CASEBOOK ON CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL ...

REPOR T RESUMESED 019 812 EF DOD 886CASEBOOK ON CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT.TEN INSTITUTIONS, HOW THEY DID IT.BY- RORK, JOHN B. ROBBINS, LESLIE F.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFAREREPORT NUMBER 667 PUB DATE 62OFFICE OF EDUCATION (CHEW), WASHINGTON, D.C.EDRS PRICE MF -$0.75 HC -$6.96 172P.

DESCRIPTORS- *FACILITY CASE STUDIES, SITE SELECTION,.*CONSTRUCTION NEEDS, *HIGHER EDUCATION, *MASTER PLANS, CAMPUSPLANNING, CONSTRUCTION. COSTS, COMMUNITY RELATIONS,

CASE STUDIES or CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONALDEVELOPMENT IN TEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION WERECOMPILED CURING THE DECADE OF 1950-1959. COMMON TO THEPLANNING IN ALL INSTITUTIONS WAS THE NEED TO DEFINEEDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND GOALS, PROJECT ENROLLMENTS,CONSTITUTE PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND PROVIDE FOR SCHEDULING,ACCREDITATION AND FINANCING. BASED UPON THESE DATA AND ANANALYSIS OF THE ROLE THAT EACH INSTITUTION FLAYED IN ITSCOMMUNITY, THE SITE WAS SELECTED AND THE CONSTRUCTION NEEDSWERE DETERMINED. EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTINCLUDED EXPANDING WITHIN A SINGLE SITE, EXPANDING FROM ASINGLE TO A MULTILPLE SITE, RELOCATING THE INSTITUTION ANCCREATING A NEW COLLEGE. BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONSWERE STUDIED. DRAWINGS OF A MASTER PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENTOF A CAMPUS SITE MACE BY AN ARCHITECT WERE INCLUDED. (JP)

L`4Iiiin11010110110161111/11""111010111111111M0

a:1-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.OE-51003

Casebook on campus planning

and institutional development

Circular No. 667

how they did it

Compiled by

JOHN B. RORK, SpecialistCampus PlanningDivision of Higher Education

LESLIE E BOBBINS, SpecialistBusiness AdministrationDivision of Higher Education

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREAbraham Ribicoff, Secretary

Office of EducationSterling M. McMurrin, Commissioner

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1962

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington 25, D.C. - Price $1.25

1.1

--^".---1-01.01111M11111111MMIP,

IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED that our institutions of higher educationin their physical plant development for the 1960's will need, at a

minimum, $18.9 billion. They are now investing approximately $1 billiona year for these purposes and hope to double it by 1970. Economy andeducational effectiveness in the investment of these huge sums requirecomprehensive campus planning as well as specific planning of individualbuildings.

The physical characteristics of higher education institutions are in aconstant state of change. Particularly during periods of growth andchange colleges and universities have unique and difficult problems tosolve. In some cases the problem may be a shortage of land for expansionwhich can be secured only through an urban renewal program. In othersit may be the challenge of founding an institution at a new location incompletely new buildings. In still others, it may be the necessity of con-verting buildings originally constructed for other purposes or of rehabil-itating college buildings that have become health and fire hazards as wellas inefficient for educational uses.

This casebook has been developed on the assumption that many collegeofficials will be stimulated to do more effective planning by studying thesteps taken by others who faced comparable problems. The number ofcases has been limited to 10 so that each may give a comprehensive andfactual account of the steps taken and the obstacles faced in planning.The authors of the several reports can supply additional details, and thecompilers of the casebook will respond to requests for information onother aspects of campus planning.

While each institution may consider its many problems to be unique,it appears that many of the growing pains and their treatments followstages that, in retrospect at least, seem to have many similarities to theproblems and solutions of other institutions. A review of these similari-ties and solutions should help to guide, others in finding the best solutionsto their campus development problems.

The College and University Administration Branch of the Division ofHigher Education has been responsible for compiling and interpretingthe "cases" presented. Under the direction of W. Robert Bokelman,

Chief, Business Administration Section, his staff identified the "cases"and invited the presidents of the institutions to prepare the reports. Wereceived excellent cooperation from the presidents or ether key personswho were the authors. All higher education administrative persons who

III

Iv FOREWORD

are confronted with problem situations described in one or more of thereports NVill appreciate, as we do, the concise and communicable descriptions presented.

Authors were encouraged to share their experiences freely in a ma,nnerthat might be most helpful to others facing similar problems. Such asoul-baring cannot always escape implications of criticism either of selfor of others. The views expressed are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the views of the U.S. Office of Education.

ERNEST V. HOLLIS, DirectorCollege and UniversityAdin.intstiutionBranch

R. ORIN CORNETT,Acting Assistant Commissioner for

Higher Education.

Contents

CHAPTER Page

I. A Perspective of Campus Facilities Planning 1

II. The Cases 10

III. Expanding Brigham Young University. By Sam F.

Brewster 17

IV. Expanding Saint Louis University. By M. B, Martin, S. J.

and B. T. Schuerman, S. J 35

V. Planning The University of South Florida. By John S.Allen 48

VI. Planning and Building Methodist College. By L. S.

Weaver 63

VII. Moving San Francisco State College to a New Site. By

Glenn S. Dumke, John S. Butler, and Arthur J. Hall . . 72

VIII. Moving Howard College to a Nnr Site. By Harwell G.

Davis 93

IX. Expanding The University of Chicago. By Julian Levi . . 107

X. Planning and Building South Plains College. By Orlin

Brewer and Robert Burks 128

XI. Planning and Building St. Andrews Presbyterian College.

By Ansley C. Moore 138

XII. Establishing Barrington College in Part in Facilities Not

Planned for a Higher Education Institution. By Howard

W. Ferrin 147

XIII. Organizational Procedures. By James M. Hunter . . 156

Figures

1. Flow Chart 4

2. Organization Chart, University of South Florida 59

3. Typical 4-Year Program, St. Andrews Presbyterian College . . 141

4. What Happens in a Building Project and How 157

-,,gossawiipiirowstronlVINATRI

VI CONTENTS

Illustrations

Comprehensive Location and Development Plan of BrighamPage

Young University 21Aerial View of Saint Louis University, North Campus 41Campus of University of South Florida 54Classroom Building of Methodist College 66Aerial View of San Francisco State College Campus 83Howard College 98University of Chicago Campus and Redevelopment District with

Lake Michigan in the Background 120South Plains College 134Mockup of Campus of St. Andrews Presbyterian College . 143The Campus of Barrington College 151

Chapter I

A Perspective of Campus Facilities Planning

T WAS ABOUT 1956 when many groups andagencies interested in planning facilities for

higher education attempted to project enrollmentsahead to 1970 and discovered a probable enroll-ment increase of approximately 100 percent. Thisin general meant either twice as many collegesand universities or twice as many buildings or atleast some combination of new facilities providinga doubling of the student stations. In some in-stitutions there was latitude for growth in existingfacilities because the institution was not full tocapacity. In others, certain facilities by func-tional type would need to have priority of atten-tion, such as dormitories or a library or a heatingplant. In some situations a whole new campuswas envisioned either by way of creating a newinstitution or by moving a college to a new loca-tion because the limits of the old campus precludedthe necessary expansion. In any case, a staggeringamount of planning of new facilities was implied.

Now, a few years later, those who have beenthrough the experience of expanding an existingcampus or of planning and building a new campuPare the trailblazers; others can profit by theirexperience. It is the purpose of this casebook tomake some of that experience available. The writ-ers of the respective reports in this casebook andtheir colleagues have met and have masteredmany of the difficulties which will appear again insome form on other campuses. Their generosity inspending the time and making the effort to writeabout what they did is a witness to their desire tohelp others who are planning for new or expandedcampus facilities.

In the matter of advance planning for newphysical facilities for a college or university, theremay be either the evil of deficiency or the evil ofexcess. Most of the evils that are evident in theplanning aspect are those of deficiency. The typi-

cal college campus has grown spasmodically, andin many instances a newly built facility was out-grown before it was completed. The progressionof styles through successive stages from the oldcampus to the bright new campus is an architec-tural record of the institution's stages of growth.To some extent the resultant architectural hodge-podge was unavoidable. At any rate, the collegesof the Nation could not wait for the ultimate inbuilding design before getting on with theirplanning.

Implications of Master PlanningIt is considered feasible to construct the average

college building so as to function to a fair degreeof satisfaction for about 50 years. This span, then,may be said to designate the average college'splanning horizon : To obtain the maximum 50-yearreturn for each construction dollar spent.

Fifty years ago one institution was comprised ofa dozen peculiar little buildings and what musthave seemed then to be a large expanse of prairie.Three of the buildings 'are still in use, though notfor the same purposes, and all three have had ex-tensive remodeling. Fifty years ago it was a smallcollege. About 20 years later it had grown intoa small university. The onset of this stage wasanticipated by not more than 5 years' preparation.The facilities needed for its professional schoolswere quite different from those needed when it wasa college, even a fairly large college. About 10years ago, it seemed to awaken suddenly to therealization that it was a sizable university withtwo large campuses, a student body of 12,000, andno longer able to plod along on yea;..-co-year plansfor new buildings. It began to pick up contiguousparcels of property. Its lately announced forwardlook contemplated facilities for 17,000 studentson the main campus by 1970. The announcement

1

Zv

2 CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

had the sound of smug complacency, and yet thatdate is only 8 years hence. It is to be hoped eitherthat the long-range horizon of the campus devel-opment committee is beyond that date or that itsplans are mixed with a generous measure of built-in flexibility.

Flexibility

The evils of excess in planning which was sug-gested in an earlier paragraph refers to such mat-ters as (1) planning in too much detail too far inadvance; (2) making advance commitments withinsufficient or unreliable protection data; and (3)being too rigid and inflexible as to subsequentchanges in the original plan. It is obvious thatthe further the planning looks ahead, the moretentative should be the decisions reached.

Usually the first planning statistic to be pro-jected is enrollment. Enrollment projections ofless than a 10-year forward look are probably notadequate as a sound projection on which to base arealistic master construction plan. Beyond a 10-year span, however, the plan should have increas-ing degrees of flexibility. National projectionsmade in 1956, giving weight to the probable popu-lation growth, the numbers of college-age youthexpected in each year up to 1970, the increasingpercentages of those youth asking admission, andthe increasing numbers working for advanced de-grees, forecast in the aggregate a doubling of thestudent body by 1970. The growth was not ex-pected to be evenly distributed over the 15-yearperiod but to parallel roughly the birth rate bulgeof the post-war forties. Naturally, the growthpattern of any one institution which will engagethe planning effort of one campus developmentcommittee may vary considerably from the aggre-gate, especially if that institution has establisheda growth pattern such as an enrollment ceiling.

The next planning factor might normally con-sist of a projection of the distribution of total en-rollments for each of the successive years into cate-gories which have significance as to prorating andscheduling facilities by type : (1) instructional,classroom; (2) laboratory; (3) library; (4) resi-dential; (5) general, such as heating plant; (6)athletic; (7) college union ; and (8) other cate-gories by function. The planning in each such

category will consider what is currently in being;how many more students, if any, each will accom-modate; what its physical condition is; and towhat uses it might be converted. A general pat-tern of future needs in terms of a time schedulewill soon begin to emerge.

A space utilization study, if not already made,should be on the agenda. Specialists in this fieldtell us that the average American college is profli-gate with the use of its inFAructional facilities.Classrooms and laboratories can be used to a fargreater proportion of the time by using some lessdesirable hours of the day and week, and can beused more intensivel,' by more careful matching ofclass sizes with classroom sizes. Waste space, suchas an attic, can often be converted to certain usesat a fraction of the cost of that much square foot-age in the form of a new building. Utilizationceilings in residential facilities are more firm thanin instructional facilities.

Educational speciications growing out of adefinitive study of the objectives of the institutionmust underlie all facilities planning. Improvisa-tion and make-do have too often marked thechanges and growth of a college or university.No doubt the conventional classroom and the basicteaching laboratory for the physical sciences willcontinue to be needed, bait educational methods dochange with the times and may require new typesof facilities.

Selecting a Campus Development PlanningCommittee

There is sometimes the tendency to criticize theuse of a campus development planning committeebecause of the experiences of a few institutions.It is true that under some circumstances a collegewould have progressed further and faster if theservices of one competent, planning authority hadbeen retained and his advice followed, rather thanbothering with a representative committee onwhich those who were the least competent were themost vocal, causing able members to give up indisgust. Despite this danger, it is neverthelesspossible to have intelligent participation underqualified leadership.

To have the most able committee members pos-sible is a prime requisite. To obtain a planningcommittee which will exert effective leadershipitself requires some high grade planning. What

PERSPECTIVE

groups are usually represented on the planningcommittee ? One representation level, of course,is departmental, especially when planning for thelaboratory sciences. Another category which mustbe represented is that with reference to physicalforms : architecture, engineering, space utilization,plant development, and landscaping. Manage-ment and control must be represented : the presi-dent, the board of control, the business manager,the physical plant manager, and the director ofadmissions. Last but not least is the student body;this usually involves someone from the office ofdirector of student personnel services and a rep-resentative from the students themselves.

Rarely should the representative members beelected. They should be appointed, and each oneonly after full consideration and extensive con-sultation. Personal characteristics which enhancea person's value on such a planning team include :

(1) ability to look ahead, (2) rational balance be-tween aspirations and practical realities, (3)ability to work and plan with others, and (4) ex-perience with actual operations in at least oneeducational discipline (or in college adminis-tration).

The services of a professional planner should be

retained. This person may be the institution'sarchitect, either the head of an architectural firmor a member of the institution's department ofarchitectural engineering. The professional as-sistance should include the services of a landscapearchitect. Landscaping usually does not' need toimply a completely artificial eradication of all ofthe natural features of the site. In many situa-tions there are interesting glades, pools, groves,and rocky hillsides which if preserved will tend tobring the institution into harmony with its neigh-borhood. The natural areas can also contribute toeducation in the natural sciences.

Committee Procedure

The campus development planning committeeplays a dual role: (1) it screens, crystalizes, andintegrates the dreams, hopes, and expectations ofthe campus community for its college-of -the-

future; and (2) it communicates the decisions, asfinally achieved, to the members of its respectivegroups. The committee does not have executiveauthority. Its function is to serve as a staff ad-

3

viser to the administration and the board of con-trol. Ultimate responsibility must rest with theboard, even though its decisions may appear to be

largely confirmatory.A schematic flow chart such as is seen in figure 1

might be helpful in grasping one possible concep-tion of the way the planning of a proposed newfacility proceeds through various stages to com-pletion. It also suggests the relation of each com-mittee and each official to the various steps as theyoccur.

It is conceivable that the type of organizationalprocedure for campus planning which works wellin one situation may not be so satisfactory in an-other context. It is altogether likely that apublicly controlled institution will be required toobserve certain procedural stipulations not incum-bent upon a private institution. A State planningcommission is often placed in charge of the Stateconstruction program. This State commissionwill attempt to maintain a rational balance in theexpenditure of State funds as among the severalState institutions. It will also be likely to insistupon certain standards of quality and space allo-cation and to require that prescribed contractforms be used. A broad basis of competition islikely to result from the public interest aspect ofcompetitive bidding.

It follows then that private institutions arelikely to be more flexible in the latitude they mayuse in the expenditure of the building funds attheir disposal. Sometimes direct negotiation witha contractor can be substituted for open competi-tive bidding. There is more freedom for the pri-vate institution to combine all contracts under ageneral contractor who assumes the responsibilityfor the subcontractors' work. This might be im-portant to a small college whose staff of tech-nicians does not include anyone competent toschedule and integrate the work of the varioustechnical building trades employed on the project.

On Looking Ahead,

In almost every campus situation a critical bal-

ance between instructional and residential facili-ties affects enrollment potential. Residentialfacilities have firm ceilings as to capacity but useof instructional facilities can usually be exten-sively expanded by more intensive scheduling.


Campus DevelopmentCommittee

Director of PhysicalPlant Planning

Building Committee

Architect

Board of Control

Contractor

4

1

FLOW CHART

Clearance for Guaranteesand Deficiencies

AOccupancy and Use of

the Facility

Formal Acceptance ofthe Project

8 Superintending,Supervising and Inspecting

Bidding andContract Awarding

Developing the Plans andSpecifications

APreliminary Design of

the Project

A

Programming the Project

ADefining the Need

Discovery of SpecificNeed and Statement

Master Plan of CampusDevelopment

Release by Ownerfor guaranteesand warranties

Board of Control confirmsassignment of space.

Board accepts project uponrecommendation of Architectand Inspector.

Contractor's Superintendent,Architect's Supervisor andOwner's Inspector

Board of Control opens bids andawards contract to successful bidder.

Architect produces detailed plansand specifications as directed.

Architect, Director of Physical PlantPlanning, and Building Committeeprepare preliminary designs.

Campus Development Committee, BuildingCommittee, Director of Physical PlantPlanning, and Architect program orschedule the project.

Building Committee, Campus Development Committee,and Director of Physical Plant Planning draw upstatement defining the scope of the project.

A need for a specific facility is identified and aBuilding Committee for that facility is appointed towork with the Director of Physical Plant Planning.

Campus Development Committee, Director of PhysicalPlant Planning, and Architect maintain continuousstudy of trends and future needs for facilities.

Line Responsibilities Staff or Advisory Functions

Figure 1.Flow chart for planning a typical campus building project.

PERSPECTIVE

The anticipated character and makeup of thefuture student body, aside from its size in enroll-ment, should 'be in the consciousness of the plan-

ners. Will there be a trend toward a larger shareof commuting students than now ? Or will alarger proportion require dormitory housing?How about married students ? From what pre-dominant family income level, will they come?Will adult education and continuing educationwith its emphasis upon evening classes be moreprevalent? Will the local situation be such as topermit a mutual sharing of community facilitiessuch as an auditorium ? Will an increasing pro-portion of the students require part-time employ-ment ? Will the ratio of women to men students

change?Other decisions in planning will relate to the

way in which the institution conceives of itsmission. Is there any positive intent to establishan enrollment ceiling ? Is there a firm commit-ment in the matter of student-faculty ratio ? Hasa relationship been determined between curricu-lum divisions, affecting, for instance, the numberof laboratory courses ? Will all lower division stu-dents be required to register for basic studies ?Is there a trend toward proliferation of coursesor away from it ? What is the attitude towardbasic research ? Applied research ? What willpolicy trends do with regard to student autos andparking space ? What will better space utilizationdo to plans for new facilities ? Is the academicattitude favorable to trying educational innova-tions or is it definitely conservative ? What maytesting and guidance do in the way of changingrelative enrollments in certain types of courses ?

What may be the effect of new areas of study suchas the peaceful use of atomic energy ? Are in-creasing use of independent study and self-teach-ing likely to shift the emphasis with regard tocertain facilities ?

In the planning process there will be certaindeterminations which will need to be made. Itwill also be necessary for the planners to' e awarethat certain other avenues leading to future de-cisions should not be closed by unfortunate actions

in the planning stage. For instance, the possiblefuture use of electronic devices and electricalequipment should not be precluded by failure toprovide power outlets and conduit capacity. Newtrends in the use of equipment which require plug-

5

in sources of power must be anticipated in thestage of planning which involves the wiring. Not

only is there a trend toward portable cafeteria hotand cold food units but also toward the use of such

units as floaters which can be plugged in at areasnot normally used for food service, such as ball-

room, lounge, committee rooms, and the like. Abattery of food warmers can draw very heavily onthe convenience outlet and sometimes involveproviding a separate 220-volt circuit. Future useof projection equipment should not be preventedby specifying a type of window which cannot beeffectively darkened. Narrow doors, stairs, andcorridors may prevent the moving of certain typesof equipment into an area.

In the area of the library science changes arelooming. Some previously decentralized are nowbeing centralized, and others the converse. Thereis a trend toward central research libraries inurban areas. Microfilming of rare books hasbrought to even small campuses source materialonce available only to those who could travelextensively. Microphotos on cards suitable foruse with a magnifying reader by a student in hisroom may make it feasible to issue to each studentthe basic references for an entire course on onecard. Some libraries are trying the experimentof placing a lending library collection in eachdormitory, using low-cost paper back editions ofthe classics. The acquisition of the ability to readrapidly, up to 20,000 and 30,000 words or more anhour, may imply some changes.

Some of the new techniques of teaching, of op-eration, and of administration are demanding tobe evaluated. Television (both broadcast andclosed circuit) , video tapes, films, language learn-ing machines, subliminal learning, tape recorderswith playback, hypnosis, sleep learningthesemay sound fantastic now but radio also oncesounded fantastic. Larger institutions are experi-menting with automatic registration and schedul-ing of class sections. Central data processing isnow feasible for many institutions. Public opin-ion research may sense public needs in educationearlier in the cycle of change.

With increased pressure to be more efficient inthe use of space and time in the educational proc-ess there is certain to be a premium on flexibility

in facilities. There are likely to be more multipur-

pose areas and more adaptability in construction


features. There is a continual conflict of built-infeatures vs. portable equipment, centralized andpooled facilities vs. decentralized and duplicatedaccommodations. One tends to save on cost, theother to save time.

Engineers and architects will be interested intrends in construction materials and service fea-tures. Will the electric heating element replacethe radiator for space heating? How much con-ditioning of the air will be feasible? Will thetrend toward windowless rooms develop ? Whatnext will be made out of plastics, stainless steel,and light metals ?

Rehabilitation

Several complex factors are involved in a de-cision on a proposal to rehabilitate an old struc-ture. What are the alternatives ? (1) raze it andbuild something new, (2) use it with as littlefurther investment as possible until it is no longerusable, (3) abandon it. If it has structural valueand is suitable for rehabilitation, there are otherdecisions: Is it to be enlarged ? Are there tradi-tional or sentimental elements of design to be pre-served ? How much changing of partitions isfeasible or desirable? What is a fair basis ofcomparison on unit cost between rehabilitationand building a new structure? (The lower per-square-foot cost of rehabilitation may promiseonly a 20-year extension of its life, whereas a newstructure may be expected to last 50 years.) Thebuilding of .a new structure may provide facilitiesbetter suited to the specific requirements thanwould be possible in a rehabilitated building.

Unit costs of rehabilitation projects were com-puted from data collected along with the 1958-59campus construction study. 1 Since no limits ordefinitions were included in the report form, "re-habilitation" could have included modernizationand expansion as the situation required. A re-habilitation project may range in scope from aminimal operation of resurfacing some floors, re-pairing the roof, and a repainting of interior walls,to a complete gutting of the old structure, preserv-ing only the classic exterior. In the latter casethe unit cost may well exceed the cost of building

I progress in Higher Education Facilities, 1951-1959. U.S.Office of Education Circular No. 665.

a completely nzw building of the same size. Thereis thus a large legitimate latitude in the unit costof various types of rehabilitation.

Also a certain degree of modernization is in-evitable in a rehabilitation project except in casesof fire or storm damage. New fixtures, both light-ing and plumbing, tend to be used to achieve themore modern standards in building codes. Ade-quate wiring is usually involved. Air-condition-ing is sometimes feasible. Hazards to health andsafety are eliminated.

The national average per-square-foot cost of allrehabilitation projects reported in the 1958-59study, public and private, for buildings of allfunctional types in all regions was $7.50. Sincethe counterpart figure for new construction for thesame year was $19 per square foot, it might berationalized that rehabilitation, on the average,costs approximately 40 percent as much as newconstruction. There appear to be no normativedata on the matter of the average life extensionof a building due to rehabilitation.

Magnitude of FinancingMany administrators feel that the planning of

the physical facilities for a campus-of-the-futureis a pleasant pastime as compared with the choreof raising the money with which to pay for thebuildings. However, the acquiring of capital_funds is a necessary part of the planning. Failureon this score makes all of the other planning point-less. It may be more effective to have a campus-of-the-future plan and then seek the funds withwhich to bring it to realization than it is to go outafter building fund money and start to plan thecampus after learning how much money there islikely to be available.

It may be true, however, in the case of a Stateinstitution, that the money forthcoming fromState appropriations will have to be shared withother State institutions. In this event, the scopeof the planning should be lifted to the State levelrather than for each of the separate institutionsto go its independent way. Usually a State plan-ning commission is involved.

Privately controlled institutions have a differentfinancial problem. Usually the director of devel-opment (fund raising) has a limited number ofprospective donors to be persuaded rather than a

Yt

1

PERSPECTIVE

majority of the State's electorate (or their rep-resentatives) as in the case of a State college.Time-honored methods of presenting the claimsof the institution upon the interest, the affection,and the generosity of prospective donors will nodoubt be used in the future with at least equalsuccess to that of the past. Here again there islikely to be a more positive response if some rep-resentation of the physical appearance of the ulti-mate campus-of-the-future is made. It at least.signifies that the institution thinks it knows whereit is going.

The engineer uses his slide rule to come up withan estimate of the size in square feet needed toaccommodate the number of students which theadmissions people have said should be providedfor. Those concerned with cost should be in a posi-tion to estimate how much, within reasonable lim-its, each building or facility may cost and wherethe money will come from. The architect isusually prepared to render a rough sketch of howa proposed building or group of buildings willlook.

The Place of Cost in Planning

When the question "What will it cost ?" isasked,no one expects an exact answer in dollars; how-ever, it is often essential to sound planning to haveestimates which are sufficiently realistic to indi-cate the degree of feasibility of the project. Onlyafter professional analysis of \detailed plans andspecifications can reliable estimates be projectedand only after qualified bids are offered can therebe any degree of confidence as to the ultimate costof a new building. Nevertheless, the experienceof the past or the records of other institutions canprovide approximate cost ranges helpful for roughestimating purposes.

A study 2 of new construction completed in fiscal1958-59 included more than 1,000 college buildingsof all functional types in all regions of the country.For a major portion of these, both the square feetof floor area and the cost were recorded. Fromthese data the average cost per square foot for allfunctional types for buildings completed that yearwas found to be $19. (The reported cost of a proj-

Progress in Higher Education Facilities, 1951-1959. U.S.Office of Education Circular No. 665.

4t4tallelmorcam

7

ect did not include any equipment other than thatwhich was built-in.)

Since the average size, by enrollment, of institu-tions of higher education is larger in public in-stitutions than in private, the public institutionstend to build larger buildings. Other factorsbeing equal, the larger the building, the lower theper-square-foot cost because there are more squarefeet to absorb the fixed cost items. In this studythe per-square-foot cost of new buildings in publicinstitutions was computed to be $18.40 as com-pared with $20.30 in private institutions.

When computed by functional types, the ratiobetween per- square -foot costs of public vs. privatebuilding follows a similar pattern for the mostpart. Residential buildings in this study cost $16

per square foot in public institutions and $18.20in private; aggregate, $16.70. Auxiliary build-ings, public, cost $19.80; private, $21.10; aggre-gate, $20.30. General buildings cost $21.30 forpublic and $24.50 for private; aggregate, $22.70.Research buildings cost $19.40 for public and$29.20 for private; aggregate, $24. Instructionalbuildings showed a slightly converse pattern : pub-lic, $20.30; private, $19.20; aggregate, $20.

On making an analysis of certain selected func-tional types within the general groups, it wasfound that hospitals, both teaching and nonteach-ing ($24.60 and $25.40, respectively, per squarefoot) , were the most expensive type outside theresearch category. Infirmaries and food facilities($23.20 and $23.10, respectively) were next highest.In the instructional group, the instructional lab-oratories ($22.90) were the most expensive. Col-lege unions, to the number of 42 completed thatyear, carried a per-square-foot price tag of $18.90.

Faculty apartment buildings cost $15.40 persquare foot and apartment buildings for marriedstudents cost $13.70 as compared with dormitoriesfor men ($17.80) and for women ($16.80). (Therelative cost per occupant between apartments anddormitories might be quite a different story.)Hotel type accommodations, in the one projectreported, cost $20.20 per square foot. Fraternityand sorority houses built by the college (8 proj-ects) cost $13.80 per square foot.

By geographic regions, the only consistently dif-ferent pattern of unit costs was in the Southeast.From the aggregate figures reported it may be de-duced that colleges and universities of that region


obtain between 20 and 25 percent more square feetof buildings for their construction funds than doother regions of the country.

The foregoing 1958-59 unit cost computationsmay be used for rough estimates if properlyweighted for special requirements and local condi-tions. The probabilities for the future are subjectto cyclical trends. Costs appear always to rise,never to fall. The big question in the case of anyplanned project is how much rise. The U.S. De-partment of Commerce composite constructioncost index 3 shows an increase in 1959 over 1956of approximately 9 percent. This is a 3 percentincrease per year on the average. There is a con-tinual tug-of-war between the rising cost indexfactors and the efforts of architects to achieve newand less expensive architectural forms and ofbuilders to remain competitive by means of cost-saving techniques.

National Goals

Those concerned with providing facilities forhigher education in the United States point outsome general calculations : First, buildings wearout and have to be replaced. Assuming a 50-yearaverage life of college buildings and expressingthis need for replacement in terms of the numberof students accommodated by the facilities needingto be replaced each year, or 2 percent of the studentbody in any given year, instructional and generalaccommodations should have been completed for68,046 students (.02 X 3,402,297) in 1958-59 justto "stand still" in facilities. In addition, resi-dential facilities replacements were needed for the40 percent of these 68,046 housed on the campus,or 27,218 dormitory student stations. At $2,500per student for instructional and general facilitiesand $4,700 per student4 for residential accommo-dations, the total amount of money needed for re-placements for that year was $298,040,000. Theincrease in enrollment between 1958 and 1959, fallterms,. was 143,711,5 for which, if enrollments hadbeen requiring 100 percent of the capacity of facil-ities in 1958, an expenditure of $629,583,000 would

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Construction Review, June1961. p. 35.

3Bokelman, W. Robert, and Rork, John B. College and Uni-versity Facilities Survey, Part 2 (U.S. Office of Education,, Cir-cular No. 603).

5 Opening Fall Enrollment for 1958, also for 1959. U.S. Officeof Education, Circulars Nos. 544 and 606,

have been required in order to provide instruc-tional, general, and residential accommodations.Thus the total requirement for new buildings andreplacement would have amounted to $927,623,000.Actually the expenditure for that year for newconstruction and rehabilitation was approximately$719 million. Presumably not all institutions werefull to capacity either in 1958 or 1959, but it is asafe assumption that, based upon this lag of over$208 million, enrollments are overtaking the p rac-tical capacity of the facilities.

Staff Surveys

The staff from the Higher Education Divisionof the U.S. Office of Education has been calledupon to make surveys of higher education in (1)States, (2) regions of States, and (3) institutions.Such surveys include, among other phases, phys-ical facilities and the educational programs theyhouse. Since surveys lead to recommendations,there is an implied element of analysis for plan-ning purposes. Among these surveys have beenthose of (1) North Dakota, (2) South Dakota,(3) The Tidewater Area of Virginia, and (4)Howard College of Birmingham, Ala. Such rec-ommendations as the following were derived fromthose surveys and are typical :

That new construction be held in abeyance until ahigher level of utilization of current facilities isrealized.

That remodeling and rehabilitation of certainbuildings be given first priority.

That classrooms of varying sizes be provided inplanned new facilities to make better use of totalspace.

That a better balance of supporting space (facultyofficei, reading rooms, storage, etc.) be plannedas related to general instructional space.

That a qualified specialist in campus developmentbe employed (State agency).That a long-range campus development programbe started.That in building and remodeling, greater attentionbe given to such factors as daylight control; thecolors of walls, ceilings, and trim ; floors and suit-able furniture.That certain temporary housing be replaced withpermanent facilities.

That the planning for auditorium and fleldhouse

PERSPECTIVE

building be coordinated with the action of thelocal community so as to avoid unnecessaryduplication.That in the planning of additional (public) facili-ties, high priority be given to areas of relativelyhigh population concentration so that large num-bers of students will be able to carry on theirstudies while living at home.

Among the specific recommendations of the au-thors of this casebook are found such as follow :

That a growing school maintain a strong central

planning office.

That a campus planning committee be advisory

only.

That a written program be prepared on everymajor building project and approved in principleby everyone concerned before the architect begins

work.

That a master plan be adopted, be kept current,and be properly used.

That planning be kept flexible.

That academic programs be the first considera-tion and then facilities be built which will bestserve the basic objectives.

9

That the target size of enrollment for which facili-ties are being planned be limited by the amount ofmoney which the college can supply to provide thedifference between what the student pays andwhat it costs to educate him.

That in advocating the establishing of a new com-munity college every avenue of public informa-tion be used to inform the people of the districtof the need.

That in planning a consolidation of two or moreinstitutions into one, the heads and appropriateadministrative officers of the merging institutionsbe invited to participate in all planning activities.

That means be provided in campus and buildingplans for possible adaptation to requirements ofemerging techniques and equipment such as tele-visions and learning machines.

That in planning a major project such as movingto a new location, in the case of a church-relatedcollege, to make sure of the enthusiastic support ofvirtually all of the contributing constituency.

That in a major campaign for funds, assurance besecured that the trustees themselves will con-tribute substantially.That progress in new construction is always newsand as such should be handled in conformancewith its public relations value.

Chapter II

The Cases

ONE VIRTUE of a casebook including a num-ber of typical examples, each written by a

separate author or authors, is that many legiti-mately differing -points of view are presented.

In this casebook, one report was written by adirector of the physical plant out of a rich back-ground of experience in the planning, mainte-nance, and operation of a large and complex cam-pus. Another was written by an administratorfamiliar with academic programs and the urgencyof providing facilities which will fit the needs ofeach academic discipline. One was written fromthe point of view of public relations experts, withemphasis on getting the support of the taxpayersfor a move to provide the educational facilitieswhich the community needed. One was writtenby an architect who knows from experience atwhat points his profession can best contribute toeffective campus plannii.g. And so on through thelist. In addition to the diversity of campus plan-ning situations there is, therefore, a variety ofpersonal backgrounds of the authors to give as-surance that the casebook will have something fornearly every planner.

Variety of Planning Situations

The 10 cases included present a comprehensivescope of typical campus planning situations.There are large universities and small colleges,public institutions and private institutions. Var-ious regions of the country are represented. Thisin addition to the variety of types of planninginvolved among the cases.

The writers have shared their experiences gen-erously and each has sprinkled his report with

10

timely advicesometimes extremely practical andsometimes dealing with underlying principles.Some suggestions are concerned with physical fa-cilities; others deal with people and programs.

In spite of the diversity of the planning situa-tions represented by the cases selected there are anumber of common denominators recognizable asapplying to most campus planning. Not that theyall tended to handle respective problems alike.For the most part they did not. It might be wellto examine briefly a few of these common prob-lems and how they were solved.

Mission and Goals

It goes without saying that a college or univer-sity ought to have a sense of mission of the insti-tution as a whole and that a consciousness of thatmission in definitive terms ought to pervade allof its planning. To whatever extent a college isconceived of in a distinctive reference or to a dis-tinctive degree that distinctiveness ought to be setforth as often as necessary to insure being ex-pressed in all decisions involving the planning ofits physical facilities as well as its programs andpersonnel.

Implicit in the statement of the educational ob-jectives of each of these cases is an awareness ofits distinctive mission. The church-related insti-tutions give to their expressions a religiousflavor"people shall be instructed in suchbranches as are usually taught in an academy oflearning and also in the Old and New Testament,the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrineand Covenants" (Brigham Young University) ;"committed only to Catholic doctrine and princi-ples, the University is free to investigate and teach

THE CASES

all areas of knowledge" (Saint Louis University) ;"clearly it was to be an institution with a toweringChristian philosophy that was expected to per-meate its life" (St. Andrews Presbyterian Col-lege) ; "It had its inception as an independent,interdenominational religious school, dedicatedpermanently to providing theoretical and practicalinstruction in several church vocations" (Barring-ton College) ; "In addition, the college offers train-ing . . . of religious workers" (Methodist Col-lege) ; "promotion of the Christian religionthroughout the world by maintaining and operat-ing an institution dedicated to the development ofChristian character and high scholastic standing"(Howard College). The most apparent aspect ofthis religious allegiance in campus planning is thechapel, but it also has implications in the emphasisupon liberal arts in the curriculum which is some-what less demanding in regard to special facili-ties than the more professional programs would be.

The publicly controlled institutions amongthese cases tend to let the reader take for grantedtheir general mission in the area of education, thatof affording to the children of the people a meansby which to realize their intellectual potential.

Educational Program Implications

Publicly controlled institutions and the largerof the privately operated universities tend to de-partmentalize their several objectives, first in basicstudies and then in specialized fields. "It is thepurpose of the College of Basic Studies to providethat part of the students' education which shouldequip him for better living" (University of SouthFlorida). This institution's statement of objec-tives goes on to say that more intensive study willbe selected by the student from among severalmajor fields but that even these are not intended to

4c-prepare specialists. In cases such as San Fran-cisco State College, the move to a new locationoffered an opportunity to recognize in its campusplanning a basic shift which had taken place, thatof changing from a teachers college to a largeliberal arts college with professional and prepro-fessional curricula and 5-year programs leadingto the master's degree in addition to teacher edu-cation. Standards of space allocation and time

6305810 -62- -2

11

utilization were established by the State Board toguide the planning at each institution.

Projections of Enrollment

Not all of the institutions detailed their processof projecting enrollment trend lines into the fu-ture. Some such as Brigham Young Universityrefer to the attention which was given to growthcharacteristics of the academic distribution pat-tern currently observed. Such standards of relat-ing student numbers to 'building space as thoseestablished by the University of California wereused. St. Louis University illustrated the growthof urban institutions in which separate growth pat-terns were developed for part-time students,largely evening classes, since growth in eveningclasses has different facilities implications thanfull-time day student registration. Florida hasan element of growth not present in some parts ofthe country, the in migration not alone of retiredpeople but also of families with growing children.

Methodist College, being a privately controlled-institution, could establish an optimum target en-rollment of 1,200 students above which some dupli-cation of facilities would be required, and builtits new campus to that ceiling.

In the case of South Plains (junior) College, aspecialist was employed to direct a district-widesurvey of population trends, of high school seniors,and of their likelihood of attending the proposednew college. St. Andrews Presbyterian Collegecontemplated starting its existence with an enroll-ment approximating the total current enrollmentof the three colleges which were consolidated toform it. In this case also a target enrollment wasenvisaged, 2,000, which might be realized in theforeseeable future.

A series of comprehensive studies of the needs ofCalifornia in higher education was available to theplanners of San Francisco State College. It wasnecessary for them to integrate their planningwith the plans of all. of the other colleges in theState system.

In some of the new institutions only freshmenwere admitted for the first year of operation. As anew freshman class was admitted each succeedingyear and other classes moved up, the scheduling of


the completion of facilities and of staff recruit-ment had to be synchronized.

Role of the Planning Authority

In the case of a totally new institution some oneperson or agency or group of interested personshad to originate the idea of the new college. Thismight be a civic group (Methodist College), aneducational leader (South Plains College), a Stateboard of higher education (University of SouthFlorida), or a church body (St. Andrews Pres-byterian College). In order to obtain a 'charterthere had to be created a board of control to rep-resent the corporate entity, hold authority, andrender accountability. The board of control istherefore the ultimate authority for planning.Such 'a boars usually delegates some portion ofthat responsibility to regular staff personnel oremploys a professionally trained planner. A pub-licly controlled institution may be required torelinquish a portion of its planning authority tothe planning agency of the governmental unit(San Francisco State College). Committees offaculty and staff are often brought into the plan-ning process for the benefit of their more inti-mate knowledge of special needs. A larger insti-tution may have a department of campus plan-ning and development (Brigham Young Univer-sity). Professional services to be retained in-cludecompetence in educational specificationswhat courses and programs are to be offered andwhat the physical facilities requirements are foreach, and a campus planning expert who knowsintimately the requirements of campus functionalinterrelationships and planning for growth (St.Andrews Presbyterian College) ; a landscapearchitect (Howard College) ; and 1 the official col-lege architect. In some cases a firm of architects,with much experience on college campuses, mayalso provide the necessary professional guidancefor campus planning and for landscaping. Somehave personnel qualified to assist with the selectionof furnishings and equipment.

Selecting the Site

In each of the cases where a new campus sitewas involved there is much evidence of thoughtand planning on the selection of that site and on

providing an ample amount of space for futuregrowth. In the other cases there was preoccupa-tion with the acquisition of more land contiguousto the existing campus.

The University of South Florida acquired intwo grants, 'approximately 1,700 acres of landadjacent to Tampa, on a site which studies hadrevealed to be feasible and desirable for a camp -Ys.The North Carolina Conference of the MethodistChurch accepted the offer of a committee of pub-lic-spirited citizens of Fayetteville of an adequatesite near that city. The Board of Regents ofSouth Plains College of Levelland, Tex., rejectedthe offer of donation of various sites for its campusand purchased for a negotiated price a tractdeemed to be adequate in size and location. In thecase of St. Andrews Presbyterian College, a Syn-odical survey commission with its advisory coun-cil recommended that the proposed new college belocated in central or eastern North Carolina in a"population center where, in addition to the inter-est and support of the constituency, cultural op-portunities and advantages are afforded thestudent." Laurinburg was found to fit these con-ditions and a parcel of land comprising 840 acreswas chosen.

Choice of a site to which to move the San Fran-cisco State College campus was limited for therewere few possible sites within the city largeenough to accommodate a college of its size.

Howard College retained the services of asociologist to make a survey of population trendsin the Birmingham area and as a result a locationin the Homewood suburban section was chosen.

Role of the Architect in Campus Planning

The point at which the official architect of thecollege enters the planning process may vary. Ifhe is involved in long-range campus planning asindicated by Mr. Hunter at Colorado State Uni-tersity, he will meet regularly with the campusplanning or development committee. If he is re-tained to provide architectural services only andon an ad hoc basis, he may be handed a scheduleof instructions or written programs for eachbuilding as it has been approved (Brigham YoungUniversity). The choice of an architect and thedelineation of the scope of his function may bedetermined at a higher level than the institution

r7

kr

'lab CASES

in cases of State-controlled institutions (Univer-

sity of South Florida and San Francisco StateCollege). At the University of South Florida somuch architectural service was required at onetime in order to enable construction work to start

on five major buildings at once that no one firm

in the area was large enough to prosecute the whole

program without sacrificing the interests of otherpatrons, so each of five firms was assigned onebuilding and their work was coordinated throughthe office of the president.

Previous 3xperience in designing college build-ings (if not in campus planning) appears to have

carried much weight with boards of control in

selecting an architect (Methodist College, SouthPlains College, St. Andrews College, HowardCollege, and Barrington College). Accessibility

due to the location of his office nearby, was a factor

in some instances.

Integration of the New With the Old

New facilities, whether they be located on awhole new campus or added to an existing campus,do not come into being in a vacuum. A new

campus must associate and communicate with itsneighbors. Good public relations should be built-

in at the planning stage. This aim appears to havebeen realized in the case of each of the new cam-puses included in this casebook. A college is acommunity asset. Its facilities should supplementthose of the community (Barrington College)rather than duplicate them. Integration of pro-grams and exchange of credits with nearby sistercolleges will preclude some facilities duplication(University of South Florida, Methodist College,Howard College) .

The expansion of an existing campus so as tointegrate the proposed new buildings with theolder buildings and to use the remaining campusspace to the best advantage are often a bugbear in

the planning process. At Brigham Young Uni-versity the presence of some temporary buildingswas a part of the problem for they had to con-tinue to serve while the new facilities were underconstruction. At Saint Louis University a men'sdormitory had been built in an earlier day nearthe center of a campus crowded with academicbuildings in a location which would have been bet-ter suited to a library. In determining which of

13

the older buildings to retain and for how long,

Saint Louis University employed the servicesof an

engineering firm to make a thorough study of the

structural soundness and to estimate the futureusefulness of each building along with its utilitieslines and fixtures.

An important part of the planning for newbuildings is the disposition of space in older build-ings released by departments to be moved into newquarter-S. Each such facility must be surveyed as

to its functional feasibility for reassignment and

for any need for remodeling. The assignment ofsuch space is then a partof the total planning task.

As difficult as it is to integrate new campusbuildings with older buildings of an earlier archi-tectural era, the epitome of frustration is themaintenance of standards of beauty, safety, andutility on a campus in a degenerating neighbor-

hood. This is the sad situation in which manyurban educational institutions find themselves.Fortunately there is a way out for many such col-

leges and universities in the federally sponsoredprovision for urban renewal. The University ofChicago case if, an excellent reference work forthe planners in thef dilemma.

Scheduling and Lead Time

Unless sufficient space isalready owned the ac-quisition of new land for building sites will claimthe early attention of planners. Sometimes pricepenalties attendant upon the release of news ofadvance planning activities can be avoided byquietly picking up various desired tracts long be-fore the time of actual need or by using discreetintermediaries. The Saint Louis University caseand the early history of the University of Chicagoemphasize this point.

The establishing of an order of priority for newbuildings and scheduling their completion is es-sential. From preliminary plans to a completedstructure requires a minimum of 26 months, ac-cording to the schedule outline by Saint LouisUniversity. "It is possible to erect a million dollar

building in a year, but only by incurring unneces-

sary expenditures and risking a poorly plannedstructure." Three years would be a safer schedule,

they say. The University of South Florida indi-

cates that the lead time between the legislative

appropriation and the time the building can be


used is 30 to 36 months in their case. Addingon the time required for original planning, foraction by the Board of Control, and by the StateBudget Commission, brings the total lead time toapproximately 4 years.

The five buildings deemed to have first priorityin the establishing of a totally new 'university inthe case of the University of South Florida were :an administration building (including 18 roomsused temporarily as classrooms) ; the universitycenter with food service facilities; bookstore and16 classrooms; a chemistry building (adaptable tobeing temporarily shared with physics, zoology,geology, and astronomy) ; a teaching auditorium,and a library. A central plant with heating andcooling equipment and campus distribution lineswas equally essential. Methodist College in deter-mining the order of priority for the first build-ings on its campus, began with a classroom andfaculty office building, also housing temporarilythe administrative offices and the library. One ofthe first groups of facilities was a science buildingincluding a large lecture hall used temporarily asan assembly hall. The campus union buildingand cafeteria was considered one of the first essen-tials. The campus heating plant comprised thefourth building, to which was added a wing pro-viding locker and shower rooms for physicaleducation.

St. Andrews Presbyterian College determinedupon certain buildings as having priorities : (1)the main academic building, (2) the library, (3)the first unit of the college union, (4) dormitoryfacilities for 600 students, and (3) music conserva-tory. Later buildings to follow on the long-rangecampus plan, included an auditorium, the chapel,an administration building, and physical educa-tion facilities.

San Francisco State College adopted a priorityorder governed by practical considerations ofcrowded conditions on the old campus and ofhaving to operate on two campuses for severalyears. This dilemma was partially solved bycareful scheduling of class sessions during theinterim. The gymnasium was the first buildingoccupied. Next was the building to house thesciences. Others followed in a sequence whichcurrent exigencies dictated.

At Howard College the administration build-ing was the first of 10 buildings completed on the

new campus. Others completed before movingthe college were the library, two laboratory build-ings, two dormitories, the college union, and a finearts building. The chapel was completed soonafterward. The president's residence nearby waspurchased.

Flexibility

Campus buildings once were "built for theages." More recently flexibility is the watchword.It may be some time before college buildings willbe conceived in highly temporary terms and bereplaced whenever the functional emphasischanges. In the meantime every constructionfeature is being exploited which will promoteflexibility and maneuverability of the interiorspace.

The desire for flexibility was realized in theconstruction detail of several of the casestheuse of metal partitions and other non-load-bearingpartitions, so that interior walls can be readilymoved or removed (Methodist College) ; planningon a modular basis (Saint Louis University) ; theconvertibility of space from laboratory to class-

room and from classroom to office (Howard Col-lege), and equipment for use in a temporary spaceassignment being bought from the list of equip-ment designed for the permanent quarters (Meth-odist College). South Plains College plannedsome of its buildings so as to facilitate the addi-tion of new wings in the future. Lavatorieswere therefore located near the extremities of thebuildings so that they could serve also the occu-pants of the future new wings. This institutionand some of the others planned some multipul usespace, a luncheon service facility doubling as a rec-reation area, and a band room suitable for a class-room. Methodist College built small apartment-type buildings to house a limited number of stu-dents and later when a dormitory is built the smallunits will convert readily to use by faculty andmarried students.

Accreditation

For both the new and the growing institution itis essential that the planning authority be awareof minimum physical facilities reqdirenients laid

THE CASES

down by its regional accrediting agency. Accred-itation is also one requirement to qualify for acollege housing loan application.

One phase of the process of the accreditation isthe inspection of an institution's physical facili-ties to determine whether they are adequate andproperly balanced. In the case of a new institu-tion, however, this is not likely to be the mainproblem. In order to attract students, the collegemust give assurance of the transferability of cred-its. But to be eligible for accreditation it usuallymust have graduated one class. This dilemma,at first glance, takes on the appearance of an im-passe, as pointed out by several of the authors.From such restrictions one might get the impres-sion that an aura of illegitimacy surrounds anynew institutioin. It should be said, however, thatreasonable abatements have been recognized bywhich a new institution may acquire a provision-ally accredited status.

Adequate Financing

Many books, brochures, and articles have beenwritten in the field of financing capital plant ex-pansion of colleges and universities. This case-book in the general field of campus planningwould hardly be the place to attempt an extendedtreatment of the subject. However, all of theinstitutions among these cases present the problemin one way or another. There may be little thatis new herein, but it will be interesting to somereaders to find their own concerns mirrored inthese cases. The types of problems tend to groupthemselves either as applying to publicly financedoperations or to those privately financed, but notentirely. Some private money goes into publicinstitutions, and some public money, at least inloans, goes into private institutions. Both (pub-licly and privately supported institutions) writeof the use of the College Housing Loan Programto finance the construction of dormitories.

Public financing.The problem in publicly sup-ported institutions cannot be dismissed with thesimple prescription "just give the voters the facts."As the case of San Francisco State College illu-strates, the fiscal policies of a State pertain to eachand every State institution and the tax revenueshave to be apportioned on some rational basis.There is the tendency to draw up constructionbudgets in conformity with what each administra-

15

tion thinks the State department of finance willapprove. In California, each State college estab-lishes its priority of projects on a 5-year schedule,and a program for all State colleges results.

At Colorado State University each proposedproject goes through the process of critical evalua-tion called "putting it through the wringer." Inmany States, even though the appropriations aremade by the State legislature, the institutions taketheir facilities needs to the people in order to gene-rate popular support.

Timing is very important in requesting com-mitments of public funds. In some States the leg-islature meets only in alternate years and if onebiennial session is missed, there is a 2-year lag inany planning steps which involve expenditures.

The South Plains College case illustrates onecommonly used procedure for obtaining publicfinancing for a junior college or a community col-lege. A college district is uthorized by popularvote and the district assumes the funding obliga-tion by authorizing general obligation bondsusually secured by real estate and paid throughmill levies on assessed valuations. In some States,State revenues are made available for at least aportion of the cost of construction of a communitycollege.

Private school financing.Financing new con-struction in private colleges and universities takesmany forms. Aside from Federal loans for dormi-tories and other auxiliary facility buildings, littlepublic money is available in most States. Con-tributions from local civic groups and public-spirited citizens are not uncommon, and suchdonations ar-: often in the form of site real estate.Church-related colleges often receive grants fromtheir respective State, regional, or national bodies.Howard College, Brigham Young University, andMethodist College are cases in point. On the otherhand, some colleges which have nominal ties withtheir designated church affiliations obtain a verysmall proportion of their support from thatsource.

Howard College obtained capital funds from theGenefal Education Board of the RockefellerFoundation. There are many other foundationswhich are interested in educational institutions.

Experience is divided as to the use of develop-ment-fundraising organizations, but where an out-side organization is not retained, the college itself


usually employs a professional fundraiser on astaff basis. One of the authors says, "Institutionalfundraising is a science that can be studied." Itcould be added that fundraising is also an art anda profession. Such an assignment is no task fora tyro, even though well-disposed. In several ofthe cases the raising of construction funds bysolicitation is mentioned without detailing theagent. Some of these instances may well haveinvolved the use of professional developmentfundraisers.

Often members of the board of control are nomi-nated not alone for their valued counsel and guid-ance but also for their financial potential in gifts."Where your treasure is, there will your heart bealso" may work the other way. A professionalfundraiser told the president of Barrington Col-lege, "Unless your trustees themselves give sub-stantially toward reaching the financial goal ofyour fund drive, you will not make a succes of thiseffort."

Of course the sale of college property, as in thecase of moving to a new location, may be a signifi-cant source of construction funds. Howard Col-lege realized a half million dollars in that way.That college also benefited continually throughthe activities of its ladies' auxiliary.

Self-liquidating loans are the normal source ofconstruction funds for income-producing facili-ties, such as dormitories, married student housing,faculty-staff housing, college unions, and book-store buildings.

Howard College, among others, warned of thedanger that a major effort to acquire capital fundsmight be permitted to overshadow other urgentneeds such as providing for recurring operatingbudgets and planning to augment them to takecare of the expanded campus.

Matters Not Covered

It might be appropriate to note here the absenceof any mention of space utilization studies as ap-plying to institutions faced with problems ofgrowth. The lack of mention does not necessarilymean that none was made. Nor would the state-ment that such studies were made give assurancethat they had resulted in appropriate action. An

alert administration in its planning will not over-look the values to be gleaned through a moreintensive or better balanced use of the facilities inbeing before asking for funds for new buildings.

Planning the purchase of equipment for newbuildings was not covered in several of the cases.Creativity and the forward look is characteristicof architectural and engineering planning for anew college structure. To "make-do" with furni-ture and equipment good enough for a by-goneday is to stop short of a complete unit of planning.This lack, where it exists may often be traced toan inadequate budget. In the absence of earlyplanning by line item of all of the equipment andfurnishings for the new building with each itempriced and extended, a formula figure for suchrequirements is sometimes improvised which mayor may not prove to be adequate. Sufficient leadtime for selecting, fabricating, and delivering fur-niture and equipment is also an important elementof the planning. To have it delivered too earlyinvolves a , storage problem with attendant risks,and to have it delivered too late prevents the in-tended use of the new facility and is awkward andirritating.

Thes!,3 cases were all written before there wasmuch mention of the need for fall-out shelters inthe current cold war situation. Now, of course,many administrators are deeply concerned as tothe degree of their responsibility to provide somesuch protection for the people under their care.While new and remodeled buildings are beingplanned is the time to face the problem and reacha decision. It is likely that other currently pro-ductive uses for such space will be considered andplanned for.

Campus safety did not receive extensive treat-ment by the writers of these cases. It is an elementwhich can be and by all means should be coveredin the planning stage of new or remodeled facil-ities. If the institution does not have its ownsafety engineer or someone trained in that field, thearchitect should be urged to avail himself of theservices of that variety of specialist. As an exam-ple : plate glass doors should be specified to beprovided with metal bars, likewise plate glass pan-els adjacent to doors which look like doors, toprevent the unwary from walking through theglass.

Chapter III

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY typifies a vigorous,growing institution with room in which to grow. The plan-ning foresight exemplified in this ease and the manner inwhich professional skills are applied to problems of growthas they pertain to physical facilities are worthy of study byother planners. The reader should note the manner in whichthe requirements of the prospective users of the facilities areexpressed in a detailed "written program" supplementing aset of general instructions to all architects.

Expanding Brigham Young UniversityBy SAM F. BREWSTER

Director, Department of Physical Plant, Brigham YoungUniversity

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY is locatedin Provo, Utah, a city of more than 40,000

population, 45 miles south of Salt Lake City. Themain, or Upper Campus, of the University lies 100feet above the city. From the campus one obtainsa panoramic view of the city below, Utah Lake,and the mountains enclosing the valley. Themountains and canyons near Provo are excellentfor hiking, fishing, hunting, and winter sports.

Historical Background

Brigham Young University was established pur-suant to a deed of trust executed by BrighamYoung, President of the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints, on October 16, 1875. Thatdeed expressly set forth that the "people shall beinstructed insuch branches as are usually taughtin an academy of learning," and also "in the Oldand New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, andthe Book of Doctrine and Covenants." A group ofseven persons appointed by President Young corn-

prised. the first Board of. Trustees. At a meetingon November 22, 1875, the Board of Trustees or-ganized the Academy and Warren N. Dusenberrywas selected to become the first principal. Afterconducting the first preliminary term, which endedApril 15, 1876, he resigned to practice law.

Brigham Young then selected Karl G. Maeserto become the principal of the academy and senthim to Provo, Utah, with these instructions : "Iwant you to remember that .you ought not to teacheven the alphabet or the multiplication tableswithout the Spirit of God. That is all. God blessyou. Goodbye." Dr. Maeser served as principalof the academy from April 24, 1876, to January 4,1892, a period of 16 years. An old building, con-sisting of one large room and a stage, was the firsthome of the new academy. By 1882 this buildingwas found to be totally inadequate for the needs ofthe school and additional rooms were added. How-ever, this structure was entirely destroyed by fireJanuary 27, 1884. Temporary quarters were ob-tained and the school continued with the loss of

17


only 1 day of school. During the summer of 1884arrangements were made for the use of the upperfloor and part of the lower floor of a warehouse onUniversity Avenue.

The transition of the academy into BrighamYoung University, the University of the Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has beenmarked by periods of great financial distress.Brigham Young died before he had provided forthe endowment of the institution. This left theschool without any assured source of income. Inthe early days of the school, when no funds forthe budget could be found, the board of trusteeseven considered closing the academy.

On June 8, 1888, there was organized a GeneralBoard of Education of the Church, consisting ofnine members. This board directed the activitiesof the school, but the, power of appointment ofthe board of trustees remained with the heirs ofBrigham Young until July 18, 1896, when, by theadoption of the articles of incorporation of theuniversity, the right of appointment was grantedto the First Presidency of the Church, throughthe consent of the heirs of Brigham Young. Bythis action, the church assumed the indebtednessof the institution and accepted the responsibilityof maintaining Brigham Young University.

On January 4, 1892, the school was moved towhat is now known as the Lower Campus and intowhat is now known as the Education Building.This building was the first structure built entirelyfor the University. In 1898 College Building wasconstructed and in 1902 a training school andgymnasium. In 1904 the present Arts Buildingwas completed.

The young, growing school was still to havefinancial difficulties, but it was definitely estab-lished and on its way. In 1894 the title of thehead of Brigham Young Academy was changedfrom "principal" to "president," and in 1903 theschool became Brigham Young University. In1904 the students and faculty 'began negotiationsfor the purchase of 17 acres of land known gen-erally as Temple Hill. This land, purchased fromProvo City about 1907 at a cost of $1,000 was thebeginning of the present campus. A survey of theland purchased showed that about one and one-half acres at the point of the hill was not includedin the deed given by Provo City. The studentsand faculty members of the school voluntarily

raised an additional $1,000 to pay for this land.The first building constructed on the site of thenew campus was the Maeser Memorial Building,the cornerstone of which was laid on FoundersDay, 1909. It was ready for occupancy by thefall term of 1911. In 1913 the Women's Gym-nasium was erected and in 1919 the MechanicArts Building was constructed.

Dr. Franklin S. Harris became President ofthe University on July 1, 1921, and served untilJune 30, 1945, a period of 24 years, the longestterm of any president. During his adminis-tration, the University was organized into fivecollegesApplied Sciences, Arts and Sciences,Commerce, Education, and Fine Artsand theReligion and Extension Divisions were estab-lished. The Graduate School was formally organi-zed and a dean of the Graduate School appointed.The Heber J. Grant Library was completed in1925 and the Stadium in 1929, and during the last10 years of his administration a building programwas begun which has been accelerating ever since.It was President Harris who first envisioned thepresent expanded Upper Campus of the Uni-versity and indeed who made it possible by hisextensive purchasing of additional properties sur-rounding the land originally purchased for theUpper Campus.

Howard S. McDonald became the next presi-dent of the University and served from July 1,1945, to October 30, 1949. Under his leadershipthe school experienced a major expansion. UnderPresident McDonald's direction the EyringScience Center was begun, being completed in1950. Called by many educators the finest, mostmodern science building between the MississippiRiver and the Pacific Coast, it has four stories andcontains 153,054 square feet of floor space. Dur-ing his administration the planning and archi-tectural drawings of buildings for the universitywere assigned to a university architect. The build-ings and grounds were placed under the directionof a superintendent of buildings and grounds.

Dr. Christen Jensen acted as President of Brig-ham Young University during 1939-40, and againfrom November 1, 1949, until the early part of1951. Under his direction the Eyring ScienceCenter was completed and the plans for the GeorgeAlbert Smith Fieldhouse, which has a seating ca-pacity of 10,650 persons, were approved.

Period of Rapid Growth

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

In 1950 Dr. Ernest L. Wilkinson was selectedby the board of trustees as the new president. Hebegan his period of service in February 1951.Since that time, the university has experiencedmore than 100 percent increase in enrollment. Thefaculty has witnessed an even larger proportionateincrease in number; and the 5 colleges, 1 school,

and 2 divisions previously comprising the univer-sity have become 11 colleges, 1 school, and 1 divi-sion, as follows : Biological and AgriculturalSciences; Business; Education; Family .Living;Fine Arts; General; Humanities and SocialSciences; Nursing; Physical and EngineeringSciences; Physical Education; Religious Instruc-tion; Graduate School; and Division of AdultEducationExtension Services.

During the first semester of the 196C-61 schoolyear there were enrolled at the university 4,270single men, 4,052 single women, and 1,983 marriedstudents for a total enrollment of 10,305. It isanticipated that the cumulative enrollment for1960-61 will exceed 12,000 students. During thesemester 662 faculty members and 550 full-timenonacademic people were emplt,yed at the univer-sity. In addition, there were 2,030 students em-ployed part time (none to exceed 20 hours perweek). During the administration of PresidentWilkinson (1951 to date) , the following perma-nent buildings have been completed and are in

use:Square feet

Student Service Center 29, 596Women's Residence Halls (24) _.. 382, 024Engineering Building 39, 018Classroom Building 67, 229Plant Science Laboratory 16, 371Student Health Center 17, 220Family Living Center 105, 565Men's Residence Halls (7) 285, 369Cannon Hall (houses dining, recrea-

tion and business affairs for Men'sResidence Halls group) 42, 550

Motion Picture Studio 16, 509College of Business Building 78, 687Industrial Education Building 36, 325Fieldhouse 118, 412Miscellaneous 19, 806

TOTAL 1, 254, 681

19

The following permanent buildings will be com-pleted by July 1961:

Square feetAdministration Building 100, 000

Library

TOTAL

250, 747

305, 747

During the same period (1951 to date) 117,227square feet of temporary space also has been pro-vided. This means that between 1951 and July1961 the university will have added 1,560,428square feet of permanent space and 117,227 squarefeet of temporary space to its physical plant. Thisis a grand total of 1,677,655 square feet.

By July 1961 the total university floor spacewill be 2,065,251 square feet of permanent spaceand 293,890 square feet of temporary spaceagrand total of 2,359,141 square feet.

During the period from 1951 to date the heatingsystem has been converted from steam to hightemperature water, and a loop system has beenconstructed to carry heat to all existing buildingsand to all buildings contemplated in the fore-seeable future. Also, storm and sanitary sewersystems have been completed to care for presentand future buildings. The electrical distributionsystem is being modernized and extended. Aperipheral road system has been built to serve theuniversity, and permanent parking lots have beenestablished. In addition, extensive work has beendone in landscaping and improving the appear-ance of the entire campus.

Several new projects have been authorized bythe board of trustees to keep pace with the everexpanding requirements of the university. Sched-uled for bidding and start of construction in Feb-ruary, March, and April of 1961 are the AlumniBuilding (11,000 square feet) ; Married-StudentHousing (462 units-423,987 square feet) ; Y Stu-dent Center (Union Building-285,503 squarefeet) ; and a Fine Arts Center (224,000 squarefeet). The Library, Y Student Center, and FineArts Center will be the largest buildings of theirkind in the Intermountain West. Plans are com-plete for a Physical Plant Building (80,000 squarefeet). Programing is advanced and planning willbe started in 1961 on a Physical Education Build-ing (175,000 to 200,000 square feet), additionalhousing for women (504 women-111,429 squarefeet), and a Creamery Building.

CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

When Brigham Young University was foundedin 1875, it, had an enrollment of 29 students andteaching was done principally on the elementaryand high school levels. At that time nearly all ofthe students came from Utah County and its en-virons. The students that have registered duringthe last few years have come from all of theStates of the Union, the District of Columbia, thePanama Canal Zone, and 50 foreign countries.Approximately 62 percent of the students are fromoutside the State of Utah, and this percentage isincreasing each year. Membership in the Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not requiredfor admission, although at the present time 94percent of the students are members of the church.

The development and operation of BrighamYoung University is 'accomplished entirely fromfunds appropriated by the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints; revenue-producingactivities; student fees; grants, gifts, and dona-tions; and the University Destiny Fund (long-range gift development program).

Land Acquisition

During 1956 the need for additional land be-came critical. This need was pointed up by theincreased demand for on-campus housing for bothsingle and married students. At the same time itwas observed that the open ground immediatelynorth of the university property was rapidly de-veloping into subdivisions. A committee was ap-pointed to study the property situation and tomake recommendations concerning land which theuniversity should acquire. The committee's reportwas presented by the administration to the boardof trustees on May 27, 1957, at which time ap-proval was given for the purchase of certain por-tions of the land recommended by the committee.At the present time, there are still pieces of privateproperty that should be acquired in order to insurethe orderly, logical development of the universityover the next several years. The university, how-ever, is continuing to follow a systematic programof land acquisition.

Campus Planning

It is obvious from the preceding historicalsketch that the early years at Brigham Young Uni-

versity were often difficult ones. The school de-veloped slowly, and it appears that the earlyplanners and administrators never suspected thatthe school would become as large and as diversifiedas it now is. This does not mean that the earlyadministrators of the university did not appre-ciate the value of planning, because we find that ageneral campus plan was developed by the archi-tectural firm of Ware and Treganza in 1909.Later builders, however, did not adhere veryclosely to the plan.' In 1948 a general campus de-velopment plan was made by the university archi-tect, Fred L. Markham of Provo, Utah. Thisplan did not foresee the rapid and extensivegrowth of the university, but it established thelocation of four major structures. The rapid ac-celeration in student enrollment which occurredin the late 1940's and early 1950's and the projectedincrease forecast for the late 1950's and 1960's ledto a complete reappraisal of the 1948 campus plan.

With the anticipated enrollment set at 12,000students and all land to the base of the bill im-mediately north of the existing campus acquired,the board authorized the retention of a consultantto assist in the development of a new master plan.William Wurster of the University of Californiawas retained; and with his advice and help, andunder the direction of the Campus Planning Com-mittee, the university architect expanded and re-vised the earlier design, incorporating the newlyacquired properties to provide for the anticipatedexpanded student population. This plan was em-bodied in a model, and in June of 1953, with Mr.Wurster present, the model was presented to theboard of trustees and there approved. Additionalmajor buildings were located and built in accord-ance with the 1953 plan, and the future pattern ofthe development of the physical plant was to alarge degree established.

In October 1957, the Department of CampusPlanning and Development and the Departmentof Physical Plant were consolidated into one de-partmentthe Department of Physical Plantunder the administrative direction of one personthe director of Physical Plant. Three major sec-tions within the Department of Physical Plantwere established as follows : Planning, Construc-tion, and Maintenance and Operations. Work onthe development of an enlarged, more comprehen-sive master plan was immediately undertaken.

. . . :4, .30 NO.

S.

MC °OHM.° HEALTH EENTEN

PROPOSED BUILDINGS

I. ALUMNI BUILDING2.BUSINESS BLDG. EXT.3.UNDESIGNATED BLDG'S.4.FINE ARTS CENTER5."Y" STUDENT CENTER6. AUDITORIUM7 ENGINEERING BLDG'S.

8. STUDENT SERVICE EXT.9.HEAT PLANT EXT.10.INDUSTRIAL EDUC. EXT.

I I. PHYSICAL PLANT BLDG.

12. COMMISSARY

13. LIFE SCIENCE BLDG.14. PHYSICAL ED. BLDG.15.1NTRAMURAL GYM16.MEN'S RES. HALLS17 WOMEN'S RES HALLS18. CREAMERY19. PRIVATE PROPERTYPROJECTS NOT SHOWN

STADIUMMARRIED STUDENT HOUSINGFACULTY HOUSINGEDUCATION BUILDING

icomprelieusivelocation & development plan


LEGENDPROPOSED BUILDINGS_

EXISTING BUILDINGS_.........

ROADS a PARKING

PLAN PREPAREDDEPT. OF PHYSICAL PLANTDECEMBER 1960

Brigham Young University's master plan as approved in 1957 and revised in 1960. This is an example of a

comprehensive development plan, long.range but flexible. Construction on buildings 1, Alumni; 4, Fine Arts

Center; and 5, Y Student Center (Union building) started in the spring of 1961.


The planning personnel of the Department ofPhysical Plant, working closely with the univer-sity architect who had developed the 1948 and1953 plan and who had made several additionalstudies, presented a plan in November of 1957which was approved by the board of trustees. Allbuildings, utilities, and roads since that time havebeen constructed in accordance with that plan.

Continuing studies over the next 3 years devel-oped new and broader ideas so that the masterplan was again revised in December of 1960. Itis the same basic plan, however, that received ap-proval in 1953 and that was subsequently enlargedand refined by others. It is expected that themaster plan will be restudied, revised, and re-drawn again and again as the University growsand develops. The plan always can be kept freshand workable if future planners continue to studyand revise but always keep the framework orskeleton of the basic master plan. In this waythere can be maintained a predetermined schemeof things that still will allow for changes andadditions of which earlier planners were notaware.

In August of 1957 a planning committee whichhad been appointed by the President made its re-port, entitled "Report of Planning Committee forBrigham Young University, ComprehensiveCampus Plan, 1957." Under the "Scope of Proj-ect" the committee had the following to say :

This report Is the result of several months' in-tensive study pointed toward the development of amore comprehensive general campus plan for Brig-ham Young University. Its preparation has beenpressed to give firm support to and direct the loca-tion of the new structures required by the rapidgrowth of the institution.

The study has given careful attention to the growthcharacteristics of the academic pattern establishedat present. Studies of the distribution of studentsin various colleges in the fall quarters of 1955 and1956 were made available to the Committee. These,expressed in terms of "full-time equivalent" students,have proved very helpful in determining the relativeloads carried by the various colleges and divisions.In general, the method of procedure followed in relat-ing student numbers to building space, has conformedto that utilized by the University of California, withwhich Mr. Tippetts, a member of the Committee, wasfamiliar.

The reports of various groups who have conductedspecial studies related to the campus developmenthave been used. These include the committees on

housing, committee on land acquisition, committeeto study the stadium facilities, as well as the depart-mental committees which have made detailed analysesof the building needs of their particular colleges.

It is hoped that this general summary of campusneeds and the suggested program of development, willbe useful to the administration and the Board ofTrustees in outlining the growth pattern for theinstitution.

This complete and valuable study formed thebasis for preparing the 1957 master plan (See p.21) and laid the foundation for the coordinated,stepped-up program of land purchase which hasbeen carried out since that time.

The planning committee in its August 1957 re-port had this to say :

Subsequent to the approval of the Master Plan in1953, certain developments have made necessary re-consideration of the plan previously approved. Thesebecame evident in late 1955 and resulted in a requestto have a second set of consultants review the campussituation. On November 9-12 of that year, SimonEisner, a Consulting Planner from Los Angeles, Cal-ifornia ; Carl E. McElvy, an Architect employed withthe State of California working directly upon thecampus of the University of Southern California ; andRobert J. Evans, Supervising Architect for the Uni-versity of California as a whole, visited the campusand reviewed all previous work. Their recommenda-tions have been carefully considered in the develop-ment of this report.

One of the important results of their visit wasthe pointing of circumstances which makes the re-study of the campus plan desirable. Some of the de-velopments which the Committee considers importantare as follows :

1. In the 1953 study, 12,000 students was es-tablished as the ultimate student population onthe campus. Since that time it has been recog-nized that this figure needs to be increased to atleast 15,000 students, and all present studies arebeing based upon this latter figure.

2. The effect which the reorganization of theChurch School System under a single adminis-trative head might have upon Brigham YoungUniversity has become increasingly evident. Thedetermination to establish junior colleges in areaswhere the demand justifies, and the policy to en-courage young people in the vicinity of thesejunior colleges to remain at home, will undoubt-edly place more emphasis at Brigham YoungUniversity upon upper division and graduatework. While it appears there will always be afairly large lower division student body; the per-centage of upper - clansmen under the raw arrange-ment, will undoubtedly increase. The break-down of registration for the fall of 1956 showsdower division, 68.8 percent ; upper division, 29.1


percent ; graduate, 2.1 percent. It is very possi-ble that when the 15,000 student population isstabilized, this percentage may give us 42 per-cent lower division, 42 percent upper division,and 16 percent graduate.

3. The impact of the general upgrading of aca-demic standards is not fully observable at thepresent time, but it has exerted and will exert astrong influence upon the University program,Equally important are the studies presentlyunder consideration of optimum class size.These, together with the possibilities for addi-tional research, which corporation gifts havemade possible, will continue to modify the gen-eral situation.

4. With the increase in the student body, therehas developed a general increase percentage-wisein the number of out-of-State students as com-pared with students within the State, and par-ticularly students living at home. This situationis reflected in detail in the reports of the Cam-

pus Housing Committees. Of special interest alsois the increase in percentage of the student bodyof married students. The experience of the pastfew years at this campus, and the vast majorityof other campuses throughout the country, indi-cates a marked increase in this student group.This will be further accentuated by the shift fromlower division to upper division emphasis atBrigham Young University.

5. The decision to organize a new stake(Church organization) at Brigham Young Uni-versity has had a direct influence on campusaccommodations and is a definite factor in fur-ther planning.

6. The evident need for additional land im-mediately adjacent to the campus, which waspointed out during the 1955 visit of Mr. Evans andhis group to the campus, together with the rapidcommunity .development in these areas, led tothe appointment of a special committee to con-sider land acquisition.

7. The accelerated growth in the community,particularly the subdivision developments northof the Brigham Young University Campus, makesit advisable to consider the feasibility of re-estab-lishing certain University functions, which re-quire large acreages at a distance from thecampus proper. These are :

A. Farm property purchased in the vicinityof Spanish Fork.

B. A new stadium site now in the course ofacquisition.

C. Motion Picture Studio development.

8. The effect which the reorganization of theUniversity structure has upon distribution ofstudents through the colleges, and its influenceupon the course offerings and registrations

23

therein can be seen more clearly now than ear-lier. This is particularly marked in the instanceof the new colleges : Physical and EngineeringSciences, Nursing, and Family Living.

The 1957 planning committee outlined in itsreport the basic concepts which its studies indi-cated should be considered in the development ofa revised master plan. (A revised master plan, aspreviously noted, was subsequently developed bythe University and approved by the board of trus-tees in November 1957.) The revised master plan(1957) followed closely the planning principlesand objectives of the 1957 planning committeewhich were as follows :

The present planning committee has reviewed thework of previous planning groups who have workedupon the campus planning development, giving re-consideration to the objectives and principles whichhave led to the establishment of earlier plans. Withstatements oliflinad in previous reports, there is gen-eral concurrence. The concepts which seem to bemost pertinent in the development of the present planare as follows :

1. Facility needs have been planned for a stu-dent body of 15,000 students. Such facilities in-clude academic, administrative, social, athletic,recreational, and living accommodations.

2. All' buildings are to be of a permanent, ratherthan temporary, construction, with the under-standing that flexible and temporary uses bepermitted within the buildings. The placementof permanent buildings will involve the movingand eventual elimination of these existing tem-porary buildings.

3. The Campus Plan anticipates constructionin such stages that in each point in the develop-ment, the campus will appear complete to thepoint reached and will function and look well.

4. Buildings have been located with the view tomaintaining desirable working relationships be-tween departments. Their location is such as tomake possible the expansion of building groupswithin their respective areas. The design ofbuildings and land areas are to be in harmoniousunity with the materials of buildings, walks,courts, plantings, and parking areas.

5. The buildings are arranged in a series ofcourts, each having an open relationship to thoseadjoining, so as to provide a freedom of pedes-trian movement from one court area to another.Standing in such a court, it is anticipated thevisitor will be pleasantly surrounded by buildingswhich frame a complete view, the whole beingdeveloped against the backdrop of the moun-tains.


6. The plan contemplates four major accessroads to the campus and one secondary access.The major entrances are from 12th North at thewest of the campus, from 17th North at thenorthwest corner of the campus, from 9th Eastat the east of the campus, and from 7th, 8th,and 9th East at the south of the campus. Thesecondary access is at 2nd East and 8th North.These campus entrances connect to the principalhighways of Provo Cit3i. and Utah County. Theentrance designs are to be such as to eliminateexisting road hazards.

7. The major roadways are to relate not onlyto the City and County streets in the immediatevicinity, but likewise are to have a direct connec-tion to the interstate limited access highwayproposed by the State.

8. The campus roadways and parking areashave been laid out to accomplish the followingobjectives :

A. A perimeter loop road connecting themajor entrances will permit movementaround the campus offering a minimum ofconflict with pedestrian traffic. Where itbecomes necessary for student pedestriantraffic to cross the peripheral road, un-derpasses and overpasses are to be pro-vided. Vehicular traffic across the aca-demic portion of the campus will beeliminated.

B. Automobile parking areas for studentswho live on campus will be provided inconnection with the housing facilities.Accommodations for students who liveoff campus and must drive to school, to-gether with the parking accommodationsfor visitors and business vehicles, willbe provided in a series of parking spacesfed directly from the peripheral road.Parking for faculty and staff memberswill be provided adjacent to buildings in-sofar as this is possible. Roadways with-in the campus area will provide suitableaccess to staff and visitor parking, serviceand supply, but will not accommodateother types of vehicular traffic. It is as-sumed that parking accommodations willultimately be for 5,000 automobiles inthe vicinity of the academic portion of thecampus. This space, together with theparking areas in housing units, in thevicinity of the FieldhOuse, and elsewhere,should accommodate the needs of the stu-dent body and community groups attend-ing major campus functions.

9. In previous studies, accommodations for ac-ademic, athletic, and living facilities were con-ceived as extending northward in three relativelyparallel lines of development. The only exception

r

to this was the approval of the location of theMen's Dormitories' immediately north of the rec-reational playfields. With the necessity of settingthe limit at some point to the campus expansion,it has been thoght advisable to carry the studentliving accommodations around the northerncampus extremity extending, where necessary,beyond 1700 North, establishing thus a northwardlimit to the campus developments.

10. Recognizing the necessity for buildhig serv-ice areas situated in a position that will permitfree access from the outside, and with least inter-ference with on-campus traffic, these service areashave been located adjacent to the peripheral roadand in a position that will give ready access tothe campus, but not conflict undesirably withacademic or housing areas.

11. Recognition is given areas which are geo-graphically separated from the main campus.The specific development of these will constituteindividual planning problems. Consideration hasbeen given, however, to the extent to which Cityand County traffic may affect or be affected bythese units and particularly to the connectionbetween such areas and the central campus.

12. It is anticipated that the lower campusacademic buildings will ultimately need to beabandoned. Until that time, however, it is recog-nized that it will be necessary to use the floorspace there available for certain academic de-partments. It is proposed that the buildings bekept in repair and receive proper care and pro-tection, but that no major expenditures be madethereon.

13. Recognition is given to the fact that amaster plan, no matter. how conscientiouslystudied, cannot foresee all of the changes in cir-cumstances to which an institution may be sub-jected in the future. Even the near future isuncertain. It is therefore anticipated that theplanning process will be continued by an activeunit of the institution's staff with periodic re-views of the total plans to be undertaken at fu-ture dates as the needs become evident.

Physical Facilities and Educational Objectives

When it was determined that the university wasto be developed into a major university, a numberof things immediately became necessary. Ofcourse, many questions pertaining to the academicside of the university had to be determinedsuchdecisions as colleges to be established, courses tobe offered, both on the graduate and undergrad-uate level, and additional faculty and staff. How-ever, of all of the problems that had to be


considered, certainly the need for additionalphysical plant was not the least. To get adequatebuildings and other physical facilities in time toserve a rapidly expanding student body requiredquick, decisive action. The following are some ofthe steps taken, not necessarily listed in the orderin which they were done :

1. A committee of seven men was appointed by thePresident to prepare a written report on the physicalneeds of the University in order 'that it might carefor an enrollment of 15,000 students. This committeewas comprised of the following university personnel :director of Auxiliary Services, director of CampusPlanning and Development, and superintendent ofPhysical Plant. Other members of the committeeconsisted of two private architects, a private land-scape architect, and a private planning consultant.The report of this committee was made in August1957, and has already been referred to in detail inthis article.

2. The Department of Campus Planning and De-velopment was abolished and its responsibilities weregiven to the Department of Physical Plant. A directorof the Department of Physical Plant was employedin October 1957, and the Department was reorganizedto put greater emphasis on planning and onconstruction.

3. A permanent Campus Planning Committee offive men was appointed by the President. (More willbe said later about this Committee and the way itfunctions.)

4. A comprehensive "master plan," which had al-ready been started, was quickly restudied, broadenedin its scope, delineated, and presented to the Presi-dent. This plan was approved by the Board ofTrustees in November 1957.

5. A Planning Section in the Department of Physi-cal Plant was established with a chief of planning incharge who is responsible to the director of PhysicalPlant for the supervision and administration of per-sonnel assigned to the Planning Section. The chiefof the Planning Section cooperates closely with theConstruction Section and with the Maintenance andOperation Section. The Planning Section is specifi-cally responsible for maintaining the Campus MasterPlan, recording drawings, preparing plans and speci-fications for alterations and additions, planning forsite development work, writing building programs,preliminary architectural studies, models, print re-production, utility and planting plans. The PlanningSection is generally responsible for architectural,landscape, and mechanical planning done in the De-partment of Physical Plant.

6. A Construction Section was established in theDepartment of Physical Plant with a constructionengineer in charge, who is responsible to the director

25

of Physical Plant for the supervision and administra-tion of personnel and work assigned to the Construc-tion Section. Specifically, the Construction Sectionis responsible for the review of plans and specifica-tions prepared by other Department of PhysicalPlant personnel and by all professional architects andengineers doing work for the University. This in.:dudes seeing that all of the supervisors and foremenof the various shops in the Department of 1,-nysicalPlant, and the other specialists in the Department ofPhysical Plant, review their particular sections of allplans and specifications. The construction engineerin charge of the Construction Section is responsiblefor combining all of these reviews into written reportswhich are given to the director of the Departmentof Physical Plant. These reports outline the findingsand recommendations of those who have reviewed theplans. The Construction Section also is responsiblefor all architectural, mechanical, electrical, struc-tural, and other technical inspections to be done onall major or assigned construction work done on theBrigham Young University Campus.

7. A determination of major construction projectsthat were to be given early consideration was made.

8. Project committees were formed to work withthe Campus Planning Committee and with the De-partment of Physical Plant in the preparation of"Written Programs" ,for the guidance of the archi-tects and engineers selected for the several projects.(More will be said about these committees and thewritten program later.)

9. A review of architectural and engineering firmsby the Campus Planning Committee, and a recommen-dation to the President on architects, structural,mechanical, and electrical engineers for those projectsto be started immediately were made.

10. A set of "Instructions to Architects and Engi-neers" was prepared by the staff of the Departmentof Physical Plant. These instructions were given, toeach firm of architects that had been selected, at thesame time that the architects were given the "writLten programs" for their respective jobs. (More willbe said later about these "Instructions to Architectsand Engineers.")

11. Engineers were employed to plan the additionsand extensions to all campus utilities. Major exten-sions had to be made to the high-temperature waterdistribution system, the sanitary sewer system, theculinary water system, and the electrical distribu-tion system. In addition, an entirely new stormsewer system had to be planned.

12. Plans and specifications were prepared for theperipheral road around the main campus, for otherstreets, and for several parking lots.

13. Because much of this projected work was tobe done in areas occupied by temporary buildings, itwas necessary to prepare a very careful study todetermine whether a temporary building could beremoved entirely, and its occupants taken care of in


other buildings while the iiew facility was being pre-pared, or whether the temporary building would haveto be moved to a new location where it could remainuntil no longer needed. As all facilities were and areheavily used, this was a difficult problem. Yet, bycareful planning and excellent cooperation by every-one concerned, it has been done with a minimum ofinterference to the teaching schedule of theUniversity.

14. Because much of the new construction was tobe done in heavily used portions of the campus, itwas necessary to give careful thought and planningwith reference to where contract limit lines would beset. A system of fences and temporary constructionroads was constructed in such a way that the Uni-versity personnel would not interfere with the con-tractors and the contractors would be entirely fencedoff from all normal University functions. This care-ful planning has paid off and has allowed a large con-struction program to go on in the heart of a verybusy campus with almost no interruptions to normalUniversity life.

15. In order to speed up the preparation of workingdrawings, as well as for other considerations, fivefirms of architects were awarded contracts. Whilenone of these firms was connected in any way withanother, it was necessary to associate them looselytogether to insure a "harmonious whole" instead ofa collection of unrelated buildings. The cooperationof the architects and the results obtained have beenvery satisfying. Each architect has been able to puthis own ideas into his building, but by use of previ-ously agreed upon materials and some standarddetails, the buildings, while maintaining their owncharacteristics and individualities, do harmonize verynicely. (This is where a written program on eachbuilding and a standard set of instructions and sug-gestions to each architect have paid off.)

The Church Building Committee and personnelof the University have prepared instructions toguide architectural 'firms in preparing plans forthe university. It is not feasible to reproducethese instructions here, but the following com-ments will be sufficient to explain our require-ments : As part of the planning process, each archi-tect was, and is, required to submit his work to theuniversity for review and criticisms at three prin-cipal stages : schematics, preliminary drawings,and working drawings. Each architect is requiredto submit schematic drawings in accordance withthe owner's program requirements. During thispreparation the architect is encouraged to makeseveral studies of the problem in an effort to arriveat a solution satisfactory to himself and to theuniversity. Frequent consultations by the archi-tect with the university during this important

phase of the work are essential. The architect'sdrawings may be single-lined if he desires, andelevations and perspectives at this stage are notrequired, but the architect is encouraged to makea sufficient study of the arrangement of buildingme ses to depict the general architectural conceptof the project. The architect is further requiredto show on the main floor plan a tabulation ofspace areas as shown in his schematics as com-pared with those shown in the owner's "ProgramRequirements." The architect is required to fur-nish five copies of the schematics to the univer-sity, accompanied by a letter of transmittal. Heis advised in writing as to the required revisionsor official approval. Until written approval isreceived, the architect is not authorized to proceedwith the preliminary drawings.

After the architect has received approval by theuniversity of his schematics he can proceed withhis preliminary drawings. At this stage thearchitect prepares floor plans, elevations, andcross sections, as a further development of theapproved schematics, and he does this in sufficientdetail to show clearly the natire, size, and archi-tectural concept of the project. He also preparesan outline specification in which the general typeof materials and equipment for each trade classi-fication is shown. In addition, the architect is re-quired to submit a cost estimate and to include iton the last page of the outline specifications. Healso includes on the main floor plan a tabulationof space areas shown on the preliminaries as com-pared with those previously shown on the ap-proved schematics. In addition, he furnishes tothe university one framed perspective, five boundcopies of the outline specifications, and five copiesof all drawings. He is required to poche 1 one setof plans. These preliminaries are accompaniedby a letter of transmittal. The architect is advisedin writing of any required revisions or approval.He is not authorized to proceed with workingdrawings until he has received written approvalof his preliminary drawings.

After the architect has received approval fromthe university on his preliminary plans, he mayproceed with the working thawings. He must pre-pare his working drawings and specifications inharmony with the approved preliminaries. He

a In a plan, the blackening of areas that represent wallsections.


also must design structural features in accord-ance with the local building code or follow therecommendations of the Uniform Building Codeof the Pacific Coast Conference, latest edition.The architect is instructed that the specificationsshould be so written that each trade classificationmay be bid separately and that open competitivebidding may be had on all items. He is asked notto type any two trade classifications on any onesheet. However, any one trade classification maybe left out for subcontract proposals. He is re-quired to confer with the university on instruc-tions to bidders, form of proposal, performanceand payment bond, form of contract payment,general conditions, and general scope of work.The architect is reminded to be especially carefulduring this stage in coordinating the structural,mechanical, and electrical designs with the archi-tectural plans.

When the drawings and specifications are com-pleted the architect submits to the university fivesets for checking purposes, accompanied by a letterof transmittal. Marked check sets are returned tothe architect for any necessary revisions. Afterthe revisions have been made, the plans are re-turned to the university for a final review. Whenthe plans have been approved, the time and placefor opening the bids are determined, and the archi-tect completes this phase of his specifications.The specifications are bound, and the project isready to be put out for bids.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints maintains its church offices in Salt LakeCity. All Brigham Young University plans andspecifications must be checked and approved bythe Church Building Committee, as well as by theuniversity staff, at all stages of planning. Whena project has been approved by the ExecutiveCommittee and by the Board of Trustees, it ispresented to the Church Committee on Expendi-tures by the Church Building Committee. It ishere that funds are appropriated for the project.

Since November 1957, when the last master planwas approved, the following major accomplish-ments have been realized : 6 buildings, totaling242,183 square feet, have been planned, con-structed, and occupied; 2 more, totaling 305,747square feet, have been planned and will be readyfor occupancy in July 1961; 4 buildings, totaling944,490 square feet, have been authorized and con-

630581 0-62-3

27

struction will begin in the spring of 1961; 1 build-ing of 80,000 square feet is ready for bidding, butfunds have not been authorized. This is a total of13 projects totaling 1,572,420 square feet. In ad-dition, the roads and underground utilities thathave been completed will serve adequately a con-tinuing building program for several years.

Campus Planning Committee

The Campus Planning Committee consists offive men. This committee is advisory only andmakes all of its recommendations to the president.Its membership is comprised of the Director ofAuxiliary Services ( who had been chairman ofthe previously mentioned "1957 Planning Com-mittee") ; the Dean of the College of Physicaland Engineering Sciences; and the Chairman ofthe Department of Industrial Education; a pro-fessor of physics; and the Director of the Depart-ment of Physical Plant, who is chairman of thecommittee. The committee reviews all plans forany major campus development. Its members in-terview and recommend architects and engineersfor all projects requiring professional services.The committee meets at 1 :30 p.m. on each Wed-nesday and is available for call meetings. Deans,directors, and department chairmen meet with thecommittee to discuss their building problems.Through this system of discussions and reviews,many important decisions are resolved, and com-mittee members have become very familiar withthe space requirements of the university. TheCampus Planning Committee does not concern it-self with the details of everyday plant operationand maintenance and with the minor physicalplant changes which result. Neither does the com-

mittee exercise administrative control over anyphase of the many activities carried on by theuniversity. The Campus Planning Committee re-views building programs and meets with the Presi-dent and his Administrative Council to discussthem. The committee reviews all plans submittedby architects and engineers and when satisfiedwith the plans, recommends to the President thatthey ba accepted. The committee also reviews andmakes suggestions on master plan revisions andchanges, and looks over other ph.ns of majorprojects that are prepared by the Department ofPhysical Plant. Composed of men that the presi-


dent, faculty, and staff have confidence in, thecommittee has played, and is playing, an impor-tant role in the development of the campus.

Project Committees

Individual project committees are also very im-portant and necessary in the planning of majorbuildings. These committees are not to be con-fused with the Campus Planning Committee. Abuilding committee of from five to seven personsis appointed for each building that is to be plan-ned, but the Campus Planning Committee workswith them all. As an example, when the Fine ArtsBuilding was to be planned, a Fine Arts Commit-tee was appointed from the Fine Arts staff. Thiscommittee, working with the Campus PlanningCommittee and with the planning section of theDepartment of Physical Plant, determined and as-sembled the lists of items required by the Fine Artsstaff, and by the Department of Physical Plant, forthat particular building into a written documententitled "Program Requirements for the Fine ArtsCenter." Project committees are consulted whendiscussing the selection of architects for their par-ticular building, but the eventual selection restswith the Campus Planning Committee, with thepresident, and with the Church Building Commit-tee, who must approve all recommendations forarchitects made by the Campus Planning Com-mittee.

Once the architect starts to work, the projectcommittee works closely with the Campus Plan-ning Committee and with the architect throughthe adoption of preliminary drawings. After that,the architect and his engineers work on final plansand the reviews and consultations are generallyless with the project committee than with the Cam-pus Planning Committee, and less with theCampus Planning Committee than with the staffof the Physical Plant Department. During theconstruction of the building, the project commit-tee and others work closely with the UniversityPurchasing Department in selecting furniture andequipment to be purchased and scheduled for de-livery on or about the completion date of thebuilding. As soon as the building is completedand occupied, the project committee for that par-ticular building is dissolved.

Written Programs

When an architect is placed under contract toprepare plans and specifications for a building, itis of course necessary for the architect to find outall that he can of what the owner wants and howthe building is to be used. The better this is donethe better the building will serve its purpose. Thesuccess of the project, and the owner's satisfaction,may well be determined by how successful thetransfer of need and intended use by the owneris made to the architect. There are various waysof working with the architect during the impor-tant early planning stages. A method which toooften is used is to have the architect talk to ascore of people, making notes and asking questionsuntil he begins to "get the picture." Then he pre-pares a plan and a pretty picture (perspective),beautifully delineated in color, and mounted in aframe. Armed with this, the architect then triesto sell his creation, pointing out all of its goodpoints. The bad feature of this method is thatthe owner often ends up with a beautiful building,but one that is almost totally lacking in its atten-tion to those details that will become so importantstarting with the day that the building is occupied.Of course, the conscientious architect will spendmany days trying to procure sufficient informationfrom his clients to prevent this from happening.

Another method is for the owner, where thetalent is available, to produce sketches and draw-ings of what is wanted, to give to the architect.This method has a tendency to freeze thinkingand to more or less force the architect into adopt-ing predetermined forms and shapes. Also, sucha method of communicating with the architectstill does not solve the problem of making thearchitect aware of the owner's likes and dislikesof the many details that, taken together, eithermake a successful or an unsuccessful building.However, sketches and drawings used to supple-ment a written program do have merit.

Another method is for the owner, workingthrough proper committees, to prepare a "writtenprogram." This program can, and often is, pre-pared before the architect is selected. Here atten-tion should not be given so much to the shape orform that the building will take, but more to thesize, use, special requirements, and special features

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY \i

requirements of t he project upon which he willsoon be working.

The written program is such an effective way oftransmitting information to the architect that thefollowing, taken from the "Program Require;ments for the Fine Arts Center," is given in orderto acquaint the reader with some of the details ofprograming. Because the written program pre-pared for the Fine Arts Center contained 140pages, it is impossible to reproduce it all here, butperhaps a listing of the table of contents and abrief explanation of some of the items contained inthe program will be sufficient to indicate the natureof the program itself. This work is entitled "Pro-gram Requirements for the Fine Arts Center, pre-pared by the Fine Arts Building Committee andthe Department of Physical Plant of the BrighamYoung University, January 1959." The introduc-tion to the "Program Requirements" reads asfollows :

desired in the various components that, taken to-gether, will form the building. This means thatthose working on such a program must know howthey intend to use the building and for what pur-pose. Having to prepare a detailed writtenprogram, in advance of plans, has a good effect onthe future users of the building. In order to getapproval of their proposals they must have clearlyin mind how they intend to use their futurefacilities. This organization of thoughts and pro-cedures makes for better teaching and research.

At Brigham Young University a "written pro-gram" is prepared on every building project. Webelieve in this method of communicating ideas tothe architect and so far we have not discoveredan architect who does not like the method. (Wesupplement the "written program" which is pre-pared specifically for each building by a set of"General Instructions to Architects and Engi-neers." These general instructions contain in-formation that we want the architect to have onitems that are common to all buildings, as is dis-cussed later.) When a written program has beenprepared by the joint efforts of the project com-mittee, the Campus Planning Committee, and theplanning section of the Department of PhysicalPlant, it is discussed in detail with the presidentof the university and with his AdministrativeCouncil. It is here that policy questions are finallyresolved and a university-wide acceptance of theproject is obtained. After this meeting, or meet-ings, final changes and corrections are made anda sufficient number of copies of the written pro-gram are bound so that everyone interested mayhave one. When the architect is selected and isready to work, he visits the university. At thistime we sit down with him, go over all of the re-quirements, as listed in the written program, anddiscuss the general instructions with him. Hevisits the building site and is given a carefullyprepared topographic map which not only givesthe contours but also complete information on allutilities, including not only their location but theircharacteristics. After this, the architect and twomembers of the university staff may visit severalpchools with similar buildings. The architect,having the needs so clearly before him, is in a good.position to know what he is looking for. Thus thetrip is more pointed and meaningful than it wouldbe if taken before he became acquainted with the

29

These program requirements are an outline of theneeds to be met to adequately house the College ofFine Arts. A description of each room and facilitywith its importance to the curriculum is included.The College of Fine Arts, organized in 1945, includesthe Department of Art, the Department of Music, andthe Department of Speech and Dramatic Arts. Atpresent, these departments conduct their work infifteen different buildings from one end of the campusto the other. It has been obvious for a long time thatthe Brigham Young University needs more adequatefacilities for the function of this College. The tableof contents in the program lists the following:

I. IntroductionA. Enrollment ChartB. Location of Building

II. Space RequirementsA. CertificationB. Summary and Estimated CostsC. Office of the DeanD. Department of ArtE. Department of MusicF. Department of Speech and Dramatic Arts

III. Utilization of Facilities (Summary)A. Department of ArtB. Department of MusicC. Department of Speech and Dramatic Arts

IV. General ConsiderationsA. Materials of ConstructionB. Air ConditioningC. Acoustical TreatmentD. LightingE. Entrances and StairwaysF. ElevatorsG. Audio Visual Aids

30 CAMPUS PLANNING AND

H. Mail RoomI. RestroomsJ. Utilities

1. Heat2. Water3. Sewage4. Electricity5. Telephones6. Trash and Garbage

K. Custodial ServicesL. GroundsM. Fire and Safety

V. Description of Rooms and FacilitiesA. Office of the DeanB. Department of ArtC. Department of MusicD. Department of Speech

"II, A.Certification," reads as follows :We hereby certify that we have compiled the fol-

lowing information concerning the space requirementsin the Fine Arts Center, and that the utilization ofeach room and facility, based on present authorizedcourses and allowing for increases in sections, hasbeen checked by us and is certified by us to be correct.

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ties, for contingencies, and for furniture andequipment. The total of these items comprises thetotal estimated cost of the building. This is im-portant because it then becomes the architect'sresponsibility to design the building to comewithin this budgetor to get the owner's permis-sion to exceed the budget or to reduce therequirements.

The following single page taken from the"Space Requirements, Department of Art" willserve as an example of how all of the space re-quirements were arrived at for all of the depart-ments in the College of Fine Arts :

This certification was signed by the dean and thethree department chairmen of the College of FineArts.

"II, B.Summary and Estimated Cost," readsin part as follows :

It is felt by the College of Fine Arts Building Com-mittee that a structure with a total area of 232,188square feet will be adequate to meet the needs of theCollege of Fine Arts when Brigham Young Univer-sity enrolls approximately 15,000 students.

Then a summary of the breakdown of space wasgiven as follows :

Square feetDean's Office 790Art Department 28, 750Music Department 68, 429Speech and Dramatic Arts Department 64, 563

Total Usable Area 162, 532General Use Area (30% of Gross

Area) 69, 656

Gross Area 232, 188

Next followed the breakdown of the estimatedcost of the building, which included the number ofsquare feet times the estimated cost per squarefoot, the architectural fees, the amount of moneyanticipated for site development, for outside utili-

Space Requirements, ContinuedDepartment of Art

Graduate Laboratory (see Page 53, Total Spacestu- re-

Facility No. A 16) 30 students dents quired@ 40 square feet 30 1, 200

Photography Laboratory (see Page54, Facility No. A 17) 30 stu-dents @ 40 square feet 30 1, 200

TOTAL STUDENTS 627

Totalsq. ft.1, 200

1, 200

STUDIO-OFFICES14 Studio-Offices (see Page 55, Facil-

ity `No. A 18) 150 2, 1002 Receptionist's and Typists' Areas

(see Page 56, Facility No. A 19) 150 300Other rooms (4 total)

Storage for permanent art collection(see Page 57, Facility No. A 20) 2, 400 2, 400

Shipping and Receiving for BYU andVisitors' Art Works (see Page 58,Facility No. A 21) 800 800

Display Corridor (see Page 59, Facil-ity No. A 22) 3, 250 3, 250

General Storage and Locker Area(see Page 60, Facility No. A 23) 418 418

TOTAL USABLE AREA 28, 750GENERAL USE AREA (30% OF

GROSS AREA) 12, 320

Total 41, 070

Within each parenthesis there is a note to seea page and a facility number. This refers to thepage and detailed description of each particularfacility. For instance, on "page 49, facility num-ber A 14," the following information is given con-cerning the 1,200 square feet needed for a PlasticArts Equipment Laboratory. This page is in-cluded as an example of the detail which is pro-vided for each facility required in the building.

BRIGHAM YOUNG

Department of Art

Facility No. A 14

Plastic Arts Equipment cLaboratory (1,200 squarefeet)

Equipment needed in room :3 heavy work benches

10 heavy duty dollies, 2 by 3 feet, mounted on3-inch rubber castors

10 15-gallon stoneware crocks2 large mixers1 small electrical cement mixer (110 volts)2 large cabinets for the storage of tools and im-

plements1 large sink with faucets threaded for hose at-

tachment2 large sinks built out from the wall to allow

usage from three sides with acid-resistantplumbing and hot and cold water

Fluorescent and natural lightingElectrical outlets on all walls (110 volts)4 electrical outlets (220 volts)1 exhaust fan to remove clay dust from the airA variety of cabinets for the storage of glaze

ingredientsA center table 4 by 10 feet at which students

seated on stools may work10 stools2 spray booths with exhaust fans1 ball mill2 sets of balances2 spray guns with small air compressors1 chalkboard (8 linear feet)

Concrete floorHumidifying apparatusMetal racks and shelvesRemovable metal, perforated trays, to rest on

the metal racks1 large shuttle-type gas-fired kiln3 medium-size electric kilnsCabinets with screened doors for the temporary

storage of pieces awaiting firing, or awaitingremoval after firing process

1 large exhaust fan to remove excess heat1 large metal canopy over the kiln to catch

and conduct to the outside direct heat fromthe kiln

1 small sinkSpace utilization:

1961-62=80 percentWith student body of 15,000=100 percent

The following are examples of additional typesof information given to the architect in the "writ-ten program" prepared for the Fine Arts Center :On the mail room, for instance, the program reads :

There shall be a mail room associated with thecustodial office where mail may be delivered to andsorted in individual boxes for departments and pro-fessors. This room shall be conveniently located

UNIVERSITY 31

from the service entrance where the mail will be de-livered by truck. There shall be 150 post office typeboxes opening onto a corridor.

Under utilities, the following information isgiven to the architect :

Heat will be provided by the Central Heating Plantof the University, which uses a high-temperaturewater system. Water will arrive at the College ofFine Arts Center at approximately 307° F. A warmwater heating system is preferred to steam or hot airwithin the building. Each room should be individu-ally controlled pneumatically. A separate room shallbe provided for the heat exchanger and associatedmechanical equipment, without adding electrical ter-minals or transformers. This room shall be separateand apart from the building, or constructed in sucha way that in the event of a high-temperature waterline break, damage from steam or water would beconfined to that area alone.

The foregoing will serve as an example of thetype of information that is given to the architectin the "Written Program." By having such in-formation at the very beginning of a project, thearchitect can start to work immediately. By nothaving to spend so much time in digging thisinformation out for himself, the architect canspend more time on his schematic drawings andcan, therefore, give the owner several differentproposals to study and to choose from.

Instructions to Architects

The Department of Physical Plant at BrighamYoung University has prepared a 116-page bookletentitled Instructions to Architects and Engineers,first prepared in January 1959, revised in July1960, and again in January 1961. It is expectedthat it will be revised and added to from time totime as better methods are developed. It is im-possible to go into the details here, but the follow-ing listing of the table of contents will indicate thetype of general information that we want allarchitects to have before starting a project forthe university :

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Instructions to ArchitectsInitial Site Survey and ReportSchematic DrawingsPreliminary DrawingsWorking DrawingsConstruction Period


Recommended FormsArchitect's Request for PaymentArchitect's Inspection Report

Recommended Specification FormsGeneral InformationTypical IndexTypical Detail SpecificationOutline of Instructions to BiddersOutline of Form of ProposalOutline of Supplemental General ConditionsMap of CampusPerformance and Payment BondContract for ConstructionGeneral ConditionsProgress Estimate

Recommended Standards of Construction.General InformationHigh Temperature Water DistributionElectrical Power DistributionUtility Painting and IdentificationFire and Safety RegulationsDoor NumberingWater ConnectionSewer ConnectionAudio, Radio, and Video EquipmentTelephonesClocks and Class BellsSprinkler SystemsCatch Basins and GuttersTrash and Garbage RemovalRestrooms and EquipmentCustodial RoomsMailroomMaterials of ConstructionEntrance WaysStairwaysDrinking FountainsLightingAir ConditioningRoofing and Flashing

Importance of Master PlanningSuch a study as the planning committee's "1957

Report" is an absolute must at any school whichproposes to develop a master plan or to engage inan orderly development program. It is thoughtthat perhaps a list of the subjects discussed in thereport might assist some school in making a simi-lar study. The subjects discussed are as follows :

1. Scope of Project2. Historical Background3. Planning Organization4. Recent Developments5. Projection of Anticipated Growth6. Planning; Principles and Objectives7. Comprehensive Campus Plan

A. Correlation with Provo City and Utah CountyB. Land AcquisitionC. Campus Zoningp. Determination of Needed Building SpaceE. Vehicular and Pedestrian CirculationF. Automobile ParkingG. Campus Landscaping

8. Physical Needs for Immediate FutureA. Progressive Laud AcquisitionB. Proposed Capital OutlaysC. Removal of Temporary and Obsolete Build-

ingsD. Utilization of the Lower CampusE. Roads and Automobile ParkingF. Pedestrian CirculationG. Utilities Extension

There is a tendency sometimes on the part of afew school people to be a little less than enthusias-tic about "master planning." It probably stemsfrom a natural distrust of any man who keeps hishead in the clouds and who seldom comes forthwith a practical ideaa man too busy looking atthe broad picture to be able to cope with the com-mon everyday working details. Such a masterplanner is sometimes referred to as a dreamer.Some feel that a master plan or campus plan islikely to freeze thinking so that the developmentdoes not have the advantage of complete flexibility.Others will argue that such a plan is too expensiveto make and to maintain. Still others think that acampus plan is followed only by those who madeit and that a campus is the result of generationsof planners and builders, all trying to developtheir own ideas and not caring too much for theirpredecessors' opinions.

Many comprehensive plans are developed cover-ing land that is yet to be acquired, resulting inmaking that land several times more expensive topurchase. Also, the campus plan is still a two-dimensional drawing, no matter how much coloredpencil or water color is placed on its surface.Some school officials in key positions have neverlearned to understand a drawing. Because ofthis, some feel that a "master model" is superiorto a "master plan." It is argued that because themaster model is three-dimensional it is more easilyunderstood by all and that changes may be mademore easily on itf surface. Another of the disad-vantages of master planning is that it is practicallyimpossible to find a planner with enough faith inthe future to plan on a large enough scale. Manycampus plans have been outgrown almost before

BRIGHAM YOUNG

the ink was dry. This would not be so bad if theplans were restudied and enlarged, but too oftenthey are forgotten and new buildings are located

'for the convenience of the moment and not forthe good of all over a long period.

The persons in charge of planning at BrighamYoung University believe strongly in having amaster plan and in keeping it up to date and inworking order. They are sure that such a planwill help prevent snap judgment as to size andlocation of projects. They believe that if it isfollowed closely it will go a long way towardpreventing the necessity of having to "leap-frog"engineering buildings over agricultural buildingsand education buildings over athletic areas. Thisdoes not mean E at the master plan needs to beinflexible. The master plan needs to be restudied,revised, and redrawn every few years at any insti-tution whose physical plant is enjoying a normaldevelopment. In this way, the plan will always befresh and workable, but the day-by-day detailwork will be guided by years of collective think-ing and planning.

It would be interesting to know how many beau-tifully and expensively delineated waster planshave been prepared and never followed. Themaster plan should be on the wall of the collegeplanner, or in the meeting room of the campusplanning committee, and it should be made thebasis of every discussion pertaining to the develop-ment of the physical plant. Preparing a compre-hensive plan for the development of a new insti-tution, or for the development of an old institutionon a new site, is easy compared with developingono for an institution which has grown large with-out the benefit of long -range thinking. Even inthe worst cases, however, it is not too late to start.Definite progress can be made in a very few yearswhen the work is organized, and when it beginsto follow a predetermined trend. As. stated be-fore, Brigham Young University believes stronglyin this principle and is following a planned de-velopment of its campus.

Recommendations

Following are some of the points that we atBrigham Young University recommend for seri-ous consideration by other colleges :

1. That a growing school should maintain a strongcentral planning office, possibly in its Department of

6L,

UNIVERSITY 33

Physical Plant. In any case, the planning officeshould be the center of all planning done on thecampus..

2. That just as much care should be given to theselection of the structural, mechanical, and electricalengineers as to the architect.

3. That soil surveys and analyses should be madeon all major jobs for the guidance of the architectand his structural engineer,

4. That the owner should investigate, and reservethe right to approve, any subcontractors proposed tobe used by a general contractor.

5. That every supervisor and foreman in the De-partment of Physical Plant should be required toreview both preliminary drawings and working draw-ings and specifications, and to make their suggestionsand recommendations in writing for transmission tothe architect. A check should be made to see thatthese suggestions are given careful consideration.

6. That the Campus Planning Committee should beadvisory only, limit its activities to major projects,and not become involved in routine operationalmatters.

7. That a written program should he prepared onevery major building project, and approved in prin-ciple, by everyone concerned, before the architectbegins work.

8. That a master plan should be adopted and thatsomeone, preferably someone in the central planningoffice, be given the respovsibility for keeping it cur-rent and seeing that it is properly used.

9. That the owner should maintain adequate, com-petent building inspectors. These building inspectorsshould be on the job every hour that the contractoror his subcontractors are working.

Summary

In summary, it has taxed every facility of Brig-ham Young University to accept the students whohave applied for admittance. First came the vet-

erans, their wives, children, trailers, and automo-biles. All of this was new to the university andcaught everyone unaware. Then came temporarybuildings and rapidly expanding facilities, suchas roads, streets, and utilities. Now, instead oflessening, the problems are increasing. The mar-ried student and his household have not disap-peared; each year there are more students thanthere were the previous year; and the expandingcurriculums are requiring bigger, better equippedbuildings.

Since 1951, Brigham Young University has ex-perienced over a 100-percent increase in enroll-


menu to become the largest university in the Inter-mountain area. The faculty has witnessed aneven larger increase in numbers. The 5 colleges,1 school, and 2 divisions previously comprising theuniversity have become 11 colleges, 1 school, and1 division. The 1960 first semester on-campus en-rollment was 10,305, and it is expected that theenrollment will increase to 15,000 students whenphysical facilities are available.

All of this expansion demands new buildings toaccommodate the operation, and since 1950 Brig-ham Young University has conducted one of thelargest building programs in the IntermountainWest. This construction program has consistedof academic and operational facilities, as well ashousing for single men and women and housingfor married students.

The present Brigham Young University maincampus consists of approximately 500 acres, ofwhich approximately 200 acres are intensivelymaintained. There are 2,065,251 square feet inpermanent buildings, either existing or under con-struction, and 293,890 square feet in temporarybuildings that will be replaced with permanentbuildings. The university has just completed 10busy years of its building program and now theschool is in the process of starting its next con-struction program of 944,490 square feet whichwill begin in the spring of 1961.

In addition, plans are being made for continueddevelopment of walks, driveways, parking areas,utilities, campus lighting, and campus landscap-ing. In all of this expansion the university isfollowing a scheme of planned development thatshould result in continued improvements. Allwalks, drives, and parking areas are constructed

so that they will fit into the perthanent schemeof things. At the present-day cost of construc-tion, even the tearing up of a walk because of poorplanning is hard to justify.

One of the interesting planning problems whicharise is how to build permanent buildings on areasoccupied by temporary structures. The temporarybuildings are so heavily used that it is almostimpossible to give up even one of them while anew building is under construction. To preventsuch situations from exerting too much influence,and to serve as a guide in the orderly develop-ment of the campus, the university has developeda master plan, or comprehensive developmentplan. It was determined that the present plantshould be adequate to serve an on-campus, regulardaytime enrollment of 15,000 students. Knowingthe history of many institutions, however, theplanners developed the master plan in such a waythat future expansion, beyond the present concept,may be made. This is being done by simply notbuilding dormitories or other permanent structuresin one area of the campus that is contiguous tothe part of the campus being developed for theacademic program. This cushion area will be usedfor lawns, parking, and recreation until the futuredictates its ultimate use.

The master plan hangs on the wall of the phys-ical plant conference room used by the CampusPlanning Committee, and it is constantly referredto, studied, and analyzed. Suggestions for im-provements are kept under file, and periodicallythe master plan is revised in order to keep it instep with the growing, expanding, and ever-chang-ing university.

Chapter IV

AN URBAN INSTITUTION which, has outgrown its cam-

pus site may either grow upward or intensify its use of space,

or pick up and move out of town. Some urban institutionswould not move out away from their constituencies even if

they could. Their problems are unique. City traffic and

parking space are among the least of their perplexities.

Planners in other large city universities will find many of

their own growth problems mirrored in the Saint LouisUniversity case.

Expanding Saint Louis UniversityBY

M. B. MARTIN, S.J.

Dean of Student Affairs, Saint Louis University

and

B. T. SCHIIERMAN, S.J.

Director of Campus Development, Saint Louis University

AINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY is an independ-ent, nonprofit corporation owned and operated

by the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits, a Catholic orderof religious men. As an independent educationalcorporation it is owned and operated by the presi-dent and board of trustees. While the corporationis itself independent, the members of the corpora-tion are subject to the Jesuit superior, the Pro-vincial of the Missouri Province, which presentlycomprises six Midwestern States. There is noadmittance discrimination by race or creed, and20 percent of the total student body is non-Cath-olic. (Committed only to Catholic doctrine andprinciples, the university is free to investigate andteach all areas of knowledge.) The universityreceives no regular subsidies from any group,religious or otherwise; it is totally dependent onits own resources, tuition, grants, and free-willofferings.

Founding and Early History

The university was founded in November 1818,

3 years before Missouri became a State. After 2

years of operation by its founder as an academy

and 7 years by diocesan priests as a college, the col-

lege was given to the Jesuits who moved it tonearby Florissant for 2 years. In 1829 the school

was relocated in new buildings erected at the edge

of town on Ninth Street and Washington Avenue,

where it remained for almost 70 years. When the

college received its charter to operate as SaintLouis University in 1832, it was the first univer-sity charter granted west of the Mississippi River.

Beginnings of North Grand Campus-1867-1922

After the Civil War when it became evident that

city development was again hemming in the in-

stitution, the university purchased .in 1867 a 31/4-

35


acre tract in the country 21/2 miles west of NinthStreet at its present site at Grand and LindellBoulevards. It was a brave and farsighted de-cision, but subsequent generations have criticizedthe administration for selling most of the originalpurchase and for not buying a larger tract. How-ever, the documents indicate that the universitysimply had no more money, that full payment wasnot made until years later, and that it was 20 yearsbefore the site was occupied.

The first building on the new tract, the CollegeChurch, was begun in 1882. The college building,a large Gothic brick structure with 132,000 squarefeet of floor space and dramatically visible fromits location on the brow of the Lindell rise, wascompleted and occupied in 1888. Grand Avenueimmediately north of Lindell rapidly developedinto a thriving commercial citya second down-town. To the west of the university, the Lindell-West Pine area, was the heart of a plush residen-tial district by 1890.

In the next 10 years three improved lots im-mediately adjoining the university grounds to thewest and with a 100-foot frontage on both Pineand Lindell, were purchased. On this newly ac-quired property an auditorium and two buildingsfor a school of philosophy and divinity were con-structed, with a total floor space of approximately150,000 square feet. This was to be the total ex-tent of the north campus for the next 25 years.

Acquisition of South Grand Campus, 1903

Blocked from further development on NorthGrand, the university made a momentous decisionin 1903 when it acquired, by purchase, the MarionSims-Beaumont Medical School located at Grandand Caroline Avenuesacross Mill Creek Valleyand the railroad tracks, 1 mile south of the northcampus site. While this, too, was a fully developedresidential area and offered little room for expan-sion, it was less pretentious than the midtown de-velopment. Five years later the same vigorousadministration purchased a dental school in thesame area and added it to the complex. Thus twoindividual campuses were created in congestedareas and with no possibility of ever being joined.The two-campus decision was made irrevocablewith the construction of a new medical schoolbuilding and a dental school building on the samesouth site in 1921.

Large additions were constructed in 1927 andin 1947. In 1931 the Firmin Desloge TeachingHospital was built on Grand Avenue oppositethe medical complex. With this addition thesouth campus was now more impressive than theolder north campus.

Lindell Frontage-1922-31 and School of Com-merce and Finance-1931

After World War I the fashionable Grand andLindell area underwent a dramatic change.Grand Avenue to the north was rebuilt upwardwith office buildings, shops, and five large theaters.The change on Lindell, west of Grand, was morephenomenal. Within a decade all the mansions,save one, for three blocks on the north side ofLindell Boulevard were replaced by two mam-moth Masonic temples, two. 14-story hotels, two18-story apartment buildings, 2 fashionable clubs,and other structures constituting a frontage un-matched in the city today. But only the northside of Lindell, across from Viz university, waschanged. In 1922 the Jesuit -Ylissouri Provinceand the university began a system of strategic buy-ing on Lindell, and by 1926 had acquired a 320--foot frontage of mansions immediately west ofexisting university holdings. At the western endof this tract the first academic building on thenorth campus to be constructed since 1904, Davis-Shaughnessy Hall, the School of Commerce andFinance, was completed in 1931.

Expansion for Athletics-1920-30

On Oakland Avenue facing Forest Park, 2miles to the southwest, a large tract was acquiredin 1920. Here were built the Walsh MemorialStadium, with adequate adjoining parking, andthe Backer Memorial Saint Louis University HighSchool. The high school, separately incorporated,stands and flourishes today. Though the field hadearlier been used for football practice, the firstgame in the new stadium was played in 1930.More expansion for athletics took place on thenorth campus where just enough property waspurchased on the south side of West Pine to buildthe gymnasium in 1926. In the thirties only onepiece of property was purchased on the NorthGrand campus, an old mansion to house athletes.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

Depression, EcOnomic andEnvironmental-1929-40

Then came the crash and the depression. Thegloom that settled over the Nation forced the cityto recognize the extent of the decay that had beenin progress for years. It began before WorldWar I when cheap Southern labor was importedto St. Louis and crowded into dilapidated dwel-lings along the river front, gradually spreadingwestward. Mill Creek Valley, lying roughly par-allel to Lindell Boulevard about one-half mile tothe south, was filled with smoke-belching trainsand switch engines. Heavy industry pouredsmoke and soot into the city from both banks ofnearby Mill Creek Valley. Every breath of aircarried its cargo of soot and grime. With not acloud in the sky it was not uncommon for the streetlights to go on at high noon. Those who couldafford it fled to the suburbs, and the proud oldhomes fell into the ownership of landlords whocrowded three or four families into space intendedfor one while allowing the buildings to lapse intoa lamentable state of disrepair. With grim andinexorable steadiness the blight and decay rolledwestward to Grand Avenue. By 1940 it was justacross the street from the campus on the east sideof Grand Avenue. There it stopped dead. To thenorth the commercial and amusement develop-ment of Grand Avenue proved a firm barrier;south of Lindell the university and industry be-yond stopped the tide. By 1940 the city hadfinally begun to solve the smoke problem but itseemed that the slums had come to stay.

World War II Years

In September after Pearl Harbor the institutiondedicated to the education of men admitted onlya few wheelchair cases, 4-F's, and womenmorewomen than the university had ever seen before.In October 1942 the university began the era of"crash and baling wire." Hundreds of electricaltechnicians and language area students from var-ious army training programs were assigned to theuniversity to be trained, housed 24 hours a day,and fed. With dormitory experience and spacelimited to that gained with football players in theremains of an old mansion and a garage, the uni-versity entered into crash emergency operationswhich were to continue for years. Shops and

37

classrooms became laboratories; basements, attics,old houses, and a gymnasium were converted todorMitories; a lounge became a cafeteria. It wasa hectic period but every emergency was met witha crash program held together with baling wireimprovisations. It worked remarkably well.

Acquisition and Construction-1944-47

. One man with courage is a majority. The visionand energy of a new president inaugurated a newera for the university. Rev. Patrick J. Holloran,S.J., declared an emergency, and emergency itwas. On Olive Street, two blocks to the north andin the shadow of the tallest building in the city,thec Wagner Mortuary was purchased and con-verted into the Institute of Technology and Engi-neering in September 1944.

In the last 2 weeks of the same month houseson the corner of Spring and West Pine werebought and razed for construction of a classroomand cafeteria building, and work continued speed-ily until DesPeres Hall was occupied at the open-ing of the second semester. Other properties werepurchased on West Pine between Grand andSpring, including the much desired CupplesHome, a monumental mansion adjoining univer-sity property, now called Chouteau House and usedas a student activities center. With the $2 millionrealized from a fund campaign, Clemens Hall,a residence hall for men, was built in 1946, an

addition to the medical school was constructed,and the dental school was renovated in 19/4.

-'With the G.I. bulge, seven quonset-hut classroo,were moved into the blacktop quadrangle adjoin-ing the original north campus building; severalmore old houses were converted to classrooms; andinstruction ground on from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., 6days a week.

Parks College of Aeronautical Technology, 1946

At the height of the bulge in August 1946, theuniversity added a third complete campus 8 miles

away. The famous Parks Air College at ParksAirport, near Belleville, Ill., was turned over tothe university, by Oliver Lafayette Parks. Itincluded classrooms, laboratories, shops, dormi-tories, cafeteria, hangars, and a flying field. Andso it went on, with every new crisis squarely metby new inprovisations.


Football and Radio Station WEWBy the end of the forties, when crisis had as-

sumed a status of normalcy, the administrationpaused to indulge in an agonizing reappraisal ofthe university and to steal a glance at the future.Some things looked encouraging; others were dis-turbing, especially football and radio station,WEW.

Post-war big-time football seemed to be an eco-nomic and academic failure. After pondering theenormous annual financial deficit and the unde-termined academic incubus, the administrationdecided in 1950 to discontinue football. WalshStadium was sold for commercial redevelopmentafter several years of rental for athletic andamusement events.

Radio station WEW, begun shortly after WorldWar I, was the second commercial radio stationin the Nation. Though it was the pride of theuniversity, it required constant subsidies. In 1947it seemed that the remedy was an adjoining fre-quency modulation (FM) radio transmitter, anda 550-foot tower was constructed on the newly ac-quired Cupples property. When this proved to befinancially unsound after a few years, the FMradio was discontinued. WEW was sold.

Property AcquisitionsA Plan Emerges, 1950-54

By 1950, the Missouri Province had declared itsintention to relocate its school of philosophy on a3-acre site at West Pine and Spring and then tomake available by sale to the university the twolarge buildings in the original university groupand several adjoining lots to the west. The plannow becomes clear; the university would eventu-ally try to acquire all of the property in the twoblocks from Grand to Spring and from Lindell toLaclede, a total of approximately 20 acres.Significant progress toward this goal was achievedwhen the university purchased the one remainingprivate home on Lindell in 1952, and in 1955 thecorner property at Spring and Lindell, after firedestroyed the church and the adjoining building.Finally, 88 years after the original purchase, theuniversity owned all the Lindell frontage fromGrand to Spring.

Late in 1953 the Missouri Province completedits group of buildings on West Pine west of Springafter having agreed to sell its holdings in the"university block" to the university in March

1950. After some remodeling DeSmet Hall wasconverted into classrooms and private faculty of-fices, a luxury never anticipated. Verhaegen Hallcontinued to be a residence for Jesuit faculty andgraduate students. The following summer saw therazing of the emergency quonset huts and of themasonry cloister wall along Pine. Grass and land-scaping (almost an acre of it !) replaced asphaltin the quadrangle to make the surrounding oldbuildings more attractive than even the originalbuilders had planned.

Throughout this period the university kept aweather eye on the slums directly east of the cam-pus but decided to make no unnecessary purchasesin this area. There had been much talk about slumclearance, but several bond issues for the purposehad been overwhelmingly defeated. Most of thehouses in this crime-ridden area were in a state ofcomplete disrepair, verging on collapse. The uni-versity used to warn its students not to go east ofGrand at night, but by 1950 it was no longer neces-sary to post warnings. The neighborhood east ofGrand spoke for itself. Eventually a redevelop-ment program would become an actuality, and theuniversity had to 'be ready with plans when itcame about.

The First Master Plan on Paper-1951-52

Thomas Edison once said, "Everything comes tothe man who hustles while he waits." The univer-sity realized that development east of Grand hadto wait and that any interim expansion must takeplace west of Grand. A campus planning commit-tee was formed, unofficially at first, but soon as aregular standing committee, to study the campusin general and plan for future development; ac-quisitions of property over the past 30 years hadshown that previous administrations had laid thegroundwork for campus development wheneveropportunity had permitted.

After a year of committee planning, an archi-tect was engaged in 1952 to make the first masterplan for 'future campus development. Subsequentstudy revealed that the plan had its deficiencies,but it was a very important effort because it fo-cused attention on the problems of future campusdevelopment.

Walsh Hall, 1954

At this time an additional residence hall formen became urgent and it was decided to put the


new structure near the first men's dormitory.With an HHFA loan, Walsh Hall was completedin 1954 in accordance with the 1952 master plan.

Housing for Women-1949-54

In the summer of 1949 a small hotel on Grand,directly across from the original university build-ing, was purchased and converted into a dormitoryfor 60 girls. Though it was not up to any modernstandards, the building was filled in Septemberand many more women were seeking admission.In 1954 with HHFA financing, the university be-gan construction of a women's residence hall onWest Pine between Vandeventer and Spring, toaccommodate 290 students.

Revision of the Master Plan, 1955

A campus should serve the total needs of theuniversity not only for the present but for thefuture. What are the needs of the university atthe present and what will they be in the future?These questions were seriously asked by 1952 anda general university survey was inaugurated.The survey was begun as an academic assessment.With a total enrollment of approximately 8,000 atthat time, including 3,100 full-time day studentson the north campus, what would be the needs ofthe university in 1960, 1970, and beyond ? Aftercareful study of population figures for the St.Louis metropolitan area and the Nation, gradeand high school enrollments, and college enroll-ment trends, the various schools and departmentswithin the schools were asked to project their fu-ture enrollments, faculty requirements, and needof instructional facilities. After endless meetings,estimates, evaluations, and final coordination, theuniversity survey was completed in 1955. Thefuture i!teds, both in terms of faculty and instruc-tional facilities, were staggering, but they did givea basis for projecting the future.

On the basis of the general university surveyanother campus development plan was drawn ,:upby the committee with the help of another /ar-chitect. While the was /the best that couldbe developed at the time, it gradually appearedto be unrealistic because by it, all of the academicdevelopment was confined to the property west of

Grand. The city redevelopment authority stillhad made no definite statement about slum clear-

39

ante east of Grand. However, the plan was valu-able inasmuch as everyone was again required tocommit to writing his solution to the various prob-lems connected with the future campus.

