University of Michigan - Flint

Transcription

2003
august
C A M P U S
M A S T E R
P L A N
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Master Plan Summary
1
Vision and Development
3
Existing Campus
and Downtown Context
4
Campus Program
13
Master Plan Alternatives
17
Preferred Plan and Implementation
19
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
1. MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
The master plan for the University of Michigan-Flint was begun in summer 2002 to assess
current campus needs and to identify future
expansion sites for academic, student life, and
housing. This master plan was done in concert with the master plan for the Cultural
Center (completed in summer 2002) and the
Downtown district (completed in spring 2003)
with each plan addressing linkages and synergies that could strengthen the entire
downtown district.
Process
The master plan is a result of an interactive and
inclusive process over the last twelve months
involving members of the University and Flint
community. The master plan was created
under the direction of Chancellor Juan Mestas
and Vice Chancellor David Barthelmes. A
master planning committee was formed to
provide the sounding board for the master
plan process, testing ideas that were raised in
discussion, and offering direction. This committee included a cross-section of the
University community, and included:
• Virginia Allen, David Barthelmes, Kathleen
Conover, Tim Herman, Dick Horning,
Larry King, Theresa Landis, Vahid Lotfi,
Renate McLaughlin, Keith Moreland, Paula
Pollander, Teddy Robertson, Tammy Rees,
Mary Jo Sekelsky, Suzanne Selig, Kristen
Skivington, Ron Silverman, Deb Snyder,
Joanne Sullenger, Bill Webb and
George Wendt.
The master planning team also regularly met
with the following groups:
• Chancellor’s Council: Juan Mestas (Chancellor); Austin Agho (Dean), Ricardo Alfaro
(Senior Advisor to the Chancellor), Virginia
Allen (Student Services and Enrollment
Management), David Barthelmes (Administration), Stephanie Brown (Secretary to the
Chancellor), Eric Burns (Student Government), Donna Fry-Welch (Budget Priorities
and Chancellor’s Advisory Committee), Tendaji Ganges (Educational Opportunity
Initiatives), Robert Hahn (Dean), Carla
Henry (Alumni Board of Governors), Tim
Herman (Citizen’s Advisory Committee),
Jennifer Hogan (University Relations), Bob
Houbeck (Thompson Library), Eric Lerche
(Student Government), Vahid Lotfi (Associate Provost and Dean), Jeffrey Mansour
(Government Relations), Renate McLaughlin (Provost), Jay Nelson (Michigan
Television), Nathan Oaklander (Faculty
Council), Paula Pollander (Staff Council),
Ron Silverman (Budget Priorities and Chan-
M A S T E R P L A N S U M M A RY:
Figure 1. The campus’ main open space along the
Flint River
cellor’s Advisory Committee), Kristen Skivington (University Outreach), D.J. Trela
(Dean), George Wendt (Institutional
Advancement), Ted Williams (Dean).
• Faculty, and faculty committees and staff
organized by Suzanne Selig, Ron Silverman
and Paula Pollander.
• Students and student groups.
Under the direction of these groups, the plan
was advanced during a series of four on-campus
worksessions:
• Interviews with key administrators, faculty,
staff and students were conducted in early
Fall 2002.
• Enrollment goals and space needs were discussed in October 2002.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
1
• Alternatives for building and landscape
framework were discussed in December 2002
and refined in worksessions in March 2003.
• The preferred plan was refined through discussions at the University in July 2003.
Figure 2. Students gathering outside of the
University Center
The scope of the final master plan is comprehensive in nature in order to understand all
aspects of the campus, its facilities, and its operation. This plan provides a framework for
campus growth by identifying program needs
that sustain the University’s mission, and then
translating these needs into proposed building
sites, circulation strategies, and open space plans.
Summary of Recommendations
In order for the University to move forward and
achieve its goals, the master plan recommends
several areas of concentration and, within these
areas, several key projects.
Figure 3. Riverfront character on the campus’
north bank
2
Student life: as an element of student life, and
consistent with the University’s current housing
studies with MGT, this master plan identifies
several sites for future student housing, with the
first-phase sited on Saginaw and Kearsley at the
campus’ gateway corner. To support residential
life, the master plan recommends improvements
and expansion to student life facilities such as
dining and campus center, and also the creation
M A S T E R P L A N S U M M A RY: U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N - F L I N T C A M P U S M A S T E R P L A N
of playfields and expanded athletic and recreation space.
Circulation and campus gateways: with its
movement across the Flint River with the
William S. White building, the campus now
faces the challenge of north-south connections,
as well as neighborhood connections to the east
and west. A strategy was created that provides
better access from major roadways while also
creating an internal roadway network for
campus use. Five gateways are established at
the campus edges, and a new Kearsley-to-First
connector is introduced to better link areas east
of Interstate 475 with the downtown.
Open space framework: the campus’ beautiful
setting along the banks of the Flint river provides a springboard for future open space
improvement as a joint campus/city venture,
including extension of the riverfront park west
to Kettering University and east to Mott Park,
and expansion of the existing series of oncampus courtyards and park spaces. The master
plan identifies a series of residential quadrangles
and pedestrian linkages that build on the existing open space tradition. North-south linkages
require the rebuilding of Hamilton Dam for
pedestrian use, as well as a new northern pedestrian bridge to connect housing districts.
2. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT
VISION AND DEVELOPMENT
This master plan has its roots in recent
planning that focused on the future for the
Flint campus. Though a visioning process
is currently underway, the current mission
statement offers a foundation for physical
master planning:
“The UM-Flint, one of the three campuses
of the University of Michigan, serves the
citizens of the City of Flint and the surrounding region. The University is
committed to the highest standards of
teaching, learning, scholarship, and creative endeavors. Our urban location
affords us an opportunity to provide a
University of Michigan education to students with varied life experiences. The
community is vested in our University;
and together we work to enhance the cultural, economic, intellectual, and social
vitality of the city and region. Rooted in
the historic tradition of excellence of the
University of Michigan, UM-Flint offers
bachelor and graduate degree programs in
the liberal arts and sciences and in a
number of pre-professional and professional fields.”
