CHAPTER 5 - CAMPUS LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTINGneighbors.columbia.edu/pdf-files/ch5.pdf · Chapter 5 –...

CHAPTER 5 - CAMPUS LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING

CONTENTS

5.1 Historical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2

5.2 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7

5.3 Landscape Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.19

5.4 Lighting Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.40

5.5 Implementation Strategies and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . 5.48

5.6 Community Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.49

EXHIBITS

5-1 Illustrative Landscape Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.27

5-2 Target Area Key Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.29

5-3 Perspective of Avery Courtyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.31

5-4 Perspective of Lewisohn Lawn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.35

5-5 Perspective of Furnald Quad and Butler Walk. . . . . . 5.37

5-6 Perspective of Sulzberger Plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.39

5-7 Existing Campus Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.42

5-8 Proposed Campus Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.43

5-9 Light Fixture Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.44

5-10 Proposed Illumination for Avery Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.45

5-11 Proposed Illumination for Kent Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.46

5-12 Proposed Illumination for Low Library . . . . . . . . . . . 5.47

Chapter 5 – Campus Landscape and Lighting 5.1

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS: A FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING

5.2 Chapter 5 – Campus Landscape and Lighting

5.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Core Campus

McKim, Mead & White’s 1894 design for the Co-lumbia campus contained an extensive amount ofcarefully planned open space, both paved and plant-ed, including a grand entrance court, smaller quad-rangles set on the campus terrace that were created bythe alignment of its sixteen proposed buildings, cam-pus walkways, and planting beds along these walks.Charles McKim took a personal interest in the quali-ty of the architectural paved spaces but was less in-volved with the proposed planted areas.

One of the most prominent components of the McKim,Mead & White proposal, and the major landscapefeature, was the spacious Low Plaza at the entrance tothe campus on 116th Street. McKim proposed a rec-tangular plaza raised slightly above 116th Street thatwould be reached by a long, low flight of granitesteps. Much of the plaza was to be paved, althoughportions of the east, west, and north sides would haveplanting beds. High granite walls separated the plazafrom the main campus level which would be reachedby long, broad flights of stairs at the north side andnarrower flights of stairs to the east and west.

Some members of the Columbia Board of Trusteesobjected to certain aspects of the plaza design, notablythe paved plaza, which they felt would be “a desert ofstone.” McKim rejected this criticism, commentingthat Low Plaza was the formal atrium to the campusthat showed off Low Library to best effect and that itwould be inappropriate to carpet it with grass. Hewent on to compare his court with such notable Eu-ropean examples as those at the Louvre, the Sor-bonne, St. Mark’s, Venice, and St. Peter’s, Rome, aswell as to the successful courts of the World’sColumbian Exposition in Chicago. He also made itclear that the paved areas would be balanced by green-ery along the terrace walls and in planting beds on themain campus level. President Low asked FrederickLaw Olmsted’s successor firm, then known as Olm-sted, Olmsted & Eliot, for advice. In reply, the Olm-sted firm endorsed the main features of the design.The landscape architects noted that the court might bewindy in the winter and hot in the summer, but alsocommented that this criticism could be leveled atpractically any open public space. Their one sugges-

CHAPTER 5 – CAMPUSLANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING

At the turn of the 20th century, Columbia Universityembarked on the future with a grand new campus,where its educational ideals and aspirations weremade manifest through classical expressions of orderand harmony. Then, as now, the physical campus hada significant role in communicating the University’scharacter and in influencing public perception of itsvitality and merit. The landscape is especially valu-able as a continuum between past, present, and future,providing continuity between the University’s historiccharacter and its contemporary expression.

In the nearly 100 years since the creation of the Morn-ingside Heights campus, there has been no masterplan to guide the landscape’s design and maintenance,for the University’s development over time and itscontemporary needs. This Landscape Master Plan isthe result of a comprehensive inventory and analysisof the built and natural landscape of Columbia Uni-versity’s Morningside Heights campus. It is a visionfor the future, which recognizes and celebrates thehistoric character of the campus, while responding toits contemporary urban context and accommodatingits growth. The Plan provides long-range designguidelines to preserve, enhance, and improve thecampus through its landscape elements, as well asprecise guidelines for the Plan’s realization over time.A separate technical memorandum is the “how-to”companion guide for following the design guidelinesand recommendations, and is intended for use by theUniversity’s facilities and maintenance staffs, as wellas by future capital project design teams.

The Landscape Master Plan’s scope encompasses the36-acre complex of grounds comprising ColumbiaUniversity’s Morningside Heights campus, which iscategorized as four distinct areas: Core Campus-South & College Walk; Core Campus-North; NorthCampus; and East Campus (see Exhibit 2-1). Thecampus’s relationship to its streetscape was studied,and is reported in Chapter 9.



tion for improving the court was the addition of a pairof fountains, an idea that McKim immediately incor-porated into his proposal.

With McKim’s insistence on the appropriateness ofhis plan, the support of Low, and the approval of Olm-sted, Olmsted & Eliot, Low Plaza became the fore-court of the campus. McKim designed classicallyinspired benches for the plaza and also took greatcare in the choice of paving materials for both theplaza and the walkways on the upper campus. Hechose as the major paving material a dark red Catskillbrick that would match in hue the Harvard brick onthe buildings. The bricks were laid in panels in eitherstraight or herringbone patterns. Each brick had asmooth texture and rounded corners and they were setslightly apart increasing the sense of pattern. Betweenthe panels of brick on Low Plaza were blocks of whiteJoliet stone (a type of limestone), creating a dynam-ic pattern of red and white, interrupted near either endof the plaza by round granite fountain bowls. Unfor-tunately, the Joliet stone did not wear well and was re-placed by concrete that was not as elegant and that hasdeteriorated.

As the first phase of construction on the campus wascompleted, the buildings and grounds staff of the uni-versity undertook some planting. Several old yewswere saved from the asylum grounds and placedaround Low Plaza, and additional low evergreenshrubs were planted and ivy permitted to grow alongthe granite walls. On the main campus, McKim laidout planting beds along the buildings where ivy andlow shrubs were planted. The major planting was totake place in four rectangular beds at each corner ofLow Library. These were planted with groups of fastgrowing (and short-lived) poplars. Although McKimwanted plantings that would enhance the formal natureof the campus, no one was commissioned to design acomprehensive planting plan. Thus there was no co-hesive theme to the earlier plantings at Columbia.

When called to plan South Field in 1903, McKim,Mead & White extended some of the open space ideasthat had been used on Low Plaza onto the new prop-erty south of 116th Street, thus seeking to unify thecampus design. McKim planned a terrace with stairsleading onto a plaza that was to be paved in the samepattern as Low Plaza and would have a pair of simi-lar fountains (the terrace was constructed, but the

plaza and fountains were never completed). In addi-tion, McKim, Mead & White proposed a complexformal landscape plan for South Field that included ageometric pattern of planting beds outlined withhedges and pleached trees and ornamented withvases, statues, and a central obelisk. None of thislandscaping was ever seriously considered by Co-lumbia since the open space for South Field was re-served for undergraduate athletics.

By 1904, the makeshift character of the landscapingbegan to bother McKim. He wrote to Frederick LawOlmsted, Jr., asking for his opinion of the grounds.Olmsted was unimpressed with Columbia’s landscap-ing, finding the plantings out of keeping with the


Low Library, circa 1912.

Low Plaza, 1904.

COLU

MBI

ANA

COLL

ECTI

ONF.L

. OLM

STED

NAT

IONA

L HI

STOR

IC S

ITE


grandeur and dignity of the architecture. McKim wasdelighted with Olmsted’s letter and succeeded in hav-ing President Butler commission a formal plan fromOlmsted Brothers (as the successor firm to FrederickLaw Olmsted was known after the departure ofCharles Eliot) that was submitted in September 1907.The landscape plan recommended formal plantingsof a type found in European squares where conditionsresembled those on the Columbia campus, with itspaved entrance court and walkways. The part of theplan that McKim was most enthusiastic about, andthe one aspect that was immediately implemented,was the addition of four turf panels to the side of eachfountain on Low Plaza. The addition of these smalllawns softened the effect of the plaza and has been animportant component of the plaza’s design since 1906.In May 1907 the Board of Trustees voted to approvethe plan and sought to implement its suggestions ifmoney could be obtained by gifts. Unfortunately, nogifts were forthcoming and the Olmsted Brother’s planlanguished.