Pius XII Memorial Library -1950 -59

Everyone agreed that one need was so urgentthat further postponement was impossiblealibrary had to be built at once. The universitycentral library for the north campus was still lo-cated in Dubourg Hall, where it had been eversince 1888. The building was far from fireproof,facilities were grossly inadequate, and the 400,000volumes in the four libraries and in attics, base-ments, and storerooms, were in constant danger offire. Destruction of the library would almost de-stroy the university because it represented a col-lection of books that had been carefully selectedfor 140 years. Many valuable tomes had been

brought from Europe by the early founders ofthe university, and the general collection couldnever be replaced.

A drive for funds to raise the $4 million re-quired for the library construction was begun in1950. Although not all of the necessary moneywas yet in sight, it was decided in the spring of1957 that the vital project could wait no longer.When the library was opened in the spring of 1959,it proved the value of careful planning for thepresent and future. Two years of operation havenot altered the original judgment that it is one ofthe best-planned university libraries in the Nation.It is a completely open-stack library with shelfcapacity for over a million books and study seat-ing for over 1,500 students, in a completely modern

structure which nevertheless blends in remarkablywell with surrounding modified French Gothicarchitecture.

In 1950, before the construction of the Pius XIIMemorial Library was begun, Pope Pius XIIgranted to Saint Louis University the amazingand exclusive privilege of microfilming the com-plete manuscript collection of the Vatican Li-brary. Financed by the Knights of Columbus,

the university microfilmed more than 11 millionpages of the priceless manuscripts as well as manyof the rare books in the Vatican. It is an inter-esting observation that scholars going to Rome toconsult the Vatican documents today actually use

.1*


a copy of the Saint Louis University microfilmsrather than the documents themselves. With thenumerous other microfilms of rare book documentsfrom Rome, Spain, Germany, France, and Amer-ica, especially from Mexico, the university hasprobably the world's most valuable scholarlymicrofilm collection, which occupies a relativelysmall part of the magnificent structure dedicatedto the same scholarly Pope.

Parking Lots

As desirable property becomes available in thearea west of Grand, it is being purchased and con-verted into much-needed parking lots. This isonly a temporary and not entirely satisfactorysolution to the parking problem; it is neverthelessa helpful interim measure which makes it economi-cally feasible to acquire property for future de-velopment. On the north campus the universityfurnishes approximately 400 free parking spacesfor faculty and staff, and about 350 student park-ing spaces in three lots equipped with coin-operated automatic parking gates. This incomecontributes to the upkeep of the lots and thepartial amortization of the cost and improvementof properties purchased.

Surveys and Utilities-1950-60

One of the most serious problems facing the uni-versity is the evaluation of its present buildingsand their ultimate integration into the campus ofthe future. Many of the older structures do notmeet present building codes and fire-safety stand-ards, and are costly to maintain. Nearly everybuilding on the north campus has its own heatingplant. Partial surveys were made as early as 1950an a second study was undertaken several yearslater. Since these surveys still left some complexquestions unanswered, an engineering firm wasemployed to make a thorough study of the struc-tural soundness and anticipated future useful lifeof each building, its mechanical equipment, elec-trical services, etc. The study concluded with therecommendation of a utilities plant which woulddistribute all services, including heating, air con-ditioning, communications, electricity, and main-tenance, and connect all buildings, includingfuture structures east of Grand, with a system ofservice tunnels or pipe trenches.

Urban Redevelopment, 1955

The university's watchful administration hadlong been confident that the area east of Grandwould eventually be the site of a Federal and/orlocal program of slum clearance and redevelop-ment. In 1955 the city of St.. Louis offered thevoters a bond issue which included provisions forhighways, necessary city facilities, and the rede-velopment of the Mill Creek area directly east ofthe campus, across Grand Avenue. This bondissue was overwhelmingly passed and the univer-sity became definitely interested in the Mill Creekredevelopment.

A Plan for Urban RedevelopmentUniversityParticipation

In March 1958 the redevelopment authority forthe Mill Creek Valley presented a plan for the re-development of 470 acres through the Board ofAldermen of the city of St. Louis. The planwhich was approved by the aldermen designated221 acres east of Grand and adjoining the univer-sity for "public and semi-public use" with alter-nate uses designated as mostly residential andpartly commercial. The plan recognized that theuniversity intended to submit a proposal for theredevelopment of a part of the Mill Creek area,and the plan permitted such use, but this was in nosense a designation exclusively for Saint LouisUniversity. After the plan was approved, andbefore any proposal by the university was actedupon by the land clearance authority, the author-ity publicly advertised for specific proposals forthe development of the area. The university, inresponse to the advertisement, submitted its bid.No other developer submitted a bid, and it wasonly after this advertisement and a failure to re-ceive any other proposals that the authorityagreed to sell the land to the university.

Appraisal and Purchase Agreement

The price to be paid for the land was arrivedat in the same way as for all developments in theMill Creek area. Professional appraisers wereretained by the authority to establish the fairmarket value for this plot and all others. Theuniversity agreed to pay the establishff-Price of$535,800 and committed itself to a construction

1

/7

Otie

prp 23

16

30

to

ti28


29

-45P1 m, 2$5

2o

/9

a

2

26

/5

/3

i4 1

SPII/Na Ake

41

4

Zak

if

NORTII`

Aerial view of Saint Louis University, North Campus, looking east showing congested urban location andnewly acquired space to the east of the present campus in a city redevelopment project area. Buildingsidentified by number are as follows (1 through 32):1, Saint Francis Xavier Church; 2, DuBourg Hall; 3, Champlin Hall; 6, Sodality Hall; 7, Walsh Hall; 9, Clem-ens Hall; 13, Gymnasium; 14, DesPeres Hall; 15, Fusz Memorial; 16, Husslein Hall; 17, MargueriteHall; 18, Saint Francis Xavier High School; 19, Saint John Cantius Seminary; 20, Chouteau House;21, Campion Hall; 23, Canisus; 24, Davis-Shaughnessy Hall; 25, Pius XII Memorial Library; 26, De-Smet Hall; 27, Auditorium; 28, School of Law; 29, Verhaegen Hall; 30, Rogers Hall; 31, Rueppel

Hall; 32, New Campus East of Grand Boulevard.


program which will cost between $7 and $8 mil-lion. Among the proposed buildings to be con-structed on the Mill Creek property are an engi-

neering building, a chemistry and physicsbuilding, a college union building, and classroombuildings, together with a playing field and aparking lot. The program blends perfectly withthe city's master plan, which was considered excel-lent development of the Mill Creek Valley. Thecity and redevelopment authority accepted theuniversity's bid and commitment for the 221/2acres of the Mill Creek Valley. (See p. 41)

Lawsuit To Prevent Purchase

Then came the roadblock. Three local citizens,with the support of an organization known as theProtestants and Other Americans United for theSeparation of Church and State (POAU), filedan injunction against the city of St. Louis, theland clearance authority, and the university toprevent the sale of this property to the universityon the claim that it violates the constitutionalseparation of church and State. Many of the city'sProtestants, Catholics, and Jews rallied to theuniversity's support, offered legal services, andjoined with the university in this suit as amicicuriae. In the summer of 1960 the district courtgave a judgment later affirmed by the MissouriState Supreme Court wholly in support of the uni-versity's acquisition of the property.

Women's Housing, 1960

Planners will do well to keep one hand on theripcord. The women's residence hall, which wasoccupied in 1956, was already filled to capacity in1957. In 1959 the university submitted an appli-cation to HHFA for a loan to be used in the con-struction of an addition to Marguerite Hall tohouse 280 girls. In November of 1959 we wereinformed that HHFA was temporarily out offunds. The almost frantic search for a more im-mediate solution was continued until months ofnegotiation ended in the university's purchase ofthe Pick-Melbourne Hotel on June 23, 1960, foruse as a women's residence hall. A 15-story build-ing with approximately 350 rooms and desirablefacilities, the hotel was ideally located at Grandand Lindell, just across the street from the College

Church. After almost total remodeling of thebasement and the first floor, the hotel has beenconverted into what is one of the finest women'sresidence halls on any campus. This has made aradical and most fortunate change in our generalcampus planning.

Housing for Men, 1960

At the present time there is again an urgentneed for more men's housing, and an addition isbeing planned to connect the two existing men'sresidences. Future planners may not agree tothe wisdom of another residence hall in the samelocation, but the addition seems advisable in orderto make the existing buildings into an administra-tive and functional unit, and to correct some of thedeficiencies in the existing structures.

South Campus Planning

The university has three campuses, but the mainattention in this chap' 3r has been devoted to thenorth campus. Parks College is practicallyignored because it is not in a congested city dis-trict. The South Grand campus also requiredconsiderable attention in the general planning.The present medical school was originally builtin 1921. Units were added in 1927 and 1947. Ad-jacent to the medical school is the school ofdentistry built in 1922. Across Grand from themedical school is Firmin Desloge Hospital builtin 131. Directly south of Desloge Hospital is theCardinal Glennon Memorial Hospital for Chil-dren, erected in 1954. This teaching hospital isowned by the Archdiocese of St. Louis, operatedby the Sisters of Saint Mary, and staffed by themedical school of the university. Additional fa-cilities in this complex were urgently needed, butagain the university had no property in the areaand real estate was very difficult to acquire. In1958 a 2-acre city block adjoining Desloge Hospi-tal to the north and originally occupied by anarmory, was acquired from the city of St. Louis.With a substantial donation and matching Hill-Burton funds, the David P. Wohl MemorialMental Health Institute was begun in 1960.

Much needed on the south campus are a resi-dence hall for medical and dental students and anurses' home. In addition, the medical and den-


tal schools have plans for additional research andinstructional facilities. Parking on the southcampus is critical. As St. Louis streetcars weregradually being replaced by buses, the universitybecame interested in the streetcar storage and ma-terial yards immediately west of Cardinal GlennonMemorial Hospital and adjoining the south cam-pus. Years of vigilance and months of negotia-tion finally terminated at the end of 1980 in thepurchase of the 71/2-acre tract by the university.With that transaction it has finally become pos-sible to make headway on a planned developmentof the south campus.

150th Anniversary Development Campaign

The university survey published in 1957 showedthat if the university were to discharge its obliga-tions to the community and the Nation it wouldhave to be prepared to increase its enrollment from.8,000 to 16,000 students by 1970, with the full-time enrollment on the north campus increasingfrom 3,200 to 7,000. The minimum essential needsin the expansion of faculty, instructional facili-ties, and capital improvements were staggering.Even after eliminating desirable but nonessentialitems, the "absolute minimum" financial require-ments added up to approximately $50 million.With a less vigorous administration the surveycould have ended there,

No one is a good judge in his own case. Hence,the university employed an organization to makea survey of its reasonable fundraising potentiali-ties and expectations. The survey, together withthe opinion of the members of the president'scouncil, a group of 100 of the most influential citi-zens of the St. Louis area, indicated that the goalof $46 million by 1968, the University Sesquicen-tennial, was reasonable, and that the campaignshould be divided into two sections.

The academic survey indicated that it was abso-lutely essential to expend $18 million for capitalimprovements and faculty salaries by 1963; $11million should be devoted to capital improvementsand $7 million for improving faculty salaries andother operational needs. This amount became thegoal of the development endeavor for the first

-5-year period beginning in 1959.The university had some serious handicaps. For

decades it had been extremely conservative; itspresidents had usually been former professors of

6305810 -62--4

philosophy or divinity who were inexperienced ifriot unconcerned with public and civic life. Theuniversity was not a part of the community andmany a cab driver had to inquire about its location.It was not until 1944 that the president beganto participate in the civic life of the communityto any notable degree.

Ever since its existence on Grand and Lindell,the university had been too obviously associatedwith, and nearly dominated by, its adjoiningschools of philosophy and divinity. The schoolof divinity was moved to Saint Marys, Kansas,in 1931, and the school of philosophy was relocatedin new buildings adjacent to the university campusin 1954.

The university had little experience in fund-raising. For a long period the ;otal gifts to theuniversity amounted to no more than a few thou-sand dollars a year. The situation was greatlyimproved in 1911 15 when a fund campaign real-ized approximately $2 million.

In 1950 the Living Endowment Program wasbegun. Its goal was to attract alumni and friendsinto making an annual gift to be used for facultysalaries and other instructional expenses. Theprogram has gradually developed into a substan-tial annual contribution.

The university also had some valuable assets forfundraising. It enjoyed a good academic reputa-tion and was respected for its moderately progres-sive programs and sound judgment. A large per-centage of the leading citizens of the metropolitanarea were alumni. Many of the civic leaders, in-cluding the mayor, a number of aldermen and,-adges, were graduates of the university. A highpercentage of local physicians, dentists, lawyers,and professional men had received their trainingthere. Above all, the university had an alert andprogressive administration headed by an excep-tionally capable president.

In college basketball circles it is an axiom thatif you want to win basketball games and do nothave a tall man, the thing to do is get a tall man.In fundraising the essential and key figure is thepresident, and Saint Louis University had a "tall"president in Rev. Paul C. Reinert, S.J. He wasfundamentally an educator and scholar when hebecame president in 1948. A good speaker, a for-ward-looking administrator with a friendly andeasy personality, a broad range of interests, and


amazing stamina, his qualities were immediatelyrecognized in academic and civic circles. Herapidly became a member of every pertinent civicgroup and held office or board membership inevery important national academic organizationthat time and abundant energy would permit himto accept. The university has become identifiedwith metropolitan interests and few importantcivic ventures are undertaken without the supportof the university and its presidenta far cry from20 years earlier. This is the magic ingredient thatmakes fundraising possible : the university hasbecome an integral part of the community.

Ten years of experience have been of immensevalue. The library fundraising program wasoften slow and discouraging when begun in 1950,but met with eventual success, This experience de-monstrated that the university cannot afford tohave its president spend all his time in the routineadministration of the university. While it is thecruelest of tortures to divorce a capable and promi-nent educator from academic pursuits and equiphim with a tin cup for fundraising, in a multi-mil-lion dollar campaign the university cannot send asubstitute. It must be the university personality,the president who devotes a great part of his timeand all of his stature to this essential activity. Thepresident needs the assistance of a developmentand public relations staff, but the all-important in-gredients are the vitality and conviction of thepresident who can demonstrate to civic leaders thatthe university is performing a service which is ofvital importance and interest to them.

With the support of hundreds of civic groupsaid alumni units in thousands of meetings, theuniversity is achieving the first part of its goalraising $18 million by 1963. Over $15 million havebeen realized in just 3 years. The drive for $2million from alumni and friends throughout theNation has just begun, and there is every assurancethat the goal will be met.

Summary

The transformation of the university since 1940is phenomenal. It no longer looks like the oldestuniversity west of the Mississippi. Its develop-ment for the future is assured. Beginning with a31/2 -acre North Grand campus in 1940, it will soondevelop into a 40-acre campus. The South Grand

campus has grown from 2 acres to 13. Plans forthe immediate development of the Mill Creek areaand the total north campus are progressing withoutinterruption because every committee knows thatsome day in the near future the president of theuniversity will push the button to put the plansinto action. They will be ready.

Being in the center of a congested metropolitanarea is longer considered a handicap but a de-cided advantage, especially when the campus isfully developed (according to a plan) a few yearshence. The university has a new ambition whichis to change "the oldest" to "the first west of theMississippi."

Considerations for Future Planninl

Land u8age.When the university first saw thepossibility of acquiring 22 acres hy purchase fromthe Land Clearance for Redevelopment Author-ity, the tract seemed immense. However, suc-cessive layouts of proposed low-rise ramblingstructures on the model of the campus soon madeit clear that an urban school can by no meansafford to imitate the practice of nonurban insti-tutions in consuming large tracts with low-risestructures, except where the volume of trafficmakes vertical circulation impossible or imprac-tical. High-rise residence halls, such as Mar-guerite Hall and Rogers Hall, have beensuccessful, and the same success is expected in theaddition to the men's residence hall, which isplanned to rise 14 to 16 stories.

City traffic problem 8.Located on busy citystreets, the university shares the traffic problemsof the city. In addition, the traffic generated byfaculty, staff, and students aggravates the city'sproblems in the area.

At present, the university provides parkingspace for about 400 faculty and staff and 350student cars on the north campus, whereas some2,900 day students and 1,500 night students haveregistered their vehicles for a parking permit,more aptly dubbed a "hunting license." In tlsecoming years, the number of cars driven by stu-dents, faculty, and staff will increase. Since landis limited and costly, two or more large multideckparking facilities seem to be the only solution tothe vexing problem, provided they can be builtand operated on a self-amortizing basis.

''t


It is incumbent on the university administra-tion to work closely with the traffic commissioner,with the officials who are responsible for long-range city planning, Ind with public utility andpublic transportation companies. Cooperativeplanning with these agencies will avoid futureproblems, and will result in : (1) establishingfavorable locations for parking facilities providedwith adequate approaches from and exits into citytraffic; (2) provision for adequate bus stops whichdo not hinder traffic flow; (3) planning of over-passes, underpasses, or traffic signals to regulatepedestrian traffic across busy streets; (1) coordi-nation of street lighting with campus area light-ing; and (5) provision of adequate fire laneswhich serve for pedestrian and limited vehicularuse in a manner which contributes to the beautyof the campus. Delay in contacting these officialsoften results in misunderstandings and in failureto observe requirements that cannot be met with-out last-minute changes, costly in time, dollars,and esthetics.

Costs of remodeling existing structures.Urbanschools acquiring improved property are faced7,4th a choice between remodeling the structuresor razing them to erect new buildings. The citybuilding code and requirements to obtain an oc-cupancy permit are major factors which are easilyoverlooked in the initial stages of acquisition andplanning for reuse. No specific rule can be givenbecause of the great number of variables and re-quirements pea/liar to each individual case.Speaking generally, the school will incur the leastamount of difficulty and expense by finding ausage which is as near as possible to the formerusage or to the purpose for which the buildingwas constructed. It is of great importance, in theearly stages of consideration, to consult a staffmember or other person who is thoroughly famil-iar with building codes and requirements for anoccupancy permit. These same consultants can beof invaluable assistance in estimating the cost orremodeling such structures, which because of in-complete planning, generally poor condition ofmechanical equipment, and inadequacy of wiringand electrical circuits, almost invariably exceedsthe estimated cost. Estimated costs of acquisition,modernization, remodeling (including a 20 per-cent margin for contingency), and furnishing,should ly carefully weighed against the antici-

45

pated span of years of satisfactory use by faculty,staff, and students who are expecting air-condi-tioned classrooms, laboratories, and offices. Like-wise, these factors should be balanced against thecost and the loss of time until new facilities can beerected.

Planning a structure takes time."No one everplanned a perfect building" is a commonplacewhich is ai3 too true. The first cause of dissatis-faction with new buildings is the haste with whichthey are frequently planned.

The actual span of time between the decision toerect a building and the final acceptance and occu-pancy of it is often nearly double the sanguineestimate in the minds of business executives andacademic administrators. This occurs because al-lowance is not made for factors outside their per-sonal experience. It is possible to erect a million-dollar building in a year, but only by incurringunnecessary expenditures and risking a poorlyplanned structure. A more realistic schedulewould proceed as follows and would in all prob-ability result in a building with fewer flaws :

Eatimated timePreliminary Plans: in months

The drawing, reviewing, and reworking (many times)of several alternate schemes 4

Preparation of working drpwings and specifications 4Review and revision of working drawings and speci-

cations 1

Submission of proposals by contractors 1

Construction time_ 15

Cleaning and furnishing 1

TOTAL TIME 26

A multimillion dollar structure can be plannedand built in about 3 years. One salient fact toremember : A building is never better than thepainstaking planning effort put into it during thepreparation of preliminary drawings, unless as analternative costly change-orders are given to thearchitect after working drawings are cr; npletedor after mistakes are seen in the builin g duringconstruction. It is in the early stages thatplanners must resist patient and impatient urgingsto speed the plans and construction of a buildingwhich is desperately needed.

Planning mru,st 4e feasible. A second reason forpoorly planned construction is the failure to plana structure which can be adapted or altered fcrchanging uses and conditions without incurring


major expenditures. Academic and nonacademicfacilities should be planned on a modular basisso that changes in function and requirements canbe accommodated economically and efficiently,either during the time of construction or after thebuilding is in use.

A third reason is the error of ordering the prep-aration of working drawings and specificationsbefore it is clear that construction will beginwithout delay. Even if modular construction hasbeen adopted, sufficient advances or changes in ed-ucational theory, architectural and engineeringtechniques, building materials, building codes,and instructional equipment are being developedeach year 'to make the building more or less obso-

lete before construction begins. The only solutionis to refrain from preparing working drawingsuntil all obstacles to construction (acquisition ofproperty, eviction of tenants, financial arrange-ments, etc.) have been removed. A delay of 4 to 6months is far less costly than the revision of work-ing drawings or working in a building that is lessthan satisfactory because of the delay incurred inrevising the working drawings and specifications.

Acquisition of real estate.Urban schools desir-ing to acquire adjacent real estate face severalgrave difficulties in obtaining parcels at fair mar-ket value unless they can purchase through con-demnation by the right of eminent domain. Inorder to effect acquisition of property in the bestpossible way, it is essential that the president limitthe knowledge of the intent to acquire to very fewpersons.

After agreement has been reached on whichparcels are to be acquired, consultation should behad with a prudent local realtor who is in sym-pathy with the goals of the school. The processof acquisition at fair market value may requireseveral years, since it is better to wait until par-cels are put on the market by owners than toapproach owners who may have no particular needor desire to sell. Since timing and ability to pur-chase on sudden notice are of utmost importancein real estate transactions, it is imperative thatfunds, appropriated. in advance, be available at alltimes.

Only when all parcels in the tract have beenpurchased should the school proceed to clear theland for parking lots or building sites. Only thencan the school publish drawings and perspectives

of facilities it hopes to erect. If such a programcannot be followed, the school will, in most cases,be forced to pay premium prices. Ironically, theschool which improves its neighborhood isforced to pay higher prices because of its ownimprove)1;ents.

Building committees.The committee author-ized to plan new construction or major remodelingshould be no larger than necessary. However, aminimum committee would include a financial of-ficer, a staff architect and/or engineer, chief offi-

cer or administrators who will direct the school

or department to be housed in the completed facil-ity, and an officer from the Department of Build-ings and Grounds. Each person should be a good"team-man" who is capable and willing to consultwith all other interested persons.

The chairman of the building committee musthave broad experience in all the various stages ofthe planning and construction processes. It is im-perative that the chairman and his committee fol-low a recognized procedure faithfully and reportprogress regularly through the distribution ofminutes to all whom the president designates, andby periodic report meetings. Numerous detailedprocedures have been published. It remains forthe particular school to allocate responsibility tothe various members of the building committee andto make sure that the procedure is adhered tostep by step.

Observations in Retrospect

The campus of Saint Louis University will al-ways be small in comparison to those of mostschools with a student body of comparable size.Hence, it is unlikely that distances between build-ings will ever become a major obstacle to classscheduling. But as groups study the three-dimen-sional model of the campus with a view toselectingideal sites for future buildings, they are inclinedto express regret at the location of some of the ex-isting buildings.

For instance, they wish that the men's residencehalls had been -built somewhere on what we nowcall the periphery of the campus, rather than inthe center, near the library, whereas instructionalfacilities or faculty offices should be centrally lo-

cated so as to offer greater convenience to all. Butin 1946, when Clemens Hall was erected, land


on what today is called the periphery of the cam-pus, was not available.

Secondly, successive groups of planners will al-most certainly have different views as to the ideallocation of a women's residence hall. When Mar-guerite Hall was constructed, some were dubiousabout the "far-away" location and the safety ofthe girls. Nevertheless, it has worked out satis-factorily, especially since the neighborhood hasbeen improved by the construction of illuminatedcommercial structures on nearby sites formerlyoccupied by dimly lighted mansions. It is quitepossible that future planners will be delightedthat Marguerite Hall is on the periphery, wheremany consultants say it should be.

Thirdly, the location of Des Peres Hall, a class-room building erected in 1947, close to the inter-section of West Pine and Spring, on a busy up-grade truck route with traffic signal, might alsobe considered to have been a mistake in planning.The roar of gunned motors and shifting gearsmakes instruction almost impossible, especially

47

with open windows in the summer. Since thestructure had to 'be there or not be at all, it hasproved to be a necessary "mistake." Eventually,the building can be converted to uses other thaninstructional.

Conclusion

Hindsight is wonderfulalways 20/20 or bet-terand has an air of infallibility about it, espe-cially since our predecessors usually are not present(or are too wise) to explain their decisions or t)refute our comments upon their work. It isgrossly unfair to hint that they were naive ormyopic in their planning and building. What wasadvanced thinking in their day may seem short-sighted to us today, but we have no more assurancethan they that our successors will be sympatheticto what we today regard as the ultimate in plan-ning and execution. It is in this frame of mindthat we will make today's decisions for tomorrowand the future.

Chapter V

PLANNERS WHO HAVE the good fortune to be free intheir campus planning to make a clean start with no hobblesof pre-existing patterns may be the envy of other campusplanners. But they also are faced with the severe judgmentof posterity should they fail to fully assess the trends and toprovide adequately for tomorrow's tomorrow in educationalfacilities. The planners at the University of South Floridawere primarily concerned with building a forward-lookingphilosophy of education and then implementing that philos-ophy with adequate facilities.

Planning the University of South FloridaBy JOHN S. ALLEN

President, University of South Florida

THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDAopened in Tampa on September 26, 1960, with

1,997 students in its first freshman class. Of these,60 percent were males, 1,238 were taking 12 semes-ter hours or more, 1,559 were degree candidates,1,969 came from Florida, and 22 came from 16other States. The Floridians came from 28 of the67 counties of the State. The students ranged inage from 16 to 68, and 1,102 of them were be-tween 18 and 21 years of age. Enrollment predic-tions indicate the university can expect 10,000students before 1970.

Behind these statistical facts lies the story ofone of the most ambitious development programsever to be undertaken by a State in the history ofAmerican higher education. In addition to theUniversity of South Florida, 2 other new Stateuniversities and more than a score of 2-year com-munity colleges have been or will be created in theState in the 15-year period from 1955 to 1970.

48

The Need

The need for expanded educational facilities inFlorida can be seen in background material aboutthe State itself. The population of Florida hasbeen growing at a fabulous rate for many years.On the average, it has doubled in population every20 years for the past century. The 1950 censusreported 2,771,000 people in Florida, and thisfigure was increased in the 1960 census to 4,952,000.There is agreement among demographers that the1970 census will show close to 8 million people inFlorida: This increase in population is, of course,due to the high birth rate which Floridaand theNationis experiencing, plus in-migration.Growth, however, inevitably brings new problemsto be solved and one of these is education.

The responsibility for all public education inFlorida rests in the State Board of Education,which consists of the Governor, the State Super-intendent of Public Instruction, and three other

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

members of the State Cabinet. This is a constitu-tional body. The Legislature in 1905 created theBoard of Control for State Institutions of HigherLearning, and the Board of Control has the respon-sibility for establishing policy and overseeing gen-eral operation of the State universities, subjectto approval of certain items by the State Board ofEducation. In 1954, there were three State uni-versities under the Board of Control, namely, theUniversity of Florida at Gainesville, Florida StateUniversity at Tallahassee, and Florida A & MUniversity at Tallahassee. There were also nineprivate accredited degree-granting colleges anduniversities at that time, and the total enrollmentof both the public and private institutions was38,536.

Early in 1954, the Board of Control, with theconcurrence of the State Board of Education, rec-ognizing that the rapid growth of the populationmight result in rapid expansion of enrollments inpublic institutions of higher learning, authorizeda study of higher education facilities and needs tobe made. The Board of Control appointed theCouncil for the Study of Higher Education inFlorida, consisting of John E. Ivey, Chairman;A. J. Brumbaugh, Director; Earl J. McGrath;Floyd W. Reeves; and John Dale Russell. The re-sult of the study were printed in a one-volumesummary report,1 and there were several supple-mentary reports and studies which were producedin mimeographed form. The council studied en-rollment growth, educational needs, the economicgrowth of the State, and possibilities of support.It also analyzed the public and private collegesand universities in the State and determinedthrough conferences what each of these institutionsenvisioned its role to be and what each couldachieve by way of expansion in enrollment in theyears ahead.

Early in 1956, the council made its first reportto the Board. of Control, revealing that populationexperts who had been working under the directionof the council had predicted that college enroll-ments would expand to 132,000 students by 1970.(Continuing restudies made by the Board of Con-trol staff with later figures have indicated thatthis figure could be expected to be in excess of180,000. In the fall of 1960, the total college en-

1Brumbaugh and Blee. Higher Education and Florida's Fu-ture. Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1956.

49

rollment had climbed to 68,172). The council re-ported that its conferences with representatives ofprivate colleges indicated that these privateschools might, on the average, expand their enroll-ments by about 50 percent. This meant, then, thatthe State universities would have to expand, not200 percent, but nearly 400 percent. This, thecouncil felt, would be undesirable. It was pointiadout that such expansion would be unduly expen-sive, since dormitory space would have to be pro-vided for practically every additional student whocould be enrolled in the present State universities,all of which are operating in relatively smallcities. Such expansion of classrooms, laboratories,and library facilities would also be difficult.

The council urged the Board of Control to seekfunds from the State Legislature for the establish-ment of a degree-granting institution in theTampa Day area. The council also recommendedthat this be followed up at a later time with theestablishment of a degree-granting institution onthe lower east coast and, still later, with anotherdegree-granting institution in the Pensacola area.And, finally, the council recommended that theState plan to create 18 additional community-junior colleges in the thickly populated areas ofthe state.

Some of the regional infighting which occa-sionally attends the establishing of a new institu-tion with public funds was avoided in this instanceby the action of the State board in early deter-mining that a stated number of new collegeswould be approved, and then by designating therespective general location of each. The competi-tion for the one which became the University ofSouth Florida was therefore confined to theTampa Bay area.

Selection of Site

In the meantime, Hillsborough County, inwhich the city of Tampa is located, had been activethrough its legislative delegation in getting the1955 Legislature to pass an enabling act, author-izing the State Board. of Education to establisha degree-granting institution in HillsboroughCounty when and if the Board of Control shouldmake favorable recommendations. The Board ofControl, on the advice of the Council for the Studyof Higher Education, had specified that the sitefor a State university should have in it at least


1,000 acres. Henderson Airfield, inactive since

World War II, was being developed by. the countyand the city as an industrial park. The countycut off 960 acres at the northern end of this tractfor a campus, and two business associates whoowned several thousand adjacent acres northeastof this area promptly gave 734 acres to the county.making a total of 1,694 acres which the countythen offered to the State- for the campus of theproposed institution. The officials of HillsboroughCounty and the City of Tampa joined with theGreater Tampa Chamber of Commerce in makingstudies of the feasibility and desirability of thisparticular site for the campus of the proposeduniversity.

In December 1956, the Board of Control, hav-ing reviewed the recommendations of the Counciland the studies produced by Hillsborough Countyand the City of Tampa, approved the site and sub-mitted its report and recommendations to theState Board of Education. On December 18, theBoard of Education passed a resolution creatingthe institution and urging the Board of Controlto submit a budget to the 1957 Legislature. Sep-tember 1960 was set as a target date for the open-ing of the institution and thus a university wasbornnameless, penniless, and without staff orstudents.

The site is located 9 air miles northeast ofdowntown Tampa, just outside the city limits.It is, however, in an urban setting, with one mil-lion people living within a radius of 50 miles.Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater are grow-ing rapidly and are gradually merging into onelarge metropolitan area. The location was im-portant since the institution would open withoutdormitories and its charter students would com-mute to the campus for classes.

The campus land ranges from 25 to 75 feet above

sea level which, for Florida, is "rolling land."The eastern end of the campus borders on theHillsborough River, which floods occasionally.This area will not be used until a flood controlprogram is worked out. The first buildings areon high ground in the center of the 960-acre tract

and are about 3 miles from the river. No unusualdrainage problems exist on this relatively highground.

The City of Tampa extended its sanitary sewerlines to the campus, even though this is beyond

the present city limits. The University pays asewer use fee and thus did not have to install itsown sewage plant. Fire protection is provided

by the city. Engineering studies indicated thatfor normal water uses it would be cheaper in thelong run for the University to drill its own water

wells as needed, install its own storage and pres-sure tower and water treatment plant, than itwould be to purchase water from the city.

Roads bordering on the north and south sides

of the campus were widened and repaved to ac-commodate the first increases in traffic to the

area. A north-south road was built along the west

side of the campus, which would also serve the

Industrial Park which is to the south of the cam-pus. A portion of the United States limited ac-cess highway system is scheduled to pass within2 miles of the west end of the campus. An inter-change is planned on which fast moving traffic

from downtown Tampa and St. Petersburg and

from the north can move from the throughwayonto the road which makes the south border of the

campus.Just across the road to the South of the campus

is an area designated by zoning for research anddevelopment offices and laboratories for neigh-boring industries. The areas to the east and northof the campus are zoned for single family

residences.

Tentative Plan

With only the broadest outline of the kind ofinstitution that was needed in the Tampa Bayarea, the staff of the Board of Control prepareda budget to submit to the Legislature. The archi-

tect on the Board of Control staff was asked todraw up a preliminary plan for land usethat is,

a campus planand also preliminary plans forthe first buildings. These plans for campus and

buildings were tentative, designed to give theLegislature some visual impression of how theinstitution and its physical plant might be ar-ranged and constructed. They were later super-seded by the permanent plans. In the meantime,the Board of Control sought the advice of a va-riety of architects and named an advisory groupof five architects selected from five different citiesin Florida. The 1957 Legislature, prior to itsadjournment in mid-June of 1957, appropriated$8,602,000 for buildings and equipment and

UNIVERSITY OF

$140,000 for salaries and expenses for the initialplanning staff for the 1957-59 biennium.

Appointment of President

In June 1957, the Board of Control formallynominated John Stuart Allen to serve as presidentof this new institution. This nomination wasconfirmed by the Board of Education in July 1957,and the president assumed his new responsibili-ties on August 1, 1957. There were some citizensof the State who, being unfamiliar with the de-velopment of an institution of such magnitude,questioned the need for a president when the in-stitution had no buildings, no students, and nofaculty. Subsequent experience has shown thatone individual, with the proper responsibility andauthority, is essential to the orderly planning andcoordination of the educational program, thephysical plant, and the hiring of personnel tooperate it.

Selection of a Name

To find and get acceptance of an appropriatename should be one of the easier and more routinetasks of planning. However, the interest in thisnew and unique project was high, and hundredsof names were suggested, both in personal cor-respondence and in letters to the editors of news-papers. One organization wanted to sponsor acontest to name the institution. The situationwas complicated further by the fact that originalsuggestions called for an institution which wouldbe primarily a liberal arts college, organized on adivisional basis. It was realized, however, thatthe institution would grow rapidly in size anddiversification of offerings, and these later consid-erations resulted in the organization of severalcolleges in the beginning and led to the use of thename "university." A name such as "Gulf CoastUniversity" was suggested, but this name couldapply to other public or private institutions in anyState bordering on the Gulf of Mexico. Therealready exists in Tampa a private institutionnamed the University of Tampa, and FloridaSouthern College is located only 30 miles away inLakeland. Since the Board of Control and theState Board of Education would have to poke thefinal decision on a name, it was finally agreed thatthey should take initial action, thus avoiding a

SOUTH FLORIDA . 51

man-in-the-street contest. There was generalagreement that the word "Florida" should be inthe name. The institution is located 250 milessouth of Florida State University and 130 milessouthwest of the University of Florida. Sinceit is away from the area known as west Floridaand north Florida, long deliberation led finally tothe selection of the University of South Floridaas the official name. Naturally, it will draw themajority of its students from the West Coast areanear the campus, and from the southern end of theState, although it is designedas are all publicuniversities in this Stateto serve the entireState of Florida.

Area To Be Served

The original recommendations of the Councilfor the Study of Higher Education and of thestaff of the Board of Control were that the Uni-versity of South Florida should be a 4-year degree-granting institution, with emphasis on the liberalarts. More detailed studies, however, indicatedthat a broader program was needed.

The Tampa Bay area is a center of transporta-tion, business, and industry. It is also a center ofextensive cultural activities. There are foursymphony orchestras within 50 miles of the cam-pus. There are many little theaters and more thanone ballet group. It is an area in which the finearts are already participated in and enjoyed bya number of people, and this indicated; somethingof the role a university in the area must play.

There are more than 3,000 public school teachersin Hillsborough County; and the county requiresabout 500 new teachers per year for replacementsand expansion. All of the teachers require oc-casional courses for keeping up to date and forcertificate renewal. Within reasonable com-muting distance of the campus there are probably10,000 public school teachers. Therefore, it wasevident that the University of South Floridashould have not only a strong liberal arts program,but programs in business administration, edu-cation, and fine arts. It was evident also that therapid growth of the university would cause theinstitution to grow in complexity as it grows insize, and that its organization should be planned inthe beginning to meet this situation. Therefore,the institution was organized with four colleges :College of Basic Studies, College of Business


Administration, College of Education, and Col-lege of Liberal Arts. Liberal Arts is organizedon a divisional basis, with divisions in naturalscience, social science, humanities, and fine arts.

Coordination and Cooperation

The problem of unnecessary duplication amongState institutions of higher learning is one of con-cern to all educational planners. An early deci-sion was made that the University of South Flor-ida program should be carefully articulated withthe efforts of the other State-supported institu-tions. The older State universities in Floridahave several schools and colleges which, althoughimportant to the State, enroll relatively few stu-dents and thus have rather high operating costs.It was evident that there was no need to duplicatethese small units. The University of SouthFlorida, in establishing the colleges listed above,is duplicating only the largest units at other Stateuniversities, and other units will be added as theneeds of the State are identified. Transfer planshave been worked out with the University of Flor-ida and Florida State University for students whostart at the University of South Florida and whowish to take programs in units with small enroll-ments, such as, for example, agriculture, nursing,or social work. The question, then, is not so muchone of simply avoiding duplication but of decidingwhat duplication is necessary. The large units inan institution of any size, such as a departmentof English or a department of mathematics, be-come so large that multiple sections have to beoffered. When this is the case, then it is perfectlyjustified from all points of view to offer thesesame programs in still another institution.

The University of South Florida has also de-veloped cooperative arrangements with its nearneighbor, Florida Christian College. This church-related junior college is located in Temple Terrace,about 2 miles from the University of South Flor-ida campus. It has in its enrollment a number ofpreministerial students and, therefore, offers bothGreek and Latin. At the moment, the Universityof South Florida is not offering either of thesesubjects. Therefore, arrangements were workedout whereby a student at the University of SouthFlorida who wishes to study Greek or Latin may,by mutual agreement of the two deans involvedand by payment of an appropriate fee at Florida

Christian College, register for one or both of thesecourses as part of his total program. The reversearrangement was also made so that students ofFlorida Christian College can register for coursesat the University of South Florida which may notbe offered by Florida Christian College.

Educational ObjectivesIn developing the objectives of the institution,

we felt that we had two primary publicsone,the faculty which we hoped to attract to the Uni-versity of South Florida, and the other, the stu-dents and their parents. The following are theobjectives of the Unix srsity of South Florida:

1. To provide the citizens of Florida with anotherpublic institution of higher learning, which will beoutstanding in quality of instruction and high in levelof scholarship.

2. To create a community of scholars dedicated toteamwork in the search for truth, the exchange ofideas, and the establishment of high standards ofintellectual inquiry and creative activity.

3. To provide an opportunity for the developmentand training of the mind which will promote maturityand objectivity in dealing with problems of profes-sion and life.

4. To provide a broad cultural and basic educa-tional pattern for all students together with programsof liberal, preprofessional, and professional studies inthe fields included in the university's plan.

5. To encourage and provide opportunity for stu-dents to work independently and thus accelerate orenrich their programs.

6. To provide a cooperative program combining ed-ucation with work experience.

7. To provide opportunity for qualified studentswith inadequate financial resources to secure a uni-

versity education.8. To provide an opportunity for the development

of social, group, and individual skills through extra-curricular activities.

9. To provide a center for cultural, intellectual,economic, and scientific interests and activities of theresidents of Florida, and to provide leadership inthese fields.

ProgramsThe reason for devoting so much of this report

to academic programs is that such considerationsas these should determine the type, size, arrange-ment, and functional relationships of a collegecampus. Too many people appear to assume thatbuildings are planned and built first and then theeducational programs are fitted into them.


The objectives of the university can be servedin two programs (1) education for earning a liv-ing in the student's chosen profession or vocation;and (2) education for living a full, responsible,and responsive life. We believe that educationfor personal and civic responsibility is too im-portant to leave to chance. We are all citizens,members of families and members of communitygroups. We must all have some understanding ofhuman behavior, government, international rela-tions, science, mathematics, philosophy, literature,and fine arts. There are some areas of knowledgewhich should be common to all men, and we wantour students to be well acquainted with these.Therefore, we set about to rio this in an orderlyfashion. To give emphasis to this program, weorganized it in a separate college, known as theCollege of Basic Studies. All students of theUniversity will be enrolled in this college duringthe first 2 years.

College of Basic Studies

It is the purpose of the College of Basic Studiesto provide that part of the student's educationwhich should equip him for better living. Thisemphasis is, of course, not limited to the Collegeof Basic Studies, but is carried on through theupper division colleges as well. There, however,the emphasis undergoes a shift toward profes-sional and other educational goals. Nor does theCollege of Basic Studies confine its emphasis topreparation for better living alone. Studentsentering with definite professional and educa-tional goals may begin their work toward theseends in the College of Basic Studies while stillcarrying studies of more general nature. Whilethis program leaves gaps for the interested studentto fill, its does provide him with enough selectedtypical samples explored at a depth so that he canproject a reasonable understanding of the wholefield. It should be clearly understood that coursessuch as these are not intended to prepare spe-cialists.

In addition to exercising this principle in theinstructional programs foi natural sciences andthe humanities, a similar approach is being ap-plied in the social sciences, mathematics, English,human behavior, and foreign languages. In allthese areas, the principal objective is the trainingof educated laymen.

53

The College of Basic Studies proposes to try arather new and different approach to the studyof foreign language. It is a practical approachbased on conversation and including a minimumof grammar. It will use the laboratory methodwhich will involve recordings, listening devices,native conversationalists, pictures, trips, and othermeans to provide a practical understanding andspeaking knowledge of a foreign language.

Each student will normally take from 30 to 36semester hours of work in the courses offered bythe College of Basic Studies. The balance of eachstudent's time during the first 2 years (24 or moresemester hours) will be devoted to taking coursesin one or more of the upper division colleges.If the student already has 'a definite professionalor educational objective, some of these courses canbe included as part of his major, which he willselect finally at the end of the second year. If hedoes not yet have well-defined educational objec-tives, he may wish to elect courses in several dif-ferent areas in order to discover a field of interest.In any event, about half of his time in the first2 years will be free for selecting courses of hisown choosing.

Each of the basic courses will have honors sec-tions. Students with superior high school aver-ages and test scores in the 12th-year high schooltests will be expected to enroll in these sections.Honors sections will, in general, deal with thesame materials as other sections. They will, how-ever, consider problems and topics at greaterdepth, move at a faster pace, and involve greaterstudent participation. Each student will have aBasic Studies adviser who is a member of thefaculty. If a student has decided definitely onhis major field by the beginning of the second year,an adviser from this field will also assist him inchoosing his courses.

The university requires that all students, unlessexcused by a university physician, attain someskillin team sports, individual sports, and aquatics.All students must know the basic principles of per-sonal hygiene and public health. The necessaryskills and knowledge can be obtained in coursesprovided for the purpose or in other ways, butthey must be achieved by the end of the secondyear.

In order to bring some of the values of diversi-fication together before students finally depart


Campus of University of South Florida. The original buildings were erected near the center of the siteallowing future buildings to expand the campus in all directions. Streets and drives are kept away from the

central plaza or mall.

k


from the university and in order to provide agreater sense of unity to the whole program, theuniversity proposes to have a senior course whichall students, whatever their major, will take to-gether. This course will draw its materials fromthe social sciences, the natural sciences, the human-ities, and the majk,r fields of the students con-cerned. In a sense it will be a course 'nmethodology of attacking problems and reachingvalue judgments. It will deal with some prob-lems of social science and with the methods usedin attacking these problems. Each student should,if the course is to be meaningful, prepare a paperon the relations of these fields and their methodol-ogies to his own major or professional field. It isalso, as ti's culmination of his college life, theplace for him to prepare his own paper on his ownphilosophy of life. In it he should not only tryto establish his own ethical, moral, and valuestandards, but should, as well, attempt to synthe-size and pull together the work of his 4 years.

The Planning Process

After determination of educational objectives,the first step in planning was to list functionswhich are central to a university and, therefore,should be located centrally on the campus. Forexample, the library is the heart of a university.Therefore, it should be located centrally, and itwas decided to make it the tallest building on thecampus to symbolize its role as the heart of theUniversity of South Florida. In keeping withthis idea, the first staff member to be hired wasthe librarian. Too, the administration of a uni-versity is central to its organization and oper-ation and therefore needs to be centrally locatedfor convenience.

There would be a need immediately upon open-ing for food services for students, lounges, recrea-tion areas, meeting and study placesthe equiv-alent of a student union building.

Immediately around these central functionsshould be located buildings with classrooms, lab-oratories, studios, lecture-rooms, and a teachingauditorium. Further out from the center, wherethe public may come and go without having topenetrate the very heart of the campus, would besuch facilities as a large auditorium, living areas

55

for rnen and women students, a gymnasium, andphysical education facilities. Still further outfrom the heart of the campus would be such fa-cilities as a power plant, a maintenance building,parking lots, and playing fields.

The president met first with a group of educa-tional consultants to develop basic plans for theeducational program already detailed. An experi-enced campus planner was employed to developa meaningful campus plan on the nearly 1,T00 acresavailable. His plan for land use made the campuscome to life and have meanii,g.

In late August and through September and Oc-tober, the president met with the advisory groupof five architects who had been appointed by theBoard of Control. The campus plan was shownto them and it proved to have concepts in it whichwere new to them. They understood city plan-.ning and not campus planning. This meant thatthe campus planning had to be explained to the ad-visory group. However, this was good; it madethe campus planner and the president prove thatthey had been clear in their thinking and that theyhad good reasons for the decisions which had beenmade.

The campus plan proposed that the originalgroup of buildings be located as near to the centerof the campus as possible, thus allowing the con-struction to expand in all directions. It proposeda central plaza, or mall, with buildings alignedon the north and south sides. This plaza was tobe quiet and restful with no streets across it andall campus drives going around it. (See p. 54)After buildings have filled the area, the plazawould eventually form an impressive mall runningon the east-west axis across the campus. An areathen was designated for instruction, and anotherarea just to the east of the instruction area wasdesignated for residence halls. Physical educa-tion playing fields and other facilities were plan-ned for the area east of the residence halls. Itwas proposed that no driveways should go throughthe instructional area, but rather should carry thetraffic around the periphery of the campus, withdriveways leading to parking lots in the instruc-tional and residential areas. Cars could move offthe highways onto the campus driveways circlingthe residence halls and instructional areas, andmove onto the parking lots. Students could walkfrom these parking lots to the various campus


buildings, and walk from building to building morequickly than they could go back to the parking lotand drive to another parking lot on the other sideof the campus.

Using the advice of his educational consultants,the president told the architects how many class-rooms and laboratories would be needed and indi-cated the kind and size needed. He also describedfor them the administrative organization, thenumber of offices, and the inter-relationship be-tween offices. Fcr instance, the desirability wasexplained of placing the registrar's office and stu-dent affairs office near each other, allowing bothto utilize one set of records and avoiding unneces-sary duplication. After many sessions with theadvisory group of architects, they came to under-stand that the buildings should be designed firstof all to house the educational program and thatthey should be truly functional.

It became clear that if the institution was toopen in September 1960, there was not time todesign the buildings sequentially, but rather thatall of the first group of buildings would have tobe designed simultaneously. The president haddeveloped programs for five buildingS, and it be-came evident from conversations with the archi-tects that there was no one architectural firm inFlorida that was large enough to design five majorbuildings simultaneously without having to layaside all other work to which they might be com-mitted. Therefore, the advisory group of fivearchitects proposed that they form a group toenter into contract with the Board of Control toproduce the plans simultaneously for the firstgroup of five buildings. It was agreed that eventhough the architects were in different cities, theywould work as a group, meeting frequently withthe president and with one another to criticizetheir work. If one architect should fall behind inhis work and not be able to deliver plans, the oth-ers would join forces to see that the plans wereproduced on time. Actually, the complexities ofcontracting with the State were such that five

contrasts were called for, rather than one, but thearchitects, nevertheless, agreed to work as a group,regardless of the contractual arrangements.These arrangements were approved in October1957. The architects were to deliver preliminaryplans in January 1958, and the final working plansand specifications the following June.

The five architects who did the first five build-ings were called together by the president formany meetings and conferences on the educationalplan and then they set to work to produce prelim-inary drawings and, finally, working drawingsand specifications for the buildings. The presi-dent served as coordinator for this group of archi-tects and got them to agree on "ae style or char-acter of the buildings. Each building is differentin size and shape because it has its own particularfunction. Unity is achieved by using the samematerials and colors in all of the buildings.

Since the buildings are to be used the yeararound and are air-conditioned in the summer,they are insulated from outside weather conditionsas much as possible. Most of the buildings haveno windows on the east and west walls, thus keep-ing out the morning and afternoon sun. Windowson the south wall are covered by concrete grill-work, or sun screens, which allows indirect lightto come in the windows but keeps the direct lightfrom the summer sun from striking the windows.These screens reduce the air-conditioning load inthe buildings considerably. Thus, the character ofour buildings, described as "Florida Contempo-rary," is the common theme, but each individualbuilding is a variation of this theme?

The Administration Building is designed toserve its purpose adequately for an indefiniteperiod. About one-half of it is now used for ad-ministrative offices. It also has 18 classrooms atthe present time. These are grouped around theregistrar's office, the business office, and the stu-dent affairs offices. These various offices havefunctions which will have to expand with greaterenrollment. Therefore, as new office space isneeded, the classrooms in this area can be takenover and converted into offices. At the same timemore classroom buildings will be built and theclasses can be moved to these buildings which arescheduled to come along later.

The University Center houses the food servicefacilities which will suffice for 2 or 3 years beforeexpansion is needed. It also houses the campusbookstore, student lounges, recreation rooms, stu-dent activity meeting *rooms, and 16 classrooms.Later these classrooms will 'be taken over by stu-

2 Allen, John S. A New University Is Born. College andUnivereity Buaineee, July 1960.

UNIVERSITY OF. SOUTH FLORIDA

dent activities as they grow and as special class-room buildings are built.

The chemistry building has chemistry labora-tory tables in it and it is used now by physics,zoology, geology, and astronomy, as well as chem-

istry. It has two lecture-demonstration roomsseating 200 each and has sloping floors, projectionscreens, blackboards, closed circuit TV, and fullfacilities for science demonstrations. It has 16classrooms, ranging in capacity from 20 to 60seats. Each has utility lines to the lecture tablefor all science demonstrations. Each is connectedby coaxial cable with the lecture-demonstrationrooms for closed circuit TV. Faculty offices areon the top floor of the classroom wing. All floors

are served by an elevator. The laboratory winghas stockrooms in what would normally be thecenter hallway. On the first floor a general chem-istry laboratory with 96 student stations is on oneside of the stockroom, and a physical chemistrylaboratory with 50 student stations is on the otherside. Thin, the physical chemistry laboratory hasmore square feet per student station than has thegeneral chemistry laboratory. The one stockroombetween the two laboratories can serveboth labora-tories by placing as many attendants in it as areneeded to handle the volume of work that developsat various times in the week.

On the second floor the central stockroom has a72-station laboratory for intermediate chemistryon the one side, and a 72-station laboratory fororganic chemistry on the other side. Each labora-tory has many equipment drawers for individualassignment at each station.

The third floor has some smaller teachinglabora-tories for advanced courses and it has faculty re-search laboratories. The faculty offices are at theother end of this same floor. The basement has airhandling equipment, shops and equipment stor-age, and space for the equipment curator.

The Teaching Auditorium-Theater seats 588 intheater-type seats with tablet arms which may beraised into position when needed for taking lec-

ture notes. The stage is equipped for drama pro-ductions. Dressing rooms are below the stage.The lobby is designed to double as an art gallery.

The library is designed to provide 2,000 seatsfor students to study and shelf space for 250,000volumes before it has to be enlarged. This is an"open stack" library and it has the usual reserve

57

rooms, reference facilities, special historical col-lection rooms, study carrels, receiving rooms, musiclistening rooms, and a faculty lounge.

The heating is done by natural gas, with oil asthe standby fuel. A central plant, with heatingunits and compressors for cooling, prepares hotwater for circulation by pumps through under-ground pipes to the other buildings. In the sum-mer chilled water is pumped through the samepipes. Each building has its own unit for heatingand cooling the air from the water circulated tothe building. The air is then distributed through-out the building in question. By such a systemand its thermostatic controls, the water, either hotor chilled, flows to the building which has thegreatest load or need for it. This load shifts fromone building to the other at various times duringthe day as people move from classrooms to lab-oratories, to the library, to the University Center,and to the dormitories. By this system the coolingunits in the central building can have less max-imum capacity than would be the case if everybuilding had in it the full cooling capacity itwould ever need.

A classroom-administration building, a sciencebuilding, a university center, a central heating andcooling plant, and utility lines were contracted for,with only slight delays. The library and teachingauditorium were postponed until the State's in-come could provide for these buildings. The neces-sary income did not materialize in that bienniumand the 1959 legislature reappropriated money forthe library and the teaching auditorium. It alsoappropriated money for a life sciences building tobe ready for the second year of operation, anda maintenance and shop building and physicaleducation shower and locker room building to beready for the first year of operation. A partialdown payment on the first dormitory, to be readyfor the second year, and planning money for alarge humanities building needed in the third yearwere also appropriated. Finally, the legislatureprovided an operating budget for further plan-ning during the year 1959-60 and for the year1960-61, the first year of operation.

Orderly Growth

In planning sessions, it soon became evidentthat to establish all 4 years of the undergraduatecurriculum at one time would mean that while


the University of South Florida would be admit-ting freshmen, it would also be admitting transferstudents from a great variety of other institutions.Thes., transfer students would have had variousfragments of the college degree program. Wewould be unable to determine in advance whatofferings at the junior or senior level would be indemand and the students who transferred to thisnew and untried institution might generally bethose who had not succeeded in the institutionswhere they had started their college programs.In order to have some control in establishing aprogram of high quality, to be able to plan anddevelop our program in an orderly fashion, it wasdecided to admit in the beginning only a freshmanclass in September 1960, and add a class a yearuntil the full 4-year degree program is in op-eration.

Since the University will be essentially an un-dergraduate institution in the first years of itsoperation, the importance of teaching and of learn-ing will be stressed. During its formative years,graduate research will not be central, but teachingwill be all-important. In such a university, manyof the values which could be inculcated in studentsthrough residence in college must be gainedthrough the classroom or not at all. The com-muting student cannot rely on long bull sessionsor experiences in the dining rooms or residencehalls for the development of his cultural appetite.Students leave the campus each night to returnto diverse homes and conditions. The University,if it is to have an impact, must make the class-room teaching as vital as can humanly be done.It must also make extracurricular activities an in-tegral part of the educational program, and theyshould be directed as educational enterprises.

Long-range Planning

From the studies made by the Council for theStudy of Higher Education in Florida and con-tinuing studies made by the administration of theUniversity of South Florida prior to its opening,we were able to predict rather closely the enroll-ment for the first semester. Emphasis should begiven to the continuing studies, for these broughtout the effects of our urban setting. We have morepart-time and evening students than had been esti-mated from the earlier studies. Fortunately, thistrend was discovered in time for us to schedule

more evening sections of courses and to adjustour staffing pattern accordingly. We believe thatreasonable predictions of enrollments can be madefor the first 10 years of operation of the Universityof South Florida. Knowing the expected enroll-ment, it is possible to determine the number offaculty needed each year.

An easy rule of thumb for determining the num-ber of classrooms needed is one classroom for eachthree faculty members. In a normal work week,four faculty members would use one classroommore hours than are available. The maximumratio probably would be 31/2 to 1, but in order tohave a safe margin, a ratio of 3 to 1 is used. Know-ing the number of faculty, we know the numberof faculty offices which must be supplied. Ourfirst proposal was to provide one office for eachtwo faculty members and one office for each ad-ministrative officer. This decision was modifiedafter further experience and the policy now is toattempt to supply an individual office for eachfaculty member. The following table indicatesthe expected full-time equivalent enrollment andthe number of classrooms and faculty offices whichwe anticipate will be needed in the first 10 years.

Number neededFull-time

Year equivalent Facultyenrollment Classrooms Faculty

offices

1961 2,500 155 62 155

1962 3,500 183 72 183

1963 4,200 248 83 2481964 5,200 288 95 288

1965 6,400 320 107 3201966 7,500 375 125 375

1967 8,500 425 142 4251968 9,300 465 155 4651969 10,000 500 167 500

V .-,.. t,

In the planning of our buildings we haveadopted five basic principles to guide us:

1. By planning Iyuildings in units costing $1,000,000to $2,000,000, efficiency can be gamed in constructioncosts and in use.

2. All the first buildings at the university shouldbe plann 1 for two or more uses in order that theywill be fully used in the beginning as well as whenthey receive their ultimate use. For example, thefirst science building is basically a chemistry building.It housed all sciences the first year. In the secondyear, a life sciences building was read, and theoriginal building continues to house chemistry, phys-ics, geology, mathematics, and astronomy. A physics,mathematics, and astronomy building should followimmediately. In less than 10 years a second chemis-try building will be needed.


ORGANIZATION of the UNIVERSITY of SOUTH FLORIDA

State Board of Education

State Board of Control

Administrative I

President of the University

-I Council of Presidents

Institutional ResearchDevelopmentNews and Public Relations

Dean of Dean of Business University

Academic Affairs Student Affairs Manager Senate

4 College Deans3 Directors

a. EvaluationServices

b. Libraryc. Registrar

630581 0-62-5

Men's ActivitiesWomen's ActivitiesClinicsPlacementUniversity CenterPhysical EducationIntramuraIsAdvising of Freshmen

and Sophomores

Business OfficeCampus EngineerProcurementFinance and

AccountingPersonnel ServicesEducational

Resources

Auxiliaries

Figure 2.Organization

AcademicStaff

UniversityAssembly

StudentCouncil

StudentBody

59

Planning and PoliciesCommittee

chart University of South Florida.

a. Curricular Affairs1. All-Univ. Council

on Teacher Edur.2. All-Univ. Council

on Business Adm.3. All-Univ. Joint

Council on BasicStudies andLiberal Arts

b. Personnel Affairsc. Student Affairsd. Academic Standards

Institutional Researchand Planning

f. Physical Plant, SpaceUse and Traffic

g. University Functionsand Public Relations

h. Student Financial Aid

60 CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTTONAL DEVELOPMENT

3. Special classroom and laboratory facilities mustcome first. A classroom equipped for the teaching ofzoology can be used for teaching some other subjectsuch as history or economics. But the reverse is nottrue. Therefore, we have no alternative but to pro-vide the special classroom first, because it can dodouble duty.

4. The size and type of each lecture room, class-room, and laboratory must be determined by its func-tions and the uses that are to be made of it. It iswasteful to plan rooms to be larger than needed. Itis wasteful to plan all rooms the same size. Smallclasses can use smaller rooms and larger rooms ofvarying sizes should be available for larger classes.

5. We need to have buildings ready when they areneeded. It is wasteful and unnecessary to have themready long in advance of their need and it is dis-astrous to the aducational program to have thembecome available only after the need has alreadymaterialized. The foregoing table, indicating thenumber of classrooms, is a guide, then, to the timetable on which classrooms and laboratories must beprovided. Before a building can be brought into use,time has to be allowed, not only for construction, butfor drawing the plans and specifications, for bidding,and for awarding of contracts. In addition, theremust be prior planning, in order for the legislatureto know what buildings will be necessary, when theywill be necessary, and what appropriations will beneeded at each session of the legislature. The "leadtime" needed between legislative appropriation andthe time the building can be r.Ntdy for use, is for theUniversity of South Florida 30 to 36 months. Thetime required for original planning and for considera-tion by the Board of Control and the State BudgetCommission is 1 year before the Legislature meets.This means that the lead time which the universityofficials must take on buildings is about 4 years.Thus, in 1960, we planned specifically for buildingswhich will be needed not later than 1964, and in 1961

we are charting our general needs on through to 1970,with the expectation of developing programs for eachof the buildings on the schedule required by the fac-tor of lead time as described above.

Internal Organization of the University

The ultimate responsibility for the Universityof South Florida rests with the people of the Stateof Florida, who provided in the State Constitutionfor the State Board of Education to have generalsupervision of all public education, and whothrough their elected representatives in the leg-islature created the University of South Floridaand delegated to the State Board of Control theresponsibility fVr operational policies. The presi-

dent of the University of South Florida reportsdirectly to the Boa: d of Control and is expectedto make policy recommendations to the Board.

Reporting direct] -, to the president are threeline officers, namely, the dean of academic affairs,the dean of student affairs, and the business man-ager. (See Organization Chart.) It is the dutyof these administrative officers and their associatesto handle the details of administration and opera-tion that will provide an appropriate setting forthe educational 'activities of the university. It isalso the duty of these officers and of the staffofficers to advise the president on policy, adminis-trative, and operational matters.

To assist in carrying out the administrativefunctions, there is an executive committee, consist-ing of the president, business manager, dean ofstudent affairs, and dean of academic affairs. Thiscommittee is advisory to the president on mattersof operation and administration.

The All-University Approach

It was apparent very early that the Universityof South Florida was destined to become a largeinstitution. Large universities have the advan-tage that they can have many specialists on thestaff who can give assistance to students who areeither superior or slow learners. Small collegesmay not always be able to have such specialistsavailable. In the belie :r, that the University ofSouth Florida, even when it becomes large, shouldbe a total university and not a collection of indi-vidual parts, it was decided that all programsshould be sponsored by the university and not byspecialized colleges or divisions. Wherever pos-sible, faculty nr,mbers have been given dualappointments. While faculty members were beingrecruited, the administrative heads of the variouscolleges all reviewed credentials of various candi-dates and expressed their opinions about them.When official or social gatherings were planned,people from all parts of the university, profes-sional as well as nonprofessional, were included.Whenever the needs of the institution permitted, acentral agency was created, for example, to handlefaculty records, so the staff and faculty would lookto it rather than to decentralized autonomous sub-

parts of the institution.


The Superior Student

Believing that the best education is self-educa-tion, the University of South Florida expects toencourage as much independent and individualwork as possible. This may take many forms.The number of class meetings may be reduced forgroups of able students in some courses, leavingthese students more freedom for study, self-testing,and orga sizing student group meetings in thesubject. Through the use of television and radioit will be possible to repeat some lectures for thosewho need the review or for those who were unableto be present originally. The development ofauxiliary teaching devices makes it possible insome fields for students to raise and answer perti-nent questions and check their own results. Suchdevices and checks are, of course, valuable for allstudents.

It is also likely that a number of departmentsin the upper division colleges will offer depart-mental honors work in the junior and senior years

-open to students who have made superior recordsin the first 2 years. This will usually take the formof independent study, introducing students tomethods of investigation and research, and result-ing in papers based on such research. It may alsotake the form of projects involving study of somephase of community activity, or travel to othercountries to carry on studies related to some areaof the world.

Students who have engaged in any of theregularly organized programs for the superiorstudent will have this fact indicated on their rec-ords and will be entitled to consideration forgraduation with honors if their total records meetthe necessary requirement established by the uni-versity.

Slow Learners

There are also earnest, hard-working studentswhose limited ability makes it possible for them tosucceed in a college career if they have good coun-ssling, advice, and assistance in developing certainskills and procedures fundamental to learning.The university will do all it can to assist such stu-dents in both informal and formal ways.

