Learning Resources

Abstract: Clearly, space affects learning behavior. Yet even in the Knowledge Age, designers go back constantly to familiar Agrarian and Industrial Age learning space models. SCUPer Lennie Scott-Webber worked assiduously to comb through the latest behavioral and sociological research relating to how people interact with the built environment. She’s taken what used to “sit on shelves in the ivory halls of academe” and has applied it to the physical design of interior learning spaces.

Scott-Webber’s work, shared in this elegant book with clear and over-sized diagrams and charts, establishes five different archetypal environments that support knowledge sharing: Environments for Delivering Knowledge; Environments for Applying Knowledge; Environments for Creating Knowledge; Environments for Communication Knowledge; and Environments for Decision Making.

There’s more to classroom design than simply considering what technology to put into the classroom. Designers and clients, whether in education or the corporate world, will each enjoy the way existing environmental/behavior research can be applied to the thoughtful consideration of these archetypes, either standing alone or used in combinations to create rich, interactive learning spaces.

Abstract: The capital renewal and replacement of the nation’s public higher education facilities has been a growing problem for several decades. While the need for new and improved facilities has increased over the years, many campuses simply have too many aging infrastructures that are too costly to replace. This, at a time when we have less than favorable economic conditions, only adds to the situation. As the age, size, and complexity of buildings continue to grow, so too does the amount of maintenance funding required to keep buildings in good working order. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the 50 states’ efforts of funding public higher education capital needs. This study investigated areas relating to capital needs financing, planning, decision-making processes used in each state, available funding, and future directions in the various states. Of the 50 states, 41 states responded, representing 82 percent of the 50 states.

Abstract: Why does it cost so much? is a question often asked about university construction. On college and university campuses, the cost of new construction and renovation will appear high relative to other construction efforts in our communities. Part of the explanation of the high construction cost lies in the complexity of what we build, the codes and standards we must meet, and the unique environment within which we build. Moreover, budgets are driven up by the choices we make when we demand that our new facilities serve as visual articulations of institutional image and quality. In short, the high cost of construction is driven by myriad strategic choices and requirements that lead to building a better university.

Abstract: An innovative approach to the capital planning process will determine the future physical character of an institution and the capability of facilities to support its programs.

Abstract: Book Review of Campus Planning and Facility Development: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 3d ed., by Ira Fink and Associates, Inc., 1998. ISBN 1-885575-05-X

Abstract: This book thoroughly reviews the fundamentals of campus planning. It is divided into three sections: “Prospectus,” “The Campus and Its Parts” (such as instructional facilities, housing, and parking and circulation), and “Campus Plans,” (such as expanding the campus, building a new campus, and renovating). It is rich in concepts and specific solutions, with hundreds of photographs and drawings. It should be on the bookshelf of any campus planner. This classic was first printed in 1963 and is the work of Richard P. Dober, a charter member of SCUP, who influenced campuses worldwide as a planner and consultant to more than 350 educational institutions.

Richard Dober (1928–2014) was a planning and design advisor to more than 450 colleges, universities, and cultural institutions worldwide, as well as to foundations and government agencies, the World Bank, and UNESCO. He wrote nine books and numerous articles on planning and design and was a founder of the Society for College and University Planning. He led consulting firms since the early 1960s, including most recently, Dober Lidsky Mathey, a firm specializing in campus planning and facility planning services.

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: Book Review: Managing the facilities Portfolio: A Practical Approach to Institutional Facility Renewal and Deferred Maintenance, by Sean Rush. NACUBO, 1991. 100 pages.

Abstract: This book shows how a campus is defined through its physical image—buildings and landscapes are designed to communicate the institution's purpose, presence and domain as well as generate an image charged with symbolism. Design principals, methods, and procedures with wide applications are described. Two key design components, placemaking and placemaking, are used as the basis for numerous case studies. Originally published by John Wiley & Sons in 1992, re-published by SCUP in 2003.

In the new foreword, Dober notes that “there is an ever-widening realization that a distinctive sense of place can have a positive impact on recruiting and retaining students, faculty, staff, trustees, and governing boards.” That makes the reprinted-in-full edition of this 1992 campus planning classic a required reference for all who care about the planning and development of an institution's buildings, grounds, and surroundings.

Richard Dober (1928–2014) was a planning and design advisor to more than 450 colleges, universities, and cultural institutions worldwide, as well as to foundations and government agencies, the World Bank, and UNESCO. He wrote nine books and numerous articles on planning and design and was a founder of the Society for College and University Planning. He led consulting firms since the early 1960s, including most recently, Dober Lidsky Mathey, a firm specializing in campus planning and facility planning services.

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.