Over the following decades, various landscape pro-posals were made for portions of the campus, includ-ing a McKim, Mead & White plan for the AveryCourtyard, but little formally planned work was un-dertaken. However, the landscape did change—treeswere planted, hedges placed around the various turfpanels, each group of poplars replaced by a singlesycamore tree, flowers planted in many places, andmodern benches, planters, ramps, and other featuresadded to the walks, plazas, and building entrances. Allof this was undertaken without a comprehensive land-scape plan. The feature that Columbia took pride inwas the collection of irises planted around Low Li-brary and other buildings, beginning in 1932, thatbloomed every May at graduation time. Each year, theUniversity published a guide to these flowers and in-vited the public to enjoy the collection. One signifi-cant change to the campus landscape occurred in1953 when 116th Street was deeded to the Universi-ty. The roadbed was narrowed by the addition of grassplots and the planting of allees of trees, while, at thesame time, South Field was redesigned with a narrowcentral grass mall flanked by walkways, aligned withthe entrance to Butler Library, and large playing fieldssurrounded by hedges to either side.


Gate at 116th Street and Amsterdam Avenue.

South Field in front of Butler Library.


East Campus and North Campus

The north end of the campus, adjacent to West 120thStreet, had been set aside by Low and McKim for fu-ture development. This area, known as the Green orthe Grove, was landscaped and was used by the Uni-versity community for passive pursuits. During the1920s building construction began on the Grove, withthe addition of Pupin, Chandler, and the Schermer-horn Extension. In the 1950s, the EngineeringSchool’s new buildings further encroached on theGrove and in the 1970s and 1980s extensive new con-struction on the gymnasium and additional science fa-cilities resulted in the survival of only a vestigial openarea at the corner of West 120th Street and Broadway.The construction of new buildings on the formerGrove entailed the addition of a plaza built up to thelevel of the main campus terrace. In the planning ofthe new buildings, little formal consideration wasgiven to the design of the open space, resulting in theunsuccessful landscaping that is now evident.

In the 1950s, a new East Campus plan was approvedthat also created a raised platform. Three large build-ings (the Law School, School of International andPublic Affairs, and the East Campus Residence/Fa-cility Management Office) were planned, but eachwas to be designed as a separate structure with no re-lationship to the axial organization of the originalcampus. An important feature of East Campus wasthe construction of a bridge over Amsterdam Avenue.This paved bridge and the adjoining plaza were to bemeeting places for students and faculty, but they havegenerally been unsuccessful in this regard.

In the early 1980s, Columbia realized that the campuslandscape required a coherent plan. In 1982, a tree in-ventory was undertaken by the Bartlett Tree ExpertCo. and in 1983 the landscape architecture firm Zion& Breen prepared a landscape survey and report, whichproposed extensive improvements to the campus. LikeOlmsted Brothers’ earlier proposals, no funding wascommitted to the project. By 1997, Columbia’s campuslandscape continued to exhibit an ad hoc character.Much of the planting, paving, and lighting had deteri-orated and required extensive redesign or restoration.The campus holds great promise. The magnificent his-toric buildings and extensive open space on both thehistoric campus and its modern additions could betransformed into a model for urban landscape design.


The Grove, c. 1910-15. Note Teachers College on theright.

Pupin Plaza.


Lighting on the Historic Campus

The design and placement of lighting fixtures has al-ways been of great importance to the totality of Co-lumbia’s design. Originally, exterior lighting wasemployed to mark destinations. Handsome classical-ly inspired bronze light fixtures flanked the entrancesto classroom buildings and marked the location ofthe two staircases that ascend from the east and westsides of Low Plaza to the main campus. These lampshad ornate bronze poles, each with a single bulb setwithin a translucent globe crowned by a foliate finialand a winged eagle.

The major buildings planned as part of the originalcampus design—Low Library, Earl Hall, and St.Paul’s Chapel—were embellished with elaborate in-dividually designed lamps. Those that stand on thewalls flanking the entrance to the library, with theiracanthus leaves crowned by clusters of small globes,are especially impressive. These lamps do not appearon early photographs of the campus and were proba-bly added around 1900. The lamps in front of thechapel were made in Florence by sculptor ArturoBianchini and are based on Renaissance designs.

As the campus grew, the lighting expanded and lampsbegan to be placed away from building entrances. In1913, Columbia received a gift of fifteen of the cast-iron light poles topped by globes designed by HenryBacon for Central Park (the acorn-shaped fixturesnow on these lamps are not original). That these clas-sical lamp posts were appropriate additions to the Co-lumbia grounds is not surprising since Bacon hadworked in the McKim, Mead & White office and hadbeen one of Charles McKim’s most talented assis-tants. Other types of historic lighting on the Colum-bia campus are quite varied. Some buildings, notablythose on South Field, have elegant lamps that are at-tached to the building walls. There are also classical-inspired cast-iron lamps not to Bacon’s design. Mostof the historic lamps are extant, but they have beenaugmented with a variety of modern lamps, both free-standing lampposts and lighting attached to variousbuildings, some of it inconsistent with the historicqualities of the campus design.


Original lights at St. Paul’s Chapel.

Original building-mounted light fixtures at Butler Library.

Original light fixtures at Mathematics.



5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Campus Landscape Characteristics

The campus has three defining characteristics thatshape one’s first and lasting impressions: 1) it is an or-dered composition based on a hierarchal arrangementof buildings and space; 2) it is a distinct place, situ-ated within the city’s street grid, but nevertheless anenclave of green, open spaces; and 3) it has an in-tensely urban character.

The first-time visitor to Columbia University’s cam-pus encounters a study in contrasts. The order and for-mal beauty of the original campus is present and,though somewhat latent, exerts a strong influence onthe visitor’s impressions. The original campus plan’ssystem of spatial hierarchies, movement, and viewsare still strongly expressed in two of the campus’mostprominent landscape features: the entrance experi-ence of College Walk and the Low Library stair.

When entering the campus by College Walk, oneleaves behind the clamor of Broadway or AmsterdamAvenue, to walk beneath the natural enclosure of anallee of trees, at the end of which, opens an expanseof sky and space. Panoramic views of Low and ButlerLibraries are immediate, while the definition of thecampus is gradually apparent in the arrangement of thebuildings around this central space. At the center of thecampus, the Low Library steps exert a powerful pres-ence, as a formal landscape feature that is continuallyanimated by informal movement and gatherings.

Upon closer inspection, this initial impression fades,as a general sense of neglect emanates from the build-ings’ edges as well as the grounds, and the coherenceof the historic core disappears in other areas of cam-pus. These perceptions are particularly strong in theEast Campus, which, with its large, barren plaza,seems worlds away from the gracious, green atmos-phere across Amsterdam Avenue; and in the NorthCampus, where the original axial relationships aremuddled by building additions and ad hoc landscaping.

The landscape is a key feature in the overall hierar-chical composition, within which the brick academicbuildings symmetrically flank the campus centerpiece,the monumental, stone Low Library. Exaggerating anatural rise in the topography, the entire northern area

View from South Field toward Low Library.

College Walk.

View from Low Library steps toward South Field.


buildings, the grounds, and their urban context. Con-sequently, the landscape is an integral part of thewhole, directly and indirectly influencing the campusappearance, function, and character. This landscape,with all its attendant architectural features, is criticalto first impressions as well as to permanent percep-tions of beauty, safety, accessibility, efficiency, andcomfort. It is, in fact, the connective tissue on whichthe total composition depends, and while presentlylacking clarity and coherence, it is sufficiently viableto guide the reclamation of McKim’s and Olmsted’sintentions within the original design.

Landscape Inventory

While the McKim design is still the foundation ofcampus character, the University’s ongoing expan-sion and changes in use patterns have placed new de-mands on the campus and its grounds, ultimatelydiminishing its original clarity. This inventory of thecampus layout and character, use patterns, materialspalette, existing conditions, and a needs assessmentidentifies those features which most influence theUniversity’s character, in terms of physical appear-ance and functional efficiency.

The landscape elements evaluated include:

• Gateways and Boundaries

• Open Spaces and Views

• Circulation

• Social Spaces

• Landscape Architectural Elements

• Site Furniture and Fixtures

• Plantings and Soils

• Maintenance

of the campus was constructed on a podium. At itsbase, Low Plaza and its stair formally reinforce the Li-brary’s importance and serve as the campus’s primaryceremonial space. From this plaza, one travels by anetwork of paths moving among the buildings and pe-riodically revealing open spaces and vistas of varyingscale and drama.