This current planning process included
campus-wide discussion, forums, focus groups-Campus Conversations held in 1999--which
helped frame a direction for the University.
Several goals emerged from this process:
• Maintain the reputation of an outstanding
educational institution with the advantages of
both a comprehensive university and a small
college.
• Create a place that encourages tolerance and
respect in a learning environment.
In 1977, the Flint campus relocated its facilities
to its current site on the Flint river. The
campus has expanded its landholdings modestly
over time, and then in 1997, it acquired an
additional 25 acres north of the river with its
first building--the William S. White Building-completed on that land in 2002. In 2000, the
University of Michigan-Flint acquired an additional two to three acres of the former Perry
Printing property and transformed it into
greenspace.
• Offer curricula where Schools and Departments interact and reinforce each other.
Since the 1970s the following buildings have
become part of the University of MichiganFlint campus (Table 1).
• Expand the student base beyond the traditional population of commuters, and retain
students longer.
Table 1. Campus Buildings
• Sustain entrepreneurial teaching efforts,
including on-line, joint programs, and community education and outreach.
Growth and
Development of the Campus
The University of Michigan-Flint began as a
University of Michigan extension office, and
then transitioned to a two-year college, and
later a four-year institution as part of the University of Michigan system including the Ann
Arbor and Dearborn campuses.
Building Name
French Hall and Theatre
Hubbard Building
Harding Mott University Center
Recreation Building
W.R. Murchie Science Building
University Pavilion
Frances Willson Thompson Library
Northbank Center
William S. White Building
Year Occupied
1977
1977
1979
1982
1988
1991
1994
1999
2002
VISION AND MISSION: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
3
3. EXISTING CAMPUS AND
DOWNTOWN CONTEXT
Since 1944, the University of Michigan-Flint
has been an integral part of the fabric of Flint
neighborhoods, and, since the 1977 move to
the riverfront campus, the downtown.
The campus occupies a gateway location in
Flint. Sited along the Flint River, the University is at once part of not only the downtown,
but of an idyllic landscape that has the potential
of becoming a vibrant open space connector.
Today the University is framed by Fifth Avenue
on the north, I-475 on the East, First Street on
the South, and Saginaw Street on the west.
Inside the campus boundaries, a sense of a protected environment prevails. Opportunities to
maintain a collegiate atmosphere while opening
the beauty of the river and cultural events are
addressed in the master plan.
Downtown and Neighborhood Context
The UM-Flint campus lies along the Flint River
extending east from the main-street thoroughfare of Saginaw Street. Its gateway presence as
one enters downtown is quickly diminished by
a seam of parking lots that lies between the academic portion of the campus and the
Figure 4. Existing Riverfront Campus
4
CAMPUS AND DOWNTOWN CONTEXT: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
downtown district. To the northwest of the
campus lies Carriagetown, a district containing
a good collection of historic architecture, and
which is enjoying continued investment from
homeowners and city resources.
The neighborhood directly to the north of the
campus varies in scale from underused commercial areas, to multi-family housing to aging and
neglected single-family housing. Several blocks
to the north is University Park, a new housing
development that is enjoying steady sales.
Established neighborhoods surround the outskirts of the downtown: the Court Street
Neighborhood to the east, the Kearsley Park
neighborhoods to the northeast, and the Miller
Road neighborhoods to the southwest.
Goals of Concurrent Plans
The Cultural Center plan, completed in 2002,
centers on five institutions for the arts, music,
science, theater, dance and history. The plan
for the 35-acre campus resulted in the following
primary goals and initiatives:
• Locating expansion space for individual
institutions and campus-wide facilities.
• Improving the arrival sequence and
general vehicular circulation on
campus.
• Creating a more pedestrian-friendly
environment.
• Analyzing and addressing parking
supply and demand issues.
• Enhancing the landscape quality of
the campus.
The Downtown plan, completed in early 2003,
generally focuses on the area between Fifth
Avenue and I-69, and between Grand Traverse
and I-475. Long-term, the plan outlines a
methodology for infill housing, new housing
neighborhoods, an open space system of parks
and pedestrian circulation, and governmentrelated and commercial/retail infill.
Figure 5. Cultural Center Illustrative Plan
First-phase goals for this plan include:
• Saginaw streetscape improvements from
Kearsley to Fifth Street, including carriageway, sidewalk, planting and
lighting elements.
• Construction of City Square, located at
the corner of Saginaw and First streets.
• Re-introduction of two-way street
system throughout Downtown.
• Development of the Uptown Six Buildings located along Saginaw Street.
• Continuing facade improvements.
• Improved district signage.
• Redevelopment of the Arts and Entertainment Block, located along the
eastern edge of Saginaw between First
Street and Second Street.
Figure 6. Downtown Illustrative Plan
5
• Additional staff for the Uptown Reinvestment Corporation for marketing
and promotion of downtown, and to
encourage partnerships with funding
sources.
Campus Land and Facilities
The 72-acre University of Michigan-Flint campus
is home to approximately 1.2 million gross square
feet and 658,000 assignable square feet of building space, and 20 acres of parking footprint, and
extensive open space. (Assignable square feet in
this study does not include corridors, washrooms,
janitorial closets, or electrical/mechanical rooms.)
Table 2. Campus Land Areas
Parcel
Acres
Uses
South of the
Flint River
42
Majority of campus
buildings and parking
North of the
Flint River
Total
30
Northbank Center,
William S. White building and
parking
Portions of several downtown roadways have been
truncated to accommodate growth of the campus,
including Cole Boulevard, East Boulevard, and
Stevens, Wallenberg, and Kearsley streets. Kearsley Street becomes a successful pedestrian way
between the I-475 service road and Wallenberg
Street. Many of the newer campus buildings are
oriented perpendicular to the north-south pedestrian ways that originate downtown.