Many students are slow learners because they

61

have never learned to read rapidly and with com-prehension. In some cases reading speed and com-prehension can be greatly improved throughproper diagnosis and practice. The universitywill maintain a reading clinic for such purposes.

Similarly, many students have never learned towrite clearly and with understanding. While con-siderable emphasis will be placed on the improve-ment of this skill in the English basic course andin all courses of the College of Basic Studies, theuniversity will also maintain a writing clinic forthose needing more help.

In speaking, some of the handicaps are of physi-cal as well as mental origin. Improvement ispossible in many cases through diagnosis and prac-tice. The university will maintain a speech clinicfor those needing special help in this field.

There are other ways in which the universitycan assist the slow learner in a less formal man-ner. Television and radio lectures will be repeated,from time to time so that students who need itcan "attend" a second time. In some courses"learning machines" and tapes will be availablefor review and self-testing. The Office of Evalua-tion Services will administer diagnostic and apti-tude tests to assist counselors in helping studentsmake the right selection of programs and courses.

Good Teaching To Be Honored

Teaching at the University of South Florida isto be predicated on the idea that college is an or-ganized opportunity for self-education. Hence,independent study will be encouraged. With thisin mind the library has been planned with openstacks and large reading rooms to accommodate asubstantial portion of the student body at onetime. We believe that freshmen require the bestteachers on any college faculty and this teachingincludes preparing the student for more and moreindependent study. By the time the student is asenior he will not be dependent upon his profes-sors and should be able to get the material evenif the instruction is poor. Regardless of rank,salary, or seniority, our best teachers are to behonored by being invited to teach the elementarycourses and to have their classroom doors open,figuratively, as an invitation to allow others tocome and learn how they do it.


Getting Started

Assembling more than 100 persons who are newto one another and new to the institution and itsprogram required not only a diligent search, butafter that, a carefully planned orientation period.An average of nearly 50 additional faculty mem-bers will have to be added in each of the remainingyears of this decade. Orientation for each of thesegroups will be important. A faculty handbookwas written and sent to new faculty members afterappointment and before arrival in Tampa.

The university business manager set up a hous-ing office that gave all assistance possible in findinghomes in Tampa and the vicinity for faculty andstaff members. Realtors and developers were help-ful, and the housing office served as friendly ad-viser to describe the various sections of Tampa andthe communities around it. The housing office alsofound rooms that householders wanted to relit tostudents, inspected them, and prepared a list ofrooms approved and recommended for students.

Conclusion

The University of South Florida faculty andstaff have taken advantage of the fact that theyhave few traditions or past procedures to shacklethem. They have selected the best from their pastexperiences and the best from other institutions

and regrouped some of these ideas into a programthat is, coherent, has integrity, and is designedto meet the needs of students facing the last halfof the 20th century. This program at the Uni-versity of South Florida is designed to handlemore students more effectively and more efficientlythan has been done in the past. Closed circuittelevision is used to carry a lecture to more peoplethan one classroom or lecture hall will hold. Taperecordings of some of these lectures are madeavailable for replay to students who wish to hearthem more than once. Our experience to date indi-cates that we have underestimated this demandand we need more play-back equipment to servethe students. Lectures are supplemented by smallclass discussions. In addition to the laboratorysections for science courses, many other courses,such as humanities, foreign languages, and func-tional English, also include laboratory sections.

Our objective is to prepare the student to takemore initiative in taking advantage of the Uni-versity of South Florida, which is fundamentallyan organized opportunity for self-education. Weexpect each student to go at his own speed, so longas he proceeds at a pace in excess of the minimumwhich we set.

We shall be studying our role and the scope ofour program continuously to determine the serv-ices that are needed by the community we serve.

O

Chapter VI

IN THE PLANNING of Methodist College there was anawareness that the the of the buildings was not the limitingfactor on enrollment but rather the amount of fiends thecollege could attract from all of its resources to provide thedifference between what the student pays and what it costs toeducate him. Having estimated that factor, the ceiling onenrollment was computed and the facilities planning wasgeared to it.

Planning and Building Methodist CollegeBY

L. S. WEAVER

President, Methodist College, Fayetteville, N.C.

THIS IS A report of the procedures and planswhich have been followed to date in construct-

ing, organizing, and operating a new private4-year liberal arts college at Fayetteville, N.C.This institution, which opened its doors in Sep-tember 1960 to its first freshman class, is ownedand operated 'by the North Carolina Conferenceof the Methodist Church. It is supported by thechurch and by the Fayetteville College Founda-tion, a corporation formed in the city of Fayette-ville and Cumberland County for the sole purposeof promoting the interests of Methodist College.The college is coeducational.

Background

Fayetteville is a city in southeastern North Caro-lina of approximately 50,000 people. It is thecounty seat of Cumberland County. Fayettevillewas one of the early settlements in the coastalplain during colonial days. It is the terminusof ocean shipping up the Cape Fear River fromthe Atlantic Ocean. In its early days, it served

as a port of distribution for water-borne com-merce. It was an early seat of government in theState. Its history lies deep in the roots of theearly settlement of this part of the Atlantic sea-board.

Adjacent to the city at a distance of some 10miles is the largest military base in the UnitedStates, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base.

As early as September 19, 1955, the desire fora college resulted in the appointment by the Mayorof a Fayetteville Steering Committee to seek theestablishment of an institution of higher learningin or near the city. On March 7, 1956, this Steer-ing Committee made contact with Bishop PaulGarber of the Methodist Church and at a subse-quent meeting called by the Bishop, the committeepresented an invitation to the church authoritiesof the North Carolina Conference of the Metho-dist Church to establish a 4-year liberal arts col-lege at Fayetteville, to be operated under the aus-pices of the church. Following the appointmentof a Committee of Investigation by the church,a special session of the North Carolina Conference

63


on May 14,1956, approved the recommendation ofthe committee that the church accept the invitationof the Fayetteville Steering Committee to estab-lish an institution of higher learning at the cityof Fayetteville.

The Fayetteville Steering Committee proposedto furnish to the church a satisfactory site, waterand sewer facilities from the utility lines of thecity of Fayetteville, police and fire protection, acapital contribution of $2 million for buildings,and a sustaining fund contribution of $50,000annually in perpetuity. The Fayetteville Steer-ing Committee in a pledge campaign had securedpledges amounting to $2 million for capital fundsand had secured pledges underwriting the annualsustaining fund. Payment on the sustaining fundwas not to begin until the fiscal year in whichthe college opened its doors to students.

In accepting the proposal of the FayettevilleSteering Committee, the Methodist Church agreedto undertake a capital fund campaign to furnishan additional 82 million to the college for buildingsand also agreed to provide an annual appropria-tion for operation of the college which would beginat $35,000 per year when only the planning stageof the college was being undertaken, and whichwould be increased rapidly when the collegeopened, to a maximum of $180,000 per year.

Two corporate bodies were brought into beingto assume responsibility for this support. Thelegal name, Methodist College, was adopted and acharter issued by the State of North Carolina inthis name on November 1, 1956. This charterprovides for a board of trustees composed of 24members; 6 of these members must be clericalmembers of the North Carolina Conference of theMethodist Church; 6 must be residents of Cumber-land County; three - fourths of the members of theboard of trustees must be members of the Metho-dist Church. Other denominations are repre-sented on the board. The trustees are divided into4 classes of 6 members each, each class serving aterm of 4 years. The college has been fortunatefrom the beginning in attracting strong men toits board of trustees. The only chairman whichthe board has had is the present Governor of theState. Another member of the board and of itsexecutive committee is the present President ofKiwanis International. Other members are prom-inent in Church and State.

The other corporate body, the Fayetteville Col-lege Foundation, was incorporated to serve as theresponsible agency in providing the supportpromised from the local community to the college.This corporation has a board of directors consist-ing of 18 members. Any citizen of CumberlandCounty is eligible for membership. The member-ship of the foundation is broadly based, drawingits support from all religious denominations andall segments of the community life. This founda-tion is charged with the responsibility for collect-ing the $2 million in pledges for the capital fundand the annual $50,000 sustaining fund. It is anactive organization, holding monthly dinner meet-ings in the college cafeteria, meeting from time totime in joint session with the board of trustees,and furnishing valuable assistance in manylines of endeavor.

Selecting the Site

Several sites were offered to the board of trus-tees as possible locations for the college. Finalselection was made of a 600-acre site frontingthree-quarters of a mile on U.S. 401, one of theprincipal highways entering the city from thenorth, the property extending to the Cape FearRiver at its rear boundary. The land offers avariety of topography.. Gently sloping buildingsites give opportunity for scenic landscaping andalso provide good drainage. River bottom landprovides an abundant amount of level groundfor athletic fields. Wooded areas are availablefor an unlimited number of faculty housing units.The site is 41/2 miles from the center of the cityand 2 miles from the present corporate limits. Atthe rate of growth in the area, it is safe to predictthat this particular territory will soon be a partof the municipal corporation. In addition to themain highway referred to, the site is served byseveral tributary county roads, many of which arehard-surfaced. City bus lines have been extendedto the college with the opening of classes. Citywater and sewer lines now serve the campus.

Several houses were secured with the site, threeof which are being used to house college officials.

Architectural Decisions

The first function of the board of trustees was toemploy an architectural firm. The Building and

METHODIST COLLEGE

Grounds Committee of the board served as an in-terviewing group and contacted several firms. Rec-ommendations as to the type of architecture werereceived from each firm interviewed. Followingmany weeks of study, the committee recommendedthat the firm of Stevens & Wilkinson, Atlanta,Ga., be employed for this project. The committeefurther recommended, on the advice of Stevens &Wilkinson, that the buildings be of contemporaryclassic design. The board accepted this recom-mendation.

Perhaps the principal reason leading to theultimate choice of this firm, in addition to theirexcellent reputation and their experience in col-lege building and planning, was the fact that thisfirm is large enough to furnish all the servicesrequired for the total project. Beginning withsite planning, including location of all walks androadways, this firm has done the architecturaldesign and all mechanical and electrical plans andspecifications. Their estimating department hasbeen remarkably accurate in advising the boardas to what each building ought to cost. Thus theofficials of the college are able to confer, within theconfines of one office building, with all of thepeople associated with any part of the planningof the total college plant. No consulting engineershave had to be brought in from outside. Inciden-tally, Progressive Architecture Magazine hasgiven a Design Award to Stevens & Wilkinson fortheir design of campus and buildings.

Immediately following the selection of the ar-chitectural firm, the board employed the presidentof the college and he entered upon his duties onSeptember 1, 1957. The first study to be under-taken was the location of buildings on the 600 -acre site. Much time was given in study with thearchitects before the final selection was made.The basic concept was the creation of a group ofinterlocking malls, each of which is defined bybuildings related architecturally and by changesin elevation to suit the site topography. Thebuildings of the academic group are arrangedaround the three interlocking malls.

It was determined that the buildings would beconstructed of reinforced concrete with brickpanels and with concrete sunscreens suitable to thecontemporary design. Special ati,ention wasgiven to a new design in roof construction whichallows the building to stand without support by

65

any partition-wall or end-wall. Thus the build-ings are adaptable, (See p. 66.) Classrooms canbe made any size by merely moving a non-load-bearing partition. There is no wood in the build-ings except interior classroom doors. All build-ings constructed to date bear an AAA fire rating,and since there is no wood to repaint or to rot, webelieve that we will have a very low maintenancefactor.

For heat, steam from the central heating plantis converted to hot water in each individual build-ing and heat is supplied by circulating hot waterwith individual blowers in each radiator. Thissame system may be used to circulate chilled waterduring the summer months so that the same me-chanical facilities may be used both for heatingand air-conditioning the buildings.

Educational Programs

Methodist College is chartered as a 4-yearliberal arts institution. In developing the curric-ulum, the basic studies of the liberal arts andsciences were accorded a prominent place. Re-quirements for degrees are based upon a broadcourse of study in the several areas of liberal edu-cation. In addition, the college offers training inthree Jrelated areas : teacher education, businesseducation, and training of religious workers. Thecurriculum includes offerings in pre-professionalareas such as medicine, dentistry, nursing, law,and the ministry. Students also have availablesufficient study in any given area to prepare forgraduate study.

The program of studies is organized in six gen-eral areas : (1) Languages, (2) Religion and Phi-losophy, (3) Education and Psychology, (4)Mathematics and Science, (5) The Social Sci-ences, and (6) The Fine Arts.

We hope by this plan of curricular organizationto retain the cohesiveness of the liberal arts andat the same time to prevent fragmentation intosmall areas which tend to become autonomous andunrelated; also to hold to an absolute minimum theproliferation of courses within departments, whichcreates one of the greatest economic problems withwhich colleges have to deal.

Course offerings have been given the first yearin the natural sciences, mathematics, foreign lan-gt,ages, English grammar and literature, world

c.


Ffr4ge.4 :P..: erft.141.2...."..205":01,7Cr

47"--421"".=n -vwargert: iknrrInrann

WM.

The classroom building of Methodist College, Fayetteville, N.C., reinforced concrete with brick panels. Theconcrete sunscreens are suited to the climate of this region.

history, religion, and the fine arts. -lindividuallessons are offered in several areas of music. Itis expected to continue these offerings for the sec-ond year, advancing to the sophomore level inthese fields, and to begin study of philosophy andpsychology, and to expand the offerings in socialstudies. Preengineering and other preprofes-sional courses will be begun in the sophomore year.Majors in advanced areas will be emphasized whenthe junior year is reached, at which time intensivework in teacher training and business adminis-tration and religious education will be offered.

The college has been able to execute an agree-ment with the Schools of Engineering of DukeUniversity and North Carolina State Collegewhereby a student may attend Methodist Collegefor 3 years and transfer to one of these engineer-ing schools for 2 years. At the conclusion of the5-year training program he would receive 2degrees, the BS from Methodist College and anengineering degree from the Engineering School.

The first freshman class, which was admitted inSeptember 1960, enrolled a total of 135 studentsduring the first semester. These are all commut-ing students, as no residence halls have been con-structed as yet. Contracts have been let for twosmall residence buildings which will furnish roomson campus for a limited number of students inSeptember 1961. The sophomore year will beadded the second year, the junior year the third,and the senior year the fourth. A program ofevening classes is being carried on; it had not beenplanned; originally to begin these classes with thefreshman year, but the demand was such that these

classes were begun the first year. Enrolled areadults interested in some particular course offer-ing and also a good many young people who findit necessary to work during the day but who wishto take as much work as possible in an eveningschool, expecting to graduate in perhaps 6 yearsrather than the usual, 4. Evening classes havethe same content as regular day classes and carrycommensurate academic credit for those who areproperly qualified to be enrolled as candidates fordegrees. The nearby army base furnishes a largepotential for evening class students.

Projecting Enrollment

One of the first questions to be decided was thatof how large the college should ultimately be.Optimum size for a 4-year undergraduate liberalarts college was studied. The result of thesestudies convinced this writer that the most eco-nomical operation could be had in such a college,offering a reasonably broad program of liberalstudies, if the student body numbered approxi-mately 1,200. Below this number some courseswould be offered with enrollments so small asto be uneconomical. Above this number some du-plication of facilities would result. A large num-ber is educationally desirable if the demand isthere and the service can be rendered, but it is notnecessary for the most desirable operation from aneconomic standpoint. Accordingly, the build-ings which have been planned and those so farconstructed at the college have been planned to ac-commodate an ultimate maximum of 1,200 stu-

r.

dents. The college has no expectation of reachingthis size in the near future. While the studentswill undoubtedly be available and the buildingswill be large enough to house such a student body,the limiting factor will be the amount of annualsupport available to the college. No student paysthe full cost of his education. The number of stu-dents will, therefore, be limited by the amount ofmoney the college can supply from all of its re-sources to provide the difference between what astudent pays and what it costs to educate him.From the resources presently available, the col-lege can teach about 750 students. To enroll morestudents than this would require the raising ofendowments which, of course, is one of our tasksfor the future.

The First Buildings

The next step in our planning was to arrangethe floor plans of the first buildings which wewould construct. Obviously many questions oncurriculum had to be settled before this could bedone. This was particularly true in the naturalsciences, as laboratories had to be provided foreach science to be taught and with sufficient ca-pacity to take care of our ultimate student body.In this connection, we were faced with a decisionas to whether we should build temporary facilitieswhich would later be converted to other use orwhether we should build the buildings for theirultimate usage from the beginning. The lattercourse was decided upon. Accordingly, ratherthan build a few laboratories in a general instruc-tional building, we have built a classroom buildingand a separate science building. The expensivemechanical facilities required for science labora-tories will not be wasted nor will they have to beduplicated in another building later. The class-room building houses the administrative offices andthe library temporarily, as well as classrooms andfaculty offices. The administrative offices are con-tained in rooms which will require no conversionwhen they revert to their original purpose. The

iisame is true of the library. Before any libraryfurniture was purchased, the separate librarybuilding was planned and a list of furniture for itwas compiled. Furniture for the temporary li-brary was bought from this list so that it will all

be usable when the library is constructed. The li-brary is the next building on the building sched-ule and we hope to begin construction in the nearfuture.

At present, four buildings are being used on the

campus. The Classroom and Faculty Office Build-ing was the first building to be constructed and, asindicated above, it presently houses the adminis-trative offices and the library temporarily. Sincewe have only a freshman class, there is no problemof room at the present time. In fact, we are usingless than half of the building this year. We expectto use all of this building by the time we reach thesenior year; therefore it is necessary that the li-brary and administrative offices be removed toother buildings by that time. The classroombuilding has 23 classrooms, including some largelecture halls, and 46 faculty offices, with necessaryadditional service rooms.

The second building constructed on the campuswas the science building. This building contains4 chemistry laboratories, 4 biology laboratories, 2physics laboratories, 2 home economics labora-tories, faculty offices, 2 lecture rooms, and 1 largelecture hall seating more than 200. This latteris used as our assembly room at the present time.

The third building constructed on the campuswas the Student Union Cafeteria. Since all stu-dents for the first year were day students, it wasfelt that this building was necessary to provide aplace for these students during the time they werenot in class. The first floor contains a largelounge. This lounge is large enough to seat 500people in folding chairs and will be used for largegatherings on the campus until the auditorium isbuilt. It also contains snackbar, book room, va-rious service rooms, lockers for day students, andfirst aid rooms for both men and women. Theground floor contains a kitchen and cafeteria seat-ing 600 students in the main dining room. It alsohas three private dining rooms. We find that themain dining room is being used frequently by largegroups in the community and we are glad to haveit so used.

The fourth building to be constructed on thecampus was the heating plant. In conjunctionwith this building, we provided an extra wingwhich houses physical education dressing facilitiesfor men and women. We use these for physicaleducation classes in conjunction with outdoor


paved courts and other athletic fields. It will suf-fice for this purpose until the gymnasium is built.Considerable study was given to the question ofwhat type of fuel we should use in the heatingplant. All of our engineering studies showed thatthe lowest energy cost comes from mat However,the capital, investment and the labor cost of opera-tion was unfavorable to coal as compared withsome other fuels. Taking all things into considera-tion, we decided to use a' combination of oil andnatural gas. Natural gas is available from a trans-continental pipeline which passes across a part ofthe campus property. At the present time, we areusing oil exclusively due to a temporary shortageof gas, but our boilers are equipped to burn eitheroil or gas and we expect to use a combination ofthe two ultimately.

Student Housing

As previously indicated, all of the first-yearstudents commute. Since the college has found itnecessary to put its immediately available fundsinto teaching buildings, it was planned to builddormitories by self-amortizing loans. We hadhoped to be able to take advantage of the lowinterest rate on loans from the college housingsection of the Housing and Home Finance Agencyof the Federal Government. We found that wewere not eligible to apply for such loans until afterthe college had been in operation for 1 year. Also,since a new institution has no accreditation status,it is required that the college present certificationsfrom three institutions having regional accredita-tion that these institutions will accept graduates ortransfers from this college with no diminution ofcredit. The writer has been able to secure thesethree certificates and will submit an applicationfor Federal housing funds for dormitories follow-ing the close of the first year's operation. How-ever, our study of this matter showed us that wecould not embark on a program of building largedormitories on an amortizing basis even if themoney could be secured. To secure self-amortizingloans on such facilities, at least 90 percent oc-cupancy is required. If we had constructed suchdormitories prior to the opening of the college foronly a freshman class, we could not have filledthese dormitories the first year. If by chance wehad filled them with freshmen, we could not have

accepted more resident students for 4 years untilthat class graduated. Our problem then, it seems,is to get resident students on the campus in smallnumbers from year to year so that by the time weconstruct large dormitories we will have enoughstudents to fill them. To meet this situation, wedecided to build small apartment-type buildingseach year to house a limited number of students.When we reach the senior year, we will then haveon the campus enough students to fill a dormitoryand will convert our apartment buildings to fac-ulty and married student housing. This seems,at the present, the best solution for a new collegewhich enrolls only one class at a time and has todepend on student fees to amortize its housingloans.

Utilities

Locations for a total of 13 buildings have beenplotted on the site and preliminary plans drawn.The original grading contract included the grad-ing for all of these buildings. The contract forcampus utilities included utilities to serve all ofthese buildings. Storm drainage, central heatinglines, water, sewer, electricity, and telephone lineshave all been installed according to a master planto serve future buildings. Grading has been donefor buildings to be constructed in the future. Ac-cordingly, when a new building is constructed,it will not be necessary to dig up the campus or todestroy walks and driveways to service these build-ings. Connections for all of these utilities arealready at each site. We can proceed now withlandscaping (which has also been based on amaster plan) without having the landscaping de-stroyed by future construction. This, of course,required the outlay of more money undergroundthan would have been needed for the four build-ings which we are presently using. However, thisinvestment will turn out to be economical in thelong run.

Building Contracts

The question of the manner of taking bids andletting contracts inevitably comes up in any build-ing program. The law governing public construc-tion in this State requires .that bids be taken infour categories : general, heating, plumbing, and

f.

:1

METHODIST COLLEGE

electrical. This has been the procedure in con-structing school buildings for a great many years.However, private institutions are not subject tothis law. Investigation revealed that only oneother State has such a law and that many Statesfollow the policy of letting contracts under a uni-

fied bid. The architectural firm felt that the plac-

ing of responsibility on one reliable firm wouldhave considerable advantage. After discussion by

the building committee of the board of trustees, itwas decided to follow this recommendation of ourarchitects. All contracts to date have been let on

a unified bid except in the case of the boiler plant,where the mechanical contract was really the maincontract and the boilcr house 'ouilding was sepa-rate. In all other buildings, the general contractorwas made responsible for mechanical sub-

contractors.

Equipment

The purchase of equipment for the buildingshas been handled in the college business office.Specifications were prepared and several reputablefirms were invited to submit bids. Equipment hasbeen purchased more on quality than on price andit is believed that this is economy in the long run.Equipment has also been purchased with a view touniformity. This is advantageous in the case ofrepair or replacement.

Operating Costs

As this is being written (the midterm of thefirst year's operation) , the four buildings withwhich the college was opened, and the various sub-sidiary contracts, have cost a little more than$2,500,000. The Fayetteville Foundation hais col-

lected a little less than $900,000 of their $2 mil-lion in pledges, and the Methodist Church hascollected a little more than $750,000 for our ac-

count. The church campaign was held later thanthe local campaign. The remainder of our build-ing cost so far has been met by short-term bankloans.

The Fayetteville Foundation is furnishing$50,000 in sustaining funds for this year's budget.

The Methodist Church has been furnishing theoperational funds ever since the president's office

was opened in September 1957. The present ap-

69

propriation for this fiscal year from the churchis $56,000. Thus the college has for its first year's

operation $106,000 in addition to student fees and

incidental gifts. Church appropriation for oper-ation will be increased for the next school year.While the funds that the college has been raising,

apart from its two main supporting bodies, have

been used largely to supplement the building fund,

some money has been contributed and earmarked

as endowment. The present value of the endowed

funds of the college and other invested funds is

about $90,000.The college has received several corporate gifts

but has received no help as yet from educational

foundations. Practically all of these foundations,particularly the larger ones, operate under by-laws

which state that they will accept applications only

from accredited institutions. Since a new insti-tution is neither accredited nor nonaccredited, it

has not been possible to qualify for such help.

Subsequent comments will be made on accredita-

tion.

Staff

The administrative staff of the college began

with the employment of the president in Septem-

ber 1957. His immediate duties were concerned

with building plans and financial arrangements.As these have moved forward and the question of

additional administrative help has presented itself,

the administrative staff has been gradually ex-panded. Almost 2 years after the president as-sumed office, a Director of Public Relations and

Development was employed. This was at the be-ginning of the campaign for funds throughoutthe church and the college was called upon to fur-

nish much promotional material for this campaign.The director of public relations has worked largelyin the area of the Methodist Church. He has pre-

pared a quarterly bulletin and news releases, and

now that the college is open, does a good deal of

work in the area of student recruitment.Some 9 months prior to the opening of the col-

lege, a comptroller was employed. He immedi-ately began purchasing equipment for the variousbuildings and employing the nonprofessionalstaff.

Six months before the opening of the college, a

dean wak added to the administrative staff. Be-


fore his arrival, the president had prepared andprinted the first catalog. The dean assisted in thecomrletion of the faculty for the first year's op-eration and began the detailed scheduling ofclasses and gave attention to other internal admin-istrative matters which were necessary before theopening of the college. He served as admissionsofficer until the admissions officer was employed 3months before the opening of the fall term. These5 people presently constitute the administrativestaff.

For the freshman year, eight full-time and threepart-time instructors are employed. The instruc-tor in Bible serves as the college chaplain andis chairman of the Community Council, which isa joint faculty-student group responsible for cam-pus activities. This is expected to lead into a stu-dent government organization by the time thesenior year is reached. Five of the instructors onthis first faculty hold the doctor's degree.

It was anticipated that in an area of teachershortage, securing personnel would be very diffi-cult ; however, the number and competence of thepeople who have been interested in teaching andworking in a new institution have been an agree-able surprise. It is true that for the first year thefaculty has been employed in only a sufficient num-ber to teach the freshman class and difficulties inthis area may increase as needs expand. Presentindications are that it will be possible to meet theneeds for the second year with competent andqualified people.

It is anticipated that the number of students inthe second year's class will increase somewhat inthe day student patronage and that these will beaugmented by a limited number of resident stu-dents. The staff is prepared to teach a total of200 students in the second year's class and the ac-ceptance will be limited to that number. Thereis no wish to grow more rapidly and in greaternumbers than can be assimilated in an orderlyfashion. There is no lack of concern about thenumber of students who will inevitably demandadmission to colleges in the next few years, butthere 'is more concern about the quality of the pro-gram which will be offered to those for whom re-sponsibility is assumed. Two guiding preceptsare that the college shall be an institution of aca-demic excellence and shall be Christian in concept.

StuCent Activities

Student activities for the first year have beenlimited to freshman class activities, student par-ticipation on the faculty-student community coun-cil previously mentioned, and membership in thestudent Christian associaLon and the glee club.During the spring term of this first year it isplanned to enlarge the student program of activi-ties for those who have demonstratbrl during thefirst semester that they are academically qualifiedto devote time to such activities. These will in-clude publications, dramatics, debating, and var-ious social activities.

Summary

What does the future hold for this institution ?As previously discussed, the physical facilitieswhich have been provided so far will accommodatean ultimate total of 1,200 students. The scheduleof construction proposes to build the library next.It is hoped to start it within the next few months.Following the library, the administration build-ing and the chapel will be built, followed by theauditorium-fine arts building and the gymnasium.This is the program of construction from fundswhich are expected. During this time more hous-ing units will probably be built, including dormi-tories, from borrowed funds as the need arises.Of course, dormitories will be expanded at anytime upon proven need. The ultimate objective of1,200 students is predicated on 600 resident stu-dents and 600 day students. This would requirefour dormitories housing 150 students each.Studies convince us that 150 students is the mini-mum number that ought to be housed in one dor-mitory. The various auxiliary rooms that must beprovided for resident students, particularly socialrooms in a girls' dormitory, cannot be economicallyprovided in smaller dormitories.

It cannot be too often repeated that the growthof the college will be limited not so much by itsphysical facilities or its student patronage as byits 'ability to secure operational funds to cover thedifference in cost between what a student pays andwhat it costs to educate him.

Previous reference has been made to accredita-tion. This is a vital question for any beginninginstitution. Most accrediting agencies have set up

METHODIST COLLEGE

their rules and regulations with the idea of sep-arating the good from the bad among existinginstitutions. It seems not to have occurred to someof these agencies that there will be new institu-tions. The College Conference in this State re-quires that an institution graduate a class and beinspected 1 year later before it can apply formembership in the conference, which is the defacto accrediting agency for colleges within theState. Thus a new institution faces 5 years ofoperation before it can meet this requirement, evenif all criteria and other stipulations are met fromthe beginning. The regional accrediting agency,the Southern Association of Colleges and Second-ary Schools, requires 7 years. As noted earlier,financial assistance from large foundations islargely geared to regional accreditation.

There are, however, some devices that a newinstitution can use to assure its students of theiracceptance on a transfer basis or to graduateschools of other institutions. Mention has beenmade of the joint cooperative program in engi-neering between Methodist College and the Engi-neering Schools of Duke University and NorthCarolina State College. Also indicated was thefact that the college has been able to secure certifi-cation from three regionally accredited institu-tions stating that Methodist College studentswould be accepted by transfer to any of these in-

71

stitutions. These certifications have enabled thecollege to be approved by the Veterans Adminis-tration for training of students under the G.I.Bill and to qualify for student loans under theNational Defense Education Act. It will alsoenable the college to apply for dormitory loansfrom the college housing section of the Housingand Home Finance Agency of the Federal Govern-ment after 1 year's operation.

Various accrediting agencies are cooperativeand helpful in furnishing detailed statements ofthe criteria which an institution must meet inorder to be ultimately accredited by them. Thecollege has operated by these criteria from the be-ginning and anticipates no difficulty in futureaccreditation when the required time has passed.This matter is of great importance to a new insti-tution and to the students who attend it, and itshould be given much care and study.

Building an institution from the ground up isa rewarding experience. Three years ago whathas become Methodist College was a cotton field.There is some satisfaction in having undertakento create an institution and watching it progressfrom day to day, even though progress is oftenslow and always less than one could wish. Thosewho would attempt such an undertaking can be a.:.-sured that their work will be often frustrating butnever dull.

Chapter VII

ONE WAY TO ACHIEVE growing space is to move thecollege from its rigid girdle in town to a new and spacioussite in the suburbs. To do so involves a tremendous amountof expert planning. One feature of the move by San Fran-cisco State College was the setting of priorities for the orderof completion of the various new facilities so that the moveco?...14 be made gradually over a period of years. The startof the move could not wait wail all was ready on the newcampus and not all could be made, ready at once.

Moving San Francisco StateCollege to a New Site

By

GLENN S. DUNNEPresident, San. Francisco State College

JOHN S. BUTLERDean of Campus Plawning,

ART1117R J. HALLDirector, of Institutional Research,

BackgroundMoving a college or university from one site to

another is a major operation. It involves realestate negotiations, zoning problems, transporta-tion complexities, fiscal difficulties, curriculum"impossibilities," faculty protests, and a certainamount of politics. It is, in fact, almost easierto disband the old campus organization and starta new one afresh. However, items such as facultytenure relationships, institutional traditions, thenecessity for continuing student programs, andsimilar hurdles dictate otherwise. Because of thetremendous growth of certain higher educationalinstitutions, moves will continue to take place. It

72

should be helpful, therefore, to relate the experi-ence of one institution, San Francisco State Col-lege, in its shift of location from downtown to thesuburbs.

In 1954 San Francisco State College completedthe move to its present location. In a sense thismove started in 1939 when the first parcel of landfor the present campus was purchased. Theactual move of instructional functions started in1950 when the first permanent building was com-pleted on the new campus, but not until 1954 afterthe ninth major building had been completed wasit possible for the college to abandon completelyth a "old" campus it had occupied in the heart ofSan Francisco since 1906.

SAN FRANCISCO STATE COLLEGE

Factors Causing the Move

The factors that led to a decision to relocate thecollege were the woefully inadequate facilities andthe severe space limitations of the former campus,located in downtown San Francisco off upperMarket Street. Of the three major instructionalbuildings two were steel reinforced structures.The third and largest building was a three-storyframe edifice, erected shortly after the fire of 1906,which had been annually condemned by city andState authorities. In addition to these buildingsthere were a gymnasium, demonstration elemen-tary school, several "temporary" classroom build-ings, tennis courts, and athletic :fields. All ofthese were located on a hilly 5-acre site. Thecampus was surrounded by apartment houses andwas near the business section of the city. By 1940the college, with great difficulty, was handling2,500 students on this campus. Ten years later,when the college was about to start its move to thenew site, the post-war flood of college students hadcomplicated the problem of space to an even moreserious degree. To meet this crisis the college hadrented every available building in the immediateneighborhood. These included an educational an-nex of a nearby church, the pipe organ and as-sembly hall of another; the kitchen facilities,auditorium, and offices of a third church that hadbeen condemned for regular purposes but whichwas being used as a settlement house; similar fa-cilities in a fourth church several blocks away;and limited facilities in still another. The Salva-tion Army gymnasium was used for physicaleducation classes. Aquatics were taught in thecity's Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. pools.

Before describing the move itself, it is neces-sary to outline briefly the State educational struc-ture of which the college is a part. Unlike aprivate institution, which has certain freedom ofaction, a public college is constrained at everyturn by relationships to the State, its board, cer-tain State agencies, and finally to its own localconstituency. San Francisco State College was apart of the California State College System which,like any rapidly growing system, was beset withcertain complexities of organization and opera-tion. In order to understand some of the difficul-

ties of the move, the agencies controlling the col-lege must also be understood.

73

History of the College

The present California State College Systemoriginated as a collection of normal scNools set upprimarily to train elementary teachers. The firstnormal school was established in San Franciscoin 1862. By 1900 four normal schools were estab-lished. One, in Los Angeles, later became theUniversity of California at Los Angeles, while theother three are now parts of the California StateCollege System. Between 1900 and 1921 fourmore teacher-training institutions were estab-lished. When a 4-year curriculum was establishedin 1923 the institutions were renamed State Teach-ers Colleges. With further broadening of thecurriculum in 1935 all State Teachers Colleges be-

came State Colleges which were authorized to givecourses for students in fields other than teachereducation. By the time this last change of nametook place there were seven State colleges. Atpresent the system consists of 16 institutions, somesmall, some large, all different.

The original curricula, confined to the trainingof elementary school teachers, were expanded forsecondary school teachers, for school administra-tors and supervisors, and little by little for manyother occupational fields and for almost the wholescope of liberal arts training. Today only a frac-tion of the graduates of the California State Col-leges go into teaching as a career. All of the Statecolleges are authorized to grant the master's de-gree, as well as baccalaureate degrees, not only inteacher training but in virtually all of the otheracademic fields. Several of the colleges have De-partments of Engineering and three have Depart-ments of Agriculture.

San Francisco State College came into existencein 1899 as a normal school for the training of ele-mentary teachers. It was the first normal schoolin California and one of the first in the UnitedStates to restrict its students to those who hadcompleted high school. The first site of the in-stitution was in downtown San Francisco onPowell Street between Clay and Sacramento. Thegreat fire of 1906 destroyed the buildings, and theschool was then housed temporarily in rentedquarters in Oakland. In 1906 the State purchasedtwo blocks of land bounded by Buchanan, Haight,Laguna, and Hermann Streets. These 5 acresserved the institution until the move to the presentcampus, which move is the subject of this chapter.


President Frederick Burk had made elaborateplans for building new facilities on the old cam-pus, but when, in 1927, Dr. Alexander C. Robertstook office, he began immediately looking for anew site, for the college was growing far morerapidly than anyone had anticipated. To illus-trate the increasing difficulties, shortly after Presi-dent Roberts assumed control the college took inits first large group of male students. Athleticfields became a necessity. The State rented, withan option to buy, the old Recreational Ball Parkseveral blocks away on Valencia Street. Here thestaff developed a football field and crude dressingquarters. Gymnasium facilities for men were dis-tributed between two basements on the old campus.

Before any site could be found, the country wasplunged into the depths of the great depression.Student population boomed, but financial re-

sources dwindled. At the end of the administra-tion of Governor Merriam, in 1938, the college andthe State board were forced to make a basic de-cision. Should the college stay on its present 5-

acre site, build many-storied buildings, exercise itsoption to purchase the old Ball Park, and hope tosecure money to condemn adjacent land ; or shouldit abandon the old site and purchase a new one ?An allocation of $400,000 recommended by Gov-ernor Merriam and approved by the legislature,forced the decision in favor of a move.

For more than a year the few possible sites re-maining in San Francisco large enough to accom-modate a college of 3,000 students were considered.The old county jail site was adequate but the cityat that time refused to give it up. It is now a partof the campus of San Francisco City College. Anattempt was made to get the Army to give up aportion of the Presidio. This also failed. Theundeveloped area south of the city limits was ex-plored, but distances were so great and surfacetransportation so limited that these prospects wereabandoned. There was a suddenly awakened de-

sire of San Francisco legislators to keep the collegewithin the city limits.

Finally, in 1939, the college received an offer ofabout 57 acres of land on the shores of Lake Mercedin the southwest portion of the city. The area tothe north and south had been purchased by twolarge corporations with the intent to build rentalproperty and shopping districts. It is quite likelythat their help was of considerable value, for the

first name given to this residential developmentwas College City. Later the name was changed toStonestown for the land lying north of the presentcampus, and to Park Merced for the land lying tothe south.

At the time the site was purchased the countrywas still in the throes of the depression. Federalrelief funds and labor were used to clear the 57acres of brush, to fill an enormous ravine, and todo a tremendous amount of grading. This costthe State nothing.

When President Roberts retired in 1945, thecampus consisted of a filled-in ravine and an areaof leveled sand dunes. The Nation had justemerged from World War II. Governor EarlWarren had accumulated a large post-war build-ing fund, but the shortage of materials, togetherwith their high cost, seemed to prohibit any starton an extensive building program. A dedicationceremony was held on the new campus, but theonly buildings were on paperthose which Presi-dent Roberts had drawn and redrawn in his office.During the war the State Division of Architecturehad taken these drawings and created some small-scale schematic sketches, but the building of a newcampus had to await the coming of a newpresident.

In 1945 Dr. J. Paul Leonard was appointed tohead the institution. During his first year heformed a building committee and began to bringpressure upon State authorities for the purchaseof additional land to augment the original 57acres. In 1945 the college, emerging from thewar, had seen its enrollment drop from 2,500 toa bare 800. Within 3 years, however, the enroll-ment increased again to about 2,800 students.

Fiscal and Educational Control

Until July 1, 1961, the California State Collegesand their forerunners were a part of the publicschool system of the State. As such they wereunder the policy control of the State Board ofEducation, the same board that controls publicelementary and secondary schools. The chief ad-ministrative officer was the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction, elected by popular vote, whoalso had the title of Director of Education. Asthe system grew, the Director of Education dele-gated active administration of the system to an


appointive Associate Superintendent in charge ofState Colleges and Teacher Education. Presidentsof State colleges were nominated by the Directorof Education and confirmed by the State Board ofEducation.

Fiscal control both in terms of operational andcapital outlay budgets was vested in the hands ofthe State Department of Finance. The Directorof Education compiled the budgets submitted byeach institution and submitted them to the StateDirector of Finance for inclusion in the Governor'sBudget. The action of the legislature on the col-lective and individual budgets was final. Itshould be pointed out that these budgets were allof the line-item type and that it was within thepower of the State financial officers to approveeach individual item. This required each Statecollege and the Department of Education to drawbudgets in conformity with what they thought theState Department of Finance would approve.

As the system grew, the colleges, the Divisionof State Colleges and Teacher Education, and theState Department of Finance were required tocooperate in the determination and approval ofvarious standards, procedures, and formulae thatwould be acceptable to all. Thus there emergeda procedure for estimating enrollment, an elab-

orate set of standards for budget purposes, meth-ods for estimating capital outlay needs, and a pro-cedure for processing architectural planning withthe State Division of Architecture.

Requests for capital outlay projects at eachState college had careful processing. Each col-lege established its priority of projects on a 5-yearbasis, together with all the required types of jus-tifications. Calling upon the State College Plan-ning Office for advice, the Associate Superinten-dent in charge of State colleges then drew up a5-year building program for all of the State col-leges as a unit. Priority numbers were assigned on

a total State college system basis in terms of rela-tive needs as seen by the Associate Superintendent.The consolidated 5-year building program wasthen submitted each year to the State Departmentof Finance and the Legislative Analyst. Theo-

retically the Department of Finance indicatedwhat projects it would approve each year, thensubmitted them to the legislature, where the Legis-lative Analyst scrutinized them. Actually, how-ever, since Finance and the Legislative Analyst

6805810- -62- -6

75

worked together, the projects that were submittedeach year to the legislature were usually those

that were supported by both agencies. In spiteof the complexity of this process it was seldom thatthe legislature disapproved any capital outlayprojects that came to it, except when funds wereinadequate. At such times the priority order wasusually maintained, and the only action taken wasthat of eliminating in order the lower priorityitems until the estimated cost of the remaindercame within the financial resources of the State.

Before each year's capital outlay projects wereactually included in the Governor's Budget, onefurther step was taken. Using the detailed spec-ifications submitted by each college for each capitaloutlays project, the State Division of Architecturedrew preliminary plans and arrived at cost esti-mates for every project. It was this carefullyderived cost estimate that determined the exactappropriation to be requested for every new build-ing or facility.

On July 1, 1961, the system and procedures ofcontrol went through a wholesale change. TheState colleges ceased to be a part of the publicschool system and came under the policy control ofa new board, the State College Board of Trustees,most of the members of which were appointed bythe Governor of the State; the other membersare ex officio. The new board appointed a Chancel-

lor to administer the State College System, andwith his recommendations, the necessary special-ized staff. The State Department of Finance lostits detailed control over each item in the budgetof the various institutions and was confined toapproval or rejection of major budget requests.The right to plan or supervise the planning of allcapital outlay projects was taken from the StateDivision of Architecture and handed over to thenew Chancellor and his staff; in effect, therefore,the Chancellor and his staff may select privatearchitects or contract with the State Division ofArchitecture. The power of the Legislative Anal-yst's office was confined to investigating and recom-mending completed budgets, whereas earlier thisoffice actually participated in the process of budget

formation.At the time this chapter is being written it is

too early to determine how these changes willwork out. The action that will be taken by theState Department of Finance and by the office of


the Legislative Analyst in exercising control ofproposed budgets is not fully defined. However,this "Master Plan," as it is called, has, throughimplementing legislation, given the State collegesof California a board of their own with real powerand the opportunity to achieve genuine academicmaturity for the individual colleges.

Steps in Planning

Starting in 1954 college facilities were plannedonly for "regular" students under the assumptionthat they were largely concentrated in classes 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. ; part-time students were presumed totake only classes 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. and, hence, asneeding no additional facilities. The above aver-age proved incorrect. It was found that manyregular students took classes 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. andsome part-time students attended classes 8 a.m. to5 p.m. The basis for providing facilities wastherefore revised. They are now planned to carefor the total FTE (full-time equivalents) 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. The 5 panjo 10 p.m. students get noextra consideration in toms of facilities, and, infact, need none. All utilization standards andstudies are now based upon the FTE enrolled 8a.m. to 5 p.m. Extension classes are currently notpermitted on campus and are not a part of theabove FTE.

Research

There have been numerous studies on highereducation in California under legislative author-ity as well as others by the institutions themselvesand other State agencies. For the past 20 yearsSan Francisco State College has made continuousstudies of its capital outlay needs. There werefive major studies conducted by California be-tween 1930 and 1960 on the State's higher educa-tioial system and its future needs, that are ofparticular importance to this chapter.

1. State Higher Education in Californial (1932)

The most important recommendation in this re-port dealt with proposals to raise tuition rates

1 Suzzallo, Henry, and others, State Higher Education in Cali-fornia: Recommendations of the Commission of Seven, June 24,1932.. Sacramento : California State Printing Office, 1932.

and suggestions for better control. It was limitedin scope and practically devoid of any influenceupon the State's system of higher education.However, from this report the college and theState Board of Education obtained the idea thatthe old campus in the heart of the city was in-adequate and that a new campus capable of han-dling 3,500 students should be built. At this timevirtually all classes offered on the campus werescheduled 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the number of stu-dents closely approximated the FTE. Since thattime an extensive evening program has beendeveloped.

2. A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California inHigher Education2 (1948)

The scope of this study, sometimes known as the"Strayer Report," included an evaluation of cur-rent and future needs of higher education ; ananalysis of the higher educational need of eacharea of the State for university, State college, andjunior college campuses; the organization of pub-licly supported higher education; and the mannerof support of public higher education in the State.This report has exerted great influence on the de-velopment of higher education in California.

Specifically, this report made the following rec-ommendations that influenced development of theplans for a new San Francisco campus :

(a) Reaffirmed the need for a new campus but onewith facilities that would ultimately care for a maxi-mum of 5,000 students, or, in essence, 5,000 FTE daystudents. It was the judgment of the writers of thereport that this maximum would not be reached until1965. It it significant that the college reached anenrollment of 5,074 FTE in 1955 and the numberof students now projected for the college in 1965 is8,800 FTE day students.

(b) Recommended that each State college be al-located a region to serve.

(c) Prepared a set of utilization standards thatwere to govern the number of classrooms in eachinstitution.

(d) Proposed reorganization of procedures in plan-ning facilities.

2Deutsch, Monroe E. ; Douglass, Aubrey A. ; and Strayer,George D. A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California inHigher Education. Berkeley : University of California Press,1948.


3. A Restudy of the Needs of California in HigherEducation3 (1955)

The Restudy was the most comprehensive of thelegislative studies and covered the same areas asthe Strayer Report. Functions of the State col-leges were further defined. Utilization standardswere more clearlystated. The size of the facilitiesfor San Francisco State was increased to accom-modate 9,000 FTE day students by 1965 (10 years

later).

4. A Study of the Need for Add Mono! Centers ofPublic Higher Education in Ca Mamie (1957)

This report concentrated its attention upon de-tailed recommendations for specific additions toboth the State college and university systems.The enrollment projection to be used for planningfacilities at San Francisco State was increased to9,900 day students, with a modified projection of8,300 day students based upon possible develop-ment of additional State colleges in the area.

5. A Master Plan for Higher Education in California.1960-753 (1960)

This most recent report requested by the legis-lature and financed entirely from the budgets ofthe university, State colleges, and junior colleges,was directed primarily toward the examinationof State fiscal resources and the question of howadequate educational opportunity for Californiayouth could be maintained. Procedures and uti-lization standards relating to capital outlay wereagain modified. Higher admission standards aswell as broader functions for the State collegeswere urged. A State College Board of Trusteeswith broad fiscal powers was established. Thisstudy estimated San Francisco State College'sprojected enrollment in 1975 as approximately10,000 FTE day students.

Impact of the Studies on the College

As soon as a site was purchased in 1939, theSan Francisco State College administration and

8McConnell T. R. ; Holy, T. C. ; and Semans, H. H. A. Restudyof the Needs of California in Higher Education. Sacramento :California State Department of Education, 1955.

4Semans, H. H. and Holy, T. C. A. Study of the Need forAdditional Centers of Public Higher Education in California.Sacramento : California State Department of Education, 1957.

5Coons, Arthur G. and others. A. Master Plan for HigherEducation in California, 1960-75. Sacramento : California StateDepartment of Education, 1960.

77

staff set to work in an attempt to anticipate specificneeds in the way of buildings and other facilitiesthat would be necessary to care for a student bodyof 3,500. At that time there were no recognizedtechniques or standards for determining whatfacilities would be necessary. There seemed to beplenty of time, for the depression still weighedheavily upon the Nation and there was no imme-diate prospect of available State funds. A largebuilding committee was appointed from the staff,enrollments were projected, and the committeewent through years of trying to work out a planand determine the number and types of buildingsthat would be needed.

The depression lifted gradually, but before therewas any prospect of securing the necessary funds,World War II broke out. Governor Warren de-clared a moratorium on all State building projectsexcept those that were deemed necessary to thewar effort. Because of the drastic drop in thework of the State Division of Architecture, thetime of several architects was made available forpreliminary planning. Several campus masterplans were projected but without cooperation withthe college. Consequently there was no sound

analysis of the educational problems to be solved.By the end of World War II the State Division

of Architecture had completed the working draw-ings for two buildings. The first was a completegymnasium and power plant to serve a college of3,500. The second was the first unit of a sciencebuilding. Rapid growth caused problems even atthis early stage. When the planning for the pres-ent campus was started in earnest, it was knownthat the college was to be built for 5,000 instead of3,500 students, but the State authorities decidednot to scrap the plans for the 2 buildingsmentioned above. These buildings now stand onthe campus. Both have been added to, but thecollege staff agrees that the augmentations wouldbe far more functional today and precious sitewould have been saved if the original buildingshad been redesigned when the campus was ex-panded for a larger enrollment projection.

The war ended in 1945, but it was another 2years before the State was ready to provide funds

for extensive additions to its institutions of highereducation. Governor Warren asked that a com-prehensive study of the State's needs in higher edu-

cation be made before the State embark on a


program of expansion, and the above-mentionedStrayer Report resulted.

The Strayer Report acted as a trigger to startoff a vast expansion in facilities for higher edu-cation in the State college and university systems.At San Francisco State College another buildingcommittee was established. Surveys were madeand needs for 5,000 students were projected. Un-fortunately, however, there was no centralizationof planning authority and responsibility. Thecommittee and its subcommittees were unable tocome to agreement. The same thing happenedin other State colleges. Months passed andnothing was ready to go on the drawing boards.Governor Warren acted. He declared that unlesssome system were evolved that would bring unifiedand cooperative action from the colleges, the De-partment of Education, the Department of Fi-nance, and the Division of Architecture, he wouldveto every college building appropriation billpassed by the legislature.

Accordingly, in January of 1949 a committeemade up of representatives from these agenciesworked out what is belie.7ed to be the first com-prehensive qstem of anticipating and planningcapital outlay needs for State-supported highereducation. In each State college an executive deanwas placed in charge of the building program. Inthe State Department of Education there wasestablished a State college facility planning office.The Division of Architecture selected personneland worked out a system for cooperative work withthe educational agencies that would lead (1) topreliminary plans and cost estimates for newprojects, (2) to the securing of adequate appropri-ations from the legislature, and (3) to the actualplanning of the facility.

When the office of the executive dean at SanFrancisco State College was given charge of di-recting its building program the institution hadabout 2,800 students. Its curricula were concen-trated largely in the training of elementary andsecondary school teachers, supervisory and admin-istrative school personnel, and various specializedsecondary teachers. At the same time there wasan active 2-year program taken by many studentswho transferred to other institutions to completetheir training for secondary school teaching. Thecollege also had a large number of students whowere following a liberal arts curriculum. While

many of these students completed 4 years at theinstitution, the number of those who transferredbefore that time, and the heavy rate of attritionstemming from the relatively low admissionstandards, provided a student body that was about80 percent lower division in nature. During thefirst year of the planning program it became clearthat this and other State colleges would branchout into many additional types of applied cur-ricula and broad programs of liberal educationin the arts and sciences, with the right to grantthe master's degree.

The task before the college then was to antici-pate the curricula that would be offered on thenew campus, to start with the needs of 2,800 stu-dents and project them to the needs of 5,000 stu-dents, and to work out a detailed set of specifica-tions for every building and every facility to beconstructed, step by step, until the college grewto its 5,000 student maximum in the year 1965. Itbecame apparent at once that 56 acres were inade-quate. Immediate steps were taken to obtain moreland. In 1949 additional land was purchased sothat the campus area was increased to 93 acres.

By 1950 the college was feeling its way in itsplanning procedures, beset on one hand by theambitious dreams of an impatient faculty thathad waited many years for adequate facilities, andon the other by the regulating and controllingagencies of the State. Always in the backgroundwere the ambition of junior colleges seeking seniorcollege status and the firm insistence of the uni-versity system that the growing State colleges inno way infringe upon its domain. If the plannersrejected some of the ambitious dreams of theircollege they were criticized by their faculty col-leagues. If they went too far in planning facili-ties for curricula and functions not yet explicitlyassigned to them especially when these curriculaand functions duplicated what the university sys-tem thought to be its exclusive domainthen thecollege planners faced rejection of their capitaloutlay proposals by Sacramento. In general, how-ever, the facilities planned during this period wereflexible enough in nature so that, to this date atleast, any function already added or any contem-plated in the near future will be adequately pro-vided with facilities. In short, this college andothers were so planned that they can care for theirteacher-training functions, a large number of 4-


year professional and preprofessional curricula,and a number of liberal arts curricula, including5-year programs leading to the master's degree.As a matter of fact, work at the doctoral levelcould be added in several fields without more thanminor modification of some existing facilities andappropriate implementation of faculty time,library resources, and research equipment.

The statistical methods used to anticipate actualspecific needs in the way of facilities, the financialprocedures through which the colleges had to pass

in securing appropriations, and the actual archi:-tectural planning of the facilities were all workedout within the framework of a rather complex

State system of balances and controls. A brief ex-planation of these methods and procedures is given

later.

Relating Physical Facilities to the EducationalObjectives

Between 1948 and 1955 an extensive set of stand-

ards and procedures was worked out so that pat-terns of relationship of physical facilities toeducational objectives were applied to all col-leges more or less equally. Under the direction ofthe associate superintendent uniform utilizationstandards were worked out; that is, each lectureroom or each laboratory classroom was supposed

to carry an average of so many hours of classes aweek with an average use of a certain percentageof the stations in each room. This meant that ifa given proposed building was to be designed tocarry an X number of full-time student equiva-lents in lecture and a Y number of full-time stu-dent equivalents in laloratory classes the utiliza-tion standards showed exactly how many lectureroom stations and how many laboratory roomstations were to be provided. There were policieson the number of faculty people to be housed in a

single office. There were standards to determine

how big a classroom should be for any givennumber of students, whether for lecture or lab-oratory. There were standards on types of win-dow shades, types of floor coverings, and literally

dozens of other details. Once the anticipated num-ber of students to be served was known, variousformulae were used to establish the number of

stations in library reading room areas, stack areas,

and other requirements. Other standards deter-

79

mined how large the cafeteria should be both in

terms of the number of seats and in estimate of the

kitchen facilities. With each passing year the

framework of standards and procedures wasextended.

The executive deans met twice a year, and theiractions, as well as the actions of the State collegepresidents and their superiors in Sacramento, be-came increasingly responsible for the refinementof these standards and procedures. The presi-dents' attitude was that if the fiscal authoritiesof the State were going to use measuring devices

on the facilities requested, then the executive deans,

with their practical knowledge, should play asstrong a role as possible in the formulation of

these standards and procedures. Wisely the ex-ecutive deans invited representatives from boththe Department of Finance and the Office of theLegislative Analyst to meet with them. In allthese procedures the State Division of Architec-ture played a prominent part.

To one who did not observe the careful evolu-tionary development of these standards and pro-cedures the system must have seemed hopelesslyrigid and restrictive. This actually was not the

case. For one thing, each of the State collegeswas treated exactly like every other. It was diffi-

cult for an institution to get more than its share

by the exercise of political power. As a matter

of fact, few States have developed 'a system that

strove so sincerely to remove the construction of

_educational facilities from the realm of politics,As the fiscal authorities became better acquainted

with the educational needs of the various colleges,

they became more willing to approve the facilities

necessary to house the educational functions.

Money of course was always a factor. While the

buildings were designed to be flexible enough forfuture changes, they were severe in their design.Little was spent to provide exterior beauty, wide

corridors, and spacious stairways. Unlike univer-

sity buildings, State college architecture wasstrictly functional.

Selecting the Architect

Until July 1, 1961, the State Division of Archi-

tecture designed most State college buildings and

exercised close supervision over others. When


the load on the division was more than it couldcarry, it was the policy of the State to bring inprivate architects to carry the surplus load. Theyhad to conform to all existing standards and cameunder the general supervision of the division. Ofthe 21 major buildings and major additions tobuildings on the campus of San Francisco StateCollege, 17 were designed by the Division of Archi-tecture and 4 by outside architects retained andsupervised by the division. One architect was as-signed to each State college campus who exercisedgeneral supervisory control over all of the projectson that campus. The selection of this man and theselection of all other architects and engineerswere made by the Division of Architecture itself.Legally, and almost always in practice, no collegecould select its own architect or architecture. Ac-tually, however, the Division of Architecture wasas generous as possible in assigning to a given col-lege those architects most acceptable to the college.Every effort was made to keep certain architects oncertain campuses rather than to have numerousstaff changes. As a result, most of the architectsworking on a given campus had become acquaintedwith it, knew its problems, and were sympatheticin trying to preserve its homogeneity and style.At the start of the vast expansion in the Statecollege system between 1948 and 1950, the StateDivision of Architecture had very few designerswith experience in college building. Ten yearslater, however, almost every architect in the di-

ision had extensive background in designing col-lege facilities.

Selection of a Site

It has already been pointed out that the collegehad little choice in the selection of its new site.It can almost be said that the campus occupied thelast block of land in the city that was at all adapt-able for a large educational institution. For-tunately, however, the site was a fine one in al-most every respect except adequate size. Cur-rently, new State colleges are built only wherecampus sites of 250 to 300 acres are available.

At the time the first part of the site was pur-chased the ultimate limits of the campus were al-most determined, not because there was no addi-tional empty land in the area but because landcosts were extremely high or other commitments

had been made for its use. It was possible to addonly 27 additional acres, producing the total of93. As this is being written, virtually all of theempty space for miles around is now built up.The attempt made to obtain a portion of nearbyFort Funston, a former military installationplaced on the market by the Federal Government,failed, and San Francisco State College has dimprospects for future territorial expansion.

City zoning restrictions did not operate on Stateproperty, but their effect handicapped the collegein certain important ways. To the west an exten-sive city-owned golf course, a city-owned lake thatprovided reserve water supply, and the PacificOcean made it impossible to find locations forsorority or fraternity houses and the usual exten-sive number of rooming and ;boarding houses thatsurround most colleges of this size. Immediatelyto the north and south were two large housingprojects where zoning restrictions limited apart-ments to single families. Beyond these two proj-ects on the north and the south and a half mileto the east, zoning restrictions also prohibited theconstruction of sorority and fraternity houses andboarding and lodging houses for students. Be-cause of these same zoning restrictions there waslittle possibility that within walking distance ofthe campus there would be any privately ownedbookstores, restaurants, or any of the other usualstudent haunts common to many college neigh-borhoods.

Public transportation was a problem. The newcampus was on the edge of the city, and althoughit Was served by both streetcars and buses, theschedules were such that many a student livingnearby spent as much time on public vehicles aswould be required by another who drove a car25 or 35 miles.

When work was first started on the campus itwas covered with rough brush and several smallstands of native Monterey pine and cypress. Al-most all of the original trees were saved. Prac-tically all additional trees planted since are of thesame type because only these two varieties seemto be able to withstand the windburn to which theyare subjected by prevailing ocean ;breezes. Someof the early landscaping featured shrubs that hadbeen saved from the World's Fair on TreasureIsland in San Francisco Bay in 1940.

Construction of all buildings must be such as


to meet the hazard represented by the great earth-quake of 1906. The main San Andreas rift runsnorth and south less than 2 miles beyond the cam-

pus. This means that all buildings have to be built

so as to meet the provisions of the Field Act passed

by the State Legislature after the disastrous Long

Beach earthquake of 1933. While every attempt

is made to achieve a flexible design, each structure

must' e anchored against earthquake twist by bal-

anced shear walls. Because of careful and solid

construction, the moderately severe temblor of

1957 did relatively little damage. The only ex-

ception was the library, which was built to carry

an immediate addition. Shear walls were omitted

from the west side, and as a result the vibration

accompanying the earthquake caused about

$25,000 worth of superficial damage.The site and its location within the city provided

additional features :1. A sandy slope resulting in excellent drainage

and relatively inexpensive excavations for buildings.2. Public utility services easily extended from ad-

jacent lines to the edge of the campus at no cost to the

State.3. Fire protection provided by the city.

Development of the Campus Master Plan

There are certain logical steps that an institu-

tion of higher education should consider in thedevelopment of a master plan for a new campus.

1. Determine the ultimate size and scope of thecollege in, terms of number of students to be servedand the spread of curricular offerings. These willmore or less dictate the number and arrangement of

instructional facilities.2. Determine the ultimate scope of the program not

directly related to the instructional activities ; thatis, the place of the residence halls, cafeteria, student

union, bookstore, and other facilities necessary to

administer the institution in terms of business organi-

zation and maintenance problems of the campus.

3. Select the site either in its original formadequate for the ultimate scope of the institutionor adequate for the initial stages with options orother opportunities to condemn additional land when

and if necessary.4. Employ a master planner skilled in landscaping

and layout of roads, utility lines, and all of the otheraspects of site development.

5. Design the buildings to satisfy requirements offunction and site characteristics.

81

Events beyond the control of San Francisco

State College precluded this logical development.As has been pointed out before, the first 57 acres

purchased were in essence the only available cam-

pus site in the city. The purchase of the additional

acreage was accomplished only with great diffi-

culty. The State, which holds title to all Statecollege property, has a policy of refusing tocondemn land unless it is absolutely necessary. As

a result various land owners around the campusheld up their offers to sell additional strips and

plots until condemnation proceedings were about

to start and then tried to drive the best possible

bargain.The first development on the new campus took

place during the depression, when materials and

labor were supplied by the WPA. The only

agency that had any conception of a master planfor the campus at this particular time was theState Division of Architecture, but its action inlaying out such a plan was entirely unilateral.Neither the college nor the State Department of

Education was given adequate opportunity towork out ideas as to the educational functions ofthe new college. The first two buildings weredesigned during the war. At that time there wasno central planning agency in the college. TheState architects went through the long, wasteful,and trying process of planning each facility, and

in the case of one building each aspect of each

facility, with the faculty people involved. Torepeat, the fir$ planned enrollment goal was3,500 ; the goal set by the so-called Strayer reportwas 5,000 ; the third goal set by State board actionin 1956 was 9,000. As this chapter is being writ-

ten one opinion is that the college should build for12,000 and another is for a possible 15,000.

In 1949 the college abolished its representativefaculty building committee and put into the handsof its executive dean the authority and responsi-

bility for the complete planning of the new col-

lege's facilities. The executive dean worked

directly under the president, and for all practicalpurposes over every other person in the institution,

in all matters concerning planning of the facilities.

This does not mean that the widest possible choice

was denied the faculty as a whole, or any depart-

ment or division. For matters affecting the en-

tire college the president of the college drew uponthe resources of the executive dean and afforded

ii


opportunity for the faculty to participate. Theparticipation, however, was through the divisionchairmen as members of the president's cabinet,not through direct faculty meetings. In workingwith the various departmental faculties and otheragencies on the campus, the executive dean gavefull opportunity to each individual or group whodiffered from him in any major decision to reportto the president, whose word was final.

At the time the executive dean took charge ofthe building program, he was confronted with themaster plan developed unilaterally by the StateDivision of Architecture. He requested that 'aland planner be assigned the task of working withhim in the scrutiny of the existing master planand to make recommendations for its modi-fication. An architect with wide experience inland ph ming was assigned this task. As a resultof collaboration between him and the executivedean, certain basic decisions were made relativeto the master plan. The most important of thesefollow :

1. It was determined that the master plan shouldbe designed entirely for the students, faculty, andstaff of the institution, not for the general public.Toward this end every building and other facility onthe eqmpus fronted on an interior area and turnedits back to the surrounding streets and neighbor-hoods. The interior area, or "quad," became thefunctional center of the entire campus. (See p. 83.)Its diameter was determined by a simple formulathe distance between those two buildings that wouldat any future time be furthest apart had to be suchthat any healthy student could easily cover the dis-tance on foot in the normal 10-minute interval be-tween classes. This open site was conserved ascarefully as possible, and provisions were made foradditions to buildings and for new buildings betweenthe inner circle of structures and the outer limits ofthe campus. In effect, therefore, the buildings werepushed toward the outer diameter and the "frontyard" of trees and sweeping lawns was set in the.middle of the campus.