The strong axial organization of the grounds bothframes and secures the overall order. The east-westaxis at 116th Street, formally articulated as CollegeWalk, is most prominent, but it is echoed in varyingdegrees of success throughout Core Campus. Thecomposition of plazas, lawns, intimate courtyards,pathways, and architectural detailing in the landscapegives focus to the Library and order to the campus ex-perience. Internal landscape boundaries (such as rail-ings, fences, hedges, and lighting) help define thesocial, recreational, or quiet functions of open spaces.

From its inception, the campus has acknowledgedits urban environment, in large part through elementsin the landscape. Ornamental gates and fences linethe campus perimeter, providing a sense of safetyand demarcation as well as a transition from city tosanctuary. The large expanse of paving on the LowPlaza, the streetlike feeling of College Walk, and thehard edges throughout the campus reflect its urbansurroundings.

McKim’s original design for the campus emphasizedthe plan and the relationships it created among the


East Campus Plaza.


Gateways and Boundaries

The Columbia campus’s perimeter fencing is punctu-ated by nine clearly defined entrances, the majoritymarked by massive cast-iron gates. This arrangementhas both negative and positive connotations. It hasbeen described as a fortress which purposely excludesthe community and as an enclave, which provides asafe, communal environment for students and thecommunity alike. College Walk sets an importanttone for the campus in terms of gateways and bound-aries, i.e., its gates are continually open, and the clearexpanse between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenueprovides both a visual and a psychological opennessto the entire campus. Some of the gates, such as at the119th Street entrance, are locked much of the time,which tends to perpetuate an intention of separation.The large stairway at the northernmost entrance(120th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam)creates both a physical and psychological barrier tothat end of campus; a high masonry wall conceals thatview of the stair itself, and its arrangement as aswitchback conceals the view into campus. Thetopography and construction of the original campuson a podium north of 116th Street are largely re-sponsible for the impression these northern entrancesmake. At the southernmost end, the stairway entranceson 114th Street, while modest in slope, still create avisual barrier.

A few of the entrances are well below the aestheticstandard set by the College Walk entrances, with theirmassive granite piers and monumental wrought-irongates. The entrance at Morningside Drive at 117thStreet uses a contemporary aluminum gate, which isunsympathetic to the historic entrance gates. The Am-sterdam Avenue building entrances of East Campusare overshadowed, literally and figuratively, by the mas-sive pedestrian bridge connecting the two campuses.


120th Street entrance.

Gate at Broadway and West 117th Street, looking westtoward Barnard.


Open Spaces and Views

Open spaces and the views they provide are an inte-gral part of the campus plan. They fulfill a variety offunctions, ranging from visual relief to recreationalopportunities, and greatly affect one’s experience ofthe campus as a special place. The network of path-ways, intimate courtyards, and axial views through-out the campus contribute different scales and levelsof drama to the open-space experience.

There are a few areas in which the open spaces havebeen altered or the view corridors have been distortedby changes in pathways or by physical obstructions.The corners of Uris extruding into the north-south axialpathway is one example. Views onto East Campus fromthe Amsterdam bridge and from Morningside Drivefall far short of the College Walk standard.

Lawn areas also provide a range of functions, fromquiet, study, or sunning areas to organized sportsfields. Given the interchangeable nature of and com-peting interests for these spaces, there is a need forbalance between protecting green spaces and allow-ing both passive and active recreational use. This isparticularly true for South Field, in its dual functionas the formal setting and entry to Butler Library, andas a much-needed and heavily used active recreationalspace.

Circulation

Easy, efficient circulation is fundamental to a suc-cessful college campus. The system of paths and cir-culation within Core Campus is organized on axiswith Low Library, and its flanking buildings’ en-trances and courtyards. The system works reasonablywell except for east/west movement in Core Campus-South, where volume of traffic is overwhelming to thepaths. On North Campus, circulation and orientationare not as clear. A muddled feeling results from theloss of axial patterns and the intrusion of buildingsinto paths. East Campus depends too heavily on theAmsterdam bridge for connections. Its elevationabove street level compromises more direct circula-tion, as is the case at Sulzberger Plaza. Throughout theentire campus, poorly placed handicap access rampsdisrupt pathways and entrances, or are missing alto-gether. A unified design solution for these ramps issorely needed.


Van Am Quad.

Ramps at Journalism Plaza.

Amsterdam bridge looking north.


With increased volumes of pedestrians over time, ex-isting circulation capabilities are inadequate. There isa real need to widen paths to accommodate increasedpedestrian traffic. In addition to issues of convenience,the path system is important as a formal complementto the buildings; improvements should also focus oncorrecting alignments to restore the axial relationshipsso central to the pathways’ function and to the under-lying campus geometry. In particular, the pathwaysaround Buell are too narrow for easy movement; thepathways around Earl at the Broadway/117th Streetentrance are very constricted; and the pathways lead-ing between Philosophy and Kent no longer reinforcethe axial entries of the buildings. Pathway improve-ments should focus on assisting orientation andwayfinding, while also fostering impromptu occasionsfor socializing.

College Walk, the most heavily used thoroughfare oncampus, is simultaneously the primary circulationroute and an informal gathering place. Its wear andtear are visible in the condition of the paving, theplantings, etc. Especially distracting are the ever-pre-sent cars and service vehicles parked here, an ac-commodation for convenience that should beprohibited.


Steps at Fairchild.Earl Hall (rear) near Broadway/117th Street entrance.

Parking along College Walk.

North Campus.


function as social spaces, fail to do so. Some of these,such as Avery Courtyard and East Campus plaza areprofound failures. Avery Courtyard is hard-edged anduncomfortable, lacks handicap access, and as a resultis uninviting and underused. East Campus Plaza isfrequently wind-swept in winter, over-paved, with adearth of green, and consequently deserted in poorweather and underused in mild weather. With the ex-ception of the popular sunken courtyard of Interna-tional Affairs, there is little to attract or engage peoplehere, other than sun.

Other spaces need adjustments to improve their ca-pabilities as social spaces. For example, SulzbergerPlaza, as the primary food service space on East Cam-pus, works well as a social space in spite of its dualrole as a vehicular service entrance. Its main disad-vantage is its disconnection from East Campus as awhole and the closed-in feeling that creates. The openspaces of North Campus are underused in spite ofopen plazas intended to work as seating and gather-ing places.

There are a number of spaces on campus that haveevolved into popular gathering spots, like the lawns ofthe Mathematics and Lewisohn academic buildingsand the courtyards of Hartley and Wallach residentialbuildings. The Uris cafeteria receives especiallyheavy, even burdensome, patronage; poor access to itsterrace café keeps dining there tightly constricted.There is some spillover effect onto the Uris Plaza,whose central location and popularity provide the op-portunity to create a substantial new social space.Other, smaller scale opportunities include accommo-dating smokers, casual lounging, and sitting areas onlawn courts—as at the Philosophy building—whichare popular as intimate gathering spaces.

To be successful, the social spaces need to be conve-nient to classrooms, food and drink, provide com-fortable seating, and have areas and/or times of bothsun and shade. In addition, and in contrast to con-sciously designed social spaces, the campus groundsneed to foster impromptu gathering at key points ofcirculation.

Social Spaces

The campus has several cherished social spaces, mostnotably the terraces and flights of stairs of Low Plaza.These are an essential component in campus life, andtake on added significance within Columbia’s in-tensely urban surroundings. Some of the small court-yards of Core Campus and scattered café areas arealso heavily used as gathering places; for example,Philosophy lawn is a popular area of quiet lawn andtrees, and is often used as an “outdoor classroom” aswell as casual lounging area. There are a number ofother areas of the campus which, though designed to


Outdoor dining at Uris.

Social space at Mathematics.


Landscape Architectural Elements

The strong underlying landscape infrastructure pow-erfully expresses both its formal and urban character.It is a campus of hard edges, many of which are ac-tually part of the architecture. The bases of Dodge andKent form massive limestone enclosures at CollegeWalk’s entrances. Low Plaza and its lawns are framedby the architectural “podium” upon which much ofCore Campus-North and North Campus are con-structed. A number of architectural elements in thisarea, such as stone balustrades and classically-in-spired walls, fountains, formal planters, and stairs,are used to define or augment the landscape, and arecritical to its sense of order. Most curbs on the cam-pus are of concrete, an inappropriate material giventhe rich architectural surroundings. The curbs markthe boundaries of the pathways and open spaces andare in various states of disrepair and in many placeshave been wholly or partially replaced with temporarymaterials.