The open space framework of the campus consists of three general categories: riverfront,
courtyards, and streets. The character of the
riverfront landscape--particularly the south bank-is idyllic and beautiful with lawn and shade trees.
Its neighboring open space to the west--Riverfront Park--lacks the simplicity of this space and
should be redesigned, to create a continuous
recreation area appropriate for passive recreation
and for pedestrian and bicycle links to the eastern
and western communities.
72
The topography of the site is relatively flat.
South of the Flint River, a minor rise of approximately 10 feet occurs from the river bank to
McKinnon Plaza, and 15-20 feet from McKinnon Plaza to First Street. On the north side of
6
the river there is a rise of approximately 20 feet
from the river bank to Fifth Avenue.
The courtyards on the campus are well-maintained.
Because of the elevated concourses that link most of
the campus buildings, these outdoor spaces are
underused. Their purposes as intimate settings for
informal meetings, and as gateways to the riverfront
open space are successful, and have been reflected
in the master plan’s future campus expansion.
Figure 7. New William S. White Building
The University’s buildings are of modern architectural style with brick facades, and create a
handsome campus.
Table 3. University Buildings
Building Name
Primary Use
Assignable square feet (asf)
F. W. Thompson Library
Library
French Hall and Theatre
Academic
81,952
H. M. University Center
Student life
87,930
Hubbard Building
Maintenance
19,198
Northbank Center
Administration w/ tenants
61,486
Recreation Building
Recreation and athletics
58,943
University Pavilion
Student life/administrative
37,314
106,,947
University Pavilion Annex
Academic
2,389
W. R. Murchie Science
Academic
91,149
William S. White Bldg
Academic
111,097
Total
658,405
The three primary classroom and laboratory
buildings contain the following:
• French Hall and Theatre: five stories of class
rooms, department offices, recital halls, practice rooms, and an adjoining Theatre.
Academic
Structured
Parking and
Support
Recreation
Northbank
Center
Student
Services
Library
Pavilion
Structured
Parking
Figure 8. Building Use Map
Academic
• W. R. Murchie Science: used for natural science, psychology, computer science and
mathematics with the building’s western portion used for lectures and the eastern portion
for laboratories.
• William S. White Building: houses the
School of Management, School of Health
Professions and Studies, Art Department,
Communication Department, Urban Health
and Wellness Center, Early Childhood Development Center, television station, and lecture
halls and classrooms.
Outparcels
Within the boundaries of the campus’ 72 acres
are several outparcels. Some of these outparcels
will remain as such in the future, including the
utility substation adjacent to Northbank
Center. However, other outparcels could be
strategically acquired or modified to support the
University’s goals:
• Harrison Street right-of-way. Improvements
to Harrison Street would greatly aid safety of
pedestrian crossing between the southern and
7
northern campus districts, and would lessen
the isolation of area around the William S.
White Building.
• Cole Boulevard. Once remediated, the Cole
Boulevard right-of-way and land between the
Boulevard and the Flint River, and access
roadways to Cole Boulevard, should be
acquired.
• State Office Building. If future discussions
present the possibility of acquiring the State
Office Building and Pavilion Parking garage
(a portion of which is already used by the
University), both properties would be in the
strategic interest of the University.
Three sites, while not outparcels, also would be
important for the University to consider as
acquisitions in the near future. A critical piece
would be a portion of the current surface parking lot just south of the Pavilion as this site
frames the gateway to the campus and its development could contribute in an immediate way
to the vitality of the downtown.
A second site is the former United Way land
which, if remediated, would allow campus
growth to the east and a more gracious eastern
entrance along Campus Drive. Likewise, acquisition of the Post Office site should be pursued
if it becomes available as remediated land.
8
Community Linkages
Concurrent to this planning effort, the downtown and Cultural Center have prepared
strategic and physical master plans to accommodate future growth, including open space
and circulation improvements. The presence of
these goals has helped inform the University’s
master plan, particularly as the plan looks at
future links to these neighborhoods and development possibilities that can strengthen the
district as a whole.
One linkage has special importance: the connection between the University, Cultural Center
and Downtown along Kearsley Street. While
there is less than 3/4-mile between the Cultural
Center and the downtown, vehicular circulation
cannot be made directly as a portion of Kearsley
Street is a pedestrian promenade.
Additionally, the pedestrian connection between
districts is difficult and includes difficult crossings of the I-475 service roads and an
unpleasant interstate highway bridge.
Campus Portals and Signage
There are four primary approaches to the
campus. The primary visitor drop-off is located
adjacent to the Recreation Center, with direct
Figure 9. Existing campus portals
access to the University Center and Murchie
Science. The second access is north of the river
at the William S. White building. A third
portal is a drop-off in front of French Hall and
the Theatre. The fourth is from the west,
ay
gw
n
o
L
Fifth Avenue
Lot R
rd
leva
u
o
B
Lot S
304
Ea
st
Bo
ule
va
rd
310
227
Lot Q
57
Lot P
Lot A
Northbank
Center Garage
433
Mill Street
Garage
940
et
tre
S
y
sle
ar
e
K
entering along Kearsley Street near the Pavilion. There is no formal drop off in this area
except for the city-owned parking area that
serves as an arrival point for visitors to admissions or other student services offices.
The signage on campus is currently incomplete and does not differentiate its location
within the downtown context. Wayfinding,
similarly, is limited and, due to the lack of a
circumferential route around the campus, difficult to understand. Signage from I-475
does direct the visitor to the eastern entry of
the campus; however, signage from this point
to the admissions and registrar--located on
the opposite edge of the campus--does not
exist. Improvements to both portal signage
and signage within the campus are needed to
create an identity for this campus.
Pavilion
Garage
aw
gin
a
S
t
ee
Str
330
East First
Street Lot
Harrison Street
330
433
The current roadway system surrounding and
within the campus is difficult because of the
series of one-way pairs and the I-475 on- and
off-ramp system. Changing downtown roadways to two-way will help visitors approach
the campus, and will create a better pedestrian environment.