2. Wherever possible a flexible type of construc-tion was used ; that is, bearing and shear walls wereheld to a minimum. Many exterior walls wereof the curtain type, and many interior walls werethe type that bore no weight and could therefore bemoved without danger to the strength of the building.Whenever possible movable metal partitions were in-stalled. When it was known that a building woulddefinitely be added to in the future, preliminarysketches of the ultimate building were prepared andthe first unit designed with every possible provision

for later additions. Modular design was adoptedwhenever possible. Weight was borne on columnsrather than on walls.

3. Careful thought was given both in the masterplanning and in the planning of each building, tothe climate, soil, terrain, and every other physicalcharacteristic of the location. Because natLre "air-conditions" the Pacific Ocean side of San Franciscono money was used in providing air condir ming forbuildings. Because of the fogs, both high and low,generous provisions were made for windows. Thevarious playfields necessary to the program of physi-cal education and recreation were located in thefilled-in canyons where the soil structure prohibitedthe construction of heavy ediSces. Since the prob-lem of parking was anticipated several years beforethe limited site made parking a very real problem,provision was made early for a multistory garage.The first three floors of this garage are now underconstruction and the footings and columns will carryan additional two floors. The grass for the lawns,the trees, and even the shrubbery and planting bedsfor annual flowers were selected from the stand-point of the nearness to the salt air of the ocean andother aspects of climate that both limited and ex-tended the scope of landscape development.

4. In determining the location of each buildingstrict attention was paid to its functions. Thus thegymnasium was located as near as possible to theplaying field. The large building housing the LittleTheater and auditorium was moved from its first site(determined earlier by the State Division of Archi-tecture) to another corner of the campus ; the firstsite was adjacent to a main north-south highwaywhere parking would always be very limited; thenew site selected was adjacent to a parking area thatis yet available and to many blocks of peripheralside street parking. The cafeteria was placed directlyadjacent to the future student union building, whichis yet to be financed. The only time the principleof function was somewhat modified was when thelibrary was placed at one side of the central area ;from the standpoint of function it should have beenbuilt in the center of the "quad," but it was decidedthat moving it to the side would add to the beautyof the campus and detract but slightly from its ef-ficient function.

5. Every effort was made to anticipate and meetthe needs of traffic, both students' and visitors'. Cor-ridors were expensive and heavy pressure was exertedby the fiscal authorities of the State to save funds.In order to meet these conflicting demands the sizeof the corridors was determined by a study of peak-hour traffic. As a result, only one building has cor-ridors wider than 8 feet, and its 2 additional feetwere the result of uncoordinated efforts, before thecollege vested responsibility for planning in the officeof its executive dean. Mistakes were made, of course.


080A --bl'arly.tcry.

g IgA\ )14r"- ;;:--ta

Pooteau.a ?RACK L,

Rptijowomen.. PI-AVM:4.2's

83

` :

9 <7

4

#1.514Z;;-4,7,farr,

2

SAN FRANCISCO STATE COLLEGE [1If

WOW

'1.1.11,1ff

41,011rAl ,

Jr

M.

r

Aerial view of San Francisco State College campus. The main build;.igs front on the inner quadrangle. The

cafeteria is located near the academic buildings on this urban college campus. Key: 1, Administration

Building; 2, Library; 3, Bookstore; 4, Creative Arts Building; 5, Air Force R.O.T.C.; 6, Arts and Indus-tries Building; 7, Education and Psychology Building; 8, Health Center; 9, College Commons (Cafeteria);

10, Gymnasium; 11, Science Building; 12, BusinessSocial Science Building; 13, HumanitiesLanguageArts Building.

One building ended with corridors under the 8-footstandard, but this decision was one that was forcedupon the college because of lack of funds at a datetoo late to secure augmentation.

Factors Governing the Selection of Type ofArchitecture

It has already been explained that the collegewas subject to the State Division of Architecturein architectural matters and that the State De-partment of Finance scrutinized every item of costin architectural design. There was, then, little

escape from a strictly functional type of architec-ture, relatively simple rectangular buildings thatwere somewhat severe in outside dressing as wellas in design. All roofs were flat after the firsttwo, which were designed during the war period.In all but a very few of the buildings the exteriorwalls were simply stripped of their form lumberand painted. There was almost a complete lackof brick or masonry trim. Entrance facades wererigidly utilitarian.

In spite of this stern functionalism, the ensemblehas attracted highly favorable comment from


many visitors. The college set up its own facultycolor committee, and this committee selected asimple but attractive combination of warm basiccolors and warm highlighting colors that effec-tively tie all buildings together in a unified whole.While the building interiors are devoid of sweep-ing staircascs, generous lobbies, terrazzo floors,and marble corridors, the floor plans are highlyefficient and flexible.

The Move from the Old to the New Campus

At the beginning of the planning period the col-lege adopted a priority list of buildings and otherphysical facilities, governed by certain practicalconsiderations. The first of these was the fact thatthe old campus was so crowded that it could nothold any more students. This meant that SanFrancisco State College had to look forward toliving on two campuses for several years. Thesecond consideration was the fact that the collegewas committed to occupy each newly completedbuilding at the beginning of the semester follow-ing its completion.

In determining the priority order the collegehad two choices. It could build first the generalpurpose classroom buildings. Had this been done,there would have been ample space for a largenumber of students taking lecture courses, but itwould have been impossible to offer much in theway of the physical and life sciences, music, art,physical education, and other subject fields re-quiring specialized facilities. The old campus wassadly lacking in specialized facilities of all kinds.The women's gym was hopelessly small, and themen's gy in was a collection of rented facilitiesmostly off-campus. Art, music, drama, science,and every other subject field requiring specializedbuilding construction were inadequately housed.

The College, taking the alternative choice, wenton the assumption that if it built specialized fa-cilities first, there would be adequate means ofteaching laboratory courses and in a pinch, certainlecture courses could be offered in the laboratoryrooms that were designed for a peak load of 5,000students. The priority order therefore ran asfollows :

Gymnasium and playing fieldsScience BuildingFine Arts Building

Administration BuildingMusic and Speech BuildingClassroom Building for business and social scienceCafeteriaClassrooms Building for education and psychology

The actual completion dates of the variousbuildings did not follow exactly in the above orderbecause some buildings took less design time thanothers and therefore went to bid and were com-pleted sooner than anticipated. In general, how-ever, the priority list was followed.

The first building occupied was the gymnasiumwith its various playing fields and other facili-ties. During the first semester when students hadto take the bulk of their courses on the old campusand their physical education and recreation on thenew campus, a good 5 miles away, the staff learnedenough of the basic problems of living on twocampuses to work out the principles and pro-cedures that were followed for several years.Since many students and most faculty peopledrove their own cars, transportation between cam-puses was not as severe a problem as it would havebeen if the college had had to provide for allshuttling of faculty and students. Three largebuses were purchased, and these buses ran backand forth all day long. The scheduling of classeswas based on the assumption that students wouldlose about 20 minutes each way; thus classes onthe old campus started on the full hour and thoseon the new campus on the half hour. A studentwho took a history course from 8 to 9. o'clock, andthen had to go to the new campus for physical edu-cation started the latter class at 9 :30.

During this first semester many unforeseenproblems arose. The swimming pool in the gym-nasium was not completed on time, so for the first6 weeks of the semester instructors taught swim-ming by the "lecture method." It was necessaryto provide minimum food services for the luncheonperiod. A. war surplus building was moved tothe new campus and used as a snackbar.

The second building to be completed was thatwhich housed the sciences. When this was occu-pied problems of transportation called for moreadjustments in the class-scheduling arrangement.For the convenience of lower division students,sections of required basic general education courseswere offered in the new science building. Sincethe new library was not ready, a small branch li-

SAN FRANCISCO

brary was installed in the new quarters. Fromthen on each major section of the college wasmoved from the old to the new campus at the se-mester break that followed completion of itsfacilities. The following table indicates the trans-ition process. During the fall semester of 1950the college was housed entirely on the old campus.By July 1954, every function had been moved fromthe old to the new campus, and only one caretakerwas left behind to act as a watchman until theproperty was disposed of by State authorities.

The move required 4 years, and the problem oftransporting students and faculty back and forth

STATE COLLEGE 85

during the transition became progressively com-plex and disturbing. The old campus remainedthe seat of administrative and business functionsuntil 1952. Faculty meetings were held in theold buildings. Each major office, however, hada branch care on the new campus. After the mid-point of the moving period, however, at the timethe administration building on the new campuswas occupied, the new campus became the centerof all administrative functions and the old cam-pus decreased in importance until its finalabandonment in July 1954. There were manydifficulties during the entire period. Many a stu-

Basic Data on Completed and Future Facilities at San Francisco State College

Purpose

GymnasiumScienceLibraryFine ArtsAdministrationBusiness-Social ScienceCafeteriaCreative ArtsEducationFrederick Burk SchoolCorporation yardHumanities-Language ArtsLibrary additionAdministration additionFine arts additionEducation addition

Science additionResidence HallsGym additionHealth Center addition

Bookstore 3Multi-story garage 4Cafeteria additions, including Residence Hall cafeteria

Music-SpeechPsychologyHumanities-Language ArtsResidence halls and dining-

Facilities for 800 studentsFacilities for 400 students

Engineering-Science

Completion OccupancyGross

square feetCost of

con-struction

Cost ofinitial

equipmentTotal cost

BUILDINGS COMPLETED

December 1950 February 1951 79, :' 1 $1, 088, 374 $74,272 $1, 162, 64(

February 1952 February 1952 56, 89d., 800, 729 326, 239 1, 126, 96E

October 1952 October 1952 53, 341 645, 659 74, 079 719, 73E

February 1953 2ebruary 1953 51, 470 926, 318 90, 076 1, 016, 399

April 1953 May 1953 35, 184 652, 038 50, 041 702, 07(

June 1953 July 1953 40, 810 682, 953 90, 785 773, 73E

September 1953 September 1953 31, 930 694, 637 29, 984 724, 621

February 1954 February 1954 105, 782 2, 323, 635 166, 055 2, 489, 69(

June 1954 July 1954 68, 258 873, 482 88, 459 961, 941

May 1956 September 1956 56, 142 2 1, 139, 198 (2) 1, 139, 191

July 1957 July 1957 22, 400 208, 653 14, 628 223, 281

September 1957 February 1958 69, 196 1, 169, 903 79, 002 1, 248, 92f

April 1959 September 1959 155, 341 1, 228, 375 272, 450 1, 500, 821

April 1959 June 1959 20, 593 479, 472 9, 097 488, 56

June 1959 September 1959 28, 588 504, 200 105, 000 609, 20(

August 1959 September 1959 48, 159 751, 550 62, 000 813, 55(

September 1959 September 1959 68, 047 1, 423, 200 620, 000 2, 043, 20(

August 1960 September 1960 172, 068 3, 051, 600 280, 000 3, 311, 60(

January 1961 Febuary 1961.. 65, 000 925, 200 13, 900 939,10(

Febuary 1961 March 1961 6, 376 215, 600 37, 600 252, 20(

BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

1961 13,000 $280, 000 $40, 000 $320, 000

1962 367, 212 1, 500, 000 13, 500 1, 513, 500

1962 34, 936 1, 000, 000 107, 530 1, 107, 530

BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED

1964 54,0001964 52,0001965 54,000

1965 266,00019661966 60.000

BUILDINGS NEEDED IF ENROLLMENT LIMIT IS INCREASED 5

Health Center addition 1966 12,000

Psychology addition 1966 5, 400

Gym addition_ 1966 9,000

General Classroom (First wing) 1967 86, 000

Corporation yard addition 1967 12, 000

General classroom (2d wing) 1969 86, 000

General classroom (3d wing) 1971 86, 000

(Not included above are needs for additional facilities for library, physicaleducation, and nonresident dining facilities.)

1 Includes nonattached or movable items.2 Financed by San Francisco Unified School District.

Cost of construction financed by the San Francisco State CollegeFoundation.

4 Cost of construction to be amortized over 40-year period from incomefrom residence halls. Balance to be amortized from income from pazkingfees.

6 Data estimated.

0


dent had to be given substitutes for various re-quired courses he was unable to schedule. The sizeof classes varied widely, not only from class toclass but among sections of a given course. Whenthe bulk of the classes were given on the old cam-pus, the classes held there were sometimes severaltimes as large as equivalent courses and sectionson the new campus. This whole disparity wasreversed when the bulk of the college occupiedthe new campus. Every effort to combat thisunevenness was made. Blocks of courses werescheduled on each campus, but students neverthe-less found all sorts of excuses to take courses onthe campus most convenient to them. There isprobably little doubt that the difficulties of at-tending a divided college held the enrollment ofnew students far below the normal growth thatcould have been expected. This is particularlytrue of those students who graduated from highschools in the immediate area and who heard firsthand rumors about the inconvenience of theschedule.

The difficulties of getting student assistant helpfor the library, food services, laboratories, andother functions were also great for that portionof the split campus that was the adjunct ratherthan the main campus at the time. Faculty com-plaints were many and vociferous, particularly onthe part of those whose schedules forced them toshuttle back and forth in their own cars once ortwice during the day. Faculty meetings wereoften poorly attended. Clerical and other typesof services cost more because of the splitting offunctions. It was necessary to operate almost con-tinuous light and heavy truck delivery service be-tween the two campuses. Since each new buildingwas occupied as soon as it was completed, whichwas sometimes months before adequate campusroads, walks, and landscaping were finished, foottraffic constantly carried abrasive sand into thebuildings and caused considerable damage to floorcoverings.

In order to use all facilities as completely aspossible, it was necessary to concentrate most lab-oratory work into relatively few rooms and to con-vert other laboratories to lecture halls. In manycases laboratory equipment was left intact, andteachers of English found themselves lecturing tostudents surrounded by Bunsen burners and otherscientific paraphernalia. In some cases, however,laboratories were stripped of all scientific equip-

ment and filled with tablet armchairs for lecturepurposes. In order to insure that the new build-ings and equipment would be properly cared for,the chairman of the division for which the\build-ing was designed was made the responsible adMin-istrator for that building. The difficulties arising,however, may be well understood when it is re-membered that several of the buildings had ten-ants who belonged to other departments and whocould not be expected to show the same care inusing the facilities as would those for whom thebuilding was designed. Probably no other singleproblem created more tensions.

Communication among students and faculty en-countered many problems. Students belonging toorganizations found it nearly impossible to get aquorum at any meeting since membership was di-vided between campuses. Faculty committees hadthe same difficulties. Whether a given meetingwas a success depended pretty largely upon whichcampus the meeting was scheduled. When a fac-ulty member attempted to get in touch with anyparticular student, tile fact that the student wasshuttling back and forth between two campusesoften made his problem a difficult one.

There were many other effects of living on twocampuses that are more difficult to describe andless objective in their measurement. There isstrong reason for believing that the type of pro-gram certain students selected was at least par-tially determined by the attitudes of the studentswith whom they shared a car ride to either onecampus or the other. Many students commutedby car from 35 or 40 miles away. If the majorityof those sharing rides had to go to the old campusthe first thing in the morning, the minority oftenfound themselves under pressure to take courseson the same campus. Faculty, too, often sharedrides from their homes to the college. There isthe possibility that some of these also requestedcertain courses or sections to meet not only thetransportation convenience of their ride group butalso to take advantage of the downtown campus'easier access by trains, streetcars, and buses.

It is difficult to assess the real cost of this periodduring which the college was in the process ofshifting from the old campus to the new. It isquite possible, however, that the cost involved, in-cluding unmeasurable indirect costs, was so ap-precialeole that it would have been more economical

f

wr

......,.........,

SAN FRANCIS "O STATE COLLEGE

to hold the growth of the student body down to anumber that could have been cared for on the oldcampus until such time as the college could havebeen moved in its entirety.

Accompaniments of Change

Ordinarily the institution which plans a newcampus does so because of rapid growth. Thiswas certainly the case with San Francisco StateCollege. However, institutions, like individuals,often forget that change not only brings problemsthat have been contemplated, but also others thatare unexpected. The new campus was plannedwith the mistaken belief that the staff had fore-seen and made provision for most of the majorchanges that the college would undergo when itleft the old cramped quarters behind. Neitherthe college administration nor the authors of ear-lier surveys of State higher education foresaw thatthe growth of San Francisco State College wouldbe far greater than anticipated. Fortunately thecollege's master plan was flexible enough to ad-just to most of this unforeseen growth. It wasnot anticipated, however, that the college wouldchange so drastically in certain of its aspects thatit would become a far different kind of institution.At the old campus with its limited site, crowdedbuildings, and relatively small faculty and studentbody, everyone knew almost everybody else.Democratic participation by the faculty was rela-tively easy and highly effective. Three yearsafter moving to the new campus the staff becameaware that the old college was gone. The facultybroke up into parochial divisional groups, and asgrowth continued the broad divisional facultiesbegan to break up into departmental segments.It was difficult to get a quorum for faculty meet-ings. Committees multiplied and too often com-mittee actions even on broad policy matters tendedto arouse little debate when they were consideredby the faculty as a whole for final action. Eachmajor instructional department wanted its ownrepresentative on each major committee. It be-came increasingly difficult to find committee mem-bers at large who could think objectively of thewelfare of the whole college as opposed to thewelfare of the department to which they owed

their immediate loyalties.

vc,

87

Much of the disintegration of the faculty as aclosely knit group was due to the sheer increasein the size of the institution, but much also wasdue to the physical separation and grouping of thefaculty into the various separate buildings on thecampus. Many old friends saw each other once amonth instead of almost daily. The commonlunch hour, formerly from 12 to 1, was now sched-uled from 11 to 2 o'clock. Both on and offcampus small groups with common intereststended to dine together. With instructional divi-sions ranging from 30 to 100 faculty members, thenew faculty member required a year or more to be-

come acquainted with his immediate colleagues.Often years went by before he built friendshipsoutside of his own field. It became necessary tohave a faculty handbook to acquaint all memberswith basic regulations and procedures. A weeklyfaculty bulletin became necessary to announcemeetings, deadlines, and official events. The mod-est person might write a significant book unknownto his colleagues outside of his field unless he senta notice to the editor of the weekly bulletin. Fare-well parties for retiring faculty became divisionalaffairs, whereas they once used to be college-widein scope. Had the planners foreseen this greatchange they might have done something to miti-gate it, but it probably could not have been pre-vented.

The changes that affected students of the insti-tution were of the same general nature. Studentorganizations became largely those of special in-terests which usually revolved around the student'smajor academic field. Old college-wide studentorganizations tended to disappear. The oldcampus was centrally located from the standpointof public transportation and around it were manyrooming houses and small apartments where non-resident students could be housed within walkingdistance of the campus. The new campus wassurrounded by restricted housing districts thatafforded few low-cost rental facilities. It washoped that the opening of new dormitories for800 men and women would do much to bring backthe old solidarity in the student body, and this didhappen to a degree, but it was a slow process.More and more students have tended to become

statistics in the registrar's office. Except in thecase of the rare faculty member who insistedupon knowing all of his students as individuals,


the old close relationship between teacher andstudents generally disappeared.

Most of these changes, inadequately sampledabove, were the inevitable result of growth. Nogrowing institution can escape problems, but mostinstitutions could hold these problems down to amore desirable limit if they could anticipate themand if they could provide certain facilities. Some

of these facilities are physical, and if they could beconstructed in time, would ease the problems ofsuch a move. For those institutions which can af-ford it, every classroom building of 40,000-60,000square feet, and every major part of a largerstructure, would benefit from student and facultylounges. Such lounges would do much to holdfaculty and students together both individuallyand collectively. A central faculty club would domuch to bring all faculty together and discoverfor each the hidden talents of his colleagues. Agenerous student union building with many smallmeeting rooms would equally benefit the students.

Suggestions for Guidance

Almost everything that San Francisco StateCollege could give in the way of advice to otherinstitutions in planning new facilities has beenalready said. The writers feel that the system ofState college planning as developed in Californiais an effective system for the development of capi-tal outlay projects. This system, however, israther complex because it was worked out for alarge group of State colleges under the control ofpowerful and complex State agencies. The sug-gestions that might be given to a simpler Stateorganization or to a privately controlled institu-tion could therefore be far less complicated.

Faculty participation in planning should bethrough a representative committee with its chiefresponsibility the consideration of the generaleducational future of the institution. Few facultymembers in any college are equipped by trainingor experience to participate actively in site pur-chase, site planning, in estimating populationtrends, or in detailed planning of individual facil-ities.

The direction of facility planning should beplaced in the hands Of an administrator equippedby both training and experience to handle thishighly complex task.. He should be responsible

only to the president or vice-president of the in-

stitution or to a very small board or faculty com-mittee which can give time to the work and whichhas the necessary knowledge, authority, and re-sponsibility to work effectively. In a large insti-tution this administrator should be well paid, ona full-time basis, and have adequate technical andclerical assistants. In a small institution a part-time building consultant should be retained on along-term basis. He should make visits to theinstitution when necessary and work directly witha coordinator appointed by the college administra-tion to keep the process going between his visits.

The president, vice president, or proper smalladministrative committee should resolve any con-

flict arising between the administrator in chargeof the building program and any instructionaldepartment or other agency.

No institution should plan for less than a 10-year period, with intermediate target dates of2 or 3 years each. It would be even better forthe institution to look ahead 40 or 50 years, sothat a site may be acquired while it is yet reason-ably priced. Basic to the planning are estimatesof the size of the student body for each target date.The measure of size of the student body shouldbe the student credit hour or a derived measuresuch as the full-time student equivalent. Thetarget date estimates of enrollments might there-fore be in terms of FTE (full-time student equiv-alent) by instructional field and by each type ofcourse giventhat is, lecture or laboratory.

The institution must set its policy on utilizationstandards in order to translate the anticipatedstudent credit hours into classrooms needed. Thefull-time student equivalent figures used here andelsewhere in this chapter when referring to thebuilding of facilities relate to the enrollment fromclasses scheduled between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Thecurrent practice in California is to require, fromthe hours of 8 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock

in the afternoon, an average utilization of lecturerooms equivalent to 30 class hours a week with

75 percent utilization of all stations. For lab-oratory rooms the standard is an average use of22 clock hours per week and 85 percent of utiliza-tion. In the writers' opinion, these standards areexcessively high even in a large institution that has

a broad curriculum and that is alert to'constantlychanging methods of instruction. It is the per-


centage of station utilization that is most difficultto secure, rather than the minimal number ofhours per week. The smaller the institution, themore impossibly high these standards become. Inorder to derive realistic utilization standards, thecollege should study its curricula, teaching prac-tices, percentage of students in residence, the typeof existing facilities, and any other factors thatmay bear upon utilization standards. Otherstandards must be derived to determine the targetdate complement of administrative and facultyoffices, library space and facilities auxiliary toclassroom instruction.

If a new campus is to be purchased, long-termplanning is even more important. Once the siteis agreed upon, a land planner should be retainedto lay out the general campus scheme, the approxi-mate location of instructional buildings, residencehalls, and other facilities. Initial and futureroads, walkways, lawns, playing fields, utilities,and every other aspect of site planning should becarefully studied. The site planner is most effec-tive if he works closely with the college on thelocation of educational facilities for the mostefficient possible functioning.

In most cases the college cannot expect to planall of its necessary new facilities so they may befinanced and constructed at one time. If the ex-pansion program is to cover a 10-year period, thenthe various projects needed to complete it shouldbe given priority numbers and approximate com-pletion dates, to the end that the college can fol-low an orderly program of student growth thatmatches the program of adding facilities. Foran older institution the priority listing will includenot only the building of new structures but theremodeling of some and perhaps the demolitionof others.

Before actual requests for funds are made,specifications should be completed for each high-priority facility. Reasonably accurate cost esti-mates cannot be derived otherwise. The specifi-cations should be educational and functional innature as well as architectural. Specificationsfor each instructional classroom, auxiliary room,office, and every other facility necessary for effi-cient handling of the educational functions as-signed to the building, should be laid out in detail.Such specifications should include the followinginformation : function of the room, type of stu-dent station, if any, number of stations, FTE

89

capacity of the room, square footage, facilitiesthat will be built into the room as a part of thegeneral contract, items of equipment that shouldbe a part of the general contract, and items ofequipment to be purchased directly by the insti-tution that are not a parZ, of the general contract.

The best approximate estimates are subject tochange due to shifts in the cost of materials andlabor and other unpredictable factors. Therefore,the college should secure sufficiee funds to meetthe estimated cost of the gross area plus at least15 to 20 percent for contingencies. If not usedon this project, the balance can be held over orthe next.

Since selection of an architect is Duch an im-portant step, it should be confined to those archi-tects who have had experience in designing similarcollege structures. The architect chosen shouldhave a sound reputation for reasonably accurateestimates of costs, and should recognize the valueof help from educational consultants in collegefacilities.

During this planning period the college shoulddetermine whether it will purchase its own equip-ment and thus save the architect's usual 8 percentfee or whether it will retain the architect to su-pervise these purchases. While the architectmust know what equipment goes into each roomso that he may design a room to fit, the probabilityis that the college could actually purchase theequipment at a considerable saving. At the time

-of the final submission date for working drawings,a final detailed conference should be held. Atthis time both the college and the architect shouldhave a complete record of all original specifica-tions, all changes in such specifications, and notescovering every other type of agreement betweenthe college and the architect.

Both the college representative and the architectshould sign all documents. Only in this way canmisunderstandings be held to a minimum. Nochange order should be initiated by either partyalone, for change orders are generally very costly.When the architect originates a change order, thecollege should fully approve the reason and thecost. When the college originates such an order,the architect should estimate the cost and give hisopinion on the item's desirability. It is stronglyurged that the college consider seriously the ad-visability of providing for certain types of inspec-tion not normally covered in the architect's


contract. These would include surveys of soilcompaction, slump tests, and inspection of steeland weld joints.

Acceptance of the building from the contractorshould of course be approved by the architect, thecollege, and if they are retained, specialized inspec-tors. The architect should carry his servicesthrough to the expiration dates on all guaranteesmade by the general and other contractors.

Planning Process at San Francisco State College

The following steps in the planning process arethose which, based on experience, the college re-quires at present. It must be admitted that notall of them were followed in the move describedin this chapter. The first version of the proce-dures listed below was drafted in 1949, crystal-lized in much of its present general form in 1953,and refined and consolidated in the years that havepassed since that time. The procedures are stillin the process of revision and may, when the newState Board of Trustees assumes control, undergostill further change.

1. Projection of college enrollment 5 years in ad-vance with tentative projections another 5 years ormore beyond that. In California the basic projec-tions are made by the Office of the Population Analystin the State Department of Finance with the co-operation of each State college.

2. Estimate of FTE enrollment in each instruc-tional department for each of the target dates.

3. Estimate of FTE enrollment in each instruc-tional department, broken down into enrollment inlecture courses, laboratory courses, and those activi-ties that need no classroom facilities (student teach-ing in the public schools, for example).

4. Determination of classroom utilization stand-ards to be used in estimating classroom needs. Thesecurrent standards, uniform for all California Statecolleges, set the average hourly use per week re-quired in all lecture and laboratory rooms and theaverage percentage of utilization of stations. Thiswill equate FYN; to student stations.

5. Use of the formula derived from the utilizationstandards to estimate the number of student stationsneeded at the target date.

6. Translation of the number of student stationsneeded into classrooms of various functions andsizes.

7. Subtraction of the number of classrooms thatare now available or that will be available at thetarget date from the number of classrooms derivedfrom step 6 above.

8. Determination of classroom facilities availableat the target date for which planning is being com-pleted. These facilities are made up of those now inexistence, those in course of completion, and thosethat are financed and will be completed for occupancyat the target date.

9. Derivation of the net additional facilities re-quired by subtracting the facilities that will be avail-able at the target date (step 8) from the total need ofall facilities at later target dates.

10. Drawing up of complete educational specifica-tions for all new facilities needed, including class-rooms, auxiliary rooms to serve these classrooms,offices to house new faculty, and noninstructionalfacilitiescentral administrative offices, cafeterias,residence halls, corporation yards, and library.

11. Establishment of a priority order of all facili-ties to be requested.

12. Establishment of statewide priority list for allState colleges by the Division of State Colleges.

13. Preliminary planning by the Division of Archi-tecture from the detailed specifications submittedby the college. Conferences between the architectsand the executive dean are then held, and from thepreliminary plans and specifications the estimatedcost is derived. The scope and cost of each buildingmust be agreed to by representatives of the college,the Division of State Colleges, the Department ofFinance, the Legislative Analyst, and the Division ofArchitecture. Subsequent additions to scope are ap-proved only at a new scope conference attended byrepresentatives of all of the agencies listed above.

14. Inclusion of cost estimates and descriptions foreach project in the Governor's Budget. If funds areinsufficient at the time, the financial authorities ofthe State may postpone certain projects but no finaldeletion may be made without general concurrence.

15. Action by the legislature on all capital outlayprojects. The very careful screening preceding legis-lative action has been so effective in recent years thatthe legislature has approved almost every project.

16. Determination by the State Division of Archi-tecture of which projects shall be designed by its ownarchitects and which shall be allotted to privatearchitects under the Division's general supervision.It appears to be the right of the new Board of Trus-tees to supervise all State college building in thefuture, although the State Division of Architecturewould continue to be utilized for certain projects.

17. Preparation of working drawings by Divisionof Architecture designers or by private architectsunder the supervision of the Division of Architecturein close and constant collaboration with the college'sexecutive dean and with the Administrative PlanningOffice in the Division of State Colleges.

18. Publication of specifications by the State Divi-sion of Architecture. Copies of these specificationsand blueprints are provided to all qualified construe-

SAN FRANCISCO

tion firms in the State. By law the work of con-struction must go to the lowest qualified bidder. Astarting and completion date are a part of thecontract.

19. Appointment by the State of a constructionsupervisor under the direction of the State Divisionof Architecture for each building under construction.

20. Consideration of change orders which may be-come necessary because of some unforeseen factor,such as poor subsoil conditions, errors in structuraldesign, or any factor other than that relating to edu-cational functions. The necessary change orders areinitiated by the construction supervisor/or the archi-tect who designed the building. The thoroughness ofthe planning system has held costly change orders toan almost irreducible minimum. On this campus theaverage has been less than two minor change ordersper building.

21. Acceptance of the building from the contractorfollowing inspections by the construction supervisionbranch of the State Division of Architecture. Thereis usually one inspection for general work in additionto one for electrical, one for plumbing, etc. Whenthe building has been finally accepted by the State itis turned over to the college for occupancy. Certainfacilities in each building are covered with a guaran-tee of 1 year after occupancy. Should these facili-ties be found wanting during this period, the contrac-tor responsible is required to make necessary altera-tions.

22. Formal announcement and dedication of eachfacility is left to the college. When only one build-ing is completed every year or so there is usuallya formal dedication ceremony for that structure.When several buildings are completed within a fewmonths of each other, dedication ceremonies maycover all such facilities.

23. Assignment of space in each new building is inthe hands of the local college authorities. In general,however, assignment of space follows the originalplans. Long experience has taught this institutionto follow certain guiding principles in assignment of

space. First, each new building "belongs" to thecollege as a whole, not to any one department or toany other agency of the institution. Each depart-ment receives only those areas that it can use. Thus,if a science department cannot use all of its facilitiesefficiently at the time it moves in, and if other de-partments are short of facilities necessary to carryon their programs, then the needy departments areassigned space in the science building. This maymean that temporarily unnecessary laboratories mayhave all scientific equipment removed and be con-verted into temporary lecture rooms. Second, no de-

partment is given consideration for additional class-rooms until those previously assigned have met tilt-zation standards.

630581 0-62-7

STATE COLLEGE 91

24. Appropriation of funds for equipment for smallconstruction projects is made by the legislature thesame year that it appropriates funds for planningand construction. For large projects, however, theappropriation for equipment is made the year follow-ing the appropriation for planning and construction.The appropriation for equipment is allocated to thecollege. The purchasing agent working with theexecutive dean and with the departments makes uphis equipment orders and submits them to the StatePurchasing Department. The State Purchasing De-partment normally calls for bids and is bound by lawto accept the lowest bid that meets the proper stand-ards.

25. Miscellaneous items. Each building projectcarries a contingent fund that ranges from 5 to 10

percent. This fund is retained until 1 year afterthe building is occupied. When the low bid acceptedfor a structure is higher than the appropriation avail-able, it is the usual practice for the State Departmentof Finance to augment the appropriation from re-serves. The architect is practically never forcedto redraw plans and resubmit them to bid. If thelow bid is below the appropriation, then the collegeis directed to hand back the savings to the State sothat a reserve fund is built up to provide for aug-mentations. If the amount of money appropriatedfor equipment is insufficient, or if it is larger thanis necessary to purchase the approved equipment,then, respectively, the equipment fund is augmentedfrom reserves or the reserve fund is increased bythe surplus.

Once each year a field representative from theDivision of State Colleges makes a careful inspectionof all facilities on the campus and estimates the full-time student equivalent capacity of all classrooms.He also estimates the faculty office capacity of eachbuilding. These data are used by each college as abasis for estimating future needs.

Inasmuch as all State colleges are built on State-owned property, any conflict between State buildingregulations and local building regulations is resolvedin favor of the State. All easements written intodeeds of State-purchased property are respected bythe State.

As of this date, the State has refused to financestudent union buildings, bookstores, and similar en-terprises. If money from other sources becomesavailable for the construction of such enterprises anda site on a State college campus is available, theState will lease the site to a properly approved localorganization. All structures and other facilities builton leased sites become the legal property of the State.Actually the State has never assumed control of suchproperty. These facilities must meet all State re-quirements for construction as interpreted by theState Division of Architecture, which also approvesthe design.


Postscript

In 15 years San Francisco State College hasgrown from a student body of 800 to one of 12,000,or approximately 8,600 FTE ; from a faculty offewer than 80 to one of nearly 700 ; from an under-graduate school dominated by the teacher-trainingfunction to a broad liberal arts institution withmaster's degree program and plans for enteringthe field of the doctorate in cooperation with theUniversity of California. It is rapidly expandinginto the area of researchinstitutional, faculty,and foundation sponsored.

When this program of expansion started, 15years ago, the institution was housed on 5 acresof shabby, congested site in the heart of SanFrancisco. We are proud of the fact that, duringthose hectic years, we planned a new campus,moved to it, and continuously expanded our newfacilitiesall without even one serious inter-ruption in the rapid development of our educa-tional program. The sacrifices were many, butthey were largely those that affected the personalconvenience of students, faculty, and administra-tors. There were complaints, but they weretransitory and probably healthy.

Today the senior staff members who planned andmanaged the move to the campus near LakeMerced recall the problems and difficulties, but thefaculty member enjoying the new, well-planned,and functional facilities, or the student strollingacross the tree-dotted quad htween the newly ex-panded science building and the newly expandedlibrary, can only conclude that, whatever, the trib-

ulations, the move was worth it. With properplanning, difficulties can be kept to a minimum,and even a large urban institution like San Fran-cisco State College can shift its location, if noteasily, at least with benefit to all concerned.

The tremendous expansion in higher educationsince the close of the second world war is a matterof statistical record and this growth will appar-ently continue. This vast increase in the numbersof youth in higher education will be accompaniedby some foreseen and many unforeseen changes incurricula and teaching procedures. The possibil-ities of audiovisual facilities have as yet beenbarely explored. Experiments in education bytelevision may lead to less than the zealots fore-cast, but they are symptoms of the far-reachingchanges about to break over us. Learning ma-chines, in some form or another, will disturbcloistered halls that in many cases still are muchthe same as they were 20 years ago. Any signifi-cant new direction in the educational program ofa college or university sooner or later calls forsome alteration in the buildings and equipmentthat must serve the new functions. Every collegeand university, therefore, should have a continu-ous program of long-range planning for its physi-cal facilities as well as for its educational ends andmeans. Every facility should be so carefullyplanned that "function" for the foreseen shouldgo hand in hand with "flexibility" for what mayactually come. If a college or university has anopportunity to move, this may provide an excellentchance to replan its future with these factors inmind.

Chapter VIII

THE ADMINISTRATION of Howard College had learnedthrough sad experience thai such a major operation as mov-ing the college to a new campus can arouse bitter divisive-ness among its constituents. The officers therefore in con-templating this move first employed various survey agenciesto be assured that the move was 8021/1a and feasible fromevery angle and then told the story convincingly to the de-nominational body from which its support derives untilthere was enthusiastic favorable response.

In this instance the new facilities were sufficiently nearcompletion to permit the move to be made at one time be-tween terms.

Moving Howard College to a New SiteBy

HARWELL G. DAVIS

Chancellor, Howard College, Birmingham, Ala.

HOWARD COLLEGE of Birmingham, Ala.,moved 11 miles from the East Lake campus to

an entirely new campus in suburban Homewoodduring the summer of 1957. The story of thathistoric move is one chapter in the story of theawakening of a large number of people to a keenawareness of the compelling need of such a move;the story of meeting strong opposition from somegood and influential people who did not considerthe move necessary or judicious. Above all it isthe story of heroic action of many devoted, un-selfish persons who gave of their time, theirtalents, and their finances to establish a new andbeautiful campus.

Historical Background

For a long period after the War Between theStates, agriculture on the large farms in thesouth-ern part of the State gradually became less and

less profitable. The population of the Stateshifted to North Alabama. Industrial Birming-ham became the fast-growing metropolis of the

State. In 1887 Birmingham sought to have thepoverty-stricken college moved to that city fromMarion, Ala., and a high-pressure campaign wasconducted for the purpose of accomplishing thisobjective. The Alabama Baptist State Conventionmet at Union Springs in July 1887. During theconvention a proposal was presented and approvedto move the college to Birmingham. It was dur-ing these flush times when land values, in andaround Birmingham, were inflated that the site atEast Lake in Birmingham was chosen.

Although the decision by the Alabama BaptistState Convention to move to Birmingham was by

a clear majority vote of the convention, the actionalienated a large amount of the financial supportof the college. The president of the college refusedto move to Birmingham, and, with many of those

93


who also opposed the move, he established andoperated a college on the old campus at Marion.This rift seriously handicapped the developmentof the new campus at East Lake and the growthof the student body. (Approximately 60 yearslater, when consideration was given to relocatingthe campus, it was realized that history was wav-ing a red flag to warn that such action could safelybe taken only after a virtually unanimous actionof the Baptist State Convention.)

By its charter Howard College is an agency ofthe Alabama Baptist State Convention. ThisConvention appoints its trustees and appropriatesfunds for its support. The membership of theAlabama Baptist State Convention consists ofmessengers from cooperating Baptist churches lo-cated in Alabama.

Among the purposes of the Convention the fol-lowing are stated in its constitution :

1. To offer an agency of cooperation for the churches.2. To promote the preaching of the gospel.3. To support ministerial education.

The finances of the Convention result from volun-tary contributions by the cooperating churchesthrough what is known as the Cooperative Pro-gram. The convention has no authority to re-quire any church, association, or individual tosupport it financially.

Thus it is evident that the very existence ofHoward College and its future prosperity requireany important or major move of the college tohave the almost unanimous approval of the. con-vention and of the Baptists of the State of Ala-bama.

The property in East Lake donated to the collegefor a campus was approximately one city blockwide and several city blocks deep. Time provedthis to be inadequate for the development of aproper campus and the campus at East Lake wasnever fully developed.

In 1889 the Baptists over the State pledged$32,000 for endowment and $14,450 for new build-ings. On the strength of these pledges the princi-pal building on the East Lake campus wascompleted in 1891 and, originally named AcademicHall, it later became known as "Old Main." ThePanic of 1893 which swept Birmingham bank-rupted Howard College. No additional buildingsof any importance were erected on the campusuntil the fall of 1902. At that time Dr. A. P.

Montague became president of the college andserved until August 1912. During the 10 yearsof his presidency, Renfroe and Montague Hallswere built and $100,000 of endowment was raised.Afterwards, what was known as Science Hall was

erected. This was a brick veneer building con-structed from secondhand materials. There, wasalso constructed an attractive dormitory for youngladies, which was located about a block from themain campus, and a small but substantial gym-nasium was built on the campus. As the studentbody increased, these buildings became inadequateto accommodate the activities of the college.Consequently a number of old residences were iredfor classrooms and offices.

Financial Difficulties

On July 1, 1939, Howard College had a changein administration. For a number of years prior tothat time, the college had operated at a financialdeficit and at the close of its fiscal year in 1939it owed approximately one-half million dollars.The salaries of the members of its faculty, itscurrent operating bills, and the interest on itsfunded debt were delinquent. The college had nocredit. It was necessary for the president of theboard of trustees of Howard College to endorse.the note of the college for a few thousand dollarsin order to secure a sufficient amount of money topay the outgoing president his salary to the endof his term of office. To keep the college operat-ing, the incoming president served without com-pensation for the first 3 months in office.

The new administration found that the build-ings being used by the college were in such con-dition that it was impossible to repair them eco-nomically. The old residences being used forclassrooms presented an especially serious firehazard. The cramped area of the campus wasbounded on one side by dilapidated shacks; too,several privately owned residences were situatedin the same block with the college buildings. Onthe other hand, the college was situated in whatwas once a fine residential section. The BaptistChurch near the campus had for a half centurybeen the college church and its local members hadserved the college students well. The quadranglewith its gentle slope from "Old Main" to the street,shaded by its fine oaks, was beautiful and it createda sentimental attachment that tended to prevent a

HOWARD COLLEGE

full appreciation of the critical needs of thecollege.

The college had been "starred" 1 by the regionalaccrediting agency because of its financial condi-tion, its inadequate support of the library, and itsfailure to pay promptly the salaries of the faculty.Consequently, the first task of the new adminis-tration was to secure funds on which to operateand to restore the financial reputation of thecollege.

While the trustees knew the college was in badfinancial condition, they did not realize that thecondition was so acute. When the board was ad-vised of this condition a meeting was held and themembers present contributed $35,000 cash to en-able the payment of salaries of faculty membersand of some of the more pressing debts. Afterthat experience the college paid cash for everypurchase it made. In addition to this contribu-tion by members of the board of trustees the col-lege raised by subscription during the first yearof the new administration about $150,000 to applyon its indebtedness. The progress made duringthis first year was sufficient to influence the re-gional accrediting agency to restore the college toa fully accredited status, although it took severalyears to put the financial house in order.

It was generally recognized by those familiarwith college needs that the area of the campus ofHoward College was inadequate. Previous ad-ministrations of the college had called attention tothis fact and made some attempt to move the col-lege to a location where it could develop properly,but these efforts had failed. The administrationsought advice from several prominent college ad-ministrators who resided outside of Alabama con-cerning the needs of Howard College. Theunanimous opinion of these advisers was that itwas necessary for the college either to acquire aconsiderable area of land adjoining its presentcampus or to move to an entirely new location.These findings were given publicity throughoutthe State in the hope of reaching as many of theBaptists of Alabama as possible.

Efforts To Acquire Land

The Board of Trustees of Howard College firstdecided to make an effort to secure property ad-

1 Listing of a college with an asterisk was the indication ofprovisional accreditation.

95

joining the present campus. The president of thecollege was authorized to attempt to purchasesuch property. This plan of the college soon be-came known, and the prices of properties in thatvicinity suddenly were very high. Some of theowners of property adjoining the campus refusedto state a price at which they would sell the prop-erty ; others refused to permit an inspection ofthe houses in order for the college to determinewhat offer it would make for such property; andsome needed property was bought by speculators.

Illustrating the difficulties encountered in theeffort to secure property adjoining the old cam-pus are two cases. One person suggested that hewould like to be of service to the college withoutany expense in acquiring the property it needed.The trustees requested him to endeavor to pur-chase for the college certain houses and lots.Several weeks later, when he was asked if he hadmade any progress in securing the property, hestated that he found that the purchase price was,in his opinion, too high for the college to consider,but that he was of the opinion that the propertywas extremely valuable for other purposes thancollege purposes and consequently he and a friendhad purchased it.

In another case, an owner had been offered adefinite price by the college for an old residencesituated under the eaves of its dormitory. Theowner notified the college that the offer would beaccepted. A representative of the college calledlate one afternoon for the abstract of title in orderto use an accurate description in the contract ofsale, which the owner stated she would sign thenext morning. Knowing that an old couple wholived in the house would probably be disturbedwhen they found that the property was sold, therepresentative of the college stopped by theirhouse and advised them that the college was buy-ing the property but would not require them tomove for a number of months. That night theirson called the president of the college by tele-phone and said that he had been advised that theowner of the property was not bound legally be-cause a written contract for the sale of the prop-erty to the college had not been signed and thathe had agreed to pay the owner a larger pricethan the college had offered and had secured awritten contract for the sale from the owner.

Through the Alabama Baptist (the denomina-tion's paper), through representatives at each


county association of churches and at the AlabamaBaptist State Convention, the Baptists of theState were informed of the efforts to expand thecampus and the obstacles that were met in tryingto acquire property adjoining the old campus. Ina last effort to acquire the property, an appeal wasmade through the local clubs and other local or-ganizations in the section of the city whereHoward campus was situated, for the communityto aid the college in obtaining the property needed.In this appeal it was stated that the college hadbeen advised by prominent educators that unlessit could secure this additional property it would.be necessary to move the college to a new site.This statement prompted a prominent person togive utterance to the following sentiment: "Thepresident of Howard College is a friend of mine,so I am reminding him that two previous presi-dents of the college suggested the moving of thecollege, and we simply moved the presidents."

General Education Board Assistance

At about this time Howard College andBirmingham-Southern College, a Methodistschool, secured a joint grant from the GeneralEducation Board (The Rockefeller Foundation)and made a successful campaign to raise matchingfunds to meet the conditions of that grant. Priorto making the grant the General Education Boardmade a survey of the educational needs of the twocolleges and found that the pressing need ofHoward College was plant improvement. Thegrant limited the funds which were to come toHoward College to that purpose and expressed theopinion that unless additional property could beobtained adjoining its campus a new college siteshould be developed. When this report becameknown there was every indication that the Ala-bama Baptist State Convention would approvethe move to a new site, but the administration ofthe college was anxious that it be clear beyond areasonable doubt that such .a move was beingforced by the failure to acquire the necessary prop-erty adjoining the old campus after a conscien-tious and strong effort had been made to do so.As stated earlier, history had warned that thiswas necessary in order to retain a sufficiently fa-vorable climate for the raising of the large amount

of money necessary to finance such a move anddevelop a new campus.

Institutional Survey

In October 1944, the Alabama Baptist StateCor vention requested Dr. Doak S. Campbell, thenPresident of Florida State College for Women,to direct the study of the Baptist program ofhigher education in Alabama. The highly compe-tent staff which Dr. Caupbell secured to assisthim in making this study consisted of the follow-ing personnel: Dr. C. C. Colvert, Professor ofEducation, University of Texas; Dr. Curtis H.Dickson, Vice President, Mercer University; Dr.Ray L. Hamon, Specialist in School Plants, of theU.S. Office of Education; Dr. A. F. Kuhlman, Di-rector of Join'- Libraries of Vanderbilt, Peabody,and Scarritt Colleges; and Dr. Earl J. McGrath,Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, IowaState University. The report of this study statedthat the location of Howard College was not con-ducive to growth and development; that if HowardCollege were to remain at that location, a greatdeal of additional property should be acquired;and unless additional land was acquired thecampus would be inadequate for athletic andplaying fields, instructional and dormitory facili-ties, and faculty residences. It also stated thatthe facilities were substandard and inadequate andthat unless Howard College secured adequate areafor its campus and made the large amount of im-provements which had been suggested, the resultwould inevitably be the decline of the Baptist pro-gram of higher education in Alabama. This re-port was made to the Alabama Baptist State Con-vention and received wide publicity. In additionto that report was the convincing evidence thatthe additional needed area adjoining the campusof Howard College could not be acquired, and thateven if it could be acquired at the prices beingasked by those owners who indicated a willingnessto sell, it would be much more economical for thecollege to abandon its present campus and developan entirely new one.

With these reports being given wide publicity,the Board of Trustees of Howard College sub-mitted a recommendation to the Alabama BaptistState Convention requesting that the college beauthorized and directed to acquire a new location

HOWARD COLLEGE

and develop a new campus. The recommendationof the board of trustees was unanimously andenthusiastically approved by the Alabama BaptistState Convention. Thus concluded this long edu-cational process, which had often taxed patience,which was filled with disappointments and dis-couragements, but which also disclosed that thepeople when properly informed would support theaction which was to the best interest of thegreat cause which they had undertaken to fosterthrough their convention. The selling campaignhad yielded fine fruit. The college, and not thepresident, was to move.

Selecting the Site

The Board of Trustees of Howard Collegethen authorized the president of the college, withthe advice and consent of a committee of itstrustees, to select and secure a new site for thecampus. The selection of the site for the newcampus was considered so important that it wasdecided to secure professional advice. First, itwas considered advisable that the architects to beused in the planning and construction of the build-ings be chosen immediately in order that theircounsel and advice might be available with refer-ence to the selection of the new location and itsdevelopment.

The firm of Van Keuren, Davis & Companywas selected because it had had considerable ex-perience in designing college buildings in Alabamaand in some other States, and was recognized asone of the outstanding architectural firms in theSouth.

The next step in the selection of the site was toemploy a sociologist to make a study of populationtrends in Jefferson County, Ala., the county inwhich Birmingham is situated. The recommen-dation of that report was as follows : "As a resultof the material contained in this study, it is mybelief that Howard College would be wise to con-sider the trend of population and its movement tothe district known as 'over the mountain' and tothe Homewood section (Census Tract 56) shouldrelocation be deemed advisable."

The report entitled "A Baptist Program forHigher Education in Alabama" had suggestedthat the new campus of Howard College be lo-cated on a part of the Birmingham-Southern

97

College property west of their campus. Withsuch a plan it would have been possible for How-ard College to share with Birmingham-SouthernCollege such new joint facilities as a library,auditorium, and- fine arts building, and enable thejoint use of some faculty members. It would alsohave offered a strong appeal to the General Edu-cation Board to build the joint library. Thisproposition was considered by the landscape archi-tects before making their recommendation as toa college site.

"A Baptist Program For Higher Education inAlabama" had also indicated that populationmovements and trends were strong factors insocial, economic, educational, and religious de-velopment, and should be given serious considera-tion in determining the relocation of the campus.Its most favorable recommendation was to main-tain Howard College on an enlarged or a newcampus in Birmingham. In this the report wasin agreement with the recommendations containedin the report of the survey entitled, "PopulationTrends in Jefferson County."

With the approval of the architects, the collegeemployed the firm of Olmstead Brothers, ofBrookline, Mass., landscape architects with largeexperience in the field of developing college

campuses, for advice in the selection of a new siteand to suggest an overall plan for its development.This firm of landscape architects viewed andstudied each available site. It advised that therewas not sufficient property available adjoining thecampus of Birmingham-Southern College to ac-commodate the development which Howard Col-lege should make. It also concluded that the sitewhich had been offered as a gift had serious ob-jections to its being used for a college campus.

The tract in suburban Homewood recommendedby this firm as most suitable for a college campuswas at that time over a mile from any publictransportation. The lower portion had to bedrained. That part of the tract which was to be

used for the principal college buildings was ahillside so full of gulleys and ravines of varioussizes that it was patent it would be necessary tograde the entire area to condition it for use.(See p. 98.) However, it was in that sectionwhere the sociological survey hae suggested thatthe college should be located and it was in thatarea in which the survey of the population trends


_

Howard College, Birmingham, Ala., Buildings are of Georgian architecture and were ready for occupancy so

that the move could be made from the old campus between the summer session and the fall term of 1957.

of Jefferson County had indicated a fine residen-tial section, would develop. The college authori-ties accepted the firm's recommendation and wereable to purchase a tract of 275 acres. Afterwardsthe college acquired the control of adjoining prop-erty to the extent of 125 more acres.

Plot Development

After the property was acquired the landscapearchitects submitted a plan for its development.While some slight modification of this develop-ment plan was made by the college's architects,the basic plan suggested was retained. In accord-ance with this plan, surveys were made and speci-fications drawn for, the grading of the campusand the location of the driveways, the walkways,and the utilities. In accordance with the specifi-cations provided by the architects and their engi-neers, the driveways were built and paved, sani-tary sewers and storm sewers were installed, gasmains and water mains were laid, and conduitsfor all wiring were provided.

Type of Architecture

This brought the college to the task of deter-mining the type of architecture to be used, thecharacter of the future program of the college,the probable number of students which it wouldseek to serve in the future, the educational de-mands of its constituency, and how the remaining

development was to be financed. Preliminary re-search had been done and a study of these mattershad been in progress for several years.

Much consideration was given to the type ofarchitecture which should be used. Some ex-pressed the opinion that the modernistic stylewould give more floor space for the money ex-pended and could be made more functional.While this matter was under consideration,, agraduate student in architecture at Harvard Uni-versity requested permission and the cooperationof the college to design the entire new campus asa thesis for his Master's Degree in Architectureat Harvard. The building committee had thebenefit of this thesis. This committee also re-quested the faculty to express a preference regard-ing architecture. The faculty expressed a prefer-ence for buildings that were modern in structureand function but not garishly modernistic. Itwished to preserve as much as possible the beautyof the campus but to construct buildings that weredignified and with esthetic appeal. Upon inquiry,it was found that virtually every person fromwhom the college could expect large gifts favoreda classical design of architecture. This factstrengthened the conviction already held by amajority of the building committee that a classicaltype of architecture would exert a great influencein securing contributions for the erection of build-ings. The c-llege's architects advised that if theGeorgian style of architecture were to be used,they would have no difficulty in making the inte-

r

HOWARD COLLEGE

rior of the buildings functional. The buildingcommittee adopted the Georgiin style of architec-ture, and all buildings are of that type.

Howard College in Alabama Education

In making definite plans for the developmentof a new campus, it was necessary for HowardCollege to determine as nearly as possible the ex-tent of the role it would play in higher educationin Alabama. In 1947, the President's Commissionon Higher Education for American Democracystudying education in the United States, had con-cluded that within a few more years a large num-ber of private and church-related colleges wouldbe compelled to close their doors because of a lackof financial support. The financial history ofHoward College indicated that it might be in-cluded in this dire prophecy. For hundreds ofyears the church-related college in the UnitedStates justified the faith, the vision, and the sacri-fice of their founders. Then came the establish-ment of tax-supported higher education, whichresulted in a swing of public interest to this ideaand decreased the public regard for the impor-tance and the equality of the church-related col-lege. The result was inadequate financial andmoral support, and many of the smaller collegeswere compelled to close their doors. However, inthe last few years the public has been shocked intothe realization that the maintenance of these col-leges was imperative. This conviction was notonly voiced by religious leaders but had the out-

-spoken and aggressive support of a great majorityof the leading scientists of our country.

In 1945 the American Council on Educationpublished the report of a survey made by the Ala-bama Education Survey Commission under thetitle "Public Education in Alabama." That com-mission's recognition of the importance of theprivately controlled institutions is shown by thefollowing quotation : "The Survey staff recom-mends that the State continue to recognize thevaluable contribution made to Alabama by privatecolleges, and that the citizens encourage these col-leges to develop and improve their services." Thesurvey conducted by Dr. Doak S. Campbell andreported under the title, "A Baptist Program forHigher Education in Alabama," found that thefinancial support of the college by the denomina-

99

tion was exceedingly encouraging and that itsplant should be enlarged to accommodate a largernumber of students than was then enrolled. Itwas decided that the Howard College campusshould be developed to play a greater part inhigher education in Alabama than it had in thepast, and that it should provide facilities whichwould enable it in the future to achieve more ef-fectively the primary purpose and educational ob-jectives for which the college had been organized.

According to the Charter and By-laws of thecollege, the primary purpose of Howard Collegeis the "promotion of the Christian religionthroughout the world by maintaining and operat-ing an institution dedicated to the development ofChristian character and high scholastic standing.To this end the college will include in its programof general education, herein authorized, the train-ing of ministers to preach the gospel, of musiciansto conduct and develop sacred music, and of lay-men to do educational work and other religiouswork." This general statement has been adoptedby the trustees of Howard College and by the Ala-bama State Convention.

Educational Programs

In 1945 the faculty made a thorough study ofthe educational objectives and developed what isnow called the General Curriculum, made up ofa group of liberal arts and science courses requiredof all students. Its objectives are to develop thestudent intellectually, socially, and spiritually.

The specific objectives adopted by the facultyare:

1. To understand the common phenomena in one'sphysical and biological environment, to apply habitsof scientific thought to both personal and civic prob-lems, and to appreciate the implications of scientificdiscoveries for human welfare.

2. To participate actively as an informed and re-sponsible citizen in meeting the social, economic, andpolitical problems of one's community, State, andNation.

3. To understand the ideas of others and to expressone's own effectively (communication).

4. To recognize the interdependence of the dif-ferent peoples of the world and one's personal re-sponsibility for fostering international understandingand peace.


5. To understand and enjoy literature, art, music,and other cultural activities as expressions of per-sonal and social experience.

6. To develop for the regulation of one's personaland civic life a code of behavior based on Christianprinciples and democratic ideals.

Howard College has always been primarily aliberal arts college. Its major emphasis is stillon a strong general curriculam in the arts andsciences. It has given basic training for the Chris-tian ministry and for the learned professions. Inan effort to serve the needs and meet the demandsof its supporters, the college has for more than 35years carried a curriculum in teacher educationand for more than 25 years a degree program inpharmacy.

The teacher education program prepares teach-ers in both elementary and secondary fields. Thiswork is fully accredited and the department is amember of the National Council for Accreditationof Teacher Education.

The Division of Pharmacy has attracted desir-able students from the entire southeastern area ofthe United States and it now has one of the highestenrollments of any of the undergraduate pharmacyschools in this area. The Division of Pharmacyis a fully accredited member of the AmericanCouncil on Pharmaceutical Education.

Since World War II the constituency of thecollege has insisted on a more extensive programto provide instruction in business and economics.The Business Administration Department has de-veloped steadily and as rapidly as interest andfinances would permit. The pattern of its devel-opment is that established by the American Asso-ciation of Collegiate Schools of Business, of whichit is striving to become a fully accredited member.

The curriculum in music has expanded rapidlyto the extent that major instruction in sacredmusic, music education, instrumental music, andvoice is now offered. All areas are accredited withthe National Association of Schools of Music.

The Alabama Baptist State Convention has acontinuing need for pastors. Since one of theprimary purposes for which the college wasfounded was to prepare young men for the min-istry, a strong Department of Religion and Bibleis maintained.

In 1954 the college requested that a survey bemade by Dr. R. Orin Cornett, then on the staffof the Education Commission of the Southern

Baptist Convention. In this survey the instruc-tional expenditures were analyzed and the unitcost of each credit hour of instruction was deter-mined. The percentage of the total expenditurewas determined for each phaseof the college op-eration. The purpose of the study was to securea better allocation of funds for instruction, a bet-ter distribution of the expenditures among thedepartments of instruction, and the cpinion of anouside competent expert on the work being doneby Howard College. Recommendations were madefor increasing the average size of classes by alter-nating the terms for offering smaller classes, byeliminating the smallest classes, and by discon-tinuing certain expensive instructional and coun-seling practices.

The course offerings of the departments of in-struction were examined, and recommendationswere made concerning the elimination of certainduplication of course offerings in several depart-ments and for strengthening the curriculum in theliberal arts and sciences. After maximum econ-omy, was planned, this survey attempted to predictthe future development of the academic programin the departments to provide a uniform andequitable rate of growth in each.

Extensive use of this survey was made by thefaculty in framing its recommendations for theeducational needs and objectives of the college.The faculty recommended that the developmentof the new campus provide larger and more effi-cient facilities for the academic work which thecollege was doing.

Building Committee

Soon after the purchase of the property for thenew campus in 1947, the president of the collegecalled together the Administrative Planning Coun-cil, which consisted of the department heads of thefaculty and the administrative officials, and re-quested that a building committee of the facultybe appointed to study the needs of the college and,in consultation with the faculty of each depart-ment, to present the principles to be followed inplanning the various departmental buildings andthe general purpose buildings. After the type ofarchitecture was selected, considerable attentionwas 'given to making the buildings functional andlocating them on the campus logically in relition

HOWARD COLLEGE

to one another, thereby allowing the college tooperate most efficiently.

After 4 months of study in 1947, the buildingcommittee reported to the Administrative Plan-ning Council its general recommendations for theideal campus, concerning lighting, projection fa-cilities, telephones, master clocks, chalkboards,audiovisual aids, corridors, stairs, coatrooms, rest-rooms, centralized records, library and museum,student union, parking, and air-conditioning. Itpresented special recommendations based upon themaximum use of floor space for the specific class-room, storage, and laboratory needs of the aca-demic departments, and for specialized services,such as alumni relations, public relations, collegedevelopment, extension, counseling, testing, place-ment, and remedial reading. The possibility ofundertaking graduate work in the future wasconsidered.

The details of the recommendations includedthe square feet of floor space needed; the require-ments for specialized built-in equipment; shapesand light exposures of classrooms and laborato-ries; the location and accessibility of the plumb-ing; and the accessibility of the library and spe-cialized services to certain classrooms and labora-tories.

Copies of the original faculty building commit-tee report were submitted to the architect with thesuggestion that specialists in certain academicfields and services be utilized where possible. Thearchitects not only used the committee recommen-dations in the development and planning of thebuildings and campus, but returned each set oftheir preliminary drawings to the faculty com-mittee for review with the faculty of applicabledepartments or with the appropriate administra-tive personnel.

In 1950, when the plot plan of the campus withsuggested locations of buildings was prepared, thefaculty committee not only reviewed those plans,but rendered valuable service pointing up the re-lationship of the new campus construction to theproper realization of the educational objectives ofthe college for that particular time and for thefuture growth and expansion of the academic

program.Valuable information with reference to making

the buildings functional was secured by visiting,with the architects, other campuses where recent

101

academic buildings had been designed and con-structed. The architects approved the suggestionby the faculty that specialists in certain fields beemployed to advise with reference to the develop-ment of buildings for their respective fields, andthe college did employ assistants of this character.For instance, the college secured the services ofDr. A. F. Kuhlman, Director of Joint Libraries ofVanderbilt, Peabody, and Scarritt, to advise theadministration and the architects with referenceto planning the library.

Projecting the Enrollment

It was necessary to determine the number ofstudents to be accommodated by the plan of de-velopment and a study was made for this purpose.The report entitled "A Baptist Program forHigher Education in Alabama" had indicated thatHoward College should develop its educationalplant to accommodate 900 students, with dormi-tories for 500 students. This report was madein 1945 when the student body was much less than900, and before the colleges had experienced thegreat influx of students returning from WorldWar II. By the fall semester of 1948 the vet-erans, along with the students regularly graduat-ing from high school, increased the enrollment ofHoward College at an all-time high, exceeding thecapacity recommendation of the 1945 AlabamaBaptist Educational Survey Team by more than50 percent. It was generally recognized, how-ever, that enrollment was swollen because of thereturn of the World War II veterans, and it wasassumed that it would be stabilized at a lowerlevel in a few years. At the same time, the en-rollment figures in the grades of elementaryschools and in the high schools predicted a sharpincrease in college-age population after 1950.

A study of the enrollment of Howard Collegein the 5 years prior to 1955 indicated that it haddoubled within that period. It also disclosed thefact that a large number of qualified students hadbeen unable to attend the college because housingand, to some extent, classroom facilities were notavailable. Meanwhile, several educational groupswere indicating that enrollments would sharplyincrease as the college-age population increasedand as the percentage of that group desiring a col-lege education increased.

