Learning Resources

Abstract: Book review: Design of General-Purpose Classrooms and Lecture Halls, by Robert Allen. Pennsylvannia State University, 1991. 53 pages.

Abstract: Book review: Campus Design, by Richard Dober. Wiley, 1992. 289 pages.

Abstract: Historically, college and university classrooms have consisted of little more than a blackboard and antiquated seats. Many classrooms were constructed over 30-70 years ago with minor alterations. Over the next decade, modernizing of lecture, seminar, and classrooms is essential. They will then be more conducive to learning. A seven step strategy to modernize institutional classrooms exists. 1) Conduct a physical survey and inventory of all the teaching spaces. This includes room dimensions, furniture, room arangement, lighting, ventilation, and audiovisual equipment. 2) Conduct a utilization study. This measures whether classrooms are used to their full capacities. 3) Interview faculty and students to determine preferences. Professors and students now prefer to be closer to each other to promote exchanges. 4) Develop criteria for design including A. Physical Considerations; B. Environmental Factors; C. Furniture; and D. Audiovisual Equipment. Additionally, each category of design criteria should follow the four design requirements of function, focus, flexibility, and aesthetics. 5) Calculate estimates of renovation costs for each room. Planners must have specific architectural plans and rough estimates before renovation begins. 6) Start a program of renovation. A financially feasible renovation schedule should be followed--the rooms in the worst shape are scheduled first, with construction on two to five rooms a year over 5-10 years. 7) Once the renovation schedule begins, monitor the direction of the university to determine changes in classroom needs. The design and renovation of institutional classrooms are necessary to attract highly qualified faculty and students. Classrooms exhibiting a warm, attractive, and modern atmosphere enhance the learning enviroment.

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.

Abstract: In the late 1980s, the University of California, Santa Cruz began a $1.5 million program to upgrade classroom quality. This was disturbing considering the campus was only 25 years old. The problem was neither architectural neglect nor budgetary deficits. Quality problems resulted from the attitude that classroom design was not an important element. Many design flaws occur from misunderstanding the factors that affect user need, such as the ability to see or hear (the reduction of ambient noise). Additionally, required surfaces and finishes are important. These include the sending end--front wall, side walls, and ceiling; side walls and rear wall; ceiling; and floor/seating. Finally, design for durability and functionality under actual use conditions consists of the following: the use of carpet for acoustically absorbent wall finish, installation of motorized blackboards and the projection screen, a seat width of 21 inches, and quiet table arms for seats. Colleges and universities must realize that "effective classroom design" elicits attention to detail and an understanding of functional objectives. Adherence to both can lead to effective classrooms.

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.