Garage
(126) 11
(312)
Vehicular Circulation
et
tre
S
st
Fir
Total spaces: 3,628
Figure 10. Existing campus vehicular circulation and parking
Wallenberg and Stevens both T-intersect with
the campus from the south. Harrison Street
is the sole north-south connector through the
9
campus (although vehicular traffic is only
one-way north), with First Street the sole
east-west connector on the south bank. The
East Boulevard and Mill Street couplet form
the intracampus roadway that connects
Fifth Avenue/Longway Boulevard with
Kearsley Street.
All intersections surrounding the campus are
operating at a Level of Service (LOS) of C or
better, where A is best and F is failing. With
increased traffic in the future, the LOS for the
Saginaw and First Street intersection may
decrease to D or E, prompting alternative parking options for the future in that location.
vide continuous at-grade movement as well as
entries to elevators.
An elevated pedestrian concourse links all academic buildings together on the south side of
the river, either at the second or third level.
These concourses are fully heated and ventilated, offering an attractive option for
pedestrian movement. The concourse that links
the Pavilion with the Library also allows students to pass over Harrison Street.
The campus community also enjoys pathways
along both sides of the Flint River, as well as a
dedicated pedestrian pathway within the rightof-way of Kearsley Street between Wallenberg
and the 1-475 service road.
Transit Access
The University enjoys good bus service with the
local bus depot approximately three blocks from
the campus, and the regional bus exchange 2.5
miles from the campus. City buses run along
Court, 5th, Saginaw and Martin Luther King
streets and 2nd Avenue downtown.
Parking
Pedestrian Access
The south side of the river has approximately
2,500 spaces (60 percent of total campus parking). 1,700 of these spaces are located in the
Pavilion Garage, Harrison Street Parking
Garage and the Mill Street Parking Garage.
The campus has sidewalk access from the
downtown from the south, and limited sidewalk access on the north along Harrison and
Saginaw Streets. At-grade pedestrian walkways
throughout the campus work well, with many
pedestrian ways cut through buildings to pro-
10
There are approximately 3,630 parking spaces
sited on campus property. Parking is located at
the periphery of the campus in ten different
areas, and in both surface and structured facilities.
The north side of the river contains approximately 1,150 spaces, with 250 spaces found in
Figure 11. Pedestrian walkway within the Kearsley
Street right-of-way
the Northbank Center Garage (currently, these
spaces are leased to Northbank tenants). Additional small parking areas occur on both sides
of the river.
In addition to formal campus parking areas, the
campus community often uses the city parking
lot, located opposite the University Pavilion,
which contains 312 spaces; or metered spaces
located along primary downtown streets. As
the University’s enrollment increases, measures
to ensure adequate on-campus parking will be
important so that other downtown patrons can
be serviced with parking devoted to their needs.
Perception of the Campus within Flint
During the 1970’s, at the inception of the new
location along the Flint River, the campus
enjoyed a synergy with downtown amenities
such as restaurants, retail, and businesses. As the
downtown has declined in the last two decades,
with many of the downtown services moving to
the suburbs, the campus has faced a challenge of
becoming a more autonomous entity.
Figure 12. The University within the context of the downtown, looking north
Table 4. Existing Parking
Location
Parking Lot A
Mill Street Garage
East First Street Lot
Harrison Street Lot
Harrison Street Garage
Pavilion Garage (partial)
Northbank Center Garage
Lot P
Lot Q
Lot R
Lot S
Total
No. of Spaces
433
940
330
11
433
330
253
57
227
304
310
3,628
Currently, parking demand roughly matches
supply. Parking Lot A is highly desirable and is
generally full during peak hours. Similarly, the
parking garages and the east First Street Lot are
near capacity at peak hour. The North Saginaw Lots Q, R and S remain only partially
used, likely because patrons prefer the proximity of the city lots located to the south of the
campus. As additional buildings are built
north of the river, the Q, R and S parking
areas will be perceived as more convenient.
While many students view the campus location
as undesirable, the campus has done much to
strengthen its physical assets and create a vibrant
community with the potential to lend life to the
downtown as it, in turn, creates future development goals. The joint goals of campus and city
to bring more residential life to the downtown,
and to improve open space connections will
strengthen this historic bond and provide new
space for living and learning environments.
Special Considerations
There are several environmental issues that were
considered during the master planning process.
The first addressed the character of the river: its
edges, crossings, and flood control. The second
addressed soil contamination levels in different sectors of the campus. The third encompasses existing
and future utility corridors and their treatment.
11
River
The Flint River is regarded as one of the key
assets to the campus and to the city. Within its
property limits, the University has made significant landscape improvements on both sides of
the river. Many of the city-managed public
open spaces adjacent to the river, however, are
in deteriorated condition, lending security fears.
In addition, flood control structures such as
Hamilton Dam, concrete embankments, and
the canal system are in need of serious repair.
Hamilton Dam is of significant importance as it
establishes the shortest pedestrian link between
the academic core south of the river and the
new William S. White building.
Hamilton Dam, built in 1920, is owned by the
City of Flint and used to impound water for
Flint’s emergency water supply, and for emergency flood control. Today, three of the six
spillway gates are inoperable and have been
taken out of service. Pedestrian access is not
allowed due to the dam’s deteriorated structural
condition, and studies have recommended its
replacement. Cost of replacement is estimated
at 5.6 million dollars.
Soil Conditions
Historically, the downtown Flint area was home
to many different types of industrial facilities,
especially along the Flint River. In the 1800s,
12
treatment processes and waste from a manufactured gas plant led to deposits of coal tar and
related materials in the area now occupied by
and adjacent to Parking Lot A. Consumers
Energy--the previous owner of part of this site-began remediation in 1997.