The paving pattern and materials of Low Plaza andthe network of pathways are particularly important,reinforcing the campus’s formal organization whilealso making reference to the colors and textures of thebuilding’s themselves. The inventory recorded 25different paving materials and patterns scatteredthroughout the campus, with many areas in poor con-dition. These many styles of paving illustrate the needto use similar and harmonious elements of the land-scape with which to visually unify the campus.

Site Furniture and Fixtures

The lack of landscape planning for so many years hastaken a visible toll on the campus’s appearance withregard to site furniture and fixtures. A wide range ofstyles and types of trash receptacles, bicycle racks,railings, signs, bollards, ash urns, and benchesabound. For example, the University’s recycling pro-gram currently uses large, brightly colored, multi-item receptacles, which are scattered throughout thecampus. They are used in addition to and in place ofregular trash receptacles. The bench designs rangefrom the historic, limestone “Low Library bench” toa concrete bench with wooden slats, and differenttypes of café furniture are used at each café area. Sitefurniture and fixtures have both an aesthetic and afunctional role to play on campus, and their designuniformity will go a long way toward improving thecampus landscape.




Low Plaza with original Catskill brick and replacementconcrete border.

Concrete and brick paving on the Amsterdam bridge.

Hexagonal asphalt pavers south of College Walk (to ButlerLibrary).

Replacement brick pavers near Havemeyer.

Concrete and stone paving near Mathematics.

Concrete paving with brick borders near HavemeyerExtension.

Variety of Existing Paving Types



Benches and café furniture in Sulzberger Plaza.

Bench, ash urn, and trash receptacle at Low Library.

Low Library bench.

Café furniture at Uris.

Trash receptacle at Low Plaza.

Bench and ash urn near Faculty House.

Variety of Existing Seating and Trash Receptacles


Plantings and Soil

All plants, from trees to grass, are affected by thecondition of the soil. The soil throughout the Colum-bia campus is extremely compacted due to heavy foottraffic as well as the wear and tear from machineryand construction. Because it contains virtually no or-ganic matter, the soil is very low in the nutrient val-ues needed by all plants to survive and flourish. Soilstudies indicate it contains construction and demoli-tion debris such as glass, nails, concrete, paint, brick,and plastic. High levels of nitrogen and salt are alsoevident because of animal wastes and snow removalpractices. In fact, 80% of the soil tested approachesthe consistency of concrete. Like many urban soils,much of it is quite acidic. Good quality soil is funda-mental to the long-term success of Columbia’s land-scape. Existing soil conditions severely inhibit thefuture revitalization of campus plantings.

As a natural consequence of the heavy use typical toan urban setting, the campus lawns are under tremen-dous stress—a condition exacerbated by poor soil,intensive athletic use, and foot traffic. The lawns havea thin and patchy appearance (in part, the price forhaving grass on an urban campus). For example, thelawns of the South Field, which are frequently usedfor active recreation, have to be restored on a regularbasis. In other areas, such as College Walk, grass isattempting to compete with extensive tree roots indense shade without much success. Conditions aremade more difficult by the existence of some of theformer street curbs.

Many of the shrubs and ground covers are of poorquality and have been used in the wrong place, i.e.,sun-loving plants in deep shade and vice versa.Ground-cover plantings at the base of buildings are,for the most part, inappropriate to the formality andmonumentality of the campus architecture.

Evergreen hedges can provide many of the bordersthroughout the campus and contribute to its urbancharacter just as the architectural edges do. Thesehedges are a signature planting on the campus, pro-tecting lawn areas, framing courtyards, and helping todefine pathways. Yet they have been allowed to pro-liferate in many different guises and sizes, from yewsto barberry to privet, where uniformity would bepreferable.


Poor soil conditions result in unsatisfactory plantings nearHamilton Hall.

Thin, unkempt hedges and shrubs adjacent to Earl Hall.

Heavily used and compacted lawn at South Field.


Many of the plants chosen for display, particularly an-nuals, have been inappropriate, i.e., colors such asred salvia, yellow marigolds, etc., and have been scat-tered about the campus in a random fashion, such asat the base of large trees. On both North and Eastcampuses, due to lack of water, poor soil and windyconditions, few plantings are either healthy or attrac-tive. There is a general need for more plantings onthese two areas of the campus.

In 1982 a survey by Bartlett Tree Expert Co. report-ed 465 trees on the campus. In 1997, arborist WayneCahilly reported only 259 trees remaining. Manyhave been located without any regard to landscapecomposition or their design effects at maturity. Oth-ers are poorly matched to their locations, thereforerequiring considerable maintenance. There is nocomprehensive tree-care program or tree-replace-ment program, no records of past tree care, nor isthere a budget for long-term tree maintenance. TheUniversity has completed a tree survey, which willhelp guide future decisions. Due to lack of adequatefunding, many of the trees which have been added re-cently are very small and thus quite vulnerable to thestresses of campus life.

Maintenance

The analysis revealed numerous examples of an in-adequately maintained landscape, ranging from de-teriorating paving, curbs, and stonework to stressedplant materials and lawns. The campus groundsmaintenance operation is compartmentalized andtherefore poorly coordinated, a condition which par-tially explains the ad hoc response to repair and re-placement needs.

In the absence of landscape architectural guidance,supervisors and staff have little understanding of theprimary role paths and curbs play in the landscapecomposition. As each competing emergency arises,these elements slide further down the priority listand ultimately into compounding states of disrepair.Valiant attempts at new plantings only bring more at-tention to their condition and underscore the needfor a comprehensive approach to landscape andplanting installations and maintenance.

In the same vein, the present grounds staff is under-trained in horticultural expertise and landscape pro-

cedures. There are many demands on their time andequipment, such as power washing, snow removal,and special events, which take them away from thecare of the landscape. Because the budget is small forreplacement plants, mulch, and annual plantings, themajority of the landscape work is oriented to turfmanagement. Due to poor soil, extensive use, poordrainage and compaction, it is extremely difficult tomake significant improvements to many lawn areas.


Deteriorated steps along College Walk.

Remnants of hedge and grass at Lewisohn lawn.


5.3 LANDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS

Taking inspiration from the original campus plan, theLandscape Master Plan combines the use of the basevocabulary in alliance with new design recommen-dations. It provides a blueprint for using the land-scape to weave disparate features and perceptions intoa coherent whole. The landscape’s role as a unifyingforce supports an ambitious agenda to recover thefaded vision for the original campus, and to contributeto its future greatness.

Planning Principles

Fundamentally, the Landscape Master Plan advocatesdesign and planning recommendations that are sensi-tive to the historic character but also responsive to theUniversity’s changing needs. The determination ofthese guiding principles revolved around a centralconflict—that is, how to embrace the past without in-appropriately imposing it on the future. Because thehistoric Core Campus is generally successful and themore modern areas of campus are generally unsuc-cessful, the pervasive impression for most users andvisitors is Core Campus. Nevertheless, the strictreplication of historic elements would greatly limitthe University with regard not only to capital im-provements and basic maintenance but also to anevolving architectural and landscape architecturalexpression.

These principles reflect an approach which both reusesand interprets the historic characteristics to visuallyunify the campus while accommodating contemporarydemands. For example, modern bricks which closelymatch the original brick will be laid in the traditionalherringbone pattern throughout the campus; or ashurns and limestone benches (of various sizes) will bedesigned in materials and styles which reflect the clas-sical character of the campus; or new efficient pathwaylights will complement those used in the past. Theconsistent use of the base vocabulary will help ensurethat the desired balance is accomplished. Within thiscontext, the plan’s guiding principles are tailored foreach landscape element category.

Synthesis of Findings

The analysis of the campus elements helped the teamdefine those characteristics that make the campus spe-cial and unique.

Some traits which best define the campus are:

• The original campus plan and the classically in-spired design principles it exhibits.

• The urban setting and the ways in which that set-ting is reflected in the buildings and grounds.

• The overall preponderance of lawn and trees inCore Campus.