102 CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIOts-AL DEVELOPMENT

Since nearly half the college-age population ofAlabama were affiliated with the Baptist churchesor were members of families affiliated with Bap-tist churches, it was estimated that the number ofapplicants from those churches would increase inproportion to the increase of the college-age pop-ulation. It was also felt that with proper facili-ties the college would gain still further inenrollment of students. It was decided in its planfor the overall development of the campus toproject a new campus for 2,500 to 3,000 students.(The library construction provided for an ex-pansion up to 3,600.) The other buildings wereto be located so that the campus could be expandedstill further as enrollments increased and as fundsbecame available.

Over a long period of years the college enroll-ment had consisted of a ratio of roughly two menstudents to one woman student. It was assumedthat the imbalance was caused by the lack of hous-ing facilities for women on the campus and by therelative facility for men to commute by auto fromoutlying area. In the light of this consideration,the campus was planned for approximately equalhousing provisions for men and women. The con-struction of the first housing units provided for342 women and 321 men.

Financing the Project

In a college of the character of Howard College,the financing of a great undertaking like the de-velopment of a new campus is a Herculean task.Again it should be emphasized that it could nothave been accomplished without the enthusiasticsupport of virtually all the contributing member-ship of the denomination on which it depends. In1954 the college development office, with the as-sistance of the college's architect, prepared theprospectus presenting the need for 15 buildings todevelop the new campus, which at that time wereestimated to cost $11,120,000. For the minimumnumber of buildings required to move the opera-tion of the college to the new campus, cost was es-timated at $7,500,000. For several years the ad-ministration prepared to meet this problem.

During the years a successful effort had beenmade to have the Convention elect as trustees of'Toward College men throughout Alabama whowere known for their business ability and success,

and who had been active in the interest of civicaffairs and demonstrated a loyalty to their church.Such P board of trustees gave confidence to thosewho could make substantial monetary donations,that the funds would be wisely and properly used.Much of the success of the financial campaign isdue to the outstanding men who constituted theboard of trustees and to their liberality.

The Women's Auxiliary

Another group that made a large contributionto restoring the prestige of Howard College andmeeting many of its needs was the Howard Col-lege Auxiliary. The Howard College Auxiliaryis composed of women interested in aiding thecollege and has a statewide membership.

Some executives object to such organizations onthe ground that their efforts are not always coordi-nated with the plans of the college, resulting some-times in injurious conflict. The Howard CollegeAuxiliary was careful to clear with the collegeadministration not only every proposed projectbut also the implementing of the project.

As a rule women are much more sensitive to thegreat value of beauty than are men. The Auxil-iary women were keenly conscious of the necessityof relocating the campus and wielded a large in-fluence in persuading others of the wisdom of thiseffort.

The Auxiliary had renovated the auditorium ofthe old campus, furnished the ladies' lounge andthe reception room of the girls' dormitory, helpedbeautify the grounds, and contributed in manyother ways to the betterment of the college.

When the college was ready to move to the newcampus, finances did not permit purchasing theseveral thousand dollar's worth of draperies andthe renovating of old furniture for the large livingroom of the new girls' dormitory. The Auxiliarysecured from a cloth manufacturer the materialfor the draperies, paid for their making, and fur-nished the living room. They also gave in cash$15,500 toward the Building Fund.

The Auxiliary instituted the "Candlelight Din-ner," which is becoming a tradition. This is anannual dinner at Commencement jointly sponsoredby the Auxiliary and the Alumni Association. Allof their contributions cannot be cataloged here.

HOWARD COLLEGE

Accumulating the Funds

By solicitation, the college had accumulated abuilding fund of several hundred thousand dollars.It had received $750,000 from the joint campaignwith Eirmingham-Southern College, which wasmade to secure the grant of the General EducationBoard. Subsequently the college made a campaignin Birmingham during its building period forfunds with which to continue its building andsecured about $900,000. The Alabama BaptistState Convention created a capital fund from theproceeds of The Cooperative Program, and thecollege to date has received from that source $3,-435,000. The old campus property was sold for$500,000.

It will be noted that the larger part of the fi-nancing of the program for the development ofthe new campus came from the Alabama BaptistState Convention's capital funds program. Theinitiation of this program and the appropriationof the funds from it to Howard College are evi-dences of the fine support given the college by theBaptists of the State of Alabama.

After the payment for the site, for the installa-tion of utilities, and for the paving of the drive-ways and walkways, there remained cash on handof approximately $500,000, which was the esti-mated cost of the administration building. Thepresident suggested that the contract for thisbuilding be let.

The building committee, however, did not con-sider it wise to begin the erection of buildingswith such a limited fund. The old campus andthe new campus were so far removed from eachOther that it was not practicable to do part of thecollege work on each campus. Rather it was theopinion of the building committee that sufficientfunds should be on hand to assure the constructionof a sufficient number of buildings to move theentire college work to the new campus before theerection of any building was commenced. Thisproblem was presented to the Alabama BaptistState Convention.

Contributicti of the Alabama Baptist StateConvention

In preparation for the presentation of thisproblem to the Convention, the architects madesketches of the proposed buildings needed to move

103

all the college work to the new campus; prepareda campus map showing the driveways and walk-ways which had been paved and the location ofeach proposed building; and gave an estimate ofthe cost of the work, which was approximately$7,500,000.

The Convention was asked to consider whetheror not it would approve this great undertakingand assure its aid in financing it. By unanimousvote the Convention approved the plan of develop-ment of the new campus, the $7,500,000 expendi-ture, and voted for the development of the collegecampus a large portion of its capital funds for a5-year period.

The Convention also requested the board oftrustees to proceed with the construction of build-ings as rapidly as finances would permit. Thisaction of the Convention relieved the buildingcommittee and the board of trustees of the respon-sibility of beginning the erection of buildings witha limited amount of funds, and it also committedthe Convention to a considerable part of the financ-

ing of the program.Soon after the approval of the proposed devel-

opment by the Convention, the contract was letfor the erection of the administration building ata cost of something over $500,000. This buildingis now known as Frank Park Samford Hall. Theconstruction of this building encouraged greatlythe subscriptions of new funds by individuals, andit also increased considerably the collections ofpast subscriptions. The funds from sources here-tofore mentioned have enabled the college to con-tinue its building program until this day. Thecollege has completed 10 beautiful buildings at acost of $9 million, which figure includes streets andland improvements as well as buildings, and hasunder construction another building which whencompleted will have cost $1 million.

Borrowing From the College Housing Fund ofthe Federal Government

The college purchased its site, made its improve-

ments, and constructed its buildings on a cashbasis, except for the two dormitories, which costapproximately $2 million. The money for thedormitories was secured through the Housing andHome Finance Agency of the U.S. Governmentunder the College Housing Act. By cash it ismeant that only temporary loans were secured in


anticipation of assured funds which would beavailable within a few months.

The president's residence, a short distance fromthe campus site, was purchased with the proceedsof a bequest to the college. The owner from whomthis property was purchased made a price which,in effect, constituted a substantial gift.

Financing Current Operations

In a financial undertaking of such magnitudeand under the existing conditions, it was realizedthat there might be a tendency to sacrifice thefinancial intertst of the members of the faculty toaccomplish the great goal. To prevent this therewere set up two budgetsone a building budgetand the other the operational budget of the col-legeand the building budget was not permittedto infringe upon the operational budget. Duringthis period faculty salaries were raised, social se-curity was adopted, a policy was taken with anold line insurance company to provide an annuityfor retired faculty members, and another policywas taken with an old line insurance company toprovide sickness and hospital benefits for thefaculty and employees.

PLaning the Move

When it became apparent that the college wouldbe compelled to move before the master plan ofdevelopment could be completed, the facultybuilding committee was requested to review itsoriginal recommendations and advise the mini-mum number of buildings needed in order to move,indicating the number of classrooms and labora-tories to be used during the hours of peak loadfor a student body of about 1,200, the enrollmentthen anticipated for the target day for the moveto the new campus. The committee consideredthat two laboratory buildings would be necessaryfor the initial operation. Laboratories not neededat first could be -Ned as classrooms, without thelaboratory furnishings and with the plumbingstubbed at the wall or floor. The initial needstotaled 42 classrooms and 18 laboratories.

At the time of the move in the summer of 195)/the college was compelled to use some space in atemporary way. The main floor and a daylightbasement of the library building were assigned tothe library. This space devoted to library use

approximately four times that which had beenused by the library at the old campus. The con-struction of the new library was such that the twoupper floors could be reached without enteringthe space used for library purposes. These twoupper stories were temporarily divided into class-rooms and a small auditorium. It was realizedthat a library building should be used only for alibrary, but circumstances required otherwise andthis temporary arrangement enabled the collegeto move all its work to the new campus. Subse-

quent erection of other buildings is permitting therelinquishing of these two floors to the library.

Before actually beginning the moving opera-tions, it was necessary to survey the existing equip-ment on the old campus for that which was to bemoved to the new site. It was also necessary todetermine the room on the new campus to whicheach specific piece of equipment was to be moved.When that survey was made, all equipment waslabeled specifically for a particular office or roomon the new campus, by building and room number.This was done for all equipment except tablet-armchairs.

There were 12 fully equipped laboratories onthe old campus from which all desks, furniture,and laboratory supplies had to be moved. Theunique problem in disconnecting plumbing, dis-assembling laboratory tables, and reassemblingafter the move necessitated employment of a localcontractor who specialized in moving and install-ing laboratory desks and other furniture. It sub-sequently developed that this same contractor wasthe successful bidder on the installation of the newequipment purchased for the laboratories on thenew campus.

Even though the bedroom equipment was built-in during the construction of the residence halls,it was necessary to move lounge furnishings,chests, and certain other items to the new location.

Preliminary inquiries to the local movers re-sulted in the mention of estimates of cost that farexceeded what the college had considered that itwas able to pay. ,Because of this problem it wasthen decided that the college personnel could dothe moving.

The timing of the move was of considerableimportance. The summer session had been ar-ranged with longer class sessions so as to be con-cluded after two 5-week terms. Also in that par-

HOWARD COLLEGE

ticular year, 1957, the opening date of the regularsession was postponed by 1 week. This provided5 weeks in which the college could be moved afterthe close of the summer session.

With the laboratory personnel packing all thelaboratory equipment and with many of the officepersonnel packing office supplies in advance of themoving date, it was possible to proceed immedi-ately after the termination of summer classes andto conclude the moving process within the 5 weeks,using all the college trucks, purchasing a fewconveyors, and renting one tractor trailer truckfor that period of time.

Some additional personnel was necessary forthe loading and unloading of the trucks. Stu-dents and faculty members volunteered to jointhe moving activity at a nominal cost to the col-lege. At first, the moving process seemed to be amonumental and nearly impossible task. How-ever, when it was broken down into assignmentsover a large group of people, and given adequatesupervision, it yielded, like all other difficult tasks,to a simple formula of plenty of hard work andplanning.

Moving the Library

The newly appointed librarian, F. WilburHelmbold, without the advantage of previous ex-perience, planned and executed the moving of thelibrary while continuing uninterrupted service tothe students and with no more than 18 hours'delay on research material.

With the new bookstacks and furniture orderedwell in advance and installed before the begin-ning of the moving operation, the librarian wasable to compute the approximate formula for anexpansion of about 100 percent in the circulationstacks, a slightly smaller expansion in the shelv-ing area, and an approximately 300 percent ex-pansion in the reading areas. After the shelvingarea was calculated and plotted on diagrams, theholdings of the old library, including all its mis-cellaneous collections, were surveyed by categories,by areas, and by departments. On the basis of theshelves available in the specific areas in the newlibrary, the categories, areas, and departmentswere assigned to their prospective places in thenew library, with proper consideration for the need

105

for broader shelves or wider spacing betweenshelves, that is, for large art books, etc.

The actual operation was performed by twocrews of workmen. Each crew consisted of onefaculty member and four student assistants. Thelibrarian coordinated the work between the crewsand between the two campuses. The faculty mem-bers were chosen for strong orientation in the useof library materials and for a meticulous sense oforganization in their own scholarly activities.

Initially, both crews worked on the old campusfor about a week, placing books in the boxes, seal-ing them with tape, and numbering them accord-ing to the previous plan for shelf arrangement.Hundreds of packing boxes were obtained fromthe incoming shipments of shelves previouslyinstalled on the new campus. Thus each had theapproximate size of a standard shelf of books.The boxes were handled in numerical rotationto their destination.

After the first week the crews were divided.One worked in the new building, unloading, whilethe other remained on the old location. Throughthe use of both motorized and gravity conveyors,materials were moved directly out of second-storywindows and basement locations, avoiding the useof stairways. By planning two trips a day, eachinvolving approximately 100 cartons of books, themoving operation, though spread over a long pe-riod of time, provided for almost immediate avail-ability of any bool_r that had been moved.

The card catalog, the tables and chairs, thereserve room materials, the periodical collections,and the old shelving were all retained on the oldcampus for immediate use by the summer studentsand faculty. Those items were then moved to thenew campus after the summer session.

Through such im arrangement the library wasfully ready for use at least 1 month before theopening of the fall semester and 1 week after theclose of the summer session on the old campus.All of this was accomplished with a minimum ofexpense and with a minimum use of movingequipment, though it made long work days for thelibrarian and his associates. (Incidentally, thelibrarian believes that no more rapid way couldbe found by which he could acquaint himself withthe book collection in the Howard CollegeLibrary.)

In establishing the goodwill essential for the


success of such a great project as a college move,it is necessary to have the support of the collegefaculty and of the student body. From the factsas stated here, it is evident that the college had theactive and loyal support of the faculty. It alsohad the cooperation of the student body as messen-gers of goodwill to all parts of the State.

Three persons who were assigned leading rolesin planning and moving from the old to the newcampus also aided in the preparation of this arti-cle. Dr. John A. Fincher, Dean of the College,was largely responsible for all faculty studies andother participation. Wilbur Helmbold, Librarian,arranged the method of transferring the library.H. Evan Zeiger, Business Manager, supervised thehandling of all equipment and furnishings movedto the new campus.

Conclusion

As this is a case study, it has emphasized cer-tain problems which would not arise with a tax-

supported college nor with an independentlyfinanced college. However insignificant they mayseem to those not familiar with the peculiar rela-tion and dependence of Howard College, theirsolution was vital to success.

Today the metropolitan area of Birminghamand the Baptists of Alabama have a rightfulpride in the beautiful campus of Howard College.The Alabama Baptist State Convention has beenincreasingly liberal in its support. In September1960, 500 more qualified students applied for en-trance to the college than could be accepted. Thecampus registration was over 2,000.

In the beginning, the undertaking of financialrehabilitation, the restoring of accreditation, thesecuring of popular approval for relocating thecampus, and the obtaining of sufficient funds tobuild an entirely new campus were considered bymost to be impossible, and the reward was greaterthan many anticipated. One by one each obstaclewas removed until finally there was a generalagreement that success was assured.

Chapter IX

ALTHOUGH ITS TRUE SIGNIFICANCE has only recently been realized,

the urban university and the city are natural partners in urban renewal andredevelopment activities, at least with regard to the university community.

The campus, built to last and kept urbanely manicured, is by nature anomalous

to the average city neighborhood whose private dwellings, tenements, commer-

cial establishments, and industries are usually conceived for the current gev,-

eration only. Deterioration sets in early and accelerates as the futility of the

effort of any one owner in putting money into maintenance or renewal becomes

evident. The most improvident owner becomes the pace-setter in the race

toward slumdom. Only massive corporate action will arrest the process of

decay.The classic example of cooperative, energetic, and effective measures initi-

ated by the administration of the university and implemented by public ap-

proval and civic authority is in the Hyde Park-Kenwood project of Chicago

in the neighborhood of the University of Chicago. In the case to follow,Julian H. Levi, Executive Director of the South East Chicago Commission,

documents the steps that were taken to arrest the growth of the slums and

initiate a cycle of restoration before the disease became incurable.

In this instance there were differing degrees of blight, each requiring

individual treatment, and differing degrees of pertinence to the university,

measured mainly by the proximity to the campus proper. The city was con-

cerned with the whole area of southeast Chicago; the university, with limited

funds, had to concentrate mainly on neighborhoods inhabited by its faculty

and students. However, due to the enactment of Section 112 of the FederalHousing Act in 1959, the money spent by the university on its own properties

within the previous 5 years qualified for matching Federal funds for the city's

wider redevelopment operations.As dramatized by Hr. Levi's documents, the job was not an easy one. First

the aroused people of the area had to be given a vehicle of expression. This

vehicle became the South East Chicago Commission. Then the existing re-

strictions, compliance with which would prevent abuses leading to accelerated

deterioration, had to be enforced. This took organization. Properties which

had deteriorated too far to be salvaged, had to be acquired, the occupants re-

located and the structures demolished. This took money. Finally, the whole

area had to be planned for redevelopment with balanced provision for decent

homes, for comfortable apartments, for parks, for schools, for churches, for

social agencies, for police and fire stations, for playgrounds, and for shopping

centers.There was organized resistance. Opponents who opposed it on many dif-

ferent grounds had to be heard. Hard-headed realists had to be persuaded.

630581 0-62--8107


Not only did the public authority have to be invoiced at the city level but Statestatutes had to be amended and interpreted so as to cover the situation. Thequalifying requirements of the Federal Housing Act for Federal aid had to bemet.

The University of Chicago thus has pioneered in a project of sufficientscope to offer a pattern of action for many another urban university whichfinds itself in a similar predicament. It used the talents of its faculty and staffin such a way as to refute idle insinuations that professors are good only forivory towers or ivy-covered walls. It showed that the urban university can be

and is a vital part of its community, its city, its State, and its Nation, ratherthan an island of highbrow superciliousness.

Expanding the University of ChicagoBY

JULIAN H. LEVI

Executive Director, South East ChicagoCommission

N THE LAST DECADE of the NineteenthCentury, at the time of the founding of the Univer-sity of Chicago, a land company offered to giveproperty for the enterprise if it would settle inMorgan Park, a suburb of the city of Chicago.The founder and the organizers of the Universityof Chicago determined otherwise. They deter-mined that the university they sought to establishshould be an urban, not a suburban, university;part of a city supported by the facilities and op-portunities of urban life and, in converse, affectedthereby.

Historical BackgroundAlthough the University of Chicago began

with a campus limited to three square city blocks,John D. Rockefeller, Sr., with prescience, recog-nized that the institution he was founding wouldrequire far more area. Thomas Goodspeed, inhis history of the University of Chicago, tells thestory :

In the first days of the University the enlargementof the site from three blocks to four, an addition ofsix or seven acres, was looked upon as a most impor-tant and significant step in expansion. It was agreat step in a transformation which changed thecharacter and scope and outlook of the young institu-tion. Compared, however, with the enlargement ofthe site in this second period of expansion, it wasin3ignificant. This second movement in site enlarge-ment was a progressive one. It had a very small

beginning. Immediately following the raising of themillion dollars in ninety days in Chicago in 1892,the Trustees purchased the corner of Fifty-eighthStreet and Ellis Avenue, the site on which the PressBuilding was later erected. In 1893 John Johnston,Jr. gave to the University the site for the Observa-tory at Lake Geneva, more than fifty acres of ground,to which small pieces were added from time to timeby purchase, increasing the grounds to seventy-oneand a half acres. Early in 1894, lots were purchasedon the northeast corner of Fifty-ninth Street andUniversity Avenue on which the President's Housewas built. In 1898 Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Fieldunited in adding to the site the two blocks north ofthe central quadrangles, to be used for athletic pur-poses. No name being officially given to thesegrounds they were, for a number of years, called bythe students and the public Marshall Field. In 1914,however, the Trustees, responding to the desire ofthe students and alumni that their admiration andaffection for the "Old Man"1 might receive recogni-tion, formally and officially made the name StaggField. In 1901 Mr. Rockefeller purchased for theUniversity, as a location for the power plant, thewest half of the block between Ingleside and EllisAvenues and Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Streets,and Mr. Ryersen, about the same time, presentedmost of the east half of the same block. The year1901 also marked the gift by Mr. Rockefeller of theentire block south of the one just named, thus pro-tecting the quadrangles on the west from any possibleundesirable occupancy. For this same purposeprotecting the quadranglesthe three hundred feetsouth of Fitty-seventh Street, opposite the ReynoldsClub House and Mandel Assembly Hall, were pur-chased. During the years 1901 and 1902, the Scam-mon block was secured as the site of the School ofEducation.

1 Amos Alonzo Stagg.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Meantime Mr. Rockefeller, looking far into thefuture, and anticipating the continued developmentof the institution he had founded, entered upon aseries of transactions fairly bewildering in their prom-ise of steps in expansion yet to be made. He in-structed Major H. A. Rust, the University businessmanager, to begin to purchase for him lands in anyand all the blocks fronting south on the Midway Plai-sance for a distance of about three-quarters of a mile,from Washington Park on the west to DorchesterAvenue on the east. Purchases were to be made asquietly as possible through different agencies, so thata prohibitive rise in the price of real estate mightnot take place.

In February, 1903, Mr. Wallace Heckman was ap-pointed business manager to succeed Major Rust,who, having reached the age of seventy, had resignedafter more than eight years of useful service. Thecommission to continue these purchases of land wasnow transferred to Mr. Heckman and was so industri-ously executed by him that in December, 1903, Mr.Rockefeller gave to the University lands north ofthe Midway Plaisance, which, in the letter of gift,were estimated to have cost fifteen hundred thousanddollars. Mr. Heckman was encouraged to continuehis purchases, and in the end the University founditself in possession, lacking perhaps four hundredfeet front on said streets, of the entire ten blocksfrom Washington Park to Dorchester Avenue, in-cluding the whole of the Midway front There weremany dwelling and apartment houses on these blocks,but all were purchased and deeded to the University,the rents adding appreciably to the annual income.The total cost to Mr. Rockefeller of these purchasesnorth of the Midway was one million, six hundredand forty-seven thousand dollars.

But this was not all. Mr. Rockefeller seems tohave determined, while he was about it, so to enlargethe University grounds as to make provision for anypossible future expansion. Mr. Heckman, therefore,was encouraged to transfer his purchasing activitiesto the blocks fronting on the Midway Plaisance alongits southern boundary. This he was not backwardin doing, and pushed the good work so successfullythat in a few years he had secured the Midway fronton the south for the entire distance covered by theholdings on the north side, about three-quarters of amile. When these lands south of the Plaisance wereall turned over to the University, it was found thatthese. extraordinary purchases north and south of theMidway Plaisance had, together, cost Mr. Rockefellerthree million, two hundred and twenty-nine thousand,seven hundred and seventy-five dollars. As has beenpointed out this was a step in expansion taken bythe Founder himself on his own initiative. Althoughthere was among the Trustees more or less knowledgeof what he was having done, no one had any positiveassurance that the purchased blocks would ba givento the University. They were purchased for Mr.

109

Rockefeller. They belonged to him to do with as he

pleased. The University did not ask him for them.The purchases and the successive gifts were his ownacts, quite uninfluenced by anyone connected withthe University. When these purchases were addedto the University grounds the new Chicago campuswas found to comprise not quite a hundred acres.'

Accordingly, in 1951 the campus of the univer-sity consisted of approximately 100 acres, lying onboth sides of the Midway Plaisance between 55thand 61st Streets. In the 60 years since the found-ing of the institution, more than $200 million incapital facilities had been built.

From the early days of the institution, the fac-ulty of the university resided within the universitycommunity. That fact was one which the uni-

versity prized. Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins,in 1950, aptly put the point :

Today a university can consider itself fortunate ifits members live in the same neighborhood and havefrequent social contacts ; if it has an architectual planthat brings the members of the faculty into easyprofessional association and an academic organizationthat requires them all, however occasionally andsuperficially, to consider together the affairs of theuniversity or any other problem outside their spec-ialties. The importance of these items ohould not be

underestimated ; for, to take one example, the in-fluence on speculative and practical studies of havingthe professional schools at a distance, frequently ata great distance, from the universities of which theyare nominally a part has been uniformly bad. * * *A university should be an intellectual community inwhich specialists, discoverers, and experimenters, inaddition to their obligation to their specialties, recog-nize an obligation to talk with and understand oneanother.

Beginning of the Blight

As early as 1945 the university recognized thatthe steady deterioration of its neighborhood wasa source of pressing concern. Chancellor Hutch-ins, in his State of the University message for thatyear, reported :

For the last fifteen years the University neighbor-hood has steadily deteriorated, until today, I amashamed to say, the University has the unfortunatedistinction of having the worst-housed faculty in theUnited States.

And again, in 1949, he observed :

2 A History of the Un'ersity of Chicago, by Thomas Good-speed (University of Chicago Press, 1616) p. 336-338.


Although the matter of housing and the improve-ment of the University neighborhood is receivingcontinuing study by the Trustees, insufficient progresshas been made. This is one of the urgent problemsof the University.

Lawrence A. Kimpton became Chancellor of theUniversity of Chicago in 1951. The neighborhoodproblem of the University of Chicago was seen byhim as one of the great challenges of his steward-ship. The burden of this history is to recount howthe University of Chicago, under the leadership ofChancellor Kimpton and three successive chair-men of its board of trustees, Laird Bell, EdwardL. Ryerson, and Glen Lloyd rose to the twin chal-lenges of a compatible community and an urgentneed for campus expansion.

Mass Meetings of Aroused Neighbors

On March 27, 1952, a mass meeting of citizensinterested in law enforcement was held at MandelHall. That meeting resulted in the appointmentof a committee of five, under the chairmanship ofChancellor Lawrence Kimpton.

The committee reported at a second mass meet-ing on May 19, 1952:

On March 27 the citizens of our community mettogether in this hall, Some were frightened, otherswere outraged by the trend in the community. Notonly was crime on the increase, but the Wood lawnand Hyde Park police districts had one of the highestcrime rates of any area in the city. People wereafraid to be on the streets after dark. Their deepconcern and righteous indignation were clearly re-flected in the large gathering of the citizenry.

The meeting had a very real and a very greateffect that went far beyond what actually occurredin thin hall. The city, as a whole, and our city of-ficials were deeply impressed with the sense of out-rage and frustration expressed here. And I can tellyou that this expression accomplished some real re-sults, in spite of the recent unfortunate occurrences.I venture to say that the Hyde rzrk District, at themoment, is the best policed area in the City of Chi-cago. We intend to accomplish the same results inWood lawn. And then we mean to keep them thatway. Our local police captain has retired and beenreplaced by a police trouble-shooter, Captain AlbertAnderson. One can see patrolmen on duty on thestreets both day and night, and cruising patrol cars.Sixteen additional foot patrolmen have been assignedto the area for duty on the night shifts, and fourwomen erossing-guards have released four policemenfor patrol duty. Some taverns have been closed, andsome shabby ones have been cleaned up. Even park-

ing violators are being vigorously prosecuted. Ingangland terminology, the heat is on. This much wasvery definitely accomplished by our last mass meetingand subsequent activities.

Now let's not be fooled by this. Tbr.,re is nothingso illusory and ephemeral as a reform movementunless the reformers go right on reforming. Theonly way to keep the heat on is to keep the furnacestoked. And this is the job to which every man andwoman in our community must be dedicated.

Another result of our mass meeting was the ap-pointment of the committee which is making its reportto you this evening. We began meeting at once. Wehave talked, at length, both formally and informally,with many persons who have special knowledge withrespect to the problems of our neighborhood andtheir solution. Although, as Dr. Mann pcints out,this has been the hardest working committee ofwhich he has ever been a member, there are manymore persons we should like to have consulted hadtime permitted.

As the report observed, the committee met dayafter day between the March and May dates. Thecommittee interviewed more than 30 authoritiesfrom various disciplines. It recognized the neces-sity for a "short -ran and immediate objective * * *about which something could be clone at once."It then undertook to consider "a long-range pro-gram of community development which wouldkeep this lake shore area a decent and desirableplace in which to live and do business." Uponthat basis it then suggested a program :

First, we propose the establishment of a permanentorganizatiou to be known, tentatively at least, as theSouth East Chicago Commission. We recommendthe establishment of an office in the Hyde ParkYMCA Building on Fifty-third Street, with a full-time professional staff. One of the functions of thisoffice will be to act as a listening post for our entirecommunity. Anyone within the community can callor visit the office at any hour and report anythingthat he or she regards as an irregularity. This per-manent organization will have a head who will directits activities and develop plans for an expanded pro-gram of community improvement. The staff willmake detailed inspections from day to day, week toweek, and month to month, of the operation of thepolice. It will be their job to determine how manypolice are assigned to the area, how many squad carsare patrolling the area, and what supervision is exer-cised over the activities of the force. This, in effect,means that we are going to see that the local policecaptains do their job.

Not only are we ready to start work in the morn-ing, but the committee is authorized to announce thatif the permanent organization is set up, we have a

it


cheek for $1,000 contributed by an anonymous donorto turn over to it.

Another function of the staff will be to keep closecheck on the sale of real estate within our area. Itis our intention to watch what occurs when a prop-erty changes hands, and, if any move is made towardillegal conversion, we shall, in cooperation with theexisting community organizations, raise hell ! Wecan enlist powerful people and groups in the com-munity, mobilize the public-spirited citizens of ourcity, and enlist the newspapers in our cause. If oneor two of these illegal conversions are stopped andpublicized, it will serve as a deterrent to future at-tempts at this kind of exploitation. Nobody is goingto make a fast buck at the expense of our community.

We recommend, however, that the Board of Direc-tors give serious consideration to the followingpossible projects :

1. Street lighting improvement. The necessity forimprovement in the street lighting facilities wasurged by every expert we consulted. . . .

2. Organization of volunteer police observer corps.A citizens' volunteer corps could serve on a "spotcheck" basis as observers of operations at the HydePark and Woodlawn police stations.

3. Tavern, survey. An inspection of all taverns inthe community should be made to insure compliancewith the law. Violators will be closed through localoption campaigns or other action.

4. Physical survey of the area. The importanceof setting up and maintaining a catalog of the physi-cal condition of the area through a comprehensiveinventory on a building-by-building and block-by-block basis was urged by a number of the experts weconsulted. . . . This information would reveal anexisting conversions and facilitate detection and pre-vention of future attempts at illegal conversions. Inaddition, it would provide necessary information forarea conservation or rehabilitation programs.

5. Conservation and rehabilitation,. One of themost challenging suggestions made to the committeewas the possibility of an effective conservation andrehabilitation program for specific buildings or evenwhole blocks or sections of the area. In this con-nection, I should like to mention the need for plan-ning within our community. There are those whohave a deep suspicion of planners, and this is under-standable. It is meaningless to build up a big chartor mock-up if the net result is only to sit around andadmire it. On the other hand, it is hard to knowwhat you are going to do until there is some over-allplan for what ought to be done. We need new andimproved hoftsing in the area. We must try to in-terest insurance companies and other sources ofcapital in a program of rehabilitation or orderly con-version of some of the existing buildings in the areaand the erection of new housing units. All this in-

111

evitably involves some planning and, even more im-portant, doing something about the plan, once it ismade. There are already existing agencies whichhave done a great deal of work in the field of plan-ning, and the new organization should co-operateclosely with them.

6. "Lock your car" campaign. In view of the factthat car looting and car thefts represent a substan-tial portion of the crimes in the area, the organizationof a "lock your car" campaign, with appropriate re-minder "tickets" for violators to be served by youthvolunteer check-up crews, was recommended to thecommittee.

7. Volunteer crossing guards. . . . The possibilityof using volunteers to relieve patrolmen now assignedto crossing duty should be examined further.

8. Organization of block groups. The programs ofblock organization now being carried on in the areahave proved constructive in furthering communitystability. These programs should be assisted andexpanded, so far as possible through the organizationsnow fostering them.

9. Volunteer court observers. Many of the arrestsfor crimes committed and prosecutions for illegalconversions come to nothing because of failure ofadequate court presentation and follow-up. The re-sources of the organizations now working in thisarea need to be reinforced and co-ordinated. Volun-teer court observers working with lawyers engagedby the Commission could effect substantial improve-ment in obtaining convictions and the imposition ofproper sentences or fines.

10. Control of juvenile marauders. Some more ef-fective program for control and supervision of thegangs of young toughs in the area should be workedout.

11. Co-operation, and co-ordination with othergroups. The Commission will co-operate with suchorganizations as the Citizens of Greater Chicago,formerly the Big 19, the Chicago Crime Commission,the South Side Planning Board, and other organiza-tions like ours which may be set up in other areas.

Because we believe the details of internal organiza-tion should be studied further before setting themup in final form, we are recommending that a tem-porary or provisional organizing committee or boardof directors be designated. This group will directthe activities of the Commission for a period of sixmonths, after which a permanent constitution andby-laws can be adopted by the members and a per-manent board of other governing body elected. . . .

One of the first jobs of the provisional board, ofcourse, will be to engage the Commission's profes-sional staff. If the Committee's report is adopted thisevening, we are prepared to recommend the namesof sixty distinguished and representative members ofthe community who have agreed to serve, and wepropose that the additional fifteen members be op-


pointed by the provisional board of directors fromsuggestions made by members of the community. Theballot provides space to enable you to make yourrecommendations for these additional board members.

The University of Chicago left no doubt aboutits position :

The University of Chicago has a deep interest anda tremendous stake in our community. We are hereto stay, and we are dedicated to the kind of commun-ity that is appropriate for our faculty members andour students. Believing in the absolute necessity ofgetting some kind of permanent organization to workon the problems of crime and law enforcement, TheUniversity of Chicago will contribute $15,000 to theCommission's budget for the first year if the com-munity will raise at least an equivalent amount. Inaddition, the University will pledge at least $10,000in each of the succeeding four years on the same basis.To enable the office to be opened at once and a staffto be engaged, the University will make available thenecessary funds from its first year's contribution.

The permanent nature of the program wasemphasized :

Our activity is going to be permanent and it is goingto hit hard. We are not indulging in a passing burstof indignation. We are determined to get somethingdone, now and in the years ahead.

A Committee of Five and a Program

The years which followed filled in the charterof the Committee of Five. The work of that com-mittee in the few weeks between March 27 andMay 19, 1952, laid out a course and a programfrom which there has been no substantial devia-

tion.The commitment of the University to the South

East Chicago Commission was reiterated by Chan-cellor Kimpton in his State of the UniversityReport of October 14, 1952 :

The neighborhood surrounding the University hascome to occupy an increasing amount of concern andenergy on the part of both faculty and administration.It is extremely important that we maintain a com-munity in which our faculty desire to live and inwhich our students will be secure. In order to com-bat the forces of uncertainty and deterioration atwork in the neighborhood, the University has takenthe initiative in the organization of the South EastChicago Commission. It is concerned to organize thetotal community in order to stabilize it and preventfurther flight from the area. Its more specific pro-gram is to fight crime, prevent illegal conversions,organize the citizenry within each block, and begin a

long-term project of neighborhood planning and im-

provement. This program is designed to supplementthe existing activity of the University in makingloans to faculty members for housing within the areaand in buying up and rehabilitating deterioratedproperty.

Our tradition at the University of Chicagoof free-dom, of unity, and of qualityis a great one. Theseare difficult times in which to maintain it. The in-flationary spiral, the temptation of easy moneythrough trifling service projects, the pressure to for-sake principle for popularity, the nagging of a budgetthat seeks a balance, the human desire to meet allrequests with an agreeable affirmativethese forcesall conspire to turn us from our proper path. Plato,somewhere in the REPUBLIC, is asked if the heav-enly city will ever be realized upon earth, and heanswers that we must turn our eyes up to behold theeternal archetype and then down to observe and in-fluence the affairs of men. Only thus can our houseprogressively be put in order and can we approach theideal.

The South East fthicago Commission Is Formed

True to prediction, the South East ChicagoCommission began business on May 20, 1952. I5r.

Ursula Stone, one of the Committee of Five, as-sumed the responsibilities of the temporary direc-torship of the Commission. Between that dateand September 1, 1952, when a permanent staffhad been assembled, certain fundamental policieswere developed :

1. The Commission's interest in law enforcementwould not involve vigilante activities nor the em-ployment of private investigators. Attention would,rather, be directed to detailed, ongoing, statisticalanalysis of police performance in the area, with par-ticular attention as to the adequacy of the manpowerassigned, offenses occurring, arrests made, and thepercentage of crimes solved. Dr. D. T. Blackiston, asociologist of wide background and experience, onSeptember 1, 1952, assumed the responsibility forthose statistical analyses. His efforts have accom-plished a steady improvement in the level of lawenforcement.

2. The Commission would assume special respon-sibilities in cooperation with other community organi-zations, particularly the Hyde Park-Senwood Com-munity Conference, in the enforcement of the housing,building and zoning codes of the city. Shortly afterthe organization of permanent staff, the board of di-rectors of the commission authorized the employmentof a retired fire captain as the commission's inspec-

tor. Although such an inspector had no legal au-thority or power whatsoever, through the cooperation

rr


of tenants, janitors, and, sometimes, owners, he wasable to make inspections of premises about whichthe commission had received complaints. His de-tailed knowledge and reports not only enabled theaccurate report of facts and complaints where war-ranted, but also prevented the transmittal of un-founded complaints to the public authorities. De-tailed codification of inspection reports, title andmortgage data, carried out under the direction of D. T.Blackiston, eventually developed files at the commis-sion disclosing property ownership, mortgage financ-ing, identity of real estate tax payments, propertycondition, crimes committed, and place of residenceof persons arrested on almost all properties in thearea. This unique material was of essential value insubsequent planning programs. Moreover, throughcross-referencing by name and address, patterns ofactivity of known slum operators and their financialresources- were exposed.

3. The tasks of community coordination, relation-ships with real estate management firms and propertyowners, as well as staff se vice to the finance com-mittee were assumed by Miss Sarah Wexler in Octo-ber 1952. The budget of the commission for its firstfiscal year was set at $30,000. In subsequent years itwas increased to $48,500 per annum. Throughout theexistence of the commission this budget has been met.The university, for the first year, in accordance withits commitment, contributed $15,000. In subsequentyears its contribution has been $10,000 per annum.

4. In June of 1952 the University of Chicago under-wrote a portion of the costs of a special study of theproblems of community conservation by the Metro-politan Housi-ig and Planning Council of Chicago.The purposes of such a study were summarized inthe letter of transmittal upon its completion onJanuary 31, 1953:

1. To determine and define the problems ofconservation to ascertain the causes of com-munity disintegration so that efforts for t-terment may be directed primarily against thesecauses rather than the resulting conditions ;

2. To determine a solution, or solutions, sinceno single formula will satisfy all the varyingproblems ;

3. To determine new legislative and financialmeans should present legal and financial methodsbe found inadequate to develop and maintaincommunity conservation programs ;

4. To determine a program for the effectuationof the proposals involving, in addition to legis-lative and financial proposals, a method of com-munity participation through existing and neworganizations and new procedures.

A. C. Svoboda, assistant treasurer of the univer-sity, served on the committee directing the study.Prof. Philip M. Hauser, now chairman of the

113

department of sociology, served as consulting so-ciologist. The study, comprising some threevolumes, laid the foundations of much of the legis-lation hereafter described.

State Legislation Is Recommended

Following completion of the ConservationStudy in January 1953, legislation implementingits general recommendations was introduced intothe Illinois General Assembly. This legislationultimately came to take the following generalforms :

1. A recognition that as a matter of public policythe prevention of slum and blight was as much inthe public interest as Ur eradication thereof. Thisconcept, embodied in the Illinois Urban CommunityConservation Act, enabled municipalities to createConservation Boards who, with the authority of thegoverning body of the municipality, might promulgateand carry out conservation plans for conservationareas. Such plans might provide for :

(1) land uses, residential and non-residential ;(2) improvement, alteration, or vacation ofmajor and minor streets and alleys, provisionfor restricted service access, and off-street park-ing; (3) locations and easements for public util-ities; (4) community facilities ; (5) landscapingand site engineering ; (6) building restrictions ;(7) recommended construction including newbuildings, rehabilitation and conversions, demoli-tion of designated structures, and elimination ofnon-conforming uses ; (8) population density,ground coverage, and number of dwelling unitsrecommended ; (9) recommended standards ofmaintenance, and requirements of applicablehealth and safety ordinances ; (10) zoning and/or rezoning required ; (11) costs and financingarrangements of public portions of the plan ; (12)recommended time table of various stages of theprogram ; (13) any and all other steps neededto carry out the plan. ( Smith-Hurd, IllinoisRevised Statutes, Chapters 671/2, Section 91.12).

In order to carry out the plan the Conservation Boardmight acquire properties by right of eminent domain,relocate the pr :sons residing therein, demolish thestructures, and sell the cleared land at a write-downprice to a redeveloper.

2. In 1941 Illinois had enacted the NeighborhoodRedevelopment Corporation Act. As originallyadopted, the law provided that any three personsmight organize a Neighborhood Redevelopment Cor-poration to operate within a slum and blighted area ;that the corporation might file a plan of redevelop-ment and, in the evc..t that the corporation planwas approved after public hearing by a special mu-


nicipal commission set up under the act by the mu-nicipality and if the corporation had purchased, oracquired options to purchase, 60 percent of the areacovered by the plan, that thereupon the corporationcould exercise the right of eminent domain to acquirethe balance of the development area. The financingof the Neighborhood Redevelopment 'Corporation wasto be derived entirely from private sources. No publicmoney was involved. The constitutionality of theact has been upheld in the test case of Zurn v. Cityof Chicago, 389 Ill. 114 (1945).

The Conservation Report of the MetropolitanHousing and Planning Council dealt with the possi-bility of using the Neighborhood Redevelopment Cor-poration Law as a vehicle for community conserva-tion :

It might be possible to amend the Act so thatits field of operations would include conservationareas, retaining the administrative mechanismand the neighborhood corporation idea. Severalshortcomings appear, however.

1. The program is dependent purely on localinitiative. Whether or not a conservation pro-gram is undertaken depends on the willingnessof private capital to undertake the program. Theavailability of capital is liable to be inverselyproportional to the needs of the area and thereis no guarantee that any conservation programwill be implemented if left purely to privatestimulus.

2. The public role is largely neglected. It isgenerally agreed that reorganization of existingpowers and additions to those powers are neces-sary if the governmental and law enforcementframework necessary to conservation is to beachieved. A revamped act along the lines of thepresent act would completely ignore thoseaspects.

3. The necessary scope of eminent domain isnot granted. The requirement that 60 percentof the land in an area need already be pur-chased or under option is unreasonable as ap-plied to conservation areas where much less than100 percent of the area is to be acquired. Thegranting of eminent domain to private corpora-tions may be unwise from a public policy stand-point if not from a legal one.

Despite these shortcomings, the idea of a pub-lic commission cooperating with private corpora-tions in the field of conservation is an attractiveone. The possibility of such an arrangementwith operating powers vested in the commissionwill be considered in the section on recommenda-tions.°

Nevertheless, Chancellor Kimpton and the

3 Conservation. Volume Three, Metropolitan Housing andPlanning Council, p. 254. (January 1953)..

Board of Directors of the South East ChicagoCommission determined to proceed. They feltthat a Neighborhood Redevelopment Corporationdevice would form a useful vehicle for the invest-ment of private funds and the development ofminimum standards of rehabilitation and mainte-nance in conservation areas. They were also in-flnenced by the fact that despite the possibleenactment of the Urban Community ConservationAct, no method of public financing had been devel-oped. In fact, public financing did not emergeuntil the enactment of the 1954 Amendmentsto Federal Housing legislation. Accordingly,amendments to the Neighborhood RedevelopmentCorporation Act were proposed enlarging thesphere of operation of a Neighborhood Redevelop-ment Corporation to a conservation area, provid-ing that the conservatior plan could include mini-mum standards of rehabilitation and maintenance,as well as acquisition, and providing further thatthe plan would become binding, after approval atpublic hearing, in the event that the corporationsecured the consent of the owners of more than 60percent of land area affected by the developmentplan.

The amendments were adopted by the IllinoisGeneral Assembly in 1953. On July 13, 1953,Gov. William G. Stratton approved the UrbanCommunity Conservation Act and the amend-ments to the Neighborhood Redevelopment Cor-poration Act.

Surveying the Area for Eligibility for Redevelop-ment

In the summer of 1953 the University ofChicago, the South East Chicago Commission,and the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Con-ference acted jointly in requesting the ChicagoLand Clearance Commission to undertake an eli-gibility survey of an area lying east of the univer-sity campus between 53d and 57th Streets. Priorto this time, that agency had acted only in areaswhich were completely slum and blight. Theproposal now urged was that slum clearancepowers be used in support of an existing commun-ity and its institutions.

On November 10, 1953, Chancellor Kimpton, inhis report on the state of the University, wrote :

I come finally to the third of our component parts

4


our physical properties and those that closely sur-round us. And I should like to begin with the prob-

lems of :r community. . . . They may be the prob-lems that none of us likes to face, those we thoughtwould leave our door if we sat still and pretended wewere not home. From the beginning I have regardedthe problem of our community as one of our para-mount problems.

Two years have done much to change the face andcharacter of our community, thanks to the vigorousleadership of the South East Chicago Commission,in which the University has played an active role.Since many of these improvements are visible toanyone who has lived here for some years, I shallconcern myself with some of those that are about tocome. New Stare legislation has been procuredwhereby neighborliood corporations can organize andthrough control of sixty percent of the property ofan area can obtain eminent domain rights over theremaining forty percent. For the first time, we havea tool with which we can force the improvement ofrun-down structures, or the demolition of propertiesthat have become slums. Of equal importance is theinterest of the Land Clearance Commission in ourarea. The Commission, operating with Federal, Stateand City funds, is empowered to condemn as slum apart or the whole of any selected urban area. Aftercondemnation it proceeds to demolish the buildingsat public expense and to sell the cleared land at afair use value or convert it to some public purpose.The Commission is now in the process of surveyingour area, and selective demolition will shortly followthat will eradicate the pockets of blight and decay.

Retaining a Professional Planning Service,Marshall Field Foundation Assistance

Upon approval of the conservation legislation,it became clear to Chancellor Kimpton that theuniversity and the South East Chicago Commis-sion would require planning services. Accord-

ingly, in July of 1953 the Chancellor laid theproblem before Mars gall Field, Jr., and his asso-ciates of the Field Fo dation. At the invitationof the foundation, a ormal proposal was sub-mitted and on October 16, 1953, Maxwell Hahn,Executive Vice President of the foundation, ad-vised the chancellor as follows :

Dear Chancellor Kimpton :I am sure that you and Mr. Julian Levi will be

pleased to receive this official notice that the FieldFoundation has authorized a grant of $100,000, pay-

able over a three-year period, toward the cost ofestablishing and operating a planning unit to work

115

on the conservationof the University of Chicago-

Hyde Park Community. The Field Foundation'scheek in the amount of $33,333.34, paying the Foun-

dation's grant for the twelve-month period beginningNovember 1, 1953, is enclosed.

The grant is made in the belief that the over-allprogram of the University of Chicago and the South

East Chicago Commission constitutes a pilot projectwhich can serve as a demonstration to other citiesthroughout the United States that American citizenshave the ability to make their cities what they wantthem to be. It is the Foundation's understandingthat the University and the Commission are com-mitted to the development of a physically attractive,well serviced, non-discriminatory community wherepeople with similar standards may live.

Our board of directors have asked me to state thatthere is no implied commitment that the Field Foun-dation would renew this contribution at the end of thethree-year period. The Foui, dation, however, willconsider without prejudice, in 1956, the question of afurther grant for the period beginning November 1,1956.

It is customary for the Foundation to request prog-ress reports on projects it aids. These reports shouldinclude financial statements on the expenditure ofprojects fuuds, We shall plan to give at least thirtydays' notice when a report from the University isdesired. At the end of each fiscal year, the FieldFoundation would like to have a copy of the auditor'sreport on the records of the project.

Our officers and directors join me in wishing theUniversity of Chicago and the South East ChicagoCommission success in the launching of this impor-tant demonstration.

This act of generosity on the part of the FieldFoundation was the seed from which more than$200 million in new public and private investmentripened.

Upon the advice of Profs. Harvey Perloff,Philip M. Hauser, and Harold M. Mayer of thefaculty of the University of Chicago, Jack A.Meltzer, in March of 1954, was employed by theuniversity as Director of the P' aiming Unit. Thechoice was a happy one. Ala ough a young man,Meltzer had already achieved distinction as Di-rector of Planning for Michael Reese Hospital.His subsequent career completely justified the con-fidence placed in him. By April 1, 1954, when the

Planni: tg Unit was formally opened, he had as-sembled a team of able assistants, including Alex-ander Ogloblin, as his deputy, and Harry Neese,as architectural consultant.


The City Embarks upon Urban Renewal

On March 22, 1954, Mayor Martin H. Kennellyformttlly announced the inauguration of the "firstreal demonstation of a program intended to re-verse the trends toward deterioration whichcharacterized older communities in most U.S.cities." Mayor Kennelly's formal statement re-ferred to the undertaking as proposing the "mostcomplete 'urban renewal' plan for an individualcommunity ever developed." The whole SouthEast Chicago Area, 39th Street to 67th Street,Cottage Grove Avenue to Lake Michigan, of whichthe university community was only one part, wasselected as the first "officially established modelplanning project." The Mayor's Housing andRedevelopment Coordinator, the Chicago PlanCommission, the University of Chicago, and theSouth East Chicago Commission (in close rela-tion with the Hyde Park-Kenwood CommunityConference), and supported by the Chicago LandClearance Commission (the independent slumclearance agency) , the Neighborhood Redevelop-ment Commission (supervising Neighborhood Re-development Corporations) , the CommunityConservation Board ( the City Department underthe Urban Community Conservation Act) , theChicago Dwellings Association (concerned withmiddle-income housing), the Chicago HousingAuthority (lower-income housing) , the Board ofEducation, and the Chicago Park District were toparticipate by formal agreement in the prepara-tion of the far-reaching plan for this area.

Within 60 days after April 1, 1954, Meltzer wasable to file with the Chicago Land Clearance Com-mission a detailed 167page proposal for the rede-velopment of the Land Clearance survey area.The frontispiece of that report emphasizes thedegree of private and official cooperation whichhe was able to obtain :

The cooperation of Mr. James C. Downs, theMayor's Housing and Redevelopment Coordinatorand his deputy, Mr. D. E. Mackelmann ; the ChicagoPlan Commission, particularly Messrs. Frederick T.Aschman, Executive Director, Mr. John Cordwell,Director of Planning, and Mr. Stewart Marquis,

Senior Planner ; and, the Chicago Land ClearanceCommission, particularly Messrs. Ira Bach, ExecutiveDirector, and Mr. Phil Doyle, Deputy Director, ismore gratefully acknowledged.

A special debt of gratitude is due Mr. Albert C.Svoboda, Assistant Treasurer of the University ofChicago, without whose advice and knowledge of realestate values this report could not have been written.

On June 28, 1954, the Chicago Land ClearanceCommission adopted the requested site designationresolutions. These resolutions, among otherthings, recited :

WHEREAS, the South East Chicago Commission, anot-for-profit corporation, has been organized underthe laws of Illinois for the purpose of the conserva-tion, rehabilitr tion and redevelopment of the areabounded by East 39th Street, Lake Michigan, East67th Street and South Cottage Grove Avenue, ofwhich the area described herein is a part ;

WHEREAS, said South East Chicago Commission hasproposed that the project area described herein beacquired by the Commission, and has indicated thatif said area is so acquired purchases will be avail-able to redevelop said area in accordance with ap-proved redevelopment plans, and that said SouthEast Chicago Commission will continue and intensifyits efforts to conserve the larger area, as aforesaid :

The area thus designated consisted of a littlemore than 48 acres, involving approximately 61/2percent of the total area of the Hyde Park com-munity, approximately 9 percent of the totaldwelling units, approximately 8 percent of thetotal population, and approximately 7.7 percentof the total families within the community as awhole. At the same time the project area con-tained 41 percent of the total substandard housingwithin the entire Hyde Park community. It wasestimated that of some 4,500 persons to be affectedby relocation, 8 percent, or 360 were nonwhite.Of the total number of 1,167 families, 660 hadchildren and 52 of the families with children weremembers of minority groups. Single persons oc-cupied 686 of the some 1,700-odd dwelling unitsinvolved. Only 54 resident owners were involved.Living conditions in the area were indicated bythe following statistics of the Chicago LandClearance Commission :


Dwelling Units and Population

117

Project Hyde Park "A" 3 Project Hyde Park "B,,

Number Percent Number Percent

TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 21, 570 100. 0 179 100. 0

A. In dilapidated structures, sharing sanitary facilities, obsolescence or

faulty arrangement or design, or in structures with excessive land cov-

erage1, 501 95. 6 176 98. 3

B. In dilapidated structures, sharing sanitary facilities, or obsolescence or

faulty arrangement or design1, 453 92. 5 149 83. 2

C. In dilapidated structures, or sharing sanitary facilities 1, 035 65. 9 130 72. 6

D. In dilapidated structures758 48. 3 100 55. 9

E. Sharing sanitary facilities672 42. 8 120 67. 0

F. Obsolescence or faulty arrangement or design 1, 313 83. 6 119 66. 5

G. In structures with excessive land coverage 1, 494 95. 2 156 87. 2

H. In nondilapidated structures812 51. 7 141 78. 8

TOTAL POPULATION IN PERSONS4, 028 365

TOTAL FAMILIES (2 or more persons)1, 053 82

1 This table includes estimates for occupied dwelling units not reporting on

persons.2 Includes single room units.3 Hyde Park A Project ranges along Lake Park and westward along East

55th Street several blocks from Lake Park.

Progress Is Made

The speed with which the project then moved isindicated by the following chronology :

Chronology of Land ClearanceHyde Park "A" and "B" Projects

Apr. 1, 1954._ _ __ Planning Unit organized.June 28, 1954_ _ _ Chicago Land Clearance Commission

site designation resolutions passed byChicago Land Clearance Commission.

June 29, 1954_ Mayor Kennelly announces ChicagoLand Clearance Commission resolu-tions and pledges his support.

June 30, 1954_ _ _ Chicago Land Clearance Commissionsite designation resolutions introducedin the City Council.

July 15, 1954._ _ Chicago Plan Commission approvedChicago Land Clearance Commissionproposals.

July 20, 1954._ Housing and Planning Committees ofCity Council recommend proposals.

July 28, 1954_ _ _ Site designation resolution unanimouslyadopted by the City Council.

Aug. 6, 1954_ _ _ Site designation resolution passed by c'leIllinois State Housing Board.

Oct. 25, 1954_ _ _ Redevelopment plan approved by Com-missioners of Chicago Land ClearanceCommission.

Nov. 18, 1954._ Chicago Plan Commission approves re-development plan.

Nov. 23, 1954___ Housing and Planning Committees ofCity Council unanimously approveredevelopment plan.

4 Hyde Park B Project extends along the north side of 54th Street from

Blackstone to Kimbark.

Nov. 29, 1954_ Plan recommitted for further hearing onbasis that opportunity for hearing,discussion, etc., had not been afforded.

Dec. 8, 1954_ _ __ Joint Committee deferred action onplan for ten days.

Dec. 17, 1954_ _ _ Joint Committee votes to pass redevel-opment plan.

Dec. 22, 1954___ Redevelopment plan passed by CityCouncil.

Jan. 17, 1955___ Redevelopment plan heard and ap-proved by State Housing Board ofIllinois.

Feb. 15, 1955_ _ Federal approval Hyde Park "A" Pro-ject in the amount of $6,156,625, auto-matically producing $3,454,049 of cityand state aid, for a total of $9,610,674.

Feb. 18, 1955_ __ Federal approval Hyde Park "B" Pro-ject in the amount of $391,922, auto-matically producing $215,001 of cityand state aid, for a total of $606,923.

Federal Approval Is Sought

The fight for approval of the project was taken

to Washington on July 21, 1954. On that date

Chancellor Kimpton ; Edward L. Reyerson, Chair-man of the Board of Trustees of the University ofChicago; Clarence Randall, a trustee of the Uni-versity of Chicago; James C. Downs, the mayor'scoordinator of Housing and Redevelopment and

his deputy, D. E. Mackelmann ; J. Ross Humph-ries, chairman, and Ira Bach, executive director of

the Chicago Land Clearance Commission; andFrederick T. Aschman, director of the Chicago


Plan Commission, met with the President andsubsequently, with Albert C. Cole, administratorof the Housing and Home Finance Agency.

On September 23, 1954, the Illinois SupremeCourt issued twin opinions in the cases of Peopleex rel Gutknecht v. City of Chicago (3 Ill. 2d 539)and David Zisook v. Maryland-Drexel Neighbor-hood Redevelopment Corporation (3 Ill. 2d 570).The Gutknecht case upheld the constitutionality ofthe Illinois Urban Community Conservation Actthe Zisook case upheld the constitutionality of the1953 amendments to the Illinois Neighborhood Re-development Corporation Law. The South EastChicago Commission and the Planning Unit hadcollaborated in the formation of the Maryland-Drexel Neighborhood Redevelopment Corporationand in the preparation of a proposed redevelop-ment plan in order that the ground work for thetest case be established. William H. Dillon,Counsel to the University in the Maryland-Drexelmatter, was also Special Counsel to the city ofChicago in the Gutknecht case. As will be seen,the two decisions were fundamental to furtherprogress.

By November 23, 1954, Chancellor Kimpton inhis State of the University message, wrote :

Even our neighborhood begins to have a new look.The first of a series of plans for the demolition of oldand outmoded buildings and for the construction ofnew and more appropriate housing and commercialareas has been completed over the past year. Theplan has been viewed with approval and even enthu-siasm by a political hierarchy beginning with thePresident of the United States. It is hoped thatwithin a year no one will recognize Fifty-fifth Street.New single-family residences will replace the World'sFair walk-ups on the south side of the street, and anefficient and modern shopping center will take theplace of the seedy structures on the north side. Thesethings will be accomplished by a combina tic I. of gov-ernment resources and private capital, and alreadythe hope of the new look has stabilized and brightenedthe community. The nr.:w and beautiful headquartersof the American Bar Association has grown up duringthe year and is an ornament to our community.* * * The neighborhood, like the budget, the curricu-lum, and the enrollment, is not yet saved, but at leastwe are on the road to salvation and with proprietycan give vent to a mild hallelujah.

Things are better, there is no denying it. Ourundergraduate program is reorganized, our economyis stabilized, and our neighborhood is in the processof improvement. In all these things we take satis-faction, and for all these things we give thanks. But

the time has come to remind ourselves that greatuniversities are not built merely by balancingbudgets, reorganizing curricula, and improving neigh-

borhoods. This is only to remove the underbrushwhich has been stifling our growth and development,and at last we begin to see the sun. But our reallyimportant problems lie before us. We have sufferedduring this period of readjustment, and we all knowit. We have lost some good men ; we have been un-able to appoint young people who will build theuniversity of the future. We have not been able toexpand our laboratories and our classrooms to meetthe coming need. Our Library has suffered in itsacquisitions and its services to our faculty and stu-dents. We have not been able to keep salaries inpace with our inflationary times. We have repairedour house, but our real task is to build a city. It ismy hope that we have not become so conditioned tomeeting the problems of the moment that we have lostthe ability to plan our future. The experiences ofthe past have thinned and tightened our ranks. Ourproblem now is to march forward. Our objective isa fairer citya new and greater University ofChicago.

Application for Federal Urban Renewal Funds

In the latter part of 1954 and the early monthsof 1955 the planning unit collaborated with thenewly appointed Community Conservation Boardof Chicago and the office of the Mayor's Coordi-nator of Housing and Redevelopment in the prep-aration of an application to the Urban RenewalAdministration of the Housing and Home Fi-nance Agency of the Federal Government for theallocation of survey and planning funds for theHyde Park-Kenwood Urban Renewal Area.The general boundaries of the area thus involvedwere 47th Street on the north, 59th Street on thesouth, Cottage Grove Avenue on the west, andLake Michigan on the east. On March 28, 1955,the City Council unanimously adopted an ordi-nance approving the filing of the application.Further discussions followed in Washington inwhich the planning unit participated. OnJune 4, 1955, Mayor Daley was notified that theapplication had been approved. On Septem-ber 14, 1955, following approval, again unanimous,by the City Council of Chicago, the city, actingthrough the Community Conservation Board, en-tered into a contract with the Urban RenewalAdministration of the U.S. Government, pursuantto which an amount not to exceed $198,680 was tobe advanced by the Urban Renewal Administra-tion to defray costs of survey and planning work


for the Hyde Park-Kenwood Urban RenewalProject, the first of its kind in the United States,(See p. 120.)

Meanwhile, acquisition, relocation, and demoli-tion began in the Hyde Park "A" and "B" Proj-ects. On May 10, 1955, at the time of the annualmeeting of the South. East Chicago Commission,the first building was demolished. By the end of1955, 37 properties had been acquired, 5 had beendemolished, options had been taken for acquisitionon 41 additional properties, and condemnationproceedings were pending on 57 parcels. Chan-cellor Kimpton, in his State of the Universitymessage, on November 1, 1955, wrote :

The final gamble of our University is on our neigh-borhood. It is a law among the knowledgeable aboutsuch things that a neighborhood, once it begins todeteriorate, moves through an inexorable cycle offlight, further decay, and final slum, to be rehabili-tated only at the very lowest point through massiveslum clearancein effect, through the replacementof one community by another. It is our gamble thatin this community the supposedly inevitable workingsof this law can be stopped, the deterioration in mid-cycle can be interrupted, and rehabilitation can begina full quarter of a century before its time. To makethis gamble succeed, we have enlisted the aid of ourcommunity, courts, police, politicians, newspapers,

city, state and nation. It is one of the prominent ob-jectives of the campaign, and money is being receivedfrom individuals, foundations and corporations tobuy and rehabilitate deteriorated properties. Themost substantial donation to date comes from publicfunds, with the Federal Government, the State ofIllinois, and the City of Chicago among them puttingup over $10,000,000 to acquire and demolish someforty-seven acres of deteriorated property in the cen-ter of Hyde Park. The machinery of governmentmoves slowly, and the area has suffered throug'a thetime lag, but, even so, through constant needling theprogram has moved faster than any governmentclearance project in the history of the country. Per-haps more important than anything else, our com-munity has earned a reputation among dubiouscharacters of being a poor place in which to commita crime or operate a slum. The crime statistics inour district show a sharp decline over the last twoyears, and there is no enterprising landlord of de-teriorated properties who would not gladly move hiswretched business, if he could, to another part of thecity. Redevelopment corporations are being organ -.ized all over the area by which debilitated propertiescan be acquired under eminent domain. It is a largeand carefully calculated gamble, and the stakes arevery high. At stake is the nature of our Universityand the pattern of urban life in America for the bal-ance of the Twentieth Century.

119

The history of our University over sixty-two yearshas been a series of brilliant, speculative, forwardmovements, followed by periods of retrenchment and

consolidation. Each has suited its own time, andtogether they have conspired to make the Universityof Chicago one of the great universities of the world.We have moved through our needed program of build-

ing sound foundations beneath our impressive super-structure of men and the materials for teaching andresearch. The time had come in 1954-55, with a cau-tious but speculative eye upon our destiny, to begin

the great gamble in men, money, students, and com-munity. Our quality, our leadership, and our freedomare a:, stake. As we have always won before, so we

shall win again.

The Hyde Park-Kenwood Urban Renewal PlanIs Launched

On January 12, 1956, the city of Chicago, underthe authority of the Community ConservationBoard, entered into a contract with the Universityof Chicago whereby the planning unit was en-gaged to prepare the Hyde Park-Ken-wood UrbanRenewal Plan. The contract provided that theplan was to be done in two stages :

1. A preliminary project report for the purpose ofindicating the feasibility of the project and the gen-eral direction in which it would proceed; and

2. Assuming the approval of the preliminary proj-ect report, a final report.

The planning unit completed the first phase ofthe Urban Renewal Plan and delivered it to theCommunity Conservation Board on July 5, 1956.On August 28, 1956, the Community ConservationBoard approved the preliminary project reportand forwarded it to the regional office of the Hous-

ing and Home Finance Agency. On August 2iMayor Daley appointed the local community coun-

cil as provided by the Illinois Urban CommunityConservation Act. This Council, consisting of 11

residents of the Hyde Park-Kenwood area, hadthe function of assisting the Conservation Boardin the preparation of the plan (ultimately ap-proved by majority vote) and then assisting in theadministration of the plan. On December 20,1956, John P. McCollum, regional administratorof the Housing and Home Finance Agency, ad-vised the Community Conservation Board that thepreliminary project report had been accepted and

that an increased amount, totaling $25,835,000 inFederal funds, had been reserved for the project.