Across the river, the former site of Perry Printing was contaminated with elevated levels of
lead and other materials. This soil was replaced
to meet playground, greenspace and residential
standards. Additionally, the area now occupied
by the William S. White building contained a
naturally-occurring level of arsenic; this area has
been capped with soil. The wider area surrounding this building likely contains some
elevated levels of arsenic.
Figure 13. Hamilton Dam and river-edge condition
Currently, the Hamilton dam creates positive
water pressure for the upstream contaminated
sites, minimizing leaching of contaminants into
the River. Dam replacement or removal would
require clean-up of upstream land first to prohibit further contamination of the river.
Although elevated levels of chemicals may exist
in soils within the campus and surrounding
areas, the University of Michigan-Flint has
developed a Due Care plan which ensures the
safety, health and well-being of the campus
community. This plan specifies guidelines and
requirements for further developing and managing the properties.
Figure 14. Reclaimed land areas on the north bank
Utilities
The master plan recommends burying or relocating the existing utility lines that run along
the north bank. This work should precede any
Phase 2 efforts, as described in section 6 of this
document.
Existing and future space requirements are analyzed in order to improve utilization of existing
facilities and to plan for future growth in enrollment. The space program compares existing
utilization against both normative standards
and peer institutions and correlates this information with the perspective provided by faculty,
staff, and students at the University.
Space is categorized according to the Higher
Education General Information Standards
(HEGIS), which include classroom, laboratory,
office, library, athletics, general use, student life,
support facilities, and residential use. The space
program analysis provides information for the
University so that they can make critical decisions regarding the redistribution of space and
can plan for future buildings as needed.
Overview of Findings
The University of Michigan-Flint currently has
approximately 658,000 asf (plus 27,000 asf for
food service and 1,300 for animal quarters)
within French Hall, Northbank Center, Pavilion Annex, Recreation Center, Thompson
Library, University Center, University Pavilion,
William S. White Building, and W.R. Murchie
Science Building. The Theatre was not assessed
in this study as it serves a much broader audience.
Compared to normative standards, the University has about thirty percent more space
(186,000 asf ) than it needs overall to serve its
current enrollment, but the distribution of this
space is not matched to the need. This means
that surpluses in some areas cannot be easily
retrofitted for deficits in other areas, and that
some areas are experiencing space deficits
currently.
Table 5. Current Space Needs in asf
Space
Type (HEGIS)
Existing
Space
Current Space
Needs
Surplus
(Deficit)
Classroom
Laboratory
Office
Library
Recreation
A/V
General Use
Lounge/Merch
Campus Center
Support Facilities
Total
68,739
91,792
195,116
76,378
50,778
14,032
47,725
28,671
45,895
39,279
658,405
43,590
30,080
111,095
55,804
47,170
10,297
27,450
40,473
67,455
39,279
472,693
25,149
61,712
84,021
20,574
3,608
3,735
20,275
(11,802)
(21,560)
0
185,712
200,000
150,000
Assignable square feet
4. CAMPUS PROGRAM
100,000
50,000
Class
Lab
Office
Library
Recreation
A/V
Gen Use
Campus Ctr
Lounge/Merch
Storage
Figure 15. Current Space Needs
CAMPUS PROGRAM: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
13
In this study, the majority of academic space uses
reach capacity at 10,000 headcount students
(7,000 FTE students). These categories of
space--lounge/merchandising, campus center and
support--have already reached capacity.
20,000
18,000
Headcount Enrollment
Rather than calculating a target future enrollment, a study of existing carrying capacity was
undertaken. For this study, the total current
space was divided into HEGIS categories, and
then applied to space standards for headcount
students to determine total occupancy.
16,000
Headcount
14,000
Future carrying capacity
enrollment for most
academic categories
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Existing enrollment
4,000
2,000
0
Table 6. Future Space Needs for 10,000 headcount students
14
Class
Space Type
Existing
Space
(asf)
Future
Needs
(asf)
Surplus
(Deficit)
(asf)
Classroom
Laboratory
Office
Library
Recreation
A/V
General Use
Lounge/Merch
Campus Center
Storage Facilities
Total
68,739
91,792
195,116
76,378
50,778
14,032
47,725
28,671
45,895
39,279
658,405
74,000
46,822
191,682
77,818
65,076
12,800
27,450
63,000
105,000
53,094
716,742
~0
44,970
~0
~0
(14,298)
~0
~0
(34,329)
(59,105)
(13,815)
76,577
Lab
Office
Library
Recreation
A/V
Gen Use
Campus Ctr
Lounge/Merch
Storage
Figure 16: Enrollment capacity for each HEGIS category: most categories reach capacity at
10,000 headcount students
Much of the surplus in academic use at the University of Michigan-Flint is a natural outcome of
the campus’ newest building which is planned to
accommodate future enrollment growth for five
to ten years and, by design, will provide more
space than needed until that threshold. Another
factor, particularly reflected in lab space, is the
tradition of transfer students who take lab
courses at two-year feeder schools, and, there-
fore, do not create the traditional demand for
freshman and sophomore core science courses.
Classroom Space: The University experiences
two peak hours of teaching: one during the
morning and early afternoon hours that serves
more traditional students, and one in the late
afternoon through evening hours that serves
non-traditional students. The current average
classroom size on campus is 697 asf.
250,000
Calculations for classroom space are based on a
45-hour week of teaching, 67 percent classroom
utilization rate, and a small-classroom size
enrollment with a station occupancy rate of 65
percent.
Calculations for laboratory space are based on
two elements: a use factor of .056 that is
derived from the product of projected room
hours and station use; and a station module
size. The module sizes are based on national
guidelines, and range from 30 asf for business
and management to 70 asf for dance.
Office Space: Office calculations assume a
consistent faculty to student (1:15) and staff to
student (1:13) ratio in the future. Many offices
on campus are much larger than national guidelines, and these large offices should be
subdivided, shared, or otherwise reconfigured.
Calculations for office space are based on an
average size of 165 asf per office multiplied
against 90 percent of headcount faculty and 80
percent of headcount staff.