As part of this process, findings have been catego-rized, documented, and sometimes subjectively pri-oritized (in those instances where competing interests,uses or policies exist). For example:

• South Field’s role as central quad vs. the need foractive recreation on campus.

• The need for direct connections between CoreCampus and East Campus vs. the negative impactthe bridge has on the Amsterdam streetscape.

• Cherished informal lawn lounging on the Philos-ophy lawn vs. a path alignment more compatiblewith the axial system of buildings and entrances.

• The spring cherry bloom and winter lightingalong College Walk vs. the health and overall de-sign purpose of the tree canopy.

In addition, the synthesis of findings leads to a basevocabulary of materials and fixtures, which will en-sure that all actions reflect the campus characterthrough a consistent material expression. The basevocabulary includes: brick pavers to closely match theoriginal deep red Catskill brick; limestone; StonyCreek granite (as used in the historic gate piers, walls,stairs, and fountains); herringbone brick paving andwhite stone banding; limestone “Low Library bench-es”; limestone balustrades; ornate iron gates; bronzehandrails; uniform trash receptacles; granite curbs;lawn panels; evergreen hedges; and a mixture of in-formal and formal tree placement.



Campus Image

1. Preserve and restore the historic landscape char-acter where appropriate.

2. Consider both the functional and ceremonial as-pects of campus entrances.

Spatial Organization

3. Strengthen the organization of open space throughgentle intervention to give greater clarity tospaces, ease circulation, and improve usefulness.

4. Identify opportunities for aesthetic and function-al connections between open spaces.

5. Activate underused spaces of North and EastCampuses.

6. Preserve view corridors.

7. Restore axial geometry of the original campusscheme including traditional orthogonal patterns.

8. Add pathways or alter widths to accommodate flowof pedestrians in select locations where there is acritical need and where doing so will not compro-mise the quality of the landscape.

9. Improve ramp systems to accommodate both hand-icap access and maintenance vehicles. Permanentramp design and construction must be consistentwith the base vocabulary.

Landscape Architectural Elements and Site Furniture

10. Reinforce landscape edges such as curbs, wallsand balustrades with durable and sophisticatedmaterials consistent with the base vocabulary.

11. Materials must meet modern standards of safetyand availability.

12. Styles should be simple, have a permanent qual-ity, and be available as noncustom items, wherepossible.

13. Site furniture locations should be deliberately andlogically chosen.

14. Locations for outdoor sculpture should be select-ed in keeping with the overall vision of the Mas-ter Plan, and in consultation with the UniversityCommittee on Art Properties.

Plantings

15. Accentuate the natural elements which symbolizethe classical and urban character of the campus,such as rectangular lawn panels framed by low,clipped evergreen hedges, a limited palette ofplants, and simple ground covers near the oldbuildings.

16. Reproduce and/or design variations of successfulCore Campus elements on North and East cam-puses.

17. Improve existing beds with ground cover, partic-ularly on North and East campuses.


New planting bed at Uris Plaza.

Recently planted Centennial Bed at South Field.


Design Recommendations

The Landscape Master Plan recommends a range ofactions which encompass preservation of both thesense of place of the McKim plan and individual com-ponents of that plan; restoration of selected, cherishedlandscape elements; corrections of past mistakes; andinterventions of new designs.

A campuswide uniformity in “landscape infrastruc-ture” elements—such as brick and granite paving,granite curbs, limestone balustrades and benches, andlow evergreen hedges—is a key component of the plan.

In recognition of the importance of the original axialorganization to the campus’s sense of place, the planrestores this relationship, to enhance circulation, ori-entation, and visual appearance. The plan preservesthe intact axial relationships and reclaims some thathave been lost, and thus protects the beloved court-yard open spaces and view corridors which help de-fine the campus character.

Improved and additional social spaces are a key fea-ture of the plan. Social spaces range from formal seat-ing areas and cafés, to strategically placed benches, toopen lawns for both passive and active recreationaluses. They are an essential component in campus life,and they take on added significance within Columbia’surban surroundings. The plan will help re-create thespirit of Low Plaza in other areas but on smaller, moreintimate scales and with some functional specificity.

A general “greening”of the campus is the underlyingpremise of the plan’s horticultural recommendations.It focuses equally on recovering the health of existingplantings, through immediate improvements in soilcomposition, drainage, and irrigation systems, andon the introduction of a range of new plantings, in-cluding evergreen hedges and a modest amount of or-namental plantings. New tree plantings should becarefully located to reinforce the principles of theLandscape Master Plan.


East Campus Residence – before.

East Campus Residence – after.


The Landscape Master Plan strongly recommends anadministrative action to ensure its success: establishan administrative policy in which the Landscape Mas-ter Plan is given a “voice” in all decisions that wouldimpact the campus’s landscape character, from ongo-ing maintenance to new building projects.

In general, the impact these recommendations willhave on the campus is demonstrated by the recent re-design of the internal courtyard of East Campus Res-idence. This project can be seen as a prototype,exhibiting the fundamental vision of this LandscapeMaster Plan—that is, an integration of green and seat-ing. The campus’s characteristic low planters andplantings (in opposition to the tall boxes of trees else-where on East Campus) and low seating soften thecourtyard while also transforming the site into aninviting, well-used social space.

Materials and Furnishings Palette

Gateways and Boundaries

The restoration of original stone pier and cast-irongates at two entrances is recommended. The entrancesto the modern campus areas, e.g., East Campus fromMorningside Drive and Lerner Hall from Broadway,should be considered for materials compatible withCore Campus architecture, with some reference tothe original gateways. For example, primary gatewaysshould reflect the monumental scale of the historicgates, while secondary gateways should be referentialin character and material.

Landscape Architectural Elements and Site Furniture.

The majority of landscape architectural elements andsite furniture should be either restorations of originalelements or new designs which reflect the traditionalcharacter of the campus. All should have a permanentquality, i.e., no concrete curbs, wooden ramps, plas-tic café chairs, etc.

Stony creek granite curbs are recommended through-out the campus, for durability as well as to serve asan aesthetically unifying element. In the same vein,certain materials typical within the historic CoreCampus should be repeated throughout. These in-clude: brick and granite paving materials; the lime-stone “Low Library bench” (in different sizes) as therecommended bench style; bronze railings, similar tothat in front of Furnald Hall; granite or cast-stonebalustrades (with profiles matching the existingbalustrades) along the terrace edges of the historicbuildings; and rolled-rim Italianate planting pots andcigarette ash urns throughout, in reference to the clas-sical stone urns ornamenting Low Plaza.

Site fixture designs for trash receptacles, bicycle racks,signage, etc., are recommended in established materi-als, such as steel and wrought iron. Colors should beeither that of the material itself, matte black, or darkhunter green.


New planter at Mudd.



Catskill brick in a herringbone pattern.

Handrail.

Café tables and chairs.

Recommended Materials Palette: Landscape Architectural Elements and Site Furniture

Granite paving with Catskill brick.

Trash receptacle.

Café tables and chairs, fixed and wheelchair accessible.



Ash urn located adjacent to building entrances.

Historic low bench.

Planter.

Ash urn located adjacent to projecting building bases.

Bike rack.

Recommended Materials Palette: Landscape Architectural Elements and Site Furniture


posed to the current species, which requires clippingsix times a year. In heavily trafficked areas, a secu-rity bar should be inserted behind the hedge, limit-ing access to the lawn panels by prescribedopenings. Foundation plantings between hedge andbuilding wall should be limited to ground covers orlow spreading shrubs. Annual planting should belimited to certain proscribed areas, not scatteredabout the campus or placed at the base of trees.Ground cover with bulbs should be used to enlivendifficult to maintain areas of lawn.

Plantings

To accentuate the classical, urban character of thecampus, a selection of plants has been chosen from acarefully constructed palette. Beauty, appropriateness,ease of maintenance, and adaptability to urban con-ditions were the overriding criteria.

New trees should be planted at sizes sufficient enoughto help assure a higher rate of survival. All tree plant-ings will be introduced in stages. Trees with fall colorwill enrich the palette on the Campus.

The repetition of low evergreen hedges is recom-mended to enhance and define lawn panels. Allhedges need to be converted to Taxus densiformis,which is easier to maintain than other types cur-rently used on campus. They should be trimmed to24 inches tall and wide, clipped twice a year, as op-


Tilia cordata (Littleleaf Linden). Ilex opaca (American Holly).