4 a.,

.1k- 2441r

44 i4n r ;

University of Chicago Campus and Redevelopment District with Lake Michigan in the background.

On December 27, 1956, the Community Conser-vation Board do zIcted that. final survey and plan-ning work get underway.

Filing the Development Plan With the Re-development Commission

Undertaking of the Urban Renewal planningwas a major enterprise. Total expenditures bythe university substantially exceeded its reim-bursement under the contract. Since the univer-sity undertook the preparation of the plan itregarded itself as disqualified from specific pro-visions for its benefit within the plan. Its totalcommitment to the ideal of a compatible commun-ity, as described in the instrument of gift of theField Foundation, justified the enterprise.

Application of the 1953 amendments to theNeighborhood Redevelopiffelif"COrp'Oration Actbegan on April 29, 1956, when the South WestHyde Park Neighborhood Redevelopment Corpo-ration filed its development plan and its applica-tion for approval thereof with the NeighborhoodRedevelopment Commission of Chicago. All ofthe stock of that corporation was owned by theUniversity of Chicago. The plan of developmentfiled by the corporation provided :

1. That the corporation, with its own funds, acquire all the properties in the area between 55th anc56th Streets, Cottage Grove to Ellis Avenues, comprising an area of approximately 13.22 acres, exclusive of streets and alleys. Upon acquisition the corporation would sell the property, at its cost of acquisition, to the University of Chicago. The universitywould, thereupon. develop the area for the housing omarried students and other campus purposes.


2. That in the larger development area, generallydescribed as 55th to 57th Streets, Cottage Grove toWoodlawn Avenues, under a program of rehabilita-tion and conservation property owners would agreeto bring all properties up to current standards andwould be bound to future maintenance of thesestandards.

Costs of acquisition of properties, demolition,and site clearance, all of which would ultimatelybe borne by the University of Chicago, were esti-mated at $2,500,000. New construction was esti-mated at $1,800,000again to be borne entirely bythe university. The area of proposed clearance in-

volved approximately 93 structures, containing582 living units. Evidence of substantial deterio-ration and substandard housing had existed sincethe 1940 census. The overwhelming number ofstructures showed evidence of deterioration.

The corporation obtained the consents to theplan of the owners of more than 60 percent ofland area, as provided by the statute. After noticeand publication, hearings before the Neighbor-hood Redevelopment Commission of Chicago be-gan on September 28, 1956. The developmentplan, including both the rehabilitation and ac-quisition sections, involved 299 parcels of prop-erty. Twelve of the owners of the 299 parcelsvigorously opposed the approval of the plan uponvarious grounds. They challenged the eligibilityof the area, the necessity for clearance, and theprovisions of the development plan permittingacquisition by the university. After exhaustivehearings and arguments, nevertheless, on Novem-ber 28, 1956, the Neighborhood RedevelopmentCommission entered, an order approving the planof development, authorizing the issuance of a cer-tificate of public necessity to the corporation, au-thorizing the corporation to carry out the plan.Appeal to the court, permitted under the statute,was taken by the 12 dissenters on December 31,1956.

Land Acquired for Hyde Park "A" and "B"Projects

The Chicago Land Clearance Commission, dur-ing 1956, acquired 147 of the 167 parcels involvedin the Hyde Park "A" and "B" Projects. Of the20 parcels remaining to be acquired, 10 werecovered by agreements on price and executed op-tions, condemnation judgments had been enteredon 2, leaving only 8 properties where condemna-

121

tion proceedings were to be completed or whereprice negotiations were still underway. On June20, 1956, the city council of Chicago adopted anordinance approving a disposition plan waderwhich a developer would be selected for the HydePark "A" and "B" Projects. Accordingly, on July24, 1956, the Chicago Land Clearance Commissionadvertised for bids, returnable September 24, 1956.The University of Chicago and the South EastChicago Commission, in accordance with theirearlier commitment, undertook to find developersand encourage them to bid. The enterprise wassuccessful. The Land Clearance Commission maderedevelopment history in being able to selectamong five bidders.

The University's Campaign for Funds

The university launched an intensive campaign

for building fund money. Chancellor Kimpton,in his State of the University message on Octo-

ber 30, 1956, after referring to the success of the

university's capital needs campaign, wrote :

Just what do we propose to do with all this money?With an optimism which has characterized this Uni-versity since its beginningfor we did not knowthe campaign's results when we built the budgetwe increased our expenditure for the year 1955-56

a million and a half dollars over the previous year,about half of it going into instruction and researchand a quarter each into student aid and plant main-tenance and operation. We risked an initialbudget deficit of $1,200,000, but, because of our in-creased earnings, it turned out to be less than halfof that ; and, of course, if we include unrestrictedcampaign contributions, we had an enormous sur-plus. In the preparation of the budget for the year1956-57, we have added more than a half-milliondollars to the salaries and annuities of our presentfaculty and have put another half-million into staff

additions, replacements, and service and equip-ment. The unsightly and dangerous "pre-fabs" havebeen cleared away behind Ida Noyes Hall, wherea new dormitory for women students will be builtthe first new housing for women to be built on thiscampus in this century. We have acquired apart-ment buildings in the neighborhood and have begunwhat we hope will be an orderly transition of ourmarried graduate students from the G.I. housing tomore permanent and more comfortable quarters. Wehave even started the machinery under the IllinoisRedevelopment Act for the acquisition and demoli-tion of a tour- block- square area between Fifty-fifthand Fifty-sixth, Ellis to Cottage Grove, to build agraduate-student housing project. And, speaking ofthe neighborhood, the Hyde Park clearance and re-


development program is coming along. At the mo-ment it looks like Berlin immediately after the latewar.

The City Council Approves the Site PlanIn January of 1957, Mayor Daley announced

that he would submit the revised Chicago LandClearance plan for the redevelopment of Projects"A" and "B" to the city council. The plan, asmodified, clearly followed the suggestions ofWebb & Knapp, one of the bidders. It envisagedthe construction of a new shopping center, 250town houses, and 2 apartment buildings contain-ing 550 units. Prior to this time, the universityand the South East Chicago Commission had com-menced the organization of a group of potentialbuyers of town houses. Ultimately more than100 families associated themselves with this enter-prise. In March of 1957 fLe city council, afterpublic hearing, approved the modified redevelop-ment plan and then, in July, accepted theWebb & Knapp site plan and bid for purchase ofthe cleared land.

Simultaneously, in 1957 beginning in January,the local community council announced plans forsectional meetings throughout the entire HydePark-Kenwood community on the preliminaryUrban Renewal Plan. By May the 7 hearingshad been completed, more than 900 people hadattended the hearings, and 109 persons made state-ments concerning the plan. In October the finaldraft of the Urban Renewal Plan had been com-pleted and distributed to the various city agenciesfor agency review of program and financial com-mitment. Other institutions within the commu-nity began rebuilding and expanding. St. Paul'sEpiscopal Church broke ground for a new churchbuilding in the Kenwood community. The Chi-cago Osteopathic Hospital and College built anew basic science building.

Further Hearings and Approvals

On February 13, 1958, the Community Conser-vation Board of Chicago transmitted the HydePark-Kenwood Urban Renewal Plan to the Con-servation Community Council. Thereupon theConservation Community Council, after publica-tion, held hearings on March 12th and 13th, 1958.The Conservation Community Council approvedthe Urban Renewal Plan on April 14, 1958, trans-

mitted the plan to the Community ConservationBoard of Chicago and approved changes onJuly 21, 1958. On September 8, 1958, the Housingand Home Finance Agency of the Federal Govern-ment reviewed the Urban Renewal Plan andapproved it as conforming to Federal require-ments. Hearings before the Housing and Plan-ning Committee of the City Council of Chicagobegan on September 22, 1958, and continued untilSeptember 30, 1958. On October 22, 1958, theCommittee on Planning and Housing recom-mended approval of the plan and on November 7,1958, the City Council, by a vote of 54 to 0, ap-proved the plan.

The approval came, however, only after bittercontroversy and argument. The scope of the re-moval plan made this inevitable. The total areacovered by the plan, exclusive of streets and. alleys,involved 591.4 acres, of which 101.2 were to becleared; 3,077 structures, of which 630 were to beacquired and cleared; 29,321 living units, of which5,941 were in structures to be acquired and cleared.

In terms of financing, the project was equallyimposing. The estimated net cost of the projectwas $36,675,717. The Federal capital grant, cov-ering three-fourths of the write-down and includ-ing an amount for aiding and relocation of siteresidents, was $28,312,062. The city contribution,estimated at $9,255,480, was composed of $7,407,725of works-in-kind and $1,847,755 in bond cash.The assumption by the University of Chicago ofplanning costs in excess of the contract reimburse-ment enabled the city to proceed on the three-fourths, rather than two-thirds, matching basis.

The plan provided for great expansion of publicfacilities; 30.4 acres of cleared area was to bemade available to the public agencies as follows :

Summary of Land To Be Sold to Public AgenciesAgency

Board of EducationChicago Park DistrictMunicipal Parking AuthorityCity of Chicago (civic center)City of Chicago (Fire Department)

Square feet617, 462*627, 594

6, 43051), 07120, 500

Total (30.4 acres) 1, 322, 057*

*207,251 of th_a is reserved for future sale to Board of Edu-cation.

An area of 49.1 acres was to be available forresidental re-use; 8.1 acres for commercial use.New institutional uses were provided :


(a) St. Thomas Apostle Church and School. 11,999square feet of land on the northeast corner of 55thStreet and Wood lawn Avenue.

(b) St. Paul's Episcopal Church. 37,500 squarefeet of land on the northwest corner of 50th Streetand Blackstone Avenue.

(c) Hyde Park Department, Young Men's ChristianAssociation. 15,000 square feet of land on the south-east corner of 53d Street and Dorchester Avenue.

(d) George Williams College. 77,268 square feet ofland on either side of 53d Street on the east side ofCottage Grove Avenue.

(e) Chicago College of Osteopathy and OsteopathicHospital. 98,300 square feet of land in the blockbounded by 52d Street, 53d Street, Ellis Avenue andBerkeley Avenue ; and 16,094 square feet of land onthe northeast corner of 53d Street and InglesideAvenue.

(f) Jewish Children's Bureau. 210,060 squarefeet of land on the northeast corner of 55th Streetand Cottage Grove Avenue for the development of atreatment center for disturbed children.

(g) The Church Home for Aged Persons. 27,135square feet of land on the northwest corner of 54thPlace and Ellis Avenue.

(h) Chicago Police Department and Ward Office.50,071 square feet at the southwest corner of 52dStreet and Lake Park Avenue.

(I) Chicago Municipal Parking Authority. 6,430square feet at the northwest corner of 53d Street andLake Park Avenue for a municipal parking lot.

(j) United Church of Hyde Park. 18,750 squarefeet on Harper Avenue between 52d and 53d Streets.

(k) Art and Cultural Center. 46,798 square feetat the northwest and southwest corner of 57th Streetand Stony Island Avenue.

(1) First Baptist Church. 15,016 square feet atthe southwest corner of 50th Street and Ellis Avenue.

(m) Chicago Fire Department. 20,500 square feeton the northeast corner of 55th Street and UniversityAvenue for a fire station.

(n) Augustana Lutheran Church. 33,414 squarefeet between Woodlawn and Kimbark Avenues southof 55th Street.

(o) Chicago Child Care Society. 18,904 square feeton University Avenue between 54th Place and 55thStreet.

Mandamus Denied

The Superior Court of the United States onOctober 20, 1958, denied a motion of Troy St.Elmo and Angie Ree Cobb for leave to file a peti-tion for writ of mandamus in the case they hadbrought in the District Court of the United Statesagainst the South West Hyde Park Neighborhood

630581 0-62-9

123

Redevelopment Corporation. With this action, alllitigation attacking the order of the NeighborhoodRedevelopment Commission of Chicago approvingthe South West Hyde Park plan came to an end.The. litigation involved not only a proceeding inthe State Courts, the dismissal of which was sus-tained by the Illinois Supreme Court on two oc-casions, but a fresh action in the District Court,again dismissed, and now terminated by the orderof the Supreme Court of tlae United States.

The Chicago Crusade Spreads

On February 18, 1957, Chancellor Kimptonwrote to Presidents Nathan M. Pusey, of Har-vard Grayson Kirk, of Columbia; Gaylord P.Harnwell, of the University of Pennsylvania; A.Whitney Griswold, of Yale and James RhyneKillian, Jr., of Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology. The letter, in part, said :

We at the University of Chicago have been strug-gling for the past five years with enormous problemsrelating to the condition of the community whichsurrounds our campus. I believe that we agree thata healthy university cannot exist in a slum, and Ibelieve all of us are threatened in this regard. Sinceour problems are in no way unique, and since allof us have made progress in one way or another, ithas appeared to me that we might obtain some valuein exchanging our experiences. I rather suspect toothat there is some federal legislation that we mightponder with the idea of seeing if we could not getforward on some cooperative program.

Accordingly, I am suggesting that you and theappropriate person on your staff meet with a groupsimilarly concerned in New York City on the morningof April 12th at 9:00.

The meeting was held. Dr. Pusey representedPresident Killian of Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, as well as his own university. Presi-dent Griswold was unable to attend but sent rep-resentatives. The conclusion oi the meeting wasthat the matter should be placed before the Asso-ciation of American Universities, and onOctober 23, 1957, the New York Times reportedthat :

A nation-wide study to determine what can be doneto halt the deterioration of neighborhoods adjacentto urban universities was announced yesterday by theAssociation of American Universities.

The article quoted Chancellor Kimpton :Historically, university communities have been

attractive neighborhoods with the standards outlined,


Dr. Kimpton noted. "However, the growth ofAmerican cities, the obsolescence and deteriorationof aging structures, the development of mass trans-portationparticularly the automobilehave all com-bined to produce the decline of neighborhoods aboutmany American urban universities.

"At the same time, the gigantic cost of plant rsi-placement as well as many requirements of educa-tional processes require the American urban uni-versity to remain where it is. The solution of theproblem, therefore, involves the substantial rebuild-ing of university neighborhoods."

Dr. Kimpton pointed out that some twenty institu-tions of higher learning were now involved in slumclearance and urban renewal projects, but that thecosts were prohibitive.

"The amount of public funds is inadequate andmust be supplemented by private resources," he said."In the case of the University of Chicago, despitepublic programs now potentially involving as muchas $100,000,000, a solution of the neighborhood prob-lem has so far involved the university in exnendituresof more than $6,000,000 and additional requirementsfor several times that much."

Chancellor Kimpton, on November 5, 1957, inhis State of the University message, reported:

A great university must be a part of a great urbanenvironment, but how does a university remain greatas it participates in the deterioration of our Americancities? We have destroyed forty-eight acres of slumand blight in our area, we are starting n conservationprogram to protect nine hundred more acres, we havespent $5,325,000 of University money in acquiringbuildings and then demolishing them, and we arepreparing to spend many more millions. And stillthe problem of urban decay is with us and constitutesa threat to our faculty, our students, and, indeed,our future.

Surveys In Other Cities

On June 6, 1958, the recommendations of theAssociation of American Universities as to a sur-vey of the neighborhood problems of universitieswas carried forward at a meeting held at GeorgeWashington University on that date. Partici-pating were :

F. Morris Cochran, Vice President-Business Manager,Brown University.

Stanley Salmen, Coordinator of University Planning,Columbia University.

Henry W. Herzog, Treasurer, and R. Churchill, CityPlanner and Consultant, George WashingtonUniversity.

Edward Reynolds, Administrative Vice President,Harvard University.

Colin Churchill, Assistant to Vice President MedicalInstitutions, Johns Hopkins University.

Philip Stoddard, Vice Treasurer, Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology.

Chester Onderdonk, Yew York University.Clarence Scheps, Vice President and Comptroller,

Tulane University.John I. Kirkpatrick, Vice Chancellor, and Julian Levi,

Executive Director of the South East ChicagoCommission, and Jack Meltzer, Director, Plan-ning Unit, University of Chicago.

John L. Moore, Business Vice President, Universityof Pennsylvania.

Warren T. Lindquist, associate of David Rockefeller.Ernest V. Hollis, Director, College and University

Administration, Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare.

Charles L. Oswald, Deputy Commissioner, andGordon E. Howard, Special Assistant to Com-missioner, and S. Leigh Curry, Jr., Chief Counsel,Urban Renewal Administration.

This meeting determined that the Planning Unitof the University of Chicago should undertake asurvey and report covering a selected list of uni-versities. In August 1958, a form of questionnairewas approved. Ultimately the following institu-tions participated in the study :

Harvard UniversityMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyTulane UniversityVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of CaliforniaGeorge Washington UniversityWashington UniversitySt. Louis UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaJohns Hopkins UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of IndianaUniversity of IllinoisColumbia UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Chicago

Chancellor Kimpton, in his November ice, 1955,State of the University message, reported :

Finally, there is the ever present threat to students,faculty, and the very life and future of our Univer-sitythe neighborhood. As I gather my thoughts onthis topic in July when this report was composed, Ifound them dismal thoughts indeed, and if I nowrepeated what then wrote I would not only depressbut mislead you. At that time we had gained somenew, powerful, and unexpected enemies to Our

gigantic urban renewal program, and our friends stillhad to rise and be counted. Mr. Zeckendorf seemed


hopelessly bogged down in difficulties with zoningregulations and the Redevelopment Plan, and ourlocal wasteland stretched out bleak and unrelieved.

In these circumstances, you will forgive me, I hope,if I peek beyond the shroud of gloom that envelopedus at the end of the last academic year and beholdthe sun that even then was trying to break through.Mr. Zeckendorf * * * somehow cut through his redtape, and houses, apartments, and shopping centersare springing up all over the place. After a series ofbitter local and city hearings that seemed to stretchout world without end, the City Council unanimouslyapproved the Urban Renewal Plan that will bring$40,000,000 of public money into our area and anequal amount of private financing. There will be newparks and playgrounds and schools, new dwellingsand traffic patterns and shops ; and out of situ.' andblight a new city will arise. There remain problems,of .nurse, but these also will be solved ; the tide hasturned for us, and out of our success will emerge thepattern of rebuilding Chicago and indeed much ofurban America. Surely this is the place and time topay tribute to the leaders of our community, to thenewspapers of our city, and particularly to ourMayor, Richard J. Daley, who have remained, amidall the frenzy of opposition, steadfastly loyal to theideal we ourselves had of rebuilding a great andstable community that may provide a model for ourcity and for our nation.

Our community is not only one of homes and streetsand shops ; far more important, it is a community ofscholars dedicated to the life of the mind.

The Campaign for Federal Recognition, Sec-tion 112

On January 26, 1959, George Baughman, VicePresident and Treasurer of New York University,John L. Moore,. Business Vice President of theUniversity of Pennsylvania, and Charles Farns-ley, Counsel to the University of Louisville, to-gether with the South East Chicago Commission,appeared before the Committee on Banking andCurrency of the U.S. Senate for the 86th Congress.A week later the same group, together with RalphPittman, on behalf of Baylor University, ap-peared before the Committee oit Banking andCurrency of the House of Representatives. Theirtestimony dealt with the problems of universitieslocated in or near urban renewal areas. Theyasked that the Housing Act of 1959 be amended :

1. To elinifiliira the requirement of residential useor re-use as a criterion of eligibility in projects in-volving institutions of higher education.

125

2. That the expenditures made by institutions ofhigher education for campus expansion, in accordancewith urban renewal or development plans approvedby the governing body of the municipality, be treated

as local grants-in-aid, thus available for Federalmatching for the benefit of the municipality.

3. That, in order that uni7ersities turn to the im-mediate needs of expansion at once, expenditures Flomade by them within 5 years prior to Federal ap-proval of a loan and grant contract be deemedadmissible.

The testimony emphasized the need for a com-patible community, the urgent need of expansionof academic and research facilities, and the neces-sity of leveraging in order that donors and munici-palities be encouraged to cooperate with the insti-tutions of higher education.

The legislators were sympathetic. Committee

staff and Counsel were most helpful. Thereemerged what became Section 112 of the HousingAct of 1959in its final form reading as follows :

Sec. 112 Urban Renewal Areas Involving Colleges

or Universities. In any case where an educationalinstitution is located in or near an urban renewalproject area and the governing body of the localitydetermines that, in addition to the elir dnation ofslums and blight from such area, the undertaking ofan urban renmal project in such area will furtherpromote the public welfare and the proper develop-ment of the community (1) by making land in sucharea available for disposition, for uses in accordancewith the urban renewal plan, to such educationalinstitution for redevelopment in accordance with theuse or uses specified in the urban renewal plan, (2)

by providing, through the redevelopment of the areain accordance with the urban renewal plan, a cohesiveneighborhood environment compatible with the func-tions and needs of such educational institution, or(3) by any combination of the foregoing, the Admin-istrator is authorized to extend financial assistanceunder this title for an urban renewal project in sucharea without regard to the requirements in section110 hereof with respect to the predominantly resi-dential character or predominantly residential reuseof urban renewal areas: Provided, That the aggre-gate expenditures made by such institution (directlyor through a private redevelopment corporation) forthe acquisition (from others than the local publicagency), within, adjacent to, or in the immediatevicinity of the project area, of land, buildings, andstructures to be redeveloped or rehabilitated by suchinstitution for educational uses in accordance withthe urban renewal plan (or with a developmentplan proposed by such institution or corporation,found acceptable by the Administrator after consider-ing the standards specified in section 110(b), andapproved under State or kcal law after public hear-


ing), and for the demolition of such buildings .ndstructures (including expenditures to assist in re-locating tenants therefrom), if, pursuant to suchurban renewal or development plan, the land is to becleared and redeveloped, as certified by such institu-tion to the local public agency and approved by theAdministrator, shall be a local grant-in-aid in con-nection with such urban renewal project : Providedfurther, That no such expenditures shall be deemedineligible as a local grant-in-aid in connection withany such project if made not more than five yearsprior to the authorization by the Administrator ofa contract for a loan or capital grant for such urbanrenewal project : And provided further, That the term"educational institution" as used herein shall meanany educational institution of higher learning, includ-ing any p'iblic educational institution or any privateeducational institution, no part of the net earnings ofwhich shall inure to the benefit of any private share-holiter or individual." ( Section 112 added by Section418 of the Housing Act of 1959, Public Law 86-372,

approved September 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 654-677).

Section 112 was debated on the floor of the U.S.Senate on August 18, 1959, at which time SenatorPaul Douglas of Illinois and Senator Joseph Clarkof Pennsylvania were able to carry the issue byvoice vote. The Housing Act of 1959, as finallyenacted and approved, included Section 112 in theform above indicated.

On February 16, 1960, the Urban Renewal Com-missioner issued Local Public Agency Letter 193,thus giving administrative interpretation andmechanism for the implementation of Section 112.

Summary, First Project

Chancellor Kimpton on November 3, 1959, inwhat proved to be his final State of the Universitymessage, said :

One of our chief difficulties, of course, is theneighborhood, but I am less worried about it thanI was eight years ago. An obvious reason is thatmuch of it is being torn down and rebuilt. Butthere are other reasons too. The deterioration ofour surroundings has brought our faculty communityclosed together, both literally and figuratively. Thevast majority lives within a mile radius of the Uni-verrity, and it is as pleasant and happy a communityas you could find in the most bucolic of our sisterinstitutions. More than that, most GI the othermajor universities are in trouble too, and I discoverthat their troubles are even more acute than ourown. Faculty who have actually lived in HydePark-Kenwood like it, and I seriously doubt that itnow constitutes a major factor in the decision of a

faculty member to leave the University. But bring-ing a new and distinguished faculty member to ourcampus is a different problem. Here I believe thedifficulty is the city of Chicago itself.

Next, the South Campus Project, the WoodlawnDistrict

Chancellor Kimpton and Glei Lloyd, Chairmanof the Board of Trustees of the Univeisity ofChicago, informally proposed the South CampusProject to Mayor Richard Daley, whereby theuniversity's total campus plan would be achievedand, at the same time, the university could makeits Section 112 credits available to the city ofChicago.

On March 29, 1960, Chancellor Kimpton an-nounced his resignation as chancellor of the uni-versity. In .,o doing, he noted :

In common with other urban universities, the Uni-versity of Chicago was confronted with the problemof encroaching blight. If the University was toexist, that threat had to be removed. It has beenremoved, and we now have assurance of a stablecommunity in which the University will have theenvironment essential to its life and activities. * * *

Why, then, do I want to resign? My conviction isthat the head of such a university as this one can dohis best work for it within a reasonably short time.The University every so often requires a change inleaders who can apply fresh and sharply objectiveappraisals, and start anew, free of the associations,friendships, and scars of a common struggle.

F believe that the history of our Universit, bearsme out in showing the renewed vitality and intensitywhich came with each of my predecessors and thenew and distinctive contributions they were able tomake through the direction they gave the University.

This is the more understandableand this is nota complaintwhen I remind you that the job is anenormously demanding and exhaustive one.

Finally, I can only say that, were I not confidentyou could find someone who could do the job fromhere on better than I could do it, I would not resign.The University of Chicago means more to me thanI am able to express.

Despite his resignation, Chancellor Kimptonsaid :

I am willing to continue as president of the SouthEast Chicago Commission in the work of neighbor-hood conservation if I am asked to do so, and pro-vided, of course, my future activities make thispossible.


On July 18, 1960, Chancellor Kimpton andChairman Lloyd formally. presented the SouthCampus PrGposal to the Chicagp Land ClearanceCommission. They noted that the Universityowned approximately 60 percent of the total landarea between 60th and 61st Streets, Cottage Groveto Stony Island Avenues; that 26.5 acres were notso owned and were now characterized by wide-spread decay and deterioration. They noted thatthe University of Chicago would generate ap-proximately $6,893,000 of Section 112 credits,which would be matched by $21 million of FederalUrban Renewal credits available to the city ofChicago; that of this amount the South Campu8Project would cost approximately $6,500,000, thisleaving available to the city $14 million for use insupport of urban renewal programs as the Mayorand city council might determine.

On August 2, 1960, the Chicago Land ClearanceCommission determined to make the requestedsurvey, which was actually undertaken in Januaryof 1961. The Chicago Plan Commission, on Jan-uary 26,1961, agreed to prepare a total Woodlawnplan. This work is now in process.

George Wells Beadle was inaugurated as Chan-cellor of the University of Chicago on May 4, 1961.He became President of the South East ChicagoCommission on June 29, 1961. Chancellor Beadle,in his inaugural address, reaffirmed the commit-ment of the University of Chicago to its neighbor-hood:

One of the questions about the University of Xthat had to be answered was, 'Where should it belocated?' We, its builders, thought of a scenic set-tinghills, woods, a lake ; perhaps it should be nearthe mountains. It should, we thought, be near afair-sized city but not in it. It should be in an areain which it wouli: have social impact on its com-munity. It would be a residential university, withgood faculty and student housing, but it would be

127

separated from the "outside world" by thousands ofacres of surrounding land.

When my wife and I were first being "looked over"for the University of Chicago, we could not helpthinking, "How different from the University of X."Perhaps, we thought, it might be possible to move theuniversity out of its crowded, smoky surroundings tothe oak-covered hills to the south and westnear theArgonne Laboratory, example. The cost would begreat, but think of the problems that would be leftbehind.

What a mistake ! We are not at all sure now thateven the University of X should be isolated in thecountry. Certainly the University of Chicago wouldbe a far less interesting place and a far less signifi-cant institution if it were so isolated. The problemsit faces in helping to rebuild a section of a great cityare not only challenging in themselves but they arealso of the greatest national importantce. Until weAmericans have learned to rebuild and prevent slums,restore beauty to our cities, and provide education andsocial opportunities to people who have not hadthemlargely because of the color of their skinswewill not have justified the faith of those who laidthe foundations of our nation. We cannot do it byrunning away or by burying our heads in the sand.

If a great university will not stay and use itsknowledge, wisdom, and power to help solve a criticalproblem, who will do it? There is talk of a PeaceCorps and of other grand schemes to help under-developed nations in far parts of the world. Weshould, of course, do everything possible in that di-rectionbut in doing so we should not forget that wemust somehow learn to cure the sickness of poverty,unemployment and racial discrimination that blightsthe hearts of our great cities.

In our own surroundings, a magnificient start hasbeen made through the combined efforts of the uni-versity, the local community, the city, the state, andthe federal government. We owe a deep debt ofgratitude to Lawrerce A. Kimpton for taking thelead in this enormously difficult and often discourag-ing undertaking. We must keep up the effort, forif we succeed we will have established a pattern forthe rest of the nation to follow. This is a noble goalfor a noble university.

Chapter X

THE WRITERS OF THIS CASE were content to callupon professional personnel for program planning and fa-cilities planning, but their particular province was that ofarousing the public to an awareness of need and of providingpublic avenues of expression to bring the college into being.

Planning and Building South Plains College

BYORLIN BREWER

Editor Leveiland Daily Sun NewsAND

ROBERT BURLSDean of Student Life, South Plains College, Leveiland,

Text.

OUTH PLAINS COLLEGE at Levelland,Tex.perhaps unique in the development of

junior colleges in the Lone Star Statesprangfrom a grain sorghum patch in late December of1957 to a complete institution in September of1958.

The college opened its doors to students for thefirst time on September 15, 1958, with five modern,air-conditioned buildings and a new staff of morethan 30 instructors.

Despite its unlikely location in a farming andoil town with a population of only 10,000, 28 milesfrom Texas Technological College, students num-bered 331 in the fall of 1959 and this number in-creased to 515 in the fall of 1960, with nearly 200attending evening school either in short courses orregular semester-long, 3-hour credit and noncreditcourses.

Between the embryonic idea which had launchedit and this highly successful new college were al-most 10 years of planning, defeat, renewed hope,and finally victorya community-wide victory.

The college came into being and proved an128

astonishing success from the startalthough othercommunities with more apparent need and physi-cal resources failed to achieve a successful col-legebecause of one significant difference : thecommunity's human resources. The community ofLevelland had a dedicated group of individualswho saw a need for a junior college, felt it waswithin the realm of the possible, and set out by thebest means at hand to "sell" this consciousness ofneed to other people in the immediate area.

The Embryonic Idea

0. W. Marcom, superintendent of Levelland'spublic schools, working at the time on his master'sthesis at Texas Technological College in Lubbock,was among the first to suggest a junior college forthe Levelland area. His thesis entitled, "A Sur-vey of Secondary Education in Hockle3 County,"in 1949 cited a need for an upward extension of thecurriculum beyond high school and presentedfacts that seemed to justify the establishment of ajunior college at Levelland. Marcom gives much

SOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE

of the credit to Dr. Louis B. Cooper of Texas Tech-nological College, faculty ttdviser on his thesiscommittee, for inclusion of the junior college ideain his thesis.

Marcom, in his thesis, stated, "Beyond a doubtthere would be considei able interest in Levellandif additional technical training were offered insome of the fields already being covered in a 4-yearprogram." He pointed out that it was likely thatthere would be much interest in courses of a tech-nical nature in the building trades and in machineshop work, and that, even in 1949, there had beennumerous requests for night courses in shorthand.An answer to these needs, he felt, could best be

found in the building of a junior college ratherthan extension of the high school program.

The fact that Levelland was located 28 milesfrom Texas Technological College caused some todoubt that the State board of education would au-thorize an election for the establishment of ajunior college district in the Levelland area. ButMarcom felt a consideration of the needs of thepupils of the county as a whole would likely re-sult in an approval because "Tech" was, even then,overcrowded and not at all interested in the ter-minal courses which would be one of the primeconsiderations of such a junior college. The newcollege would also seek to offer the equivalent ofthe best that a senior college had to offer at thefreshman and sophomore levels.

First Efforts Rebuffed by State

Marcom's ideas, backed by Hockley County Su-perintendent, T. 0. Petty, got their first favorablesupport from the members of the Hockley CountySchool Board.

Members of the county board, along with othersin the county, filed an application before the StateBoard of Education in Austin in May of 1951.E. M. Barnes was president of th county school

board at the time the first plea for the right to holda college district election was made. Barnes, nowvice president of the South Plains College Boardof Regents, was among seven leaders from Hock-ley County who appeared before the State boardin favor of the college district.

As the Hockley County Herald reported thestory in 1951, an opposing delegation from thecounty had presented its side and two members of

129

the precollege delegation were attempting to getrecognition on the floor when the chairman askedfor a voice'- vote on the proposal. Following thevote, the chairman announced, "The nays haveit," and the 15-minute hearing was completed.

Another member of the group supporting thecollege, Herman Greener, told the Herald, "Ourgreatest need was for the presence of Levellandbusiness and professional men speaking out infavor of the project." According to Barnes andGreener, the opposition declared that HockleyCounty and Levelland were on the downgrade,that oil was fast being depleted, and that businesswas poor. Proponents were not permitted to pre-sent their arguments refuting these claims.

After this stinging rebuff it was almost 6 yearsbefore the community marshaled its forces to thepoint that it was ready for another appearance in

the State capitol.

The Slow Recovery From Defeat

As far as most of the community was concetned,the junior college movement in Levelland was adead issue. Over a period of years it was onlyoccasionally discussed when members of the firstdelegation desired to reminisce, or when a specificneed which only a junior college could fill wasrecognized.

However, a statement by the Texas Commis-sioner of Education, Dr. J. W. Edgar, at a TexasState Teachers Association meeting in Midland,Tex., in early 1956 started a chain of events whichwas eventually to lead to renewal of the effort.Dr. Edgar told his audience in Midland that the"trend in the future will be toward more juniorand community colleges since it appears that ma-jor colleges may be forced in the future to limittheir enrollments." Dr. Edgar's statement wasthe first hint of a gradual change in the views ofthe State Board of Education on the establishmentof a new junior college.

Superintendent Marcom mentioned this state-ment by Dr. Edgar to Orlin Brewer, managingeditor of the Levelland. Daily Sun News, and onMarch 29, 1956, Brewer telephoned Dr. Edgar forf irther comment. Dr. Edgar said he did not re-member the exact context of his statement, butpointed out that a special committee report settingup new criteria for establishment of junior colleges

130 CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITTTTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

was being prepared and would be forthcomingwithin a few months. He commented, however,that the interest in new junior colleges in Texasappeared slight. The State board had not receivedan application for a junior college since the 1951request from the Level land delegation.

From that time on, Brewer and his newspaperbecame public advocates of a junior college toserve the area and to make certain no deservingstudents were denied the chance to attend college.The conversation with Edgar resulted in a bannerheadline on page one of the community newspa-per, and periodic articles and editorials on theneed for a college appeared over the next severalmonths. As a result of his journalistic efforts, theeditor was invited to a meeting of the Level landChamber of Commerce Board of Directors in Mayof 1956 to present his ideas on how a campaignfor a junior college could be launched.

As a direct result of the meeting, a two-mancommittee, consisting of editor Orlin Brewer andChamber Manager Bob Walker, was named to con-duct a survey of the State's existing junior collegesto determine how they were formed, the numberof junior college students, financial backing, andother vital factors. Almost all the junior collegepresidents responded to this survey, but severaloffered the advice that the .,ommittee could savemonths of hard labor by cc.ntracting the State'sforemost authority on junior college formation,Dr. C. C. Colvert of the University of Texas.

The basic committee of two was expanded bythe committee itself as it invited interested citi-zens to join in the program to seek a college forthe community. Without funds of its own, thecommittee called on the Hock ley County Devel-opment Foundation for funds, and it was thisfoundation which hired Dr. Colvert to come toLevel land to conduct a survey to determinewhether a college in Level land would be feasible.On December 19, 1956, Dr. Colvert, with membersof the citizens committee at his disposal, launchedan intensive 3-day study of the feasibility of ajunior college in Levelland.

As the survey neared completion, members ofthe committee started telephoning communityleaders and school men in the surrounding countiesof Bailey, Yoakum, Terry, Cochran, and Lamb,inviting them to a dinner meeting in Levelland tohear the Colvert Survey report. A total of 120

leaders from over the six-county area turned outto hear the survey results which Colvert labeledas a "preliminary" report.

The Colvert Survey

Dr. Colvert presented three separate possibilitiesfor formation of a "South Plains" junior collegeand gave the estimated costs of each. He esti-mated, by use of known indices and on the basisof population, school enrollment, number of grad-uates, and other factors, that a junior collegeserving Hockley County alone would have, con-servatively, an enrollment of 356 students within5 to 8 years.

Using the same indices, and including bothHockley County and neighboring Cochran Coun-ty, located to the west (but with a population ofabout 6,000 as compared with more than 20,000for Hockley County), Dr. Colvert estimated thatthis eventual enrollment would be 449 students.By using a six-county district, all within a radiusof 50 miles, he estimated the enrollment wouldreach about 576 students. He said that the pro-gram should definitely include free bus transpor-tation for students within the district and a tuitionof $25 per semester per student, a State minimum.For those outside the district, he suggested ahigher tuition, plus a monthly fee for riding oneof the college buses.

Dr. Colvert also in' roduced a survey of 288seniors in Hockley and Cochran County schools.A total of 220 responses were received from Hock-ley County. Eighty-three seniors said they wouldattend a junior college in Levelland under theterms suggested; 67 gave a negative response; and70 were undecided. The survey showed a largerpercentage of Cochran seniors willing to attendthan Hockley seniors. In Cochran, 25 studentssaid they would attend, while 12 said they wouldnot and 23 were undecided.

Dr. Colvert reasoned, on the basis of past ex-perience, that half of those who were undecidedwould attend such a college, primarily for finan-cial reasons. He said this would make a potentialenrollment of 154 students the first year, providedthe college met necessary standards. He entitledhis report, "A Proposal for a South Plains JuniorCollege" to be located in Levelland, Tex., and onDecember 27, 1956, mailed his survey conclusion


to Dr. C. M. Phillips, chairman of the Hock leyCounty Development Foundation, pushing tohelp the county meet a deadline for presentationof its proposals to the State Board of Educationon January 2, 1957, at which time the anticipatedcriteria re,' rt was to be adopted by the Stateboard.

In his general introduction, Dr. Colvert said,The data presented in this proposal for a South

Plains Junior College more than meet the criteriaset up in the statutes for a public junior college inTexas. It is believed further that they will alsomore than meet the new criteria which is proposedby the Junior College Study Commission sponsoredby the State Board of Education.

This proposed South Plains Junior College is toserve an area composed of six counties as follows :Cochran, Hockley, Bailey, Lamb, Terry, and Yoakum.Even though not all the counties are in the presentlyproposed junior college district, buses will be run toall the counties where the number of students justi-fies such. It is believed that the data reveal thatsuch a plan will bring in a student body which willreach, within 5 to 8 years, 450 to 600 full-time studentequivalents.

In his written survey, Dr. Colvert gave a de-tailed report on figures presented in the generalmeeting. Among these were figures showing : (1)that the enrollment in grades 1 through 12 inHockley County Schools had increased 32 percentsince 1947, from 3,716 to 4,905 students; (2) thatCochran County had increased during the sameperiod from 1,352 students to 1,528 in the samegrades or a total of 13 percent; and (3) that com-bined, the two counties had increased from 5,068to 6,533, or 28.9 percent in student enrollment.

Dr. Colvert said that a college district could beformed (1) from Hockley County only; (2) fromHockley County and Whiteface School Districtin Cochran County; (3) from Hockley andCochran Counties combined; (4) from these twocounties and one or more adjoining independentschool districts in other counties; or (5) fromthese two counties and one or more of all four ofthe counties of Terry, Yoakum, Bailey, and Lamb.

He concluded his report with the followingstatement :

In view of the fact that the data show that thejunior college would have over 150 students the firstyear of its operation, over 250 students its seemdyear and 450 to 600 students within 5 to 8 years, itis felt that the college is justified on a basis of 'ade-quate enrollment.

131

Also since Hockley County with over $45 millionassessed valuation [has enough valuation] to ade-quately support the projected enrollment of 450 stu-dents with a maximum tax rate of 44 cents and withCochran County and possibly other counties cominginto the district, there seems to be adequate evidencethat the college can be well supported financially.

The area is also in an expanding economy andgrowing population.

All these facts seem to more than adequately justifythe establishment of a junior college in Levellandfor this area.

A New Petition to the State Board

The college citizens committee considered firsta petition to the State Board of Education for atwo-county district, including Hockley andCochran Counties. But an uncertainty about thedesire of the people of Cochran County to be apart of such a district brought a crucial decisionto seek State board approval for a district con-sisting of Hockley County only. Committeemembers reasoned, in view of past difficulties insecuring approval for an election, that they wouldbe placed in an embarrassing position if the Stateboard approved a two-county district and an elec-tion could not be carried because of possible dis-interest in Cochran County. They felt they mightthen be forced to return to the board a second timeto request a single county district, which the Stategroup would be more likely to reject if there hadbeen an election defeat on the first proposal.

Since Colvert, felt that Hockley County alonewould meet the criteria being prepared by theState board, the committee favored a request fora one-county college district. If this were re-jected, they felt they could then come back withthe two-county proposal. Petitions were cir-culated. Signatures from 5 percent of the quali-fied voters were obtained, for presentation beforethe State board on January 2, 1957, askiag simplyfor the right to conduct an election and "let thepeople themselves decide" the college issue.

State Board Hearings

After the presentation of these petitions, a spe-cial nine-man committee, including three juniorcollege presidents, three State business leaders, andthree State Board members, was sent by the StateBoard of Education to Levelland for a 2-day hear-ing on January 20 and 21, 1957.


Dr. J. R. McLemore, president of Paris (Tex.)Jun: or College, later revealed publicly the positiontaken by the three junior college presidents whohelped conduct the State board's survey committeehearings on the college. lie said that after thethree junior college presidents on the committeesaw the local enthusiasm and "evidence of una-nimity" in support of the college, they agreed earlyin the day that there would be at least a minorityreport from the three of them favoring establish-ment of a college in Level land. Dr. McLemorefurther stated that while other communities havedreaded their public hearings, "your hearing woneverything for you."

The community had presented its top leadersbefore the committee, all favoring establishmentof the college. Every word of testimony was tapedfor broadcast over a local radio station, tran-scribed for use in the local newspaper, and virtu-ally every witless was photographed. Whetherthese tactics affected the outcome is not known,but the opposition which had killed the proposalbefore the State board in 1951 had dwindled toonly token dissent from out-of-area and out-of-State interests.

The State board on February 2d voted unan-imous approval for the election, and in 2 monthsthe citizens committee headed home from its sec-ond Austin hearing to start the machinery rolling.It carefully selected regent candidates from allcommunities in the county and circulated petitionscalling for an election to form the college district.

The Referendum

In the election, conducted on April 3, 1957,

county residents voted 1,577 to 644 in favor of for-mation of a district, electing the suggested regentsto office.

The Board of Regents and the Bond Election

At this point, the problem of planning andopening the college passed from the hands of thecitizens committee to the college board. Theregents called an election for July 13, 1957, pro-posing $900,000 in bonds to finance a new collegeplant and levying a 19-cent per hundred dollarvaluation bond tax and a 25-cent maintenance tax.Although no breakdown had been determined on

how the bond money was to be spent or what itwould buy in terms of buildings, community sup-port for the college was so strong at this point thatthe election again carried overwhelmingly.

Setting Up the Administration

The regents also named Dr. Thomas M. Spencerof Brenham, president of the Texas Associationof Junior Colleges, as president of their new in-stitution. As one of the most dynamic figures injunior college education in Texas, he was givencredit for implementing the program which thecollege citizens committee, the regents, and peopleof the community envisioned.

In early 1958, the college district was expandedto take in the Whiteface School District, the larg-est independent school district in adjacent CochranCounty. Thus, with a tax valuation of more than$90 million, the economic future of the college wassecure, though the regents still remained willingto enlarge the district to serve other areas in theregion better.

Projecting the Enrollment

When South Plains College was first organized,there was no way of knowing the exact numberof students who would enroll the first year, norwas there any predictable growth rate for the col-lege. Therefore, the board and administration ofSouth Plains College felt that a minimum plantrequirement should be sufficient for 500 full-timestudents. Likewise, there was no way of predict-ing the ratio of students in the various depart-ments, agriculture, business, etc., but it was feltthat adequate classroom space should be providedfor all of the major departments which were func-tioning in comparable West Texas colleges.

Selection of a Site

Latitude of choice among several sites aroundthe city proper was available to the college. Gen-erous offers were made by local citizens to donateland to the college, generally in the amount of 20-

to 25-acre tracts. While the board appreciatedthese offers it was felt that a much larger landarea would be needed in order to prevent the col-lege from being "boxed in." The general pattern

SOUTH PLAINS

of development of towns in the southwestern partof the United States is from northeast to south-west and it is also generally true that whenevera college is built on the edge of towns housingdevelopments tend to spring up around the collegeas quickly as the land can be secured. Because ofthe above reasons, the board wished to secure atleast one labor 1 of land.

At the southeast edge of Level land was a tractof farmland owned by the Post-MontgomeryEstate, commonly referred to in this area as "Dou-ble U" land, derived from the cattle brand of theoriginal ranch.

Growth of housing developments in the com-munity had been brought to a halt by the reluc-tance of the executor of the estate to part withholdings immediately surrounding the city. Thelocal manager for the Post-Montgomery Estateswas approached by the Board of Regents of thecollege a,nd was asked to make inquiries as to theavailability of this tract of land. The request wasforwarded to the State governing board of thePost-Montgomery Estate in the fall of 1957. Thegoverning bPiy of the estate appointed a realestate agent to make a survey of the property anddetermine its proper price. The price was agreedupon by the board and the initial acreage was pur-chased with an option to buy 271/2 additional acreseach year for 5 years. The choice of the site wasmade for these reasons :

1. It was immediately adjacent to the city ofLevelland proper. Levelland has grown steadily butnot at a spectacular rate for the past 10 years. Itwas felt that locating a college here would materiallystimulate the growth of the community.

2. There were no zoning restrictions involved sincethe property lay outside the city limits. Since thecollege was built, however, the area has been takeninto the city limits. The land is flat and slopesgradually to the southeast, with only two small drain-age problems. Located in the northeast corner ofthe land is a dry lake bed which alternately is filledwith water and is dry, depending on the weatherconditions.

It would be well to explain that there is notone river, stream, or creek in Hockley County andthere are no bridges or large culverts. The landis so flat that the only rainwater drainage possibleis through such dry lake beds or sumps. It wasnoted that the lake bed was large enough to hold

1 In Texas, a "labor" of land is 177.14 acres.

COLLEGE 133

the flow of water up to and including a 5-inchrain. During the summer of 1960 an 81/2-inchrain occurred in less than a week in Levelland andwater was within 8 to 10 feet of the new boys'dormitories. However, it has been estimated byagricultural engineers that it would take 10 or 12inches of rain to fill the lake far enough to do anydamage to the buildings on campus.

One basic question was whether to build thecollege with unit-type construction or on the cam-pus plan. The campus plan was decided uponbecause it would provide separation of the variousdepartments as well as allow for more flexible ex-pansion later. Also, the esthetic attractiveness ofthe campus plan was considered in making thischoice. The terrain on which the college was tobe built is rather flat and barren, and the campusplan would allow for ample landscaping. Thesite is located along U.S. Highway 385, on onelabor of land, using approximately 40 acres of thatlabor for the original quadrangle site. Pavedaccess streets lead from U.S. Highway 385, andcountry roads lead into the campus at the ncrthand south ends of the quadrangle. A paved streetof normal city width runs completely around thequadrangle.

In the Wrest Texas area, because of the distancesinvolved, a high percentage of the students haveautomobile transportation in one form or anotherand there were no on-campus living quarters forthe first 2 years.

Selection of an Architect

The firm of Haynes and Kirby was selected asthe architect for South Plains College. Therewere several reasons for this choice : ) It wasthe senior architectural firm in Lubbock, Tex.,which, is located 28 miles due east of Levelland;(2) both members of the firm are Texas Techno-logical College graduates and West Texas menwho were therefore familiar with the philosophyand ideas of the West Texas area as well as withthe practical consideration concerning climate andweather, and (3) this firm has probably built moreschool buildings in the West Texas area than anyother architectural partnership. Haynes andKirby designed the West Elementary School inLevelland as well as buildings for Texas Techno-logical College. In summary, it can be said that

'41111111e.MA.

r:vr

G. ft,

South Plains College, Levelland, Tex., ranged its five major buildings around an irregular rectangle, each

facing a street. Pedestrians walk from building to building without crossing vehicular traffic.

Haynes and Kirby were selected as architects be-cause of their practical experience in buildingschools in West Texas as well as for their exten-sive knowledge of the geography and climate ofthe area.

To approach the problem of specific require-ments for definite educational facilities, it will benecessary to examine the campus as a whole andthen by its separate components.

Planning the Campus

The campus, as previously mentioned, was builtaccording to the campus plan with five Majorbuildings : the administration building, library,student center, agriculture-industrial building,and auditorium. The buildings were placed inthe above order clockwise around an irregularrectangle (see above) with each building facingits respective street. Adequate paved parkingareas were located in front of each of the build-ings. The rear or side of each building faced theinner quadrangle. This allowed pedestrian travelfrom one building to another without crossing aline of vehicular traffic.

The administration building was built in aU-shape and contains most of the classrooms.The east or righthand wing contains the class-

rooms for business administration consistingof a typing room, accounting and business ma-chines laboratory, lecture room, and an undesig-nated classroom. When, after construction hadbegun, it was decided that a class in vocational

nursing should be included in the college supple-mental program, the undesignated classroom wasmodified to form a vocational nursing classroomcomplete with cabinets, sinks, stove, hospital bed,etc. The general administrative offices are locatedin the northeast corner of the administrationbuilding. Being built in a unique fashion, thepresident's office, tax assessor-collector's office, reg-istrar's office, and the office of the director of eve-ning school, as well as the publication and mimeo-graph room, are ranged around a large centralreception and workroom in which are located thesecretaries for the various administrative offices.

The dean's office is located approximately three-fourths of the way down the main wing near themajority of the classrooms; the reason for this isthat the dean, being primarily concerned withstudent activities, is thereby more readily avail-able to the students. Across the remainder of theadministration building front are located class-rooms. The west or lefthand wing was built as ascience wing and contains well-equipped labora-tories for biology, chemistry, physics, as well asa lecture room complete with demonstrationequipment, and a suitable darkroom.

It was felt by the administration and board thatthis one-story U-type construction was favorablefor expansion. All that is necessary to expand theadministration building is the addition of class-

rooms at either end of the main wing or the en-closure of the open part of the U. Restroomsare located at the extreme end of both. wings


so that further expansion would not requireadditional plumbing costs. The administrationbuilding is completely air-conditioned summerand winter with the use of refrigerated air-condi-tioning and boiler heating. Each room has accessto two radiators located in the ceiling of the mainhalls, with hot or cold air ducted into each roomby individual blowers, these being controlled byindividual thermostats in each room. There are10 teacher offices located in the administrationbuilding, these being scattered appropriatelythrough all three wings in order that instructorsmay be near the classrooms in which they teach.Use was mode of large areas of glass in the ad-ministration building in order to have as muchnatural light as possible in the offices, classrooms,and corridors. This can and does add up to a sub-stantial saving in utilities costs during the year.

Located to the southwest of the quadrangle andfacing away from the administration building isthe library and Fine Arts Building which con-sists of three main units: the book stacks, libraryreading room, and fine arts section. The mainreading room is of two-story height, but is inreality one large room with a mezzanine. The westwall of the reading room contains a two-story win-dow. This large window was built to take ad-vantage of natural light and to give the room anopen, spacious effect. The ad; llinistration andboard of South Plains College believe that every-thing should be done to make the library readingroom as cheerful, bright, and homelike as possiblein an effort to overcome the somewhat naturalreluctance of students to spend daylight hoursin a dark, cramped library. The stacks are lo-cated immediately to the south of the main read-ing room and are of two-story construction. Themezzanine of the main library reading room wasincluded in order to provide extra reading spacefor periodicals and to provide access to the second-story stacks, teacher office, and an equipmentroom.

The library building may be expanded by merelyadding to the reading room in one of two direc-tions. The reading room could be continued fromits present position to the south, thereby formingan L-shaped room, or an addition could be builtdirectly in back of the present reading room.

Directly under the mezzanine of the libraryreading room is located the librarian's office,

135

audiovisual storage room, librarian's workroom, aglass-enclosed conference room, and the chargedesk. These offices were located in this order tomake maximum utilization of the space directlybelow the mezzanine and to be readily accessibleshould an addition to the reading room be built asmentioned above.

The fine arts section, which is an integral partof the library building, consists of a small audi-torium seating 70, a music studio, instructors' of-fices, and practice rooms. The small auditoriumwas built for several reasons : (1) It will providea classroom for speech and drama; (2) it is suit-able for use by the college chorus; and (3) recitals,capping ceremonies for nurses, and other like func-tions may be held there. This effects a saving inthe use of the large auditorium which requiresconsiderably more effort to clean, maintain, andheat. Also, audience psychology was taken intoconsideration; that is, audiences are better satis-fied and respond better to performances when asmall auditorium is full than when a large audi-torium is almost empty.

Located next to the small auditorium is themusic studio in which piano, voice, and musicclasses are taught. Separated by a small traversecorridor on the extreme north end of the buildingare four soundproof practice rooms. The cor-ridor arrangement in the library is unusual inthat in warmer climates and climates with lessvaried weather the corridor by which the studentsreach the various areas of the library would be

open. Because of the adverse weather and thesudden climatic changes felt in this area of WestTexas, the corridor was enclosed with a wall ofglass. The library building is air-conditioned forsummer and winter comfort.

Located immediately to the south and east ofthe library building is the student center, whichis a tri-purpose building. The student center con-tains a student recreation room, gymnasium, andband hall, thereby locating the three most noise-producing activities in one building.

The gymnasium occupies the center part of thebuilding and is adequate for physical educationclasses as well as for intramural and intercollegiateathletics. Bleachers which are located on thesouth wall of the gymnasium are of the roll-awaytype and provide seating for approximately BOO

people. This leaves the other three walls avail-


able for various other activities. Eventually, asthe college grows and as more seating space isneeded, bleachers will be added to the north walland risers to the end walls.

Located immediately behind the gymnasiumproper are the dressing facilities for girls' physi-cal education, boys' physical education, instruc-tors' offices, and a team room for intercollegiateathletics. In the south wing of the student centerare the facilities used for the band, separated by adouble set of doors from the rest of the building.The band wing contains a large band hall ( withample blackboard space in order that it may beused as a classroom during the hours that banddoes not meet) as well as an instrument room, uni-form room, and four soundproof practice rooms.The student recreation room is located in the op-posite wing and has the only departure from ournormal construction in that the tiles which wereused in the construction of the building have beencleaned and patterned, thus forming the insidewall with excellent acoustical properties. Seven-ty-five percent of the entire north wall of the stu-dent recreation center is glass which looks out ontoa concrete patio. Terrazzo tile rather than vinyltile was used in the floor in the student recreationcenter because of the heavy pedestrian traffic. Asmall snackbar and the college bookstore werelocated inside the student recreation center duringthe first 2 years of its operation.

During the past year, a large kitchen was builtonto the student recreation wing, because withthe coming of dormitories also came the problemof feeding facilities for students. A basic decisionhad to be made as to whether to have food facil-ities within the dormitories or in a central loca-tion. It was not possible at this time to finance adining hall in addition to the new kitchen facil-ities so a unique system of serving the students wasset up. Three times a daybreakfast, luncheon,and dinnerthe student recreation room becomesthe dining room. All of the serving essentials,such as steam tables, milk bar, and pastry racks,are mounted on casters, and the serving facilitiesare rolled into the student recreation room andset up. The entire process of setting up and pre-paring to serve takes less than 15 minutes. Whenthe food service is completed, these counters andsteam tables are rolled back into the kitchen,

thereby leaving the student recreation centeravailable for its normal activities.

The kitchen was so designed that in the futurea dining room could be added to the north side,extending into the college quadrangle. This willpermit the return of the student recreation roomto its normal usage for all periods during the dayand evening. Both the student recreation roomand the band facilities have complete year-roundair-conditioning.

Located directly to the east of the student centeris the agriculture and industrial building whichcontains an agriculture laboratory, classroom, twoteacher offices, a tool room, shower room, and shoparea. Extensive use of glass in the shop area hasbeen made in order to secure as much natural lightas possible. Both ends of the shop area have largeoverhead doors in order that vehicles and materialmay be moved in and out with ease. The showerroom includes restroom facilities, locker, andshowers. The shop, because of its constructionand because of the two large overhead doors, wasnot air-conditioned. Heat loss and cooling lossis large if one or both of the overhead doors areopened.

The shop space at the present time needs to beenlarged. There was again no way of foretellingwhat courses would develop and how much equip-ment would be needed. The industrial educationsection of the evening school was larger than ex-pected and as a result shop facilities have beencrowded. Equipment for the following coursesare contained within the single area : welding, ma-chine shop, sheet metal shop, woodworking, in-strumentation laboratory, and refrigeration lab-oratory. With the exception of the machine shopeach of these areas has slightly less space than isactually needed.

Located immediately north of the agriculturebuilding is the college auditorium. It seats 500 atpresent, and seating can be enlarged to approxi-mately 600. The stage is of adequate size for col-lege productions, concerts, lyceum series, and othersuch programs. The lighting system is adequatefor such productions as a small college might pre-sent. On each side of the stage, located in the rearwings, are restroom and dressing room facilitiesfor both men and women. Located immediatelyabove the foyer of the auditorium are the heat andair-conditioning system and a projection room.


This completes the clockwise circle of buildingsaround the inner quadrangle of the campus. Allbuildings are of brick construction with load-bearing walls. The roof is of metal decking cov-ered with insulation, paper, tar, and gravel. Allbuildings are acoustically treated by the use ofacoustical plaster on the ceilings or acoustical tileset in aluminum channels which are suspendedfrom the roof.

Dormitories

In the fall of 1960 the first dormitories wet ecompleted. The dormitories are located across thestreet facing the buildings on the quadrangle, thetwo boys' dormitories being located on the oppositeside of the quadrangle from the girls' dormitory,which is south of the student center. Two men'sdormitories and one women's dormitory were con-structed using the same architectural pattern as inthe other buildings. A fourth dormitory wasadded in 1961. The walls are brick with the sametype of metal decking and insulation for the roof.Each dormitory houses 52 students and has year-round air-conditioning. The dormitories are con-structed in the shape of an L with the largestwing parallel to the street and the smaller wingat a right angle to it. In each dormitory is lo-cated a lounge for use by visitors and guests.There are matrons' quarters and storage facilities.The boys' dormitories have a lavatory in each room

137

and a large shower room in each wing. The girls'dormitory has a bath with a shower located be-tween each two rooms. This dormitory also con-tains a large laundry room with automaticwashing machines and dryers as well as ironingboards which fold down from the wall. Both thegirls' and boys' dormitories have acoustical plasteror tile throughout the buildings.

Also located on campus next to the. two accessroads are the president's home and the dean'shome, which architecturally carry out the samemotif as the other campus buildings. Up to thistime, approximately 45 to 50 acres have beenplanted in grass and landscaped.

Conclusion

What began with an idea in the mind of analert school superintendent in 1949 has takenshape in the form of a new institution of highereducation, making its contribution to the welfareof West Texas. Obstacles have been surmounted,leadership has found expression, public opinionhas been focused, plans have been formulated, anda meaningful result has been achieved. This hasbeen a demonstration that, given full informationand purposeful guidance, a community can workharmoniously and effectively to meet a commonneed. A modern campus with 10 buildings andplently of space to grow now occupies the sitewhere once the buffalo roamed.

tI

Chapter XICONSOLIDATION of two or more existing colleges notonly has all of the planning problems of the founding of anentirely new institution but also the sometimes painful taskof rallying the reluctant support of the constituencies of theseveral colleges being abandoned. The best approach to sucha task may well be to plan the new college so soundly and topresent those plans so attractively that the several loyaltiescommanded by the older institutions are seen as all beingfulfilled in the new one.

Planning and Building St. Andrews PresbyterianCollege

By

PRICE H. GWYNN, Jr.

Dean of the Faculty, St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Laurinburg, N.C.

The Beginnings

THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in NorthCarolina has had a long history of interest inhigher education, dating back to 1837. The storyof the founding of the new St. Andrews Collegeis the story of the Synod of North Carolina's con-cern. with its role in the development of church-supported colleges. Over the years, seven collegeswere in operation in North Carolina to which thePresbyterian Church had given its support. Yet,in the 1950's matters came to a head, reflecting theconcern of intelligent minds in the church for theeffort in higher education both in terms of themultiplicity of small colleges and the kind of as-sistance given by the Synod to support thecolleges.

In 1953, the Synod was given a grant by theFund for the Advancement of Education to searchfor a pattern of Christian higher education inits schools that would hold the greatest promisefor the future. A survey commission selectedfrom the Synod was established, and a surveyadvisory council was engaged, consisting of five

138

distinguished educators with Dr. Roger P.McCutcheon as director of the survey.

For 18 months the groups worked in close coop-eration with the presidents of the institutions thatwere being studied. In 1955, the report of thecommission 1 was presented to the meeting of theSynod and was overwhelmingly adopted. Itsmajor recommendation of the report was fulfilledin September 1961 with the opening of St.Andrews Presbyterian College on a new campusin Laurinburg. This represented the consolida-tion by the Synod of two junior colleges withFlora Macdonald Collegea 4-year liberal artsinstitution. Meanwhile several law suits wereinstituted to block the merger and there wereangry words and sore hearts among many other-wise gentle people who saw loss in the change.In looking back, great things were accomplishedin a remarkably short time. During the process,it seemed that progress was painfully slow.

1 Committee on Educational Institutions, "The Church andHigher Education," A Report to the Synod of North Carolina.July 1955. Office of the Synod of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C.72 p.

ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE

ConsolidationThe deci'.ion to merge the three institutions .was

made on a number of grounds. The necessity forprudent use of the limited financial resources ofthe Synod was, of course, important. It wasclearly demonstrated that it was impossible tofinance the upgrading in facilities, endowment,and operational costs of all the institutions. Thesmall size of the institutionscarried per capitacost beyond economical operation. Although allthree colleges were fully accredited, maintainingeducational standords was a constant struggle.Throughout the report, reference was frequentlymade to the service by faculty members and ofthe problems of college administrators faced withthe task of making "bricks without straw."

A brief word about the aims of the consolidatedcollege is in order. First and foremost, its life wasto be guided by a philosophy of Christian belief.Clearly it. was to be an institution that soughs ex-cellence through the traditions of a sound liberalarts education. Ti was recommended that the con-solidated schcol be a 4-year coeducational liberalarts college. The junior cone, ;e was viewed as aninstitution better suited to be a portion of the pub-licly supported system of higher education. Theaims of developing Christian leadership were notconsidered as readily served by the junior collegewith its more transient population as by the 4-year

institution. This point of view developed fromthe experience of the Synod with both kinds ofcolleges.

The coeducational college marked a change forthe three institutions to be consolidated. The na-tionwide problem encountered by women's colleges

in raising funds and keeping students in the upper2 years offered practical reasons for choosing co-educational instruction, aside from the other views

on the desirability of so doing.The report urged that the new institution be of

adequate size to warrant complete staffing andto help reduce its costs. Five hundred was set forminimum size with the expectation that the collegewould grow eventually to 2,000 students.

Location

It was recommended that the college be locatedin central or eastern North Carolina in a "popula-

630581 0-62 10

139

tion center where, in addition to the interest andsupport of the constituency, cultural opportunitiesand advantages are afforded the student." 2 Thelocation in a population center would also allowthe development of a source of enrollment of daystudents.