Existing ASF
Guideline ASF (Assuming 10,602 (HC) and
7,410 FTE)
150,000
100,000
Floor Area (asf)
Laboratory Space: The majority of laboratory
instruction at the University occurs in afternoon hours. Laboratory space cannot be as
efficient as classroom space because of extensive
set-up and clean-up time required for traditional teaching. The current average laboratory
size on campus is 453 asf.
200,000
50,000
0
m
sroo
Clas
ce
Offi
y
Stud
rary
/Lib
l
isua
io/V
Aud
G en
eral
Use
rk/
Wo
age
Stor
Figure 17: Existing assignable square feet compared to space needs for 10,000 students
Study and Library Space: The library will be
celebrating its 10-year anniversary next year,
and was completed at a time of similar enrollment. Because of this, the library facility is still
adequate for the University’s current and future
enrollment of 10,000 students.
Calculations for library and study space were
based on the American Library Association/
ACRL standards. The number of future library
volumes needed was based on the number of academic programs anticipated, the number of future
faculty, and the number of graduate programs.
15
Recreation and Athletic Space: The University
now shares its recreation and athletic facilities
with the community on a fee basis. Even without community participation, however, the
current facilities will reach maximum capacity
with the addition of only 500 students to the
campus.
Calculations for Recreation and Athletic space
are based on a core need of 20,000 asf plus 5
asf per every FTE student over 1,000.
General Use Space: Assembly, exhibition, and
theater space is included in this category. With
an exceptional theater facility, the University
has sufficient space now and with an enrollment of 10,000 students. Future renovations to
existing space will be needed.
Support Space: Storage and workshop space is
at a deficit presently. This type of space should
be added incrementally as the campus grows.
The calculation for support space is based on
eight percent of total academic, student life,
and recreation/athletic space.
Future Residential Space: The campus master
plan looks at accommodating between onequarter and one-third of the future student
population. Housing configurations could be
traditional dormitory, suite-style, townhouse or
apartment-style, and each student housing
neighborhood would contain support facilities
for informal gathering, study rooms, and other
student life support.
Campus Center: With 10,000 students, the
campus will be in need of significant additions
to the University Center and Pavilion to provide more dining, bookstore, student life, and
office space.
16
Figure 18. Study and computer facility in the
University Pavilion
5. MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES
The master plan considered a number of alternatives in the development of a preferred plan
for the campus. Early discussions and explorations were wide-ranging, and tested the
long-term future of the dominant land uses on
the campus such as academic, student life and
housing, as well as campus circulation, parking
and open space.
In the alternatives phase, the project team created three alternatives that ranged in ambition
and scope and explored various solutions to the
key planning issues. Each alternative addressed
future placement of campus entries, open space,
circulation, parking, new building program, and
on-campus student housing. In each scheme,
Harrison Street is realigned to become a more
effective campus road--rather than a city arterial--and allow for a new northern gateway to
the campus along a proposed extension of
Third Avenue. In addition, each alternative
accommodates an expansion of the recreation
center and student life functions.
In Alternative A, the emphasis for building
expansion was placed on the southern portion
of the campus, with playfields and parking
occupying the northern limits. This scheme
focused on strengthening the presence of the
University in the downtown by siting 1,700
beds of future student housing in the transition
blocks--the area between Kearsley and First
streets directly adjacent to downtown. An
additional 760 beds--to be added at a future
stage--is located northeast of the Recreation
Building.
Future academic expansion is centered around
the William S. White building. Though no
academic space is needed short-term, this site
could be used if enrollment grows at a faster
rate than expected, or could be used for joint
ventures such as a research park. This alternative also proposes an expansion of student
services in the Pavilion building and a new student life building located near housing; the use
of Northbank Center for administrative and
campus support such as campus police; and an
expansion to the Recreation Building. 4,600
to 5,500 parking spaces are located at the
periphery of campus, with some located in
multi-level garages.
Alternative B recommends a more extensive
build-out of the portion of campus north of the
river. In this scheme, 1,100 units of housing
are proposed north of the William S. White
building, with another 950 units within the
transition blocks between First and Kearsley
streets. Playfields are located at the northern
seam of the city and the campus.
Figure 19. Alternative A: Southern Infill
Kearsley Street is reopened to connect the
downtown and campus to the cultural center.
Parking is kept at the periphery of the campus
with 3,700 to 4,100 proposed spaces in both
surface and structured parking.
Alternative C combines elements of both Alternative A and B based on feedback from campus
participants. The central theme of Alternative
C is the creation of a campus community that
is balanced on both sides of the Flint River in
terms of major land uses, open space, circulation and parking. This balance of uses on both
M A S T E R P L A N A LT E R N AT I V E S : UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
17
the north and south banks of the river places
major emphasis on the river corridor as the
dominant open space of the campus.
In terms of future housing sites, Alternative C
draws upon elements of Alternatives A and B by
placing housing in three neighborhoods: downtown, southbank and north campus. Future
academic expansion is sited east of the William
S. White building, and future playfields are
located adjacent to the recreation center and
north campus housing.
A direct link between the downtown and
campus district and the Cultural Center is provided with the introduction of a First
Street/Kearsley Street connector that runs parallel to the existing system of I-475 on ramps.
This alternative proposes the translation of surface parking to structured parking over time,
and keeps all parking at the periphery of the
campus where it is served by regional roadways.
Figure 20. Alternative B: North-South Campus
Figure 21. Alternative C: Riverfront Campus
18
M A S T E R P L A N A LT E R N AT I V E S : UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
6. PREFERRED PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
The alternatives process allowed the project
team and the University to debate different
possibilities and to weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of each one. During this phase,
the project team gathered the input of the
Chancellor and other key administrators, as
well as the campus master planning committee,
faculty and students. The final master plan
advances and combines many of the ideas developed in the alternatives phase and refines them
to provide a vision for the future that is tailored
to the interests and priorities of the University,
and is realistic in its scope.