Skimmia japonica (Japanese Skimmia).

Taxus x. media ‘Densiformis’ (Yew) pruned as a hedge.Helleborus orientalis (LentenRose).

Acer rubrum (Red Maple).Cornus kousa (Korean Dogwood).

Hydrangea quercifolia (Oak-leaved Hydrangea).

Several Recommended Plant Materials


mended for Journalism Plaza. It is a selected targetarea and discussed in detail in the following section.The intimate scale of these quadrangle designs cou-pled with the expanse of South Field would signifi-cantly enhance the open space and social activity ofCore Campus-South as a whole.

Core Campus-North

Core Campus-North is the heart of the entire campus,dominated by Low Library and Low Plaza and gracedby the intimate courtyards created by the arrange-ment of McKim’s academic buildings. Beyond twoselected target area redesigns, only minor adjustmentsare recommended to reclaim the axial pathway align-ments and improve circulation and to enhance thearea’s popular social spaces.

A systematic widening of the 10-foot paths is rec-ommended throughout Core Campus-North. In addi-tion, the axial symmetry of the pathways should berestored throughout—this is an especially importantchange around Earl Hall, whose paths take on a me-andering quality completely out of character with thecampus as a whole. This relatively minor interventionwill have a significant impact, improving circulationand orientation, fostering impromptu gathering spotsalong pathways, and enhancing the formal beauty ofthe landscape’s architectural and natural elements.

The courtyards of Mathematics on the west and Phi-losophy on the east will be improved by expandedforecourts, formalized plantings, seating, and moreappropriate lighting. Another improvement would beto add a second exedra at the western side of Low Li-brary. This bench shall be relocated from Mathemat-ics and will be placed across from a widened path tothe Earl Hall stairs, to mirror the one currently lo-cated across from St. Paul’s Chapel. This will be amodest but effective gesture in celebrating the spiritof the original campus plan.

The restoration of Low Plaza is highly recommended.It should be repaved with a white stone (referencingthe original Joliet stone and replacing the badly dete-riorated concrete pavers); the stairs should be repaired,and architectural elements, such as the balustrades,restored as needed. Throughout Core Campus, his-toric bronze railings should be restored, as should his-toric lamps on academic buildings.

Campus Subareas

Core Campus-South and College Walk

In recognition of its role as the most dramatic andmost heavily used entrance on campus, College Walkis a target area for improvement, with a number ofrecommendations intended to improve its appearanceand performance.

Moving south from College Walk, the creation of twonew, ornamental plant beds – the “Centennial Beds”– is recommended to showcase a formal arrangementof both flowering plants and fastigiate or ornamentaltrees. These beds are located at the junctions of thestairs leading from College Walk onto South Field,aligned with the outer edges of South Field. Their de-sign includes built-in benches at the edge of theeast/west path. At the eastern edge of the stair to SouthField, a new combination ADA/vehicular ramp shouldbe installed. A prototype planting done in the Cen-tennial Beds during the summer of 1997 was warm-ly received and was further expanded in 1998.

South Field is historically important and one of themore cherished places on campus. Recommended in-terventions here respect this dual role. A minor re-configuration of this area will accommodate widenedpathways on the east and west and will enable therestoration of the 115th Street east/west axis (i.e., thenew “Butler Walk”). The reduction in the total area ofthe South Field will not adversely affect its use as a pri-mary recreational space nor its importance as the for-mal entrance to Butler Library. In fact, the creation ofButler Walk would no doubt enhance South Field’srole as the Library’s symbolic front lawn. Butler Walkis a selected target area and is outlined in detail in thefollowing section.

A slight reshaping of Van Am Quad will enhance ex-isting green space and improve its capacity as a socialspace. The northern lawn panel should be reduced toaccommodate widened pathways at each end (ButlerWalk at the southern end). The western lawn panelshould be regraded level with South Field, with a ter-raced stair and/or seating connecting the outer lawnpanel to the inner courtyard. The historic fountainand gate between Hartley and Hamilton halls shouldbe restored as part of this improvement. A similar,though more formally designed, scheme is recom-




IllustrativeLandscapeMaster Plan

Exhibit 5-1

This plan illustrates proposed improvementsto campus open spaces,pathways and plantings.


under the bridge, will be opened to increased lightand air.

The barren East Campus plaza adversely affects mostevery other aspect of its landscape. The plaza shouldbe repaved with brick and precast concrete, and sev-eral of the large concrete planters should be replacedwith lawn panels bordered with low evergreen hedges.Other plantings, possibly a grove of ornamental trees,will help to soften the harshness of this space. A caféseating area should be added at the southwest fore-court of the East Campus Residence Hall to encour-age social gathering. A new direct stair connection toSulzberger Plaza will dramatically improve both thatspace, and East Campus as a whole. Sulzberger Plazais a selected target area, and is discussed in detail inthe following section.

Finally, it is highly recommended that the easternmostentrance to East Campus at Morningside Drive and117th Street be improved. A new masonry pier and dec-orative iron gate should replace the aluminum one, andthe entrance passage should be repaired and landscaped.

Target Areas for Improvement

Seven target areas designed according to the pro-scribed guidelines will demonstrate the Master Plan’svision, objectives, and guiding principles (Exhibit 5-2). These areas are not necessarily considered highpriority areas by the project team. Rather, they are ex-amples of how the concepts of the Master Plan will beexpressed “on the ground,” when and if implemented.

North Campus

North Campus, while within the boundaries of the orig-inal McKim plan is the least true to it. The focus forNorth Campus should reestablish as many axial rela-tionships as possible and foster more use by improvingthe friendliness and comfort of its courtyard spaces.

A redesign of the Pupin Plaza will reestablish thequadrangle intentions of the McKim plan; new plant-ings and trees, especially the characteristic lawn panelwith low evergreen hedges, will help to unify this area.On the east side of North Campus, the north/southpathway and view corridor will be restored by the re-moval of the exterior stair to Fairchild and to Uris. Thecreation of a visual terminus at the southeast andsouthwest corners of Uris (such as sculpture) will bea simple but effective intervention in marking a tran-sition between the historic Core Campus and the en-trance to the more contemporary North Campus.

A major design recommendation is the creation of newUris Plaza, i.e., a reconfiguration of the open spacebetween Low Library and Uris Hall. This is an areaof particular importance, as a major cross-campusthoroughfare, given its location at the center of theoriginal campus and its proximity to the Uris food ser-vice and café. This redesign is intended to fulfill thepotential of this site as the literal and figurative con-nector between many disparate areas of the campus.It is a selected target area, the details of which are dis-cussed in the following section.

East Campus

Recommendations for this area are intended to bringsome semblance of Core Campus characteristics toEast Campus. Through improved access, characteris-tic materials and elements, and an increase in theamount of plantings, these recommendations willhelp to foster a friendlier, livelier place.

The partial removal of Amsterdam bridge is highlyrecommended, retaining the southernmost end of thebridge at 117th Street. This adjustment, in tandemwith other entrance improvements, will create a num-ber of positive effects. The connection between Coreand East campuses will be improved by directingtraffic into Kent Plaza and Low Plaza areas and awayfrom the narrow passages around St. Paul’s Chapel.A large section of Amsterdam Avenue, presently




PupinMudd

Fairchild

SchermerhornHavemeyerUris

Schapiro CEPSR

Low St. Paul's

Buell

Butler Library

Earl

Aver

y

Mat

hem

atic

sCh

andl

er

Sche

r. Ex

t.

Lew

isoh

n

Faye

rwea

ther

Philo

soph

y

Casa

Italia

na

Wie

n

Pres

.Ho

use

Hart

ley

Wal

lach

Furn

ald

Kent

Greene

InternationalAffairs

Heyman

Hamilton

John JayCarman

Dodge

Journalism

Lerner Student Center

FacultyHouse

UrisPlaza

AveryCourtyard

LewisohnLawn

College Walk

FurnaldQuad

Butler Walk

Sulzberger Plaza

East CampusResidence Hall

Have.Ext.

Target Area

Exhibit 5-2

Target AreaKey Plan

Legend

0 50 100 200


1. Avery Courtyard

Avery Courtyard is distinguished as the only completequadrangle realized from the original McKim plan. Amajor redesign of the space in the 1970s (as part ofthe extension of Avery Library and underground linkto Fayerweather) resulted in an unwelcoming openspace raised above the courtyard’s intended baseplane. The recommended redesign of this courtyardwill restore its intimacy and elegance, by softening itsedges and creating more visual and spatial connec-tions to its surroundings (Exhibit 5-3).

