulted in the development of a pedestrian-oriented campus where traffic and parking problems had diminished.

Abstract: Book Review: Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action by John Friedmann, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987.

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.