Looking forward, the preferred development
plan seeks to accommodate 10,000 students
with a full array of academic, student life, and
housing programs that are supported by open
space, circulation and parking systems. With
the proposed master plan, the University of
Michigan-Flint can achieve many of its goals,
including significant improvements to the
quality of life and the delivery of education
on the campus.
The master plan enhances and promotes
current strengths of the University: its state-ofthe-art classroom, lecture and science facilities;
a reputation for excellence in teaching; and a
Figure 22. Proposed Development Plan
P R E F E R R E D P L A N A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N : UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
19
beautiful campus environment. Future improvements should focus on addressing student
housing and the shortfall in student life and
athletic/recreation facilities on the campus. The
proposed improvements strive to achieve several
key goals:
• Increase the clarity of the campus functions.
Building Program
Several new buildings and buildings additions
are proposed for the campus in order to remedy
current deficits in athletics and student life, and
to create additional space required for a student
population of 10,000. As these new facilities are
added in the future, expansion to the Central
Energy Plant will be required.
• Introduce a future residential program.
• Create a learning community that promotes
interaction among faculty, staff, students
and peers.
• Enrich the quality of life on campus with
more social spaces, recreation and athletic
opportunities, and programs that build
community.
• Promote a more efficient use of existing
resources.
As previously stated, the preferred plan focuses
on balanced expansion both north and south of
the river. An expanded southern boundary is
addressed by concentrating housing on the transition block between Kearsley and First streets,
thus creating a strong connection with downtown uses. A strong community edge is
presented at the northern edge of the campus
with playfields, and a vibrant academic core is
positioned to frame the campus’ most beautiful
asset--the Flint River.
20
On-campus student housing is the largest program that has been accommodated in the
preferred plan. In its full build-out, the plan
provides approximately 2,428 beds (shown in
yellow in Figure 23). To support both a larger
enrollment and a residential component, the
master plan recommends removal of all non-student-life functions from the University Center
and from the University Pavilion to allow expansion space for additional dining, meeting rooms,
game rooms, and informal space. In addition to
the existing student buildings, a small student
center has been added to the campus housing
north of the William S. White building.
The plan also focuses on academic buildings
that contain classroom, laboratories and offices
(shown in red in Figure 23). Additional academic building sites have been shown to the east
of the William S. White building. The plan
also recommends renovating the Northbank
Center to accommodate University administrative offices that have been removed from the
Academic
Residential
Student Life
Support and Parking
Figure 23. Future building use
Pavilion and University Center, and that are created as the campus grows. The location of the
two proposed academic buildings, combined
with the Northbank Center and William S.
White building, will create an effective concentration of classrooms, laboratories and offices on
the north side of the river.
Two expansions are also proposed: to the Recreation Center and the Pavilion. The Recreation
Center expansion will add needed space, such as
playcourts, and create an opportunity to open
views to the river and greenspace. The Pavilion
will allow additional student life space as student
enrollment increases. Additional student life
uses could also be accommodated in the ground
floor of the phase one housing located on the
City Square block.
vard
oule
B
y
wa
Long
Fifth Avenue
Cultural
Center
Open Space Framework
et
tre
S
ey
rsl
a
Ke
w
ina
g
Sa
t
ee
Str
The proposed open space framework builds on
the proposed greenspace corridors of both the
downtown and the Cultural Center, and is
based on four different components, each
drawn from the character of the existing
campus. The first is the pastoral open space
that exists on both sides of the river, and provides passive recreation space, views of the
river, and trails that extend to other locations
within the campus and, potentially, to regional
trails. Over time, utility lines and telecommunications systems located on the north side of
the river should be relocated to allow this landscape to be built and to mature as the central
‘quadrangle’ of the campus.
t
ee
Str
t
s
Fir
Downtown
A second open space system draws upon the
model of McKinnon plaza: a small open space
that is framed by buildings and allows informal
meeting. New plazas and courtyards are
located within the frame created by residential
buildings, and at the north campus entry adjacent to the William S. White building.
Figure 24. Proposed Development Plan in the context of downtown Flint and
the Cultural Center
21
housing neighborhoods. Another playfield is
sited adjacent to the Recreation Building and
framed by student residences. This playfield
would have access to locker rooms and other
functions located in the Recreation Building.
The fourth open space typology is campus
streets. Creating more effective, safe, and beautiful streets is a key goal of this master plan.
Connections to the Cultural Center via the
First-to-Kearsley connector, bridge connections
over the river, edge connections along First
Street, Saginaw Street, and Fifth Avenue, and
internal campus-road connections would benefit from continuous street tree plantings,
upgraded sidewalks and crosswalks, improved
lighting, and attractively-designed signage.
Circulation and Parking
Figure 25. Future open space framework
A third open space type is playfields. The
campus presently does not provide formal playfields. However, as the student enrollment
grows, combined with the introduction of residence halls, these playfields will become
imperative. The majority of proposed playfields
are located along Fifth Avenue, adjacent to proposed student housing and also adjacent to city
22
The two principal circulation recommendations
in the preferred plan are the First-to-Kearsley
connector and improvements to Harrison Street.
The First-to-Kearsley connector provides a direct
link between the neighborhoods east of the
campus, including the Cultural Center, to the
University and to the downtown. Combined
with street trees and improved pedestrian walkway design--particularly on the portion of
Kearsley that crosses I-475--this connection
would provide a desirable venue for both vehicles
and pedestrians. Recommendations for Harrison
Street include realignment and narrowing to
create a more campus-focused roadway, and to
Figure 26. Future campus circulation and
parking framework
serve as a primary pedestrian connector to the
proposed North Quadrangle.
Two proposed campus entries complement the
existing campus entries. The first is located
south of the river on Kearsley Street between
Saginaw and Harrison streets, and the second is
located north of the river at Third Avenue and
Harrison Street.