The plan reconnects the courtyard to grade-level path-ways and strengthens its relationship to surroundingbuildings. New, more appropriate low plantingsshould be added, especially along the southern edgeto help subdue its sharpness. New hedging along thequad’s perimeter will help to conceal the planter wallsthat are necessary to bridge the underground exten-sion. Comfortable seating should be added, as well asa central lawn panel, reminiscent of the quadsthroughout Core Campus.


Avery Courtyard looking north.Fa

yerw

eath

er

Ramp

Aver

y

Lawn

Urn

+30"+12"

0"

-24"

50 10 20

Plan of Avery Courtyard.



Perspective of AveryCourtyardLooking SouthToward St. Paul’sChapel

Exhibit 5-3


2. Uris Plaza

This area is an appropriate place for a substantial in-tervention because of the heavy traffic and its currentfunction as a spill-over space for the Uris café. A num-ber of discrete design gestures will vastly improve theaesthetic and functional qualities of this space. By re-moving hedges, additional seating should be provid-ed on the ledge and lawn at the back of Low Library.


The entire central lawn panel should be removed andreplaced with a new café terrace paved with brick andgranite, giving this entire area an expansive and com-fortable dining atmosphere. Two food and informationkiosks (a key place for campus announcements)should be designed for each end of the new paved caféarea, replacing the two fountains that were convertedto raised planters. A single fountain should replacethe large sculpture currently on the lawn (which willbe relocated to a more appropriate setting), and orna-mental plantings with seasonal color should be added.

3. College Walk

College Walk is a crucial campus landscape feature. Itis a primary axis, entrance, and circulation route, butalso takes on a larger symbolic role and is thus sacredas an open space. Further, it provides the dramatic en-trance experience that should be preserved but shouldalso be enhanced with a few targeted interventions.

A small, entry plaza with stone seats just inside thegates at the Broadway entrance should be added. Asa kind of campus vestibule, this space will accom-modate the natural tendency for people to gather andsocialize here while also serving as a transitional ges-ture between the formal campus and the street. The

Low Library

Uris Steps

Lawn

Brick Paving

Granite Paving

100 20 40

Kiosk

FountainCafe Tables

Uris Plaza.

Plan of Uris Plaza.


double allee of trees heightens the drama of the openspace beyond it and must be preserved as essential tothe College Walk experience. However, the treespecies should gradually be replaced; the unhealthyand inappropriate cherry and European linden treesshould be replaced (either through attrition or trans-planting) by American lindens, which are much bet-ter suited to the natural conditions of this site. It ishighly recommended that the grass panels in these is-lands be replaced with improved soil, a ground cover,and bulbs for a spring display. Improved drainage andan irrigation system would greatly enhance the main-tenance of this area.

The whole of College Walk should be repaved in thebrick herringbone pattern with granite banding, andgranite curbs bordering all the islands. The center is-lands should remain lawn, but the center sectionshould be opened up by slightly shortening the fourislands fronting Low Plaza and South Field. By em-phasizing Core Campus’s primary north/south axis,this revitalized central space will improve circulationand orientation in all directions from College Walk.New seating and campus path lights are recommend-ed for strategic locations along the length of the Walk.


Journalism

Dodge

Lawn

Ground Coverand Bulbs

Planting Bed

100 20 40

Broa

dway

Ramp

College Walk.

Plan of College Walk.


4. Lewisohn Lawn

This traditional gathering space will be dramaticallyimproved functionally and aesthetically through therealignment and widening of its pathways, theLewisohn forecourt, and the stair leading down toDodge Plaza. Consequently, circulation will be great-ly improved, while the formal, axial relationships en-visioned for these interior courtyards in McKim’splan will be established (Exhibit 5-4). The enlargedLewisohn forecourt area should accommodate seat-ing, but this area’s quiet, passive character should bemaintained. The mature tree canopy should be pre-served, and a railing detail slightly hidden behind thenew hedge borders will protect the lawns from un-necessary foot traffic. A limestone balustrade will de-fine the southern boundary of the courtyard aboveDodge Plaza, and will continue to serve as a primarygathering space. Low ground cover plantings shouldreplace the foundation plantings in this area.


Lewisohn lawn.

Lawn

GroundCover

Lewi

sohn

100 20 40

Lawn

Brick Paving

GroundCover

GranitePaving

Dodge

Plan of Lewisohn lawn.



Perspective of LewisohnLawn Looking SouthToward Dodge

Exhibit 5-4


The north/south path fronting Furnald Hall should bedoublewidth, with two central islands of formalizedplantings. Handicap access to this quadrangle shouldbe provided from the new Butler Walk, thereforeeliminating the wooden ramps and walls currentlydescending from Journalism.

6. Butler Walk

A design intervention is recommended to restore theimportant east/west circulation axis at 115th Street,which has been interrupted by the southern end ofSouth Field and Butler Terrace. The length of SouthField lawns should be reduced slightly to accommo-date this new east-west connection. Butler Walk willdirectly connect the residential areas to the studentcenter and classroom areas, greatly improving theflow of pedestrian traffic in what will become, withthe completion of the new student center, one of themost heavily traveled areas of campus.

The Walk also will reestablish the granite terrace infront of Butler Library as the library’s formal en-trance, rather than its current use as a primary path-way. Butler Walk and the library’s entrance will befurther enhanced by four new display beds againsteach end of the Butler Terrace wall. The outer bedsshould contain small fastigiate or ornamental treesunderplanted with ground cover and bulbs, and thetwo inner beds should provide a display of shrubs,perennials and seasonal color.

5. Furnald Quad

The completion of Lerner Hall will increase studenttraffic in and around this quad, making it especiallywell-suited for redesign as a multiuse open space (Ex-hibit 5-5). The existing lawn panel should be regrad-ed to the same elevation as South Field, so thatstudents can move directly onto this new green, socialspace from Lerner. At its interior edge facing Furnald,the lawn panel should have a gentle slope combinedwith a low stair, which will enhance the area as a casual lounging spot. The regraded lawn should bebordered by low evergreen hedges, but be easily ac-cessible. A new limestone balustrade along Journal-ism Plaza will define the lawn’s northern edge.


Furnald Quad.

Annuals

Shrubs

Furn

ald

Lawn

Brick Paving

GroundCover

50 10 20

PlantingBed

Lerner

Butler Walk

Lawn

Plan of Furnald Quad and Butler Walk.



Perspective of FurnaldQuad andButler WalkLookingNortheast fromFurnald

Exhibit 5-5


7. Arthur Hays Sulzberger Plaza

This plaza, while essentially pleasant and well used,will be vastly improved by a few simple design inter-ventions (Exhibit 5-6). An immediate improvementwill result from the entrance gate’s realignment oncenter between the stone pillars. Two panels of greencontaining trees, ground covers, and the lawns andhedges so prevalent on Core Campus should flank theentrance path, creating a distinct entry to the space.The plaza should be paved with herringbone brickwith granite borders, providing an ideal setting for theoutdoor café relating to the existing food service inWien Hall.

The most important intervention here—and a signif-icant improvement for the whole East Campus—willbe the construction of a new direct staircase connec-tion to East Campus Plaza, and removing the guardbooth in the courtyard’s northwest corner. (see Ex-hibit 4.9). The existing stair to East Campus Plaza ishidden from view and can be a dark, forbiddingplace. This new stair will improve the experience ofmoving about East Campus, and will dramaticallyenhance the views into East Campus from 116thStreet.


Greene HallService Entrance

CaféTables

Jero

me G

reene

Hall

Wien

Hall

Lawn

GroundCover

West 116th Street

ADAAccess

50 10 20

Sulzberger Plaza.Plan of Sulzberger Plaza.



Perspective ofSulzbergerPlaza Looking NorthToward EastCampus Plaza

Exhibit 5-6


College Walk) (Exhibit 5-11); and 3) at various loca-tions on Low Library, St. Paul’s Chapel, and Earl Hall,as appropriate (Exhibit 5-12).