Immediately after this announcement was made,something new in Presbyterian circles took place.Sixteen communities in the State of North Caro-lina began vying with one another to have thiscollege located in their towns. Committees wereformed, funds raised, prospective sites suggested.The Synod appointed a strong committee con-sisting principally of laymen, but with good cap-able ministerial support, to select the most suitablesite.

After visiting most of the towns and cities in-volved, and after studying the total educationalpicture in eastern North Carolina, the committeeselected Laurinburg, a small town of 8,200 peoplewithin the city limits and about 12,000 with thesuburbs included. Two of the consolidating insti-tutions were located nearby, and the third was inRaleigh, 80 miles way. Laurinburg almost lit-erally straddles the border between North andSouth Carolina and lies at the western edge ofwhat is called "the coastal plains" region of NorthCarolina. This section is strongly Scottish incharacter. The "Macs" are prominent in bothbusiness and civic life. Laurinburg is situated inScotland County and the whole. section once was

called "New Scotland." Charlotte, the largest cityin the State, is 100 miles to the west, and Wilming-ton and the popular Carolina beaches lie 100 miles

to the east. Raleigh, Durham, Winston-Salem,High Point, and Salisbury all lie 100 miles awayin a northerly direction.

The reasons which lie back of the committee'sselection. of Laurinburg are interesting, as theyreveal something of the Scottish character. Laur-inburg as a community is strongly independent.Because of this spirit of independence, in 1956Laurinburg was cited by a panel appointed by anational magazine as an "All-American City."When it wanted a public swimming pool andneeded a new hospital, the town council floatedbonds and paid for these enterprises. When theydecided they wanted this college located in their

town, five of its citizens went into a bank directors'

2 Ibid., p. 32.


room and raised a million dollars on the spot asan initial gift to the college. The citizens ofLaurinburg raised a total of $3,400,000 for thecollege.

In addition to considerations already given, thecommittee chose Laurinburg because its citizenshad shown a sustained interest in higher educationover the years by serving faithfully and ably onvarious boards of the church colleges in the areaand by sacrificial support of different collegeswithin the bounds of the Southern PresbyterianChurch.

A campaign for funds in the Synod was con-ducted by the board of trustees in 1956 and anadditional $1,500,000 raised. A site for the mergedinstitution was chosen a mile south of town.Twenty-six farms and parcels of land were bought,giving the new campus 840 acres, considerablymore than a square mile.

Curriculum Study

A second major study predated the planning ofphysical facilities for the new institution. In 1957

a panel of educators was appointed to draw upsuggestions for a curriculum for the new collegewith the aid of a grant from the Fund for the Ad-vancement of Education. The panel, chaired byWilliam Taeusch, Dean of the College of Wooster,Wooster, Ohio, was made up of Ruth Eckert, Pro-fessor of Higher Education, College of Education,University of Minnesota; Sidney J. French, Deanof Rollins College; Price H. Gwynn, Jr., Dean ofFlora Macdonald College and first Dean of theFaculty of St. Andrews; Jameson M. Jones, Deanof Southwestern University at Memphis; andRene de Visme Williamson, Professor of PoliticalScience, Louisiana State University. A largegroup of educators participated from time to timein the study with the panel, made distinguishedcontributions to the overall project, and prepareda report.

The panel stated that in developing a proposedplan of curriculum, these principles were basic :

(1) Christianity should be the living center of thewhole college community and should radiate through-out all its activities.

(2) The college should continue the strong tradi-tions and achievements of its merging colleges andshould continue to heed the academic needs of its timeand place.

(3) Sound scholarship should characterize thework of this college. Our principle here is this simpledirective : The college cannot do everything ; it shoulddo well what it undertakes, and it should cour-ageously decline what it cannot do well.

(4) It should be planner' and maintained withthrift, avoiding cheeseparing at one extreme and, atthe other, luxurious expeneiture of time, energy, andmoney. It can secure durable quality by using itsresources on those expenditures which will best pro-mote its primary purposes.3

The general structure of the 4-year liberal artsprogram for typical students as envisaged by thepanel, incorporated into the buildings, and nowbeing put into action by the faculty, is shown inthe accompanying diagram.

Typical 4-Year Program

The curriculum suggestions were open-endedand drew from, among other sources, papers pre-sented from faculties of some of the institutionsto be consolidated.

The panel favored a plan which would includea large block of general education courses to betaken by all students as a part of the Christiancultural heritage and experience. This wouldcover about half the student's total time aid bearthe title of basic liberal studies. These are to in-clude, in addition to work in Christianity andCulture continuing through all 4 years, generalcourses in natural science, mathematics, and thehumanities.

In a sense, the basic liberal studies constitutea triangle, broad at the base ( freshman year) andtapering toward the senior year. Complement-ing this is an inverted triangle of work, broaden-ing in the upper years and gravitating toward thestudent's chosen field of concentrationelectives,professional, and cognate courses. Thus, half ofhis work will be taken in common with his fellowstudents in the basic liberal studies and half inthe area of his own special interests. The teamteaching method is used in presenting the coreprogram entitled Christianity and Culture. Allother courses are handled in the conventionalfashion with one teacher for each class.

3 The Panel. Curriculum, suggested by Panel of Educators forConsolidated Presbyterian. College, St. , Andrews PresbyterianCollege, Laurinburg, N.C. 1957. p. 19, 20.


TYPICAL FOUR-YEAR PROGRAM

Senior Comprehensive Examination

141

iii Ordi

, ),

41

s

IA ,,, ',

it

Professional orUpper Class

6

Upper ClassElective

6

Major Studies and Seminar

12

.........

Independentprojectrelated toMajor Field

Crafts andSports

Professional or

.Upper Class

, = Elective4; '

.

6

Upper ClassElective

6

Major Studies and Project

.

12

Independentprojectrelated toMajor Field

Crafts andSports

Progress Testing

Urf Ries Language orElective

Elective

(possiblefirst courseof major)

Independentprojectrelated to BasicLiberal Studies

PhysicalEducationand Sports

6 6

t NOLA& SdieriOe and

.400.0 ...... 4.1.me

CommunicationSkills (Eno lish)

6

Orientation and Pre-Testing

Required for graduation: 120 academic credits, four years of independent project work, a satisfactory grade

in the senior comprehensive examination, completion of a program of concentration studies, two years

of Physical Education, and work in handicrafts.

Independentprojectrelated to BaskLiberal Studies

PhysicalEducationand Sports

Basic Liberal Studies

Elective, Professional,and Major Studies

Figure 3.Typical 4-year Program St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Laurinburg, N.C.

Physical Facilities

The initial step taken in the translation of needsto buildings was to secure an architect for theproject. After interviewing some 38 architectsfrom Boston to Florida, the building committeeselected A. G. Odell, Jr., and Associates ofCharlotte, N.C., to plan the campus and buildings.The selection was based largely upon the estimate

by the committee that this !irm was best equippedin design skills to interpret the demands and thesymbolism of the college in architecture. Al-

though Mr. Odell had undertaken college con-struction, his practice was diversified and markedby originality and creativity in design, togetherwith a knack for getting buildings that workedwell. The location of the firm in Charlotte, al-


though not a major factor, was helpful in speed-ing the solution of the many problems that aroseon the job. The architect drew a strong group ofprofessional engineers and landscape designersabout him.

The building committee whose chairman was acapable layman, Mr. Halbert Jones, then securedthe services of Enge'larclt, Engelhardt, and Leg-gett, educational consultants of New York City.The role of this organization was to develop in de-tail programs of requirements for each space to beincluded in the buildings .4 The programing ofspaces was done in close cooperation with thefaculty, 'tnd the consultants' wide experience incollege planning over tha country was brought tobear upon problems. The consultants were in-volved as a part of the team in all aspects of theplanning process. They did a good deal of thedetailed work in coordinating and recordingfaculty thinking; in summarizing proposals fordiscussions; and, in general, releasing the admin-istrative staff from some of the immense burdenof getting a new college under way.

Site planning. --The architects developed aseries of studies of the site that gradually evolvedinto the broad campus plan that is being followed.Participating in these studies were the architectsand the landscape planner, Lewis Clarke, ofRaleigh, N.C. The proposals were reviewed byfaculty and staff representatives and the educa-tional consultants.

A major proposal was made to converi, thestream running through the property with its low-lying swampy area into a lake. Careful studyshowed that the supply of water was plentiful anduncontaminated. The lake would provide a splen-did focal point for the campus and would concen-trate a good deal of student walking traffic alonga wide causeway that linked the dormitory andcollege union on one side with the library andacademic buildings on the other. (See p. 141.)

At a strategic point on the causeway was to belocated the chapel as a symbol of the Christiannature of the college. The causeway, too, wasthought to be an advantage to the college in devel-oping a sense of community. Although only 300to 400 feet long, the causeway was to be the onlycentral connection between the two sides of the

4Engelhardt, Engelhardt, and Leggett. Program of Require-ments, Consolidated Presbyterian College. New York, The Au-thors, 1958.

campus. There would be an increased likelihoodof seeing familiar faces and gaining a sense of be-longing as the whole college found itself minglingon the causeway, passing and repassing the chapel.

Major access to the campus was to be gainedfrom a State highway in the process of beingwidened to a four-lane divided highway. The ut-most in cooperation was received from the high-way department. A needed service road for themajor highway was relocated into the campusproper and with a bridge, became a most usefullink between both sides of the lake.

The actual entrance to the campus was set co-operatively with the highway department, utiliz-ing at the same time an old road into the propertythat was lined with large trees. Incidentally, someof the campus was farmed while planning andconstruction was in progress, yielding income.Many acres of trees were planted for later use onthe site and for reforestation of some of the land.

The cooperati7e nature of the college projectbetween the town of Laurinburg and the board oftrustees became increasingly apparent as timewent on. Not only had Laurinburg freely con-tributed financially to the establishment of thecollege but the local authorities did all in theirpower to help the college get under way. Waterwas extended from the town system. A new sewertreatment plant was needed by the town and thecollege was connected into that. utility. On thewhole, everything possible was done locally topromote the building of the college.

The site plan was finally developed and muchof the site-grading, development of the lake, roads,curb and gutter work, and the like were startedunder separate contracts before bids were acceptedon construction of buildings.

Careful study had pointed to a central heatingand cooling plant, together with distribution sys-tems. Sewer, water, and electrical systems alsowere planned jointly. All of these mechanicalsystems were placed under contract and largelyaccomplished before construction started on newbuildings. The college has engaged a landscapearchitect to carry on the grassing, planting oftrees, and development of the site. The lake, thecauseway, and the buildings, when trimm_ a bygrass and trees and planting, should be a com-posite work of beauty.

r)

4,


4

143

Mockup of Campus of St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Laurinburg, N.C., showing how the lake divides the

campus. A causeway links the academic and library area to the residence halls and college union area, with

the chapel located between.

Architectural style.The selection of A. G.Odell as architect for the overall project had sug-gested that contemporary design would be sought.The building committee wished to be assure :1 thata style of architecture that could be lived withover many years was developed for the campus.Perhaps the most effective visual aid device usedwas a circular perspective of the campus so drawnthat when the viewer stood within a 10-foot diam-eter circle with a band of drawings at his eye levelhe was transported visually into the campus beforeit was constructed. This was no doubt of great

value to the group of laymen who were requiredto exercise judgment in the field of architecturalstyle.

The college was designed in a group of warmearth colors and white concrete. The walls wereof a light brown brick or precast concrete panelswith an exposed aggregate in yellow and brown.Where screens were to be used, again a tan wasselected. The screens, a cast block to keep the sun-light off glass walls where it could be troublesome,were formed in an unobstrusive shape of a cross.

Contained within funds for the building project


was an allocation for some ornamentation, includ-ing a series of cast units at the entrance that holda long history of symbolism in the PresbyterianChurch. A large mosaic mural at the entranceto the academic building reminds the collegedaily of the close relationship between art andeducation.

Flexibility.The staff, consulting firm, and ar-chitects, in approaching the translation of the de-scribed curriculum into a plant that would sup-port it, found themselves in an area where therewas not a great deal of guidance available fromexisting institutions. The dependence, for sucha considerable part of the curriculum, 36 hours,upon team teaching and the likelihood thatprocedures introduced now would be modified inthe future suggested that the classroom and lab-oratory facilities would require maximum flexibil-ity. Consequently, the academic building is onestory in height with its floor slab elevated abovegrade. This allows for ready access to utilitiesfor sciences and ease of changing services to anypart of the building. For example, if TV circuitsare to be enlarged, the coaxial cable can be run toany point in the building without requiring ex-pensive conduits to be installed in advance of need.

Flexibility was a requirement in terms, also, ofthe ultimate size of the college. While it was ex-pected that the original enrollment would be about800, the preliminary plans of the college requireda layout for an anticipated growth to 2,000 stu-dents, and all facilities have been sized to grow tothis number. A total of 2,000 students has beenset as a desirable maximum size. The originalacademic building was designed to accommodatethe program for 1,000 students. The library andstudent center were also sized at 1,000. The pos-sibility of extending beyond 2,000 students is safe-guarded by the location of buildings so that thereis room for expansion of key units such as thestudent center and the library, and a large site isavailable so that peripheral expansion of the col-lege can continue almost indefinitely if needed.

The Academie Building.The program of re-quirements for the academic building as developedby faculty and educational consultants called foran air-conditioned building that would includeall the laboratory and classroom activities for 1,000students. A building of 64,000 square feet was de-veloped. Its major unit is a large classroom de-

signed for use by 250 students at a time. It is aroom with a flat floor designed for the utmost useof technical aids by the faculty in presenting in-formation to students in large groups. The flatfloor gives flexibility. It can be equipped withTV in order to give ready viewing of demonstra-tions, panel discussions, and the like when a largecrowd is in the room. Rear view projectors andoverhead projectors can be used, and there is aprojection booth for films at the rear of the room.An adequate public address system, to which taperecorders can be connected, completes the elec-

tronic equipment.Classrooms are provided in varying sizes. All

of these have some windows but, as the entirebuilding is air-conditioned, primary reliance ison mechanical ventilation and cooling.

Faculty offices are provided which are isolatedfrom specific classrooms in order to secure maxi-mum use of space. A comfortable faculty loungeis available and areas are provided for informalcontact between students and faculty.

Science facilities are planned for two purposes :(1) for a general introductory program sched-uled in the sophomore year and (2) for a majorin one of the natural sciences, as well as prepara-tion for teaching or graduate work.

The academic building contains a business ed-ucation area, a foreign language laboratory, anart studio, homemaking spaces, and similar spe-cialized areas. All of these spaces were developedby faculty and consultant jointly until the needswere expressed in enough detail to turn the ma-terial over to the architects for design purposes.

College union.The student center is plannedfor the service of meals and it also takes care ofmany college activities. It houses the postoffice,the bookstore, college dining room, snackbar,lounges, and some meeting and games space. Thekitchen and overall food service, planned by Flam-bert and Flambert, food service consultants ofSan Francisco, Calif., utilizes a "scramble" ratherthan a line for the cafeteria service. The diningareas can be subdivided. A faculty dining roomwith lounge space is provided. A smaller diningroom seating 100 is provided for meetings anddinners.

Service is planned for the student center sothat, upon demand, food can be moved from the


central kitchen to any of the dormitories. Thus,it would be possible, when desired, for a dormitorygroup or some other social group to have food pre-pared in the central kitchen and served at any lo-cation on the campus. The two-story building isaccessible from the main dormitory level at thetop floor and from the main academic campus areaat the lower level.

Library.The library will occupy a pivotal po-sition on the campus and will be located at the endof the causeway that links the dormitory andacademic areas. The library is a three-story unitwith service, processing areas, circulation desk,catalog, librarian's office, and reference space onthe first floor, with substantial expansion planned.The upper floors will have open reader-book space.An open stack system is anticipated. The attempthas been made to avoid overly large reading areas.The one open reading space is planned for fresh-man reading when additional service from the li-brary staff is available to help new students.

Throughout the library the emphasis is uponflexibility. Few partitions are fixed and then onlybecause of plumbing. The book ranges will ac-commodate 150,000 books, and the floor space, 300readers. Probably, in terms of the demand of thebasic courses for reading by students, the librarywill be the first building to become overused and

overcrowded.Dormitories.Dormitories have been provided

for 600 students in first construction, with the ex-pectation that in 1 or 2 years additional dormitoryspace for 200 more students will be required.Dormitories were planned for groups of 8, 10, or12 students with a common lounge and commonwashroom facility, much in the manner of a fairlylarge apartment. In the one-story dormitory, thecenter quadrangle is a quiet area for rest andsunning. In the three-story dormitory, each upperfloor lounge has an open sun porch as well. Alldormitory rooms are air-conditioned. Each dor-mitory has a reception area, lounge, visitor's room,and an apartment for the adult head of thedormitory.

The dormitories were kept reasonably small, ac-commodating between 84 and 100 students to abuilding. The size of the dormitories, the provi-sion of apartment units, and the possibility of food

145

service in the main lounges suggests the effort thathas been made to have the dormitory a simple,pleasant subcenter of social life on the campus.

Throughout, the realization that a great deal ofthe student's time is spent studying in a dormitoryroom has led to the development of the lounge foreach group of four to six double bedrooms, where,hopefully, much of the converstation may takeplace. Care has been taken to make the roomsquiet and less subject to noise transmission. Theair-conditioning, which obviates the necessity ofopening windows, may also help in providing aquiet place for study.

Music conservatory.A strong program in

music, particularly church-related music, has pre-vailed for a long time at Flora Macdonald College.The new campus provides for a continuation andbroadening of this program. The music conserva-

tory has two large rehearsal and recital rooms,ample individual practice rooms, some classrooms

for theory, and teaching studios. Careful atten-tion has been given to a music library and placesto play recordings.

Future Campus Development

Although the academic building, library, col-lege union, music conservatory, and some dormi-tories are the first buildings to be provided, thecampus plan (based on a student body of 2,000)

contemplates additional buildings to include anauditorium, chapel, administration building, phys-ical education space, and additions to existingspace of other buildings.

Lessons Learned

It was recognized from the start that, in theprocess of merging existing institutions, there

would be opposition from those with strong loyal-

ties to the institutions involved. The importantfactor in a consolidation movement is that thecontrolling agencies be solidly behind the move-ment before it is undertaken. That is the essen-

tial strength needed to carry through the

projected plans. In the case of St. AndrewsPresbyterian College, the heads and appropriateadministrative officers of the merging institutionswere invited to participate in all major planning


activities. Also, the appropriate faculty memberswere consulted as the architect and educationalconsulting firm developed plans for the campusand buildings. The board of the consolidated col-lege is composed primarily of trustees of themerging institutions.

If anything is to be learned from our experi-ence it is that once the decision has been madeby a controlling agency, action should be takenimmediately to carry out the plans. However,nothing should be undertaken unless substantialfunds are in hand commensurate with the needs,

and unless adequate financing is assured duringthe first years of operation when little in the wayof supplementary help from sources like alumnican be expected. Further, it is imperative thatthe site selected have potential for adequate finan-cial support from the start. In addition to soundfinancial planning, it is important that the bestpossible educational advice is sought from the be-ginning. Those who have helped start the build-ing of St. Andrews have learned much in theprocess and have much to learn. But one thingis certainthe reward is great.

Chapter XIIIMPROVISATION AND "MAKE DO" can be rewarding.At any rate they are sometimes necessary. Making a virtueout of necessity is the theme in the case of Barrington Col-lege. This is a double-barreled case since the college firstaccommodated itself to an erstwhile hospital facility andlater to the country estate of a wealthy industrialist.

Establishing Barrington College in Part in FacilitiesNot Planned for a Higher Educational Institution

ByHOWARD W. FERRIN

President, Barrington College, Barrington, R.I.

SOMEONE HAS SAID that three moves areworse than a bad fire. This, however, is not

always true, for Barrington College has movedthree times and each move has been far from adetrimental experience. Founded in Spencer,Mass., May 5, 1900, it moved to Dudley, Mass., in1923; to Providence, RI., in 1929; and in 1961 itwill locate its facilities on the new 110-acre cam-pus in Barrington, R.I., a delightful community7 miles south of Providence.

Early History

This institution did not begin as a 4-year col-lege. It had its inception as an independent,interdenominational religious school, dedicatedpreeminently to providing theoretical and prac-tical instruction in the several church vocations.The curriculum was limited, but students from notonly the immediate local area but from all of theNew England States in particular attended theschool because of its distinctive program. Dur-ing the first 38 years of its existence it neverreached an enrollment of more than 100 students,but under a new administration inaugurated in1925 the school grew until, following WorldWar II, it reached an enrollment of more than500.

Dr. Walter Dill Scott, former President ofNorthwestern University, once made the commentthat an institution passes through three stages :survival, expansion, and improvement. This hasbeen the experience of Barrington College. Itmust be conceded that the college might haveceased to exist at almost any time between 1900

and 1940. In 1932, for example, at the bottomof the great depression, the student body was re-duced to 33 students.

An account of the difficulties the school hadin establishing itself in the improvised quartersat Dudley, Mass., would be of little significance.The move to Providence, RI., in 1929, however,brought problems of adjustment which might wellbe of interest. The newly acquired property,formerly owned by the Providence Lying-In Hos-pital, was more than adequate to provide the facil-ities needed at that time to house all the activitiesof the almost extinct institution. It was composed

of three good-sized buildings. The central one, alarge private dwelling with spacious rooms, highceilings, and other advantages, had been given tothe hospital in Civil War days. Later the hos-pital had erected two wings which, joined to thehospital at the ends, were substantial annexes, oneserving as a ward building, the other as a nurses'

147


home. Although the property was located im-mediately to the rear of the beautiful RhodeIsland State Capitol, the neighborhood had deter-iorated noticeably. The property was hardlywhat a school would choose to own, but with itslimited resources this small school had littlechoice. The move was necessary, one very im-portant reason being the need of the students tofind outside work to increase their income, forwhich there had been few opportunities at Dudley.Providence is the second largest metropolitancenter in New England.

Improvisations on Campus No. 3

The major needs of the institution were met bythe three buildings. In the central unit, offices andclassrooms were established on the first floor, andthe second and third floors housed women students.After judicious removal of partitions the wardbuilding provided facilities for classrooms andlibrary. In the same way provision was made fora small chapel and additional classrooms in otherareas. Offices were located on the first floor of theformer nurses' building, and the three upper floorsserved the dormitory needs of men. In the earlyyears, the basement provided space for a diningroom and kitchen, and after the construction of anew building in 1948, it housed the financial andmailing departments. One part of the chapel hadformerly been the delivery room and was actuallythe very room in which one of our graduates wasborn.

During the thirties the tide seemed to turn, theschool began to grow, and by 1940 the enrollmentwas about 150. As the student body increased, sodid the number of faculty members. Every spacehad to be utilized. The growing college familycalled for constant adjustments which again andagain taxed the patience of everyone. Yet the joyof the growth was the reward of amelioration,which made it all seem exceedingly worth while.

The war years were followed by an influx ofstudents which was the precursor of the first periodof the necessary major expansion of the smallcollege. It was necessary to find additional hous-ing facilities. Ninety percent of the students camefrom outside the State and in order to house themthe college acquired several two- and three-familyframe houses that adjoined the hospital property.

Fortunately this was not difficult because, as wehave already indicated, the market value of theproperty in the neighborhood was declining.Houses were purchased at reasonable figures, reno-vated, and made as comfortable as possible. Thebuildings were far from prepossessing, so we im-

proved them to the best of our ability by paintingthem and doing some landscaping. However, noone who passed would have conjectured by thefurthest stretch of his imagination, that thesebuildings were the dormitories of a college. Theacquisition of this type of building continued overa period of about 20 years until some 25 houses hadbeen acquired, located on about 31/2 acres of land.

The following observation may be of encourage-ment to some administrative officers: if the espritde corps of a school is high, if the students arebusily engaged in the pursuit of knowledge andare participating in wholesome extracurricularactivities, it is our opinion that they will not beas critical of substandard housing facilities as wesometimes fear. In our affluent society we areprone to think that unless we provide facilitiesthat border on the luxurious, our students willturn from us and select some other institution.This may be true in some cases but in Providence,happily, our experience has been otherwise. Infact, after 1 year on our present new campus atBarrington, a former multimillionaire's estate,some students have actually been eager to go backand spend their junior and senior years on theProvidence campus because they felt that the fel-lowship of the students still on that campus andthe dynamic spirit generated there were conta-gious. Actually, students are more concernedabout the educational program offered by the col-lege and the close companionship with their fel-low-students than about the physical properties ofthe institution. We do not of course argue thatdormitories should be in any sense intentionallyinferior or inadequate, lacking in what is con-ducive to wholesome living; but we do believe thatif an institution must house its students in sub-standard buildings, this should not necessarily beconstrued as a serious handicap.

Expanding the Program

In 1947 a 4-year college program was estab-lished, and the first Bachelor of Arts degrees were

BARRINGTON COLLEGE

granted in 1950. It became increasingly clear tothe trustees that the buildings were not adequatefor an expanding institution. Not only was it ex-pensive to operate these buildings but the firehazard was exceedingly high, as there were at least20 separate heating units. The fire insurancepremiums on the buildings alone constituted one ofthe major items of the operational budget; buteven more serious than this was the ever-presentfear that a fire might result in loss of life. Fur-thermore, the cost of the maintenance of suchframe buildings was inordinately high.

In addition to the problem of economical op-eration, there was the challenge of an increasedenrollment. With a student body of over 500 andthe prediction of an even greater college enroll-ment as we enter the sixties, the trustees, as earlyas 1947, engaged a highly competent architecturalfirm in Providence to prepare the plans for newbuildings that would replace the old. The seniorpartner of this firm had had wide experience inplanning some of the outstanding buildings ofProvidence and of several academic institutions,including Cornell University. Our experiencewith this firm convinced us that a college will savemoney by engaging the best architects possible.Several thousands of dollars were spent on plansfor new buildings scheduled to be erected on theProvidence campus, but those plans were nevercarried out for the following reason : unexpectedevents developed, for which we were unpreparedand which radically altered the plans of thetrustees, leading them to decide that the collegeshould be moved again. This decision did notgrow out of any preliminary research, surveys, orprofessional counsel, but as a result of the follow-ing truly astonishing series of events : One daythe academic dean of our college, Terrelle B.Crum, informed me that the country estate of thelate Frederick S. Peck of Barrington, R.I., hadbeen bequeathed to a Providence hospital. Thehospital, he informed me, did not desire to keepthe property and therefore planned to sell it. Heasked me to urge the trustees to look into the mat-ter, but I was not disposed to do so at the time.Subsequently, the estate was divided into severalparts. One part included 110 acres of land onwhich were located the magnificent Peck residenceand some 11 adjoining buildings. In 1947 theseproperties were purchased by a junior college.

149

The main buildings were then thoroughlyequipped for academic use and for 3 years, thiscollege operated as a private institution. Un-fortunately, however, in the summer of 1950 itwent into bankruptcy.

Contemplating Campus No. 4

When the newspaper carried the bankruptcystory, some of the members of the administrationwere convinced that this excellent property shouldcontinue to be maintained as an educational insti-tution. From that time on, the wheels began toturn swiftly. While it seemed quite beyond theability of our college to purchase this property,the trustees felt impelled to make a bid on it.Therefore they authorized the administration tolearn how much was owed to creditors by theformer college. On the basis of this information,a bid of $250,000 was authorized by the trustees.While this seemed like a "mountain of money" tousand so it wasactually it was a ridiculouslylow bid for so excellent a piece of property, since

it has been estimated that to duplicate even themain building at today's prices wrval,d,,pst about

$3 million.The laws of Rhode Island require that if one

bids on a property which has gone into receiver-ship, 10 days must elapse after the first bid, dur-ing which time anyone else is privileged to makea bid. Furthermore, it is required that each bid,and the name of the party making the bid, be pub-licized in the newspaper. On October 15, 1950,the bid of our trustees was submitted to a judge ofthe Superior Court of Providence County, and ahearing was set for the morning of October 25th.The whole affai seemed to the administrationquite unorthodw. Certainly the trustees who hadonly $1,000 in hand when they authorized theirbid might well be judged as being presumptuousand foolhardy. On the other hand, some of thesemen were heads of corporations and some wereowners of their own businesses or held high posi-tions in substantial industrial firms. As business-

men they were convinced that the acquisition ofthis property would save the college a sizeable

sum of money, since to provide similar space innew buildings would cost at least four times theamount of the bid.


A Photo Finish in a Campus Sweepstakes

On the day before the court hearing, or on theninth day, a higher bid of $300,000 was submit-ted by a competitor. This indeed complicated thewhole situation and resulted in the cross-play ofmany forces, but when the full picture was pre-sented to the judge the next morning, he gave in-structions that both parties should bring in newsealed bids to the afternoon session, at which timehe would award the right to buy to the one whosubmitted the higher bid. It was a tense momentwhen the bids were opened ! It was a startlingmoment when the judge announced that our com-petitors had bid $331,000 and we had bid $331,001 !So it was by the margin of a single dollar that wewere awarded the right to purchase the property.The days that followed were momentous indeed.A bank approached us and offered to lend us $150,-000, but even this generous arrangement meantthat the trustees would have to raise $181,001 in90 days in order to take up the option. Startingwith only the $1,000 we then had, we publishedthe story of the "Miracle Dollar" in a number ofnational magazines and told the story on the radioand in other ways publicized it, making an urgentappeal for help. The astonishing result was thatfrom all parts of the world the money flowed in,some from the strangest sources, and on the 87thday the title papers were signed and the famousPeck Estate became the property of BarringtonCollege. Thus it is my conviction that when asmall college has the opportunity to acquire amore spacious campus which is judged as not onlydesirable but, in a sense, indispensable, the trusteesmight well strike out boldly and expect the un-usual.

No "White Elephant"

The establishment of our college on the Bar-rington campus with the marvelous facilities notoriginally planned for a higher educational insti-tution, may furnish other college administratorswith some interesting and helpful suggestions.One would hardly expect that the residentialproperties of a private family would satisfy thephysical and academic needs of a college. Indeedit is quite possible that an institution might ac-

quire a millionaire's estate that would be most im-pressive but hardly practical. In this way not afew institutions have acquired a "white ele-phant"but the Barrington property cannot be

so characterized. For nearly 10 years now thesebuildings have demonstrated that they are readilyadaptable to academic use. There is literally nospace in these buildings that cannot be used ad-vantageously. The spacious reception room givesdignity, beauty, and warmth when one enters themain hall. Several large lounges which flank thereception hall are being used for library purposes.This improvised library space is in addition to themagnificent private library with its marble floors,limestone walls, and beautifully paneled shelves inwhich were housed some 5,000 volumes of Mr.Peck's rare collection.

It has been estimated that the former juniorcollege had installed some $40,000 worth of schoolequipment in the main buildings alone. This ofcourse included some dormitory equipment placedin 28 spacious rooms with adjoining baths. Thedormitory accommodations, however, were limitedand provided facilities only for the sophomoreclass. This meant that the other three classes hadto remain on the Providence campus some 8 milesaway. The problem of intercommunication be-tween the two campuses for a period of 8 years hasbeen difficult and, at times, quite frustrating.Faculty members have had to commute betweenthe campuses. The science courses have had to beoffered in the second year only, because the physics,chemistry, and biological laboratories are locatedon the Barrington campus. In addition to themain buildings there are three other structures onthe Barrington campus that our architects told uswere so well built that they should be remodeledand put to use. One large building has alreadybeen converted into a music building which pro-vides 7 teaching studios, 18 piano-practice rooms,2 lecture halls, and a recital hall accommodatingabout 125. A second building has been convertedinto an athletic house, opposite the 10-acre athleticfield that s yet to be developed. And there is stillanother buildingthe largest of the three, with afloor space of 20,000 square feet. The presentplans are to utilize this building by making 15classrooms, an assembly hall seating 700, 4 offices,2 lounge rooms, and a dining room accommodatingabout 325.

BARRINGTON COLLEGE 151

The campus of Barrington College, Barrington, R.I., was once the country estate of the late Frederick S. Peck.The major buildings comprised the Peck residence and remain the showplace. They house the administration,

the library, and academic rooms.

Expanding the Facilities

The physical development of the new Barring-ton campus has engaged the attention of the boardof trustees ever since the property was acquired.As early as 1954 a Boston architectural firm hadbeen engaged to prepare a plot-plan of the entirecampus, looking to its development over a periodof several decades. In this overall plan, the majorbuildingsthe former Peck residencewould al-ways be considered the center, or the "show place."(See above.) Such a center is, we believe, neededon every campus. Not only are these massive stonebuildings of Tudor architecture most impressivewhen one sees them for the first time, but the

landscaping about them is almost breathtaking. Ithas been estimated that to duplicate the land-scaping at. today's prices would cost about $50,000.To the west of these buildings there are about 75acres of woodland.

The architects laid out this entire area in threemajor sections. On the north side of what con-stitutes a rectangle, a living area has been estab-lished. Here the dormitories will be erected. Onthe southeast section the academic buildings willbe located; the southwest area has been reservedfor a graduate school. In the center of the cam-pus and at the focal point of these three areaswill be located the library, the chapel, and thecollege center. Across the main highway, divid-


ing the upper from the lower campus, there areabout 20 acres of land on which are located theremodeled buildings to which reference has beenmade, and a 10-acre athletic field. It is estimatedthat one can walk from one end of the campus tothe other in about 10 minutes. One of the regula-tions which have been made is that no automobilesshall be allowed on the lower campus. Studentswill either have to walk or ride bicycles to get tomany of their classes. We believe this regulationwill be conducive to the health of the students.

At this writing the move to Barrington is on !'With great eagerness and not without a show ofimpatience, we have waited for the day when theentire faculty, staff, and student body might belocated there.

The first new 162-student dormitory to beerected was completed in January of 1961. Thereis little t ,ne could write about the erection of a newdormitory that cannot be learned by consulting agood architect or by getting blueprints from otherinstitutions, but there is a significant item to whichI should like to refer in connection with the build-ing of the new dormitory. The struggle to liftthe mortgage of $150,000 from the new campuswas not an easy one, but it was achieved in 1953and the property was free of all encumbrances.Then followed some financially difficult years suchas have affected most colleges and universities.It seemed as if the only possible way we coulderect a dormitory was to apply for a Governmentloan. The trustees approved this procedure andthe machinery was set in motion to accomplish it.The college was declared eligible, and an appli-cation for $700,000 was made. However, theredeveloped a great uneasiness on the part of thetrustees and the administration concerning thisprocedure. It seemed to us that it meant "bitingoff more than we could chew." The specificationsand requirements of the building seemed to makethe cost prohibitive. Then came the gloomy dayin February of 1960 when the board met and itseemed as if we were unanimously agreed thatwe should not further process our application.

The Board Sets the Example

Then an exciting and happy thing happened !Before I disclose what it was and ;n order to en-courage other administrators, let me quote from

a most able fundraising consultant we had en-gaged. Among the first things he had said tome was : "President Ferrin, let me underscorethis at the very outset. Unless your trusteesthemselves give substantially toward reaching thefinancial goal of your fund drive, you will notmake a success of this effort." How true hiswords were will be seen in the following record.

As is the case in every board of trustees, thereare dedicated men who find it impossible to makelarge gifts at all, or can do so only infrequently.Many of them have their money tied up in theirbusinesses or in investments so they do not havesubstantial funds to give away. Then, too, thereare trustees who serve the college in other waysthan in making large financial gifts. Some ofthe noblest of the men who have been associatedwith me at the collegeover a period of 35yearshave been those whose services to the col-lege have been principally in other than monetaryways. But it is still true that if the trusteescollectively and individuallyare not able to pro-vide a good portion of the total amount to beraised in any fund drive, the effort will probablycome short of success. The experience of Bar-rington College in its fund drive proved the truthof our consultant's observation.

At the board meeting that day when we facedthe prospect of postponing indefinitely our build-ing program, one of the trustees, who had re-cently sold his business and had some of his estatein liquid form, asked whether we could erect abuilding that would provide for an equal numberof students, less expensively than in the conven-tional dormitory if we built it according to ourown specifications, understanding, of course, thatsuch specifications would have to meet the build-ing code of Barrington. To make a long storyshort, this trustee announced that he was willingto make arrangements for a substantial gift tothe college if it were found possible to build adormitory less expensively. What makes thestory even more fascinating is that after thetrustee made this suggestion, the treasurer of thecollege pulled out of his brief case a rough set ofplans strikingly like that which the trustee haddescribed as the type of construction which mightbe used. There had been, I assure you, no previouscollaboration of any kind, for I myself knewnothing of what either man had been thinking!

BARRINGTON COLLEGE

Immediately, negotiations were begun with a con-struction firm, which has resulted in the erectionof an attractive colonial dormitory building atabout one-half the cost of the building formerlyprojected. This experience leads me to suggestthat it might be well for administrators to goslowly in negotiating loans with either the Gov-ernment or banks lest they fail to reap from thegenerosity of donors who sometimes do not comeforward with substantial gifts until the urgencyof a need is conscientiously faced.

Other Problems

Another item which may be of special interestis our experience in connection with the installa-tion of a sewerage system. The town of Barring-ton is one of the most delightful and desirablecommunities in Rhode Island in which to live.Until a few years ago the population numberedonly about 6,000. In the past years it has grownto over 14,000, but no sewerage system had beeninstalled. Such an installation would be mostcostly and the town fathers have not felt justifiedin putting in such a system. The cesspool systemwhich Mr. Peck had originally located on hisproperty, while quite adequate for family usage,was hardly sufficient for an institution of nearly600 individuals. Therefore it would be necessaryfor the trustees to install a private system forcollege use only.

The southwest corner of the college propertyis in the town of East Providence, outside of Bar-rington limits. The sewerage line of that citycomes within a few yards of this corner. Ourengineers suggested that we approach the officialsof East Providence and inquire if they wouldconsent to let us tie in our sewerage system withtheirs, thus relieving us of the necessity of install-ing and operating a costly disposal plant. Theanswer of the officials was an affirmative one, withthe understanding that we would pay so much permillion gallons which would be meter-charged tous. This plan was carried out with the resultthat there has been installed a sewerage systemwhich will be, as far as we know, adequate for theforeseeable future, even though many new build-ings should be added to the present ones. Admin-istrators should investigate the problem of theutilities and facilities of any given community

153

especially of a rural communitybefore the acqui-sition of any property for expansion. We canhope that other institutions confronted with asimilar problem may find as happy a solution aswe did.

One problem still with us is the common com-munity problem of how to overcome the highwater table. This problem can be a very real one.I recall visiting a certain college campus and at-tending a football game where an obnoxious odorcontinually filled the air; this, to say the least, leftan unhappy memory with me. Everything shouldbe done by college officials to eliminate these ob-jectionable features which result in depreciationon the campus. We are trying to handle ourproblem both by grading and by the channelingof surface water to outlets which have been es-tablished by the town.

Another problem, concerning zoning require-ments, arose on the occasion of a request of thecollege for a variance from a zoning restriction.One of the Barrington zoning restrictions is thatno public buildings shall be located within 100 feetof an adjoining property line. The building wedesired to remodel was about 75 feet from thenearest propert line. In the eyes of the neigh-bors this woula mean a violation of the zoningrestriction. The zoning committee felt justifiedin granting the college a variance in this instance,however, because (1) similar variances had beengranted to churches and other public institutions,thus setting a precedent; (2) they were convincedthat the college would install a sewerage systemsuch as would not raise the water table in the areain which the neighbors lived; furthermore, theyrecognized that the high water table was theirproblem and not that of the college; and (3) theyexpressed their delight that a college was to beestablished in their town, believing it would en-rich the educational, cultural, and spiritual lifeof the community. The zoning restriction issuecame up again when it was proposed to erect thenew dormitory. Once more we had to apply fora variance. The repetition of this procedure wasrecognized by the town officials as constituting afrustrating experience to the college administra-tion. They felt that a college should not be ham-pered in the development of its campus and there-fore they are currently exploring the possibilityof rezoning the entire campus to give it a new


classification. This would make it possible toerect any and all buildings without the necessityof securing a variance each time the college de-sired it.

On Being a Good Neighbor

In every way the town council has sought toassist the college in developing the new site. Thisleads me to make another observation which mayprove helpful to fellow-administrators : It is wellto cultivate the members of your town council,or the civic leaders, on every possible occasion.This should not be done merely to curry theirfavor nor in a manner that is in any way con-descending. They are adversely sensitive to thiskind of an approach. Furthermore, this cultiva-tion should not be withheld until just a few daysbefore the asking of a favor. All officials like tobe respected, to have their authority recognized,and their favor sought. An :ionorable approachto fairminded men generally brings happy re-sults. We have found it so.

On Accreditation

There is no question that an inadequate andinefficient physical plant militates against theoverall interests of a college. Ever since Bar-rington College had instituted its 4-year programit had put forth every effort to improve the qualityof education offered its students. The first goalwas regional accreditation by the New EnglandAssociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools.In 1958 application was made for membership inthis association, but not without doubts of beingaccepted, We were not accepted. One of thereasons was, we felt sure, the evident inadequacyand inefficient and unprepossessing appearance ofthe academic buildings on the Providence campus.We applied again in 1960, after having workeddiligently to correct certain weaknesses that hadbeen pointed out by the Examining Committee intheir 1958 report. On December 2, 1960, Barring-ton College received its regional accreditation. Aletter from Dr. Frederick C. Copeland, Chairmanof the Standing Committee on Institutions ofHigher Learning of the New England Associationof Colleges and Secondary Schools, states : "Ourcommittee was much impressed with all they

learned about the rapid progress and the develop-ment of the Barrington campus in the past 2 years.We were particularly impressed with your newphysical plant and hope that the transferral ofyour total operation from the downtown campuswill be completed successfully by the end of thissemester." Thus we see that a good physical plantis considered essential to the attainment of a goodacademic program.

Holding on to Growing Space

Earlier I referred to the fact that our dean,Dr. Terrelle B. Crum, first directed my attentionto the estate which later became our new campus,emphasizing the point that we needed more land.At that time I had quite convinced myself that wecould expand upward as some institutions havefound it desirable to do. With patience the deanpointed to the fact that according to good author-ities even the smallest college needs at least 100acres as it plans for the future. And then headded : "Remember, President Ferrin, Oxford isabout 900 years old !" That did it ! In my aston-ishment, I replied : "What are you trying to tellme, Dean ? that we are buildir, n -omething herewhich may be around a thous,vcl years fromnow ?" From that time on, with all diligence wepursued our plans to acquire more land.

While speaking of land, another bit of counselmay be in order. As I have indicated, in about1952, Barrington College underwent a financial

slump. It does disturb an administration and aboard of trustees to go into the red 3 years in suc-cession. When this happened, the chairman of ourboard of trustees became alarmed. One day hesaid to me : "Don't you think we had better sellsome of this land and pay our bills V' Somewhatfacetiously, but really being in earnest, I replied :"You will do it over my dead body !" He enlistedseveral others to speak on this point at the nextboard meeting some 2 months thence. When theypresented their case, other trustees seemed to beinfluenced by the presentation. It seemed as ifmy battle were lost. Finally, the chairman askedwhat my personal convictions were with respectto this issue. My reply was that I would not givemy own personal opinion but would like to givethe opinions of five college and university presi-dents expressed in five letters which I proceededto read. Three presidents said that their colleges

BARRINGTON COLLEGE

were buying back land which they had previouslyheld and that they were paying a terrifically highprice for it. Their counsel was not to sell a squarefoot of land ! I grant you it is harder on theadministration to maintain such a policy whenthe red figures appear, but every administratormust remember that he is but one in a line ofadministrators and that. he must not betray hissuccessors. My considered judgment is that, allthings being equal, if it is possible, a college shouldacquire more land rather than surrender any.Keep your sights high !

On Making the Most of What You Have

Another observation is a simple one but it doesmore to tranquilize an administrator than almostanything else : Use what you have, and make themost of it. It is surprising what can be done witha bit of ingenuity. Sometimes it is good to callin your associates and ask them to tell you howyou might better utilize the space which you nowoccupy. You may find that you have some physi-cal facilities which can be used by agencies andorganizations in the community, thereby betteringthe "town and gown" relationship. The latest ex-ample of this at Barrington College is the gratuit-ous use of our recital hall which has just beencompleted in the remodeled music building. Thecultural level of the town of Barrington is high,as is evidenced by the fact that in this communityof 14,000 some 50 musicians have volunteered toparticipate in a community symphony orchestra.We are pleased to provide these facilities. Thislast suggestion might be couched in Scripturallanguage, even as one of the prophets put a ques-tion to the people of Israel : "For who has despisedthe day of small things ?"

After having "put up" with inadequate facilitieson three school campuses at Dudley, Providence,and Barrington, I am convinced that there is no

630581 0-62 11

155

facility which cannot be wisely adapted to meetsome need in a growing institution. Obviouslyevery administrator would like to have a campusof at least 5,000 acres, with every building new andevery piece of equipment of the latest style, butinstitutioLs, like individuals, grow, and it gen-erally takes an individual who starts with little atleast 50 years to accumulate an estate. It is thesame with an institution. Irving Cobb once said :"The way to make some money is to keep anythingfor 150 years." And I would say that the way tobuild an institution is to hep what you have, getmore, and build as if you were building for athousand years.

The question has been raised as to whether Bar-rington College was established after a survey toascertain whether such an institution was neededin this community. The answer to this is "no."The school was begun very much as our seniorsister institution, Brown University in Provi-dence, was begun, namely, in the home of a min-ister who invited several young men to pursuecourses of study under his private instruction.Barrington College developed through the yearsinto what is todaya specialized institution pro-viding liberal arts studies, with special emphasison the humanities as well as on Biblical and voca-tional studies, particularly those which prepareyoung people for church vocations, public schoolteaching, and social work. The curriculum, whichhas been expanded in recent years, now offers 12majors, all of which are considered basic in theprogram of general education consistent with theprincipal objectives of the college. It is obviousthat the appeal which Barrington College makesto young people is not a universal one, but it isfelt that its distinctive contribution in seeking toprovide leadership in the fields of general andChristian educationas well as in the professionaland business fieldsis such as to meet a real needin today's world.

Chapter XIH

THIS CHAPTER is not an institutional case in the sensein which the other institutions in this Casebook were studied.It is the statement of a college architect concerning the logi-cal order of procedural steps in the planning of new con-struction and the interrelationships and functions of the offi-cers and agencies involved in the planning process. It is aparaphrase of a brochure prepared by Architect James M.Hunter at the request of the board of control of ColoradoState University. The chapter should be valuable to collegeand university administrators who have campus planningresponsibility, in understanding the mechanics of the processand some of the underlying principles.

Organizational Procedures

ByJAMES M. HUNTER

Architect, Colorado State University

THE PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTIONof a building for an institution of higher edu-

cation involves a great many groups and individ-uals, all having differing degrees of responsibilityfor the final result. This summary is intended toexplain and outline the procedures followed inColorado State University's building programfrom the time a statement of need for additionalplant is made until the time when the actualfinished building is ready for occupancy.

Organizational Chart

The accompanying chart (see fig. 4) shows thesequence of events in the entire process; the in-fluences, the responsibilities and the proceduresare indicated by following the arrows. It shouldbe recognized that such a graphic presentation isalways an over-simplification and that in the ac-tual developmental process, suggestions, referrals,

156

complaints, and criticisms may be interposed tothe benefit of the project.

Statement of campus needs.At Colorado StateUniversity all statements of need for additionalphysical plant, whether it be for academic facility,recreational facility, landscaping, streets andtraffic, housing, feeding, or administration, arelodged with the Campus Development Committee.This committee operates under the broad policiescreated by the State Board of Agriculture and thePresident of the University.

The Campus Development Committee is ap-pointed by the President from staff memberswhose responsibilities place them in positions ofadvantage for the exercise of judgment in evalu-ating requests, and who have general knowledgeof the growth pattern of the total Universitydevelopment.

The following individuals, with. the Presidentas Chairman, comprise the current Committee :

ORGANIZATIONAL PROCEDURES

A BUILDING PROJECT: WHAT HAPPENS and HOW IT HAPPENS

Policy and Guidance Definition and Execution

157

Sequence of Events Control and Influence

1

STATE BOARDand

CAMPUS

PRESIDENTof the

Policy DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE 2

(Broad Policy) (Policy and Directives)

Policy

a)U

0

14-0

LLI

LL.LL,

O0

CL

0U

>.a-

a- 0I

0)

I

za)a

O'-aa

J Policy Advice t

Design

Approval

Cooperation

O

C

C0

In

a)

04.

(Maintenance)

. coc

ul .;4O 02 Ca4 ...goo'

LU 0C

O 0'4-_ ... 0

LL. ctn

2LL (71 4-

0 a) c0 to).......

v) 8 014. ...07Z

I 4- L4- 0*- 0_ it.O '4..4,W

= r)

_.,a

0 ,wCd 0 .4-..c "0 C< 0 rIC.., p

(71

slo._?.

2 Q.0- Mtfl

U

( Housekeeping)

a)

4.Ua)

Statement ofCampus Needs

Definition ofNeeds

Programming ofthe Project

H4Preliminary Designof the Project

5Development of

Contract Documents

6Bidding and

Contract Awards

7Supervision ofConstruction

8Acceptance ofFinished Product

1---.... '9Occupancy

ofBuilding

".0

".0

a

O

O

Ot.)

> iO 0Z

- 1ZVFZZ1-1-1 ZZ<<00- Z:t

Z5<

wLL.

CNA

James M. Hunter and Associates

Figure 4.Flow chartRelation of the Architect to each step in the planning and developmentof a campus building project.


the Vice President, Dean of the Faculties, Direc-tor of Experiment Station, Dean of Agriculture,Head of Department of Horticulture, BusinessManager, Coordinator of Plant Development,Plant Engineer, Secretary to the Faculty, and thePresident of the State Board of Agriculture. Thearchitect is considered f.tn ex-officio member with-out a vote and is charged with the responsibilityof advising the committee in regard to buildings,overall planning matters, and other developmentactivities.

The Campus Development Committee receivesfrom various department heads and administra-tors of campus activities requests in regard to theirneeds, initiates projects from its own knowledgeof campus needs, and advises and approves, asappropriate, during the entire process.

Definition of need.After a statement of needhas been received, it is thoroughly discussed, de-bated, and evaluated by the Campus DevelopmentCommittee. The Committee relies heavily uponthe advice of the Architect, the counsel of theBusiness Manager in regard to finances, the evalu-ations of the Plant Engineer in regard to physicalplant problems, and the judgment of the Coordi-nator of Plant Development in regard to the totalgrowth pattern. The statement of need, if ac-cepted, is then ready to be set up as a project. Atthis stage, a frame of reference is set up and, ingeneral terms, the type and kind of building orfacility is broadly outlined and its budget estab-lished. The project is then ready for furtherstudy leading toward ultimate approval. At thispoint the project is merely defined. In broad andgeneral terms, it simply represents agreement asto its general need and feasibility. It still hasto be programed and designed.

Programing of projects. The project is thenplaced in the hands of the Architect and the Co-ordinator of Plant Development, who then meetwith a building committee appointed by the Pres-ident from the academic department or campusfunction involved. Three people form the"cadre" of all such committees. They are placedon the committees to insure that the standards ofquality, uniformity of maintenance, compliancewith costs, and general acceptability are adheredto. The three "cadre" members are the Coordi-nator of Plant Development, the Business Man-ager, and the Plant Engineer.

In addition to these three people a varying num-ber of committee members are appointed from thefield of activity which the building is to serve.The number may vary from 2 or 3 to 8 or 10,depending upon the size and complexity of theproject. They are carefully selected because oftheir knowledge of the operation which the build-ing is to house and the objectives and require-ments of the function it is to serve. The work ofprograming a project is quite involved and re-quires a great degree of insight, investigation,judgment, and diplomacy.

One of the most difficult phases is that of put-ting the project "through the wringer." By thisis meant the process of determining positively thetrue needs to insure that the requested facilitydoes not duplicate something otherwise providedfor; to insure that, if built, it will show a highlevel of efficient use; to insure that it will not be"gold plated," that those requesting it have notasked for more than they can reasonably use, andthat what they ask for is not excessive in cost ascompared with minimum requirements.

During this procedure, the Architect and thethree permanent members of the Building Com-mittee have complete access to the President andfrequently consult with him to insure that theproject meets broad University policies so as toresolve any matters at issue.

When the project has been completely pro-gramed in terms of type of facility, space require-ments, kinds of equipment, and arrangement ofspace in a diagrammatic way, the project is readyto go into the design stage.

Preliminary design of projects.This process isa function of the Architect. Floor plans and spacearrangement diagrams are drawn for each phaseof the many requirements. Overall schematicsketches are made of alternate possible arrange-ments, types of structure, circulatory traffic pat-tern, access, and other details. These alternatechoices are studied its individual problems and assegments of one large problem. During thisprocess there is constant rechecking and resubmis-sion of ideas to the Building Committee by theArchitect for approval or rejection to be sure thatthe design adopted will incorporate the Commit-tee's thinking in terms of ideas and evaluationsand in terms of its knowledge of the functions thebuilding is to house.


Finally, preliminary drawings, showing the en-tire building or complex in enough detail to insurecomplete understanding of all parties concerned,together with scale drawings of the elevations, andperspective drawings showing how the buildingwill look in its location, are submitted to the Build-ing Committee, the Campus Development Com-mittee, the State Planning Commission, andwhatever loaning agency may be involved. Whenthese preliminary drawings are finally approvedby all parties concerned, the project, is ready forthe preparation of contract documents.

Development of contract documents. Thisagain is a function of the Architect in the develop-ment of the working drawings and specificationsof the building itself, and a function in which hisstaff consultants will participate in the design anddevelopment of the specifications and drawings forthe heating, plumbing, ventilating, electrical, andother mechanical systems within the building.There will be site investigations for which soilconsultants are employed to determine subsurfaceand water problems. Still other consultants maybe required to solve some peculiarity or involve-ment of the complex project,.

The working drawings are then evaluated andapproved by the Building Committee. Duringthis stage, the Plant Engineer gives particularattention to the uniformity and reasonableness ofthe maintenance which the building will require inuse; the Coordinator of Plant Development makessure that the ov )rall design meets the requirementsof the University function which is to occupy it;and the Business Manager determines whether theestimates provided by the Architect are in linewith the budget.

Here, also, members of the Building Committeecheck for adequacy with reference to special needs.Final working drawings and specifications are sub-mitted to the State Planning Commission and tothe respective Federal or other loaning agency,should one be involved.

The contract documents defining the respectivecontractual obligations of the contractor and theUniversity are then formulated.

The State Planning Commission providesstandard contract forms from which it will permitno deviation. These forms must sometimes besupplemented by provision for additional require-ments peculiar to the University's operation. If

159

there is a Federal agency or other loaning insti-tution involved, certain contract requirements arenecessary to insure that requirements are met sothat mortgage money or bonded indebtednesswill not be jeopardized in any way. Further, areasonable construction time must be set up in thecontract for completion of the project. and theterms under which "subst anti completeness" canbe established so that occupancy can take place.Provision must. be made that such terms cannotbe shortened except with the consent of the con-tractor. The method of accepting the project assubstantially complete "with exceptions" must be

done by defining the deficiencies in construcwhich are to be completed after occupancy. Theyear's guarantee against faulty workmanship ormaterials is another matter. Wherever there aeesuch areas of possible doubtful liability due todivided responsibility, there are many possiblelegal involvements. Clarity and mutuality ofunderstanding in regard to "substantial complete-ness," "occupancy," and "guarantees for materialsand workmanship" are of paramount significance.

Substantial completion can only be required ofthe contractor at the time stated in the contract,regardless of how badly the building is needledand regardless of whether or not occupancy isfeasible in a partially completed state. The timefactor of the contract is a legal provision whichcannot be breached. Substantial completion, withits list of exceptions or deficiencies, constituteslegal acceptance of the project except for theguarantee against poor materials and work-manship.

If the contractor is hurried and the project isaccepted prior to its completion date, a risk existsof missing some deficiencies in the construction orof failing to list them in the checklist of excep-tions, thus clouding the legal rights of the ownerfor restitution. It may sometimes be necessaryto do so, however, as a calculated risk in order togain occupancy, because failure of occupancy mayresult in a greater loss to the University.

The 1-year guarantee of materials and work-manship should not be confused with maintenanceexpense. The general contractor is not expectednor required to provide for maintenance. Evenif he should be called back during the 1-yearperiod to make repairs and adjustments, suchoperations have nothing to do with normal main-tenance programs.


Bidding and contract awardsA State insti-tution is usually required to resort to competitivebidding in capital expenditures. This does notnecessarily insure the institution the best possiblevalue for the money expended. Poor contractorsas well as good contractors are permitted to bid.The expedient of requiring a "Payment. and Per-formance Bond" does not guarantee quality. Itonly insures the contractor's financial ability tohandle the job and that the bonding company willpay to complete his work should he fail.

In the expenditure of State funds, apprehen-sion may be created on the part of all who arezealous for a high level of quality when a Staterequirement specifies preference to in-State prod-ucts and provides that substitutions must be per-mitted. The interests of the institution as the"owner" should be strongly defended by contractreservations as to who shall say what is an "ac-ceptable equal" in instances of substitution.Usually such statute provisions are intended toprevent unjustified favoritism, but they as oftenoperate to make difficult the maintenance ofquality standards. Too often the burden of proofis unjustly shifted to the institution.

Bids will be invited by advertising and qualifiedbidders will obtain sets of specifications anddrawings. At or before the specified time sealedbids will be submitted. Bids are publicly openedin accordance with prescribed formality, withbidders present, and with the representative of theowner reading aloud the amount of each bid. Itis normal to have alternate provisions so as tocover various contingencies that may be necessaryin order to bring the project within the availablefunds. Each such alternate will be separatelybid, either as an extra, or as a deduction from theprincipal project bid.

Once a bid is accepted, the contract documentsare executed (signed and sealed) and filed withthe State. But the project may not be com-menced until the contracts have been checked bythe Attorney General and approval is given by theState.

Supervision of constructionSupervision ofthe work by the Architect should be clearly dis-tinguished from the superintendence of the workon the part of the contractor and from the inspec-tion of the work on the part of the institution andthe State Planning Commission.

In the superintendence of the work, the con-tractor's superintendent "runs the job" from anoperational point of view. His is the problem ofthe purchaasing of materials, the logistics andmaterial flow to the job, the organization of thelabor force, the scheduling and directing of thatlabor force under its respective foremanships, andthe actual control of the construction operations.This is as it should be. The contractor is thebusiness enterpriser and he must have a free handin the management of those factors which cancause him to make a profit or loss on the project.This is what he engaged to do in his bid and whatthe contract gives him the right to do.

The supervision of the contract by the Architectis on behalf of the owners to insure compliancewith the contract terms in materials, methods,skills, and results, thus controlling the quantityand quality of the job. The interests of the Uni-versity are the interests of the Architect and hissupervisor on the job. There is, in effect, a con-tract between the Architect awl the Universitywhich states and defines the number of supervisiontrips the Architect shall make on the projectduring the course of its construction. There is noinference that the Architect guarantees the con-tractor's work or that the Architect's representa-tives be on the project all of the time duringconstruction.

It will probably be the policy of the Architectto have the number of representatives on the proj-ect proportional to its size; intermittently, if verysmall, and continuously, if very large, but alwaysin adequate numbers to be in constant touch withall phases of the operation. During the entireperiod of construction, the Architect's supervisoron the project causes a great many different kindsof tests to be made for different kinds of opera-tionssome tests are made on the job, others intesting laboratories. The most common are testsof concrete mixes. Any unusual phenomena arealso tested, such as additional soil tests if suspi-cious conditions are encountered while excavating.The results of these tests are carefully kept in thejob account file.

Periodic inspection reports on the part of theArchitect's supervisor are kept in a runningjournal log and are typed in the form of reportsand placed in the job account file.


All "change orders" follow the same proceduresas do "requests for payments" and "authorizationsfor payments," which are processed by the Archi-tect's office after a thorough checking of the workaccomplished to determine the amount of moneycurrently due the contractor.

These records are supplemented by a series ofprogress photographs taken at intervals duringconstruction and are dated as added precautionsagainst involvement in a law-suit or in case theArchitect should be called upon to prove what wasbeing done at a particular time.

Inspection of the job by the University is doneby representatives of the Coordinator of PlantDevelopment. These inspectors work in close co-operation with the Architect's supervisor, report-ing faulty work, poor materials, or otherdeficiencies to him. Periodic inspections are alsomade by representatives of the State PlanningCommission and by representatives of any loaningagency involved in the financing.

The superintendents, supervisors, and inspectorsshould be people of broad and general knowledgeof the building industry, experienced with build-ing methods, materials, and construction problems.They should exercise constant vigilance. Evenwith all due competence of superintendence, sup-ervision, and inspection, the quality of thebuildingwill depend upon the skill of the workmen andthe conditions under which they perform theirseveral functions. Not only the Architect but eventhe contractor himself find these difficult to control.

A good contractor will through the years de-

velop a cadre of skilled craftsmen and will retainthem on a permanent basis, but he is dependentupon the local labor market for the bulk of hislabor force. This labor force is usually providedby the local labor unions which supply men on thebasis of seniority and availability. There is animplied assumption that all are of equal skill.Many are adequately skilled, but some are not.Under the subcontract system, this supply of skillsis further diluted and control tends to be lost bythe general contractor to the subcontractor towhom the worker owes his primary loyalty. Thisis not intended as a blanket indictment of labor.The quality of the buildings we are getting is evi-dence that generally there are many craftsmenwho take a sincere pride in their skill and aredevoted to their work.

161

All of these craftsmen, however, are human andare subject to human limitations. Perfection isthe ultimate we can expect from them, not thestandard to be demanded. But certainly we shouldexpect and demand "good to excellent." perform-

ance rather than perfection.Acceptance of the finished product.When the

project is finally accepted as being substantiallycomplete, it is ready for occupancy. By suck sub-stantial completion, it may be accepted actually or"with exceptions"that is, a list of items agreedto by all parties concerned as being deficiencies in

the work which are to be completed, corrected, putright, or supplied by the contractor after occu-pancy. Sometimes these deficiencies are greatenough to warrant the withholding of fundsagainst their accomplishment. Sometimes theyare of a minor nature and are properly placed into

the 1-year guarantee contractual classes.The building must be accepted one way or the

other before it can be occupied. Ideally, it wouldnot be accepted until it was complete and right.Practically, because it is needed badly, it will usu-ally be accepted with exceptions.

Occupancy of the building.Occupancy of thebuilding on the part of the University and thecompletion of the deficiencies take the buildingout of the hands of the Architect and the con-tractor except for the 1-year guarantee in the mat-ter of faulty workmanship or materials and in thesupervision of the deficiencies to be completed. Itplaces the building under the maintenance andhousekeeping program of the University. Thecontractor cannot be expected to do maintenancerepair or housekeeping tasks.

Sometimes the deficiencies in the buildingand/or items properly coming under the 1-yearguarantee can be discovered only during the nor-mal functioning of the building and its equipment.These are reported to the Architect through theOffice of Plant Development to be corrected ifthey occur during the 1-year period. If morethoi 1 year has passed before they are discovered,

the University normally has no recourse but toconsider them among the usual maintenance items.

The Architect makes several inspections of thebuilding during the first year of occupancy inorder to pick up faults in materials and workman-

ship. Sometimes these deficiencies are deliber-

ately permitted to ride until near the end of the


1-year period with gbod reason. For example, thewarping of doors, which is covered by guarantee,sometimes requires a full cycle of the seasons tobe brought to light.

Summary.From the foregoing it becomes ap-parent that the progression from an expression ofneed to an occupied building is complex and in-volves many people whose ideas, responsibilities,

and actions are woven into the fabric of the fin-ished product. Construction is an exciting andinteresting process because it is creative and pro-ductive, and it draws curiosity like a magnet. Anew construction project is always "news." Prop-erly handled, it has good public relations valuefor the University. An informed understandingwill enhance the people's interest.

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1962 0 - 630581

,

.1,

CASEBOOK ON CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL ...

Documents

Transcript of CASEBOOK ON CAMPUS PLANNING AND INSTITUTIONAL ...