Summary
The following highlights
the items discussed throughout the two-day work session, providing
an overview by topic.
Campus Comparisons
Campuses
of similar size and FTE to the projected UNR campus create a context
to help us understand the characteristics of UNR in relationship
to its peer institutions. The physical layout of buildings and
open spaces, the land area, existing FTE, location and quantity
of housing are documented in a series of campus comparisons.
On all of the campus
maps, a 10-minute walking circle is overlaid to help understand
the relative distances between parts of campus and the pedestrian
accessibility on each of these campuses. The study informs us
that the projected enrollment for UNR can certainly accommodate
reasonable pedestrian distances so that students and faculty can
get from class to class within a ten or fifteen minute time frame.
The case studies show us that the same amount of square footage
may be accommodated on a much smaller area of land. For example,
UC Berkeley is an urban landlocked campus with an FTE of 31,000
on 180 acres of land compared to UNC Chapel Hill with an FTE of
24,000 accommodated on 800 acres.
Capacity
Study of Existing Univeristy-owned Property
The capacity
of currently owned university property to accommodate the proposed
growth of the campus helps us understand how much and when the
university will have to acquire land for academic expansion. A
preliminary study was undertaken to determine the potential development
capacity of existing UNR-owned property. The plan represents possible
demolitions, current and planned projects, and future development
to maximize the capacity of UNR property. The study assumed
that buildings would be on average 3-4 stories in height. Building
footprints are proposed for infill sites and estimated floor area
ratios (FAR) are used to determine the capacity of the northern
medical campus area in lieu of laying out individual buildings.
Structured parking, classrooms and lecture halls are included,
but housing or other university related uses are not.
The capacity
study determined that before the end of Horizon 1, the existing
UNR-owned property would reach its full capacity. This is
assuming that the northern campus around the medical school is
developed at densities equal to the existing main campus. The
university will have to acquire more land before it reaches the
end of Horizon 1. This analysis will be developed further as the
preferred concept is refined and will be presented again at Workshop
#4.
College by
College Accommodation Evaluation
A “college-by-college”
accommodation evaluation to determine the growth potential of
each college in its current location was also undertaken. The
study looks at proposed demolitions and current and planned projects
as well as future growth needs to Horizon 2. This preliminary
study does not take into consideration general classroom or lecture
hall needs or parking requirements to meet future growth. It is
however, assumed that classrooms will be located in the following
facilities:
•
Getchell (adaptive reuse or new construction) – Liberal Arts classrooms
and lecture halls
•
Science and Math Buildings (new construction) – Science classrooms
•
Current Student Union (adaptive reuse or new construction) – general
use classrooms
Further analysis
will take into consideration general classroom and lecture hall
needs as well as adjacent parking requirements.
The accommodation
evaluation determined that five (5) colleges, after considering
current and planned projects, could accommodate projected growth
through Horizon 2 in or adjacent to their current locations. These
colleges include:
•
Business Administration (growth projection to Horizon 2 of 44,500
GSF)
•
College of Education (growth projection to Horizon 2 of 57,900
GSF)
•
College of Engineering (growth projection to Horizon 2 of 12,500
GSF)
•
School of Journalism (growth projection to Horizon 2 of 26,300
GSF)
•
School of Medicine (growth projection to Horizon 2 of 200,600
GSF)
The
new Science and Math Education Center (176,000 GSF) to be sited
south of Palmer Engineering will be the focal point as the College
of Science continues to grow. After possible long-term demolitions
in the southeast corner of campus and the campus expansion in
this area to Evans Avenue, the Horizon 2 projection of an additional
312,000 GSF could be accommodated.
The
College of Liberal Arts could be accommodated in its
existing precinct of campus. This assumes the existing Getchell
Library and Student Union (or new buildings on those sites) will
be available for the expansion. The College of Liberal Arts is
expected to grow, beyond the proposed expansion of the Fine Arts
Center, by an additional 427,400 GSF.
The
College of Human and Community Science consists of several
different disciplines within the health sciences that have historically
been separate and are therefore scattered throughout the campus.
A new location that could bring these disciplines together could
possibly be on the north campus. Future growth projections of
340,500 GSF for the College of Human and Community Science could
easily be accommodated in this area.
The
College of Agriculture, Biotech and Natural Resources
will in be impacted significantly by the loss of space in buildings
identified for possible demolition in the long-term. After the
construction of the proposed Biotech and Genomics Center (110,000
GSF) this College will require an additional 194,200 GSF to reach
the Horizon 2 goal. Because of the allowances made in the deed
for agricultural related uses on the Agricultural Research Fields,
relocation of the whole College of Agriculture, Biotech and Natural
Resources should be considered.
Siting Studies
A
number of specific site planning investigations were presented
to illustrate preliminary siting options for planned projects.
The studies include: Getchell Library and Existing Student Union,
Science and Math Education Center, New Student Union, and the
Fine Arts Center. The objective of this exercise is to test program,
and explore the site potential and building configurations in
relationship to the overall master plan. Further study of these
sites will be undertaken as the preferred concept is refined.
Three Campus
Concepts
After
Workshop #2, the three preliminary concepts were refined to reflect
a greater level of understanding of the program relationships
and of the development area. The following key topics of
discussion were covered for each concept:
•
Pedestrian access and manageable walking distances
•
Campus Housing
•
Campus Density
•
Medical Campus
•
Agricultural Research Fields
•
Strengthening the University/City Interface
•
Multifamily Residential
|
Download & Print