The original building-entrance lighting should be re-stored; this includes replacing the pair of missing bronzelanterns at Lewisohn and the pendant tapered octagonallanterns at Dodge and Kent. Traditionally styled build-ing-mounted globe lanterns are recommended for CoreCampus courtyards, at Havemeyer, Lewisohn, and Phi-losophy. Finally, the thirteen original “B” poles shouldbe relocated to, and clustered in, this area of Core Cam-pus, either to the east or the west side of Low Library.

The traditional, historically authentic “B” pole with anopen globe-shaped lantern has sharp, cutoff performancecharacteristics by means of an internal reflector at theglobe’s equator (Exhibit 5-9). Long-lasting bulbs are rec-ommended to cut maintenance costs. At this time, thisfeature is being considered for use for the entire campus.

Planning Principles

1. Restore original, bronze building-entrance lighting.Missing pieces such as finials and eagles should bereplaced.

2. Pathway lighting should be pedestrian scaled (10 to15 feet in height). It should be located to reinforcesymmetry and aligned to promote visual clarity bynight and by day.

3. Illuminate strategically located buildings to create asense of safety and for the demarcation of boundariesby revealing the many exterior “rooms.”

4. Standardize fixtures to make relamping simpler andmore consistent.

5. Select long-lasting fixtures that are cost and energyefficient and reduce maintenance costs.

Design Recommendations

The plan’s lighting recommendations take their inspira-tion from the historic precedents on campus. However,simply reproducing whatever existed in the early 1900sis not feasible: first, the details of the comprehensivelighting plan at any one time are not known; and second,such a scheme would not provide the lighting levels orquality available and expected today. Still, the harmonyof the original plan and the strength of its remnants pro-vide direction for these recommendations.

5.4 LIGHTING

The prevailing impression of the campus by night is onedominated by glare and ad hoc solutions to problematicareas (Exhibit 5-2). There is an array of lamppost styles,ranging from more or less intact original lanterns flankingthe entrances of some buildings, to modern additions oftraditionally styled units, to “shoe box” cutoff units. Asthe campus has evolved, the lighting has not been con-sidered as part of a campuswide system. Accumulation ofa variety solutions over the years has resulted in an arbi-trary arrangement of lighting systems and devices. Onecan walk along certain pathways and encounter severaldifferent types of light poles, with no apparent reason fortheir arbitrary placement or change in fixture style. Thisrandomness creates unnecessary maintenance hardshipswhen replacing many different component parts.

Light levels on the pathways are generally acceptable,ranging from about 0.25 footcandle to about 0.5 foot-candle, which meets or exceeds industry recommenda-tions. The west end of College Walk is overlighted to alevel of 3 to 4 footcandles. As a consequence, more rea-sonable levels elsewhere may appear dim. There are veryfew shadowed areas left, but this often has been achievedby mounting various unshielded floodlights to exteriorbuildings surfaces. While these lights may produce foot-candles on the walkways that register on a light meter,they are produced with the by-product of a lot of glareand without regard to the comfort of people.

By day most of the open spaces are clearly defined bybuilding walls. By night however, this clarity is attenu-ated by the floodlights placed at various, randomly se-lected heights and by the visual obliteration of thefacades due to the glare from floodlights. Although thefloodlights were probably a cost-effective interim solu-tion to security concerns, and adequately illuminate theground, they have the effect of detracting from a senseof welcome and comfort for pedestrians.

Three lighting approaches will be used to improve cur-rent conditions while highlighting the special characterof this part of Core Campus. It is recommended that thefacades of select historic buildings be illuminated as fol-lows: 1) ground-mounted lights behind a low hedge setback from the face of the building, at Lewisohn, Math-ematics and Avery (Exhibit 5-10); 2) building-mountedlights on the upper-level cornice line, at Dodge, Kent,Havemeyer and Schermerhorn (these will also be usedto illuminate Journalism and Hamilton, just south of




Light at Broadway/117th Street gate.

Light at Dodge Hall.

Lights at Pupin Plaza.

Lights at Havemeyer entrance.

Security light.

Light fixture at Uris Plaza.

Variety of Existing Light Fixtures



ExistingCampusLighting

Exhibit 5-7



ProposedCampusLighting

Exhibit 5-8



Light FixtureConcepts Globe Lamp and BuildingMountedLanterns

Exhibit 5-9

Proposed light pole and fixturefor Core Campus.

New wall fixture with traditional mounting bracket.

New wall fixture with contemporary mounting bracket.



ProposedIlluminationfor Avery Hall

Exhibit 5-10



ProposedIlluminationfor Kent Hall

Exhibit 5-11



ProposedIlluminationfor LowLibrary

Exhibit 5-12


• Furnald Quad – Expand work scope of LernerHall to encompass this quadrangle as a means ofreconciling a new addition with the existing his-toric campus.

• Sulzberger Plaza – Examine the feasibility of in-troducing a major staircase for better access to theupper level of East Campus and to animate theplaza itself.

• Uris Plaza – Create Uris Plaza, as proscribed bythe Master Plan.

• Low Plaza – Restore Low Plaza.

Conclusion

The Landscape Master Plan is intended to preserve,enhance, and interpret in new ways the defining char-acteristics of the Columbia University campus. Theplan is not a static document. It is an initiative, dy-namic like the landscape itself, and designed to guideboth immediate actions and sound long-range plan-ning. The recommendations of the plan acknowledgethe reality of competing needs within the University,but insist on the centrality of a well-maintained land-scape to Columbia’s general well-being and futuresuccess. Therefore, investment in the landscape mustbe on equal footing with other capital endeavors. ThisLandscape Master Plan should be adopted by the Uni-versity Administration as policy, as a required tool forconstruction and renovation projects, as well as theprimary guide to direct decisions regarding the preser-vation, improvement, and maintenance of the campusgrounds.

5.5 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES

The Landscape Master Plan’s implementation strate-gies outlined here are intended to incorporate land-scape issues into the University’s long-range strategicplanning and development initiatives.

Percent for Landscape Program

For each new capital improvement, a percentage ofthe cost should be allocated to a general campus land-scape project beyond the new building limit lines, inkeeping with the design guidelines and recommen-dations of the Landscape Master Plan. Each project’scosts should include site work, plantings, lighting,design and construction, and a certain percentage forendowing its maintenance.

Discrete Donor Opportunities

There are many opportunities within the Plan fordonor or memorial landscapes. The target areas areideal candidates for major donors, and there aresmaller opportunities for improvements, or conduct-ing intensive repair and maintenance in older areas.These could be as simple as memorial groves or walk-ways, flower beds, or seating areas.

Priorities• Prototypical Space – Identify a prototypical

campus space in which to incorporate the Land-scape Master Plan recommendations. Rebuildinga campus space would demonstrate the principlesof the plan and serve as a catalyst for subsequentprojects.

• Circulation and Open Space System – Build anew east/west path in Core Campus - South (i.e.,Butler Walk). Rebuild the system of pathwaysand open spaces, starting with changes to thealignments and widths of paths and stairs in CoreCampus - North.

• Additional Green Spaces – Introduce lawn pan-els in North and East campuses.



5.6 COMMUNITY COMMENTS

Paul Byard – The plantings on campus have obscuredthe architecture. The plantings and landscaping alonewill not sufficiently revitalize some areas, such as thenorth end of campus.

Michael Adams – In many cases, old materials can bereinstalled and reused rather than purchasing new ma-terial. An example is the purchase of new brick to ren-ovate the upper plaza levels around Low Librarywhere preexisting brick could have been used. Thesmall “nickel and dime” changes over time have hada significant effect on the campus, combined withpoor maintenance practices and no long-term plan-ning. I am encouraged about the conversations beingheld now about this issue.

Dorothy Minor – Columbia is a growing and evolv-ing campus which is an integral quality to the natureof the campus. It is important not to let this campusbecome an “amusement park” which carries out onespecific theme. There should be some variation andfluctuation in the landscape schemes to allow for dif-ferentiation among the various parts of the campus.

Lisa Wager – The campus is perceived to be inacces-sible to those in wheelchairs or with baby strollers.

The above comments related to Chapter 5 were taken fromminutes to meetings held during the planning process. They reflect the substance and tone of comments; they are not quotes.


CHAPTER 5 - CAMPUS LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTINGneighbors.columbia.edu/pdf-files/ch5.pdf · Chapter 5 –...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER 5 - CAMPUS LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTINGneighbors.columbia.edu/pdf-files/ch5.pdf · Chapter 5 –...