Parking is maintained at the periphery of the
campus in nine primary locations. Using
3
2
1
order to maintain effective pedestrian circulation, several bridge crossings are proposed. The
first is along the Harrison Street bridge which
will be redesigned to slow traffic and provide a
more pedestrian-friendly environment. The
second is a recommended Hamilton Dam
restoration that allows foot-traffic. The third is
the Stevens Street upgrade that is projected for
2003, and the fourth is a new bridge that
would connect the north campus with housing,
playfields and the Recreation Building found on
the south campus.
Figure 27. Three proposed phases of parking for 7,000, 8,800 and 10,000 students, respectively
Implementation
Table 7. Proposed Campus Parking
existing parking-per-user proportions, the calculated demand based on a future population of
10,000 students, 739 headcount faculty and 621
headcount staff is 6,715 spaces. The preferred
plan provides 5,654 spaces. The University
could rely on various measures to mitigate the
additional parking need of approximately 1,000
spaces, including:
Parking Locations
• A decrease in parking demand due to residential offerings on campus,
• Provision for off-site shuttle parking,
• Use of existing and proposed public parking garages located throughout the
downtown.
Number of Spaces
Campus Drive Garage
Mill Street Garage
Stevens Street Lot
Second Street Garage
Harrison Street Parking
Pavilion Garage
Northbank Garage
Fifth Avenue Garage West
Fifth Avenue Garage East
1,400
940
24
1,000
65
550
550
450
675
Total
5,654
A series of phases is proposed to implement
the proposed development plan. These phases
are loosely based on enrollments of 7,100,
8,850 and 10,000 headcount students, but
may be implemented in differing orders as
resources or opportunities become available.
Phase One:
• 7,100 headcount, 4,950 FTE students.
• 463 faculty, 405 staff headcount.
• 3,863 parking spaces required.
• 220 beds on City Square.
Pedestrian circulation is improved throughout
the existing campus, and extended throughout
the residential courts and riverfront area. In
• Realignment of Kearsley/First at eastern gateway.
• Realignment of Harrison through the
campus to 'T' intersect with Third
23
Avenue, and sidewalk improvements
to create a pedestrian-friendly
environment.
• Addition to the Athletic and
Recreation Center.
• Landscaped plaza at City Square
with trellis and landscape buffer
adjacent to housing.
• Enhancement of river corridor with
pathway systems and landscaping.
Figure 28. Existing campus condition
Figure 29. Phase one improvements
• Environmental assessment of proposed
building sites.
• Surface parking expansion adjacent
to Fifth Avenue (100 spaces).
• Utility routing for future projects and
current needs.
• Additional parking along Harrison
Street and the Theatre drop-off
(85 spaces).
Phase Two:
• 8,850 headcount, 6,200 FTE
students.
Figure 30. Phase two improvements
Figure 31. Phase three improvements
• 5,340 parking spaces required.
• Additional 980 beds within
proposed First and Kearsley
housing district.
• Additional 270 beds north of the river.
24
• New academic buildings adjacent to
the William S. White building. As
academic buildings are added to the
north of the river, the pedestrian
concourse system should be used to
connect buildings.
• Southern expansion of the Pavilion.
• Acquisition of the remediated former
United Way land for realignment of
East Boulevard, and to provide the
site for a new plant operations
building.
• Demolition of existing Harrison
Street garage.
• New drop-off adjacent to the Harrison/Kearsley intersection.
• Relocation of the existing plant
operations building to the site of the
old United Way building
• New parking garage on old plant
operations building site (additional
1,400 spaces at 5 floors).
• Parking garage expansion to the
Northbank Center garage (additional 300 spaces at 4 floors).
Figure 32. Aerial view of the campus plan
• Surface parking expansion adjacent
to Fifth Avenue (additional 136
spaces).
3. Phase Three:
• 10,000 headcount, 7,000 FTE
students.
• New playfields along Fifth Avenue.
• Update Central Energy Plant.
• 6,715 parking spaces required (total
of 5,653 spaces, so a deficit of 1,062
spaces). This 1,062 spaces would
equate to one large parking garage
off-site, or remote shuttle parking
of approximately 9-10 acres.
• Additional 648 beds north of
the river.
25
include park and plaza space, a new residence
hall, and potential retail uses in the ground
floor such as a bookstore, small cafe, or neighborhood retail.
1
2
3
Figure 33. Proposed phasing for a campus of 7,000, 8,800 and 10,000 headcount students, respectively
• Additional 310 beds adjacent to the
recreation center.
• New student center building north of
the river.
• Potential acquisition of State Office
building and Pavilion parking (total of
1,000 parking spaces).
• Two new parking garages adjacent to
Fifth Avenue (additional 1,125 spaces).
• Playfield adjacent to the recreation
center.
• Playfields located adjacent to
Fifth Avenue.
26
• Possible use of more floors of existing Pavilion parking garage (approxi
mately 220 additional spaces).
• Update Central Energy Plant.
City Square
One of the areas of distinct focus is City
Square, the block that is located between Kearsley, First, Saginaw and Harrison streets. This
block, now occupied by public parking, is identified in the downtown plan as a future civic
space for the City for passive recreation. This
location also has been embraced by the University for first-phase development that would
The development of City Square could be a
joint partnership between the University and
the City to create a downtown destination for
city residents, students and visitors. While the
design of this space requires further study, several recommendations have emerged in the
process of the master plan, and are presented
here as guidelines for the next phase of project
planning and design. These guidelines are
responsive to three major goals for the City
Square block:
• To provide a safe and attractive location for
the University’s first residence hall.
• To support the revitalization of Flint’s Downtown District.
• To unify the University and Downtown Districts by creating a seamless pedestrian flow
from the heart of Downtown to the heart of
the Campus.
The proposed plan for the City Square block
and the associated design guidelines can best be
described in four component parts: 1. City
Square Park, 2. Residence Hall Parcel, 3. Kearsley “Boulevard,” and 4. Kearsley Plaza
(see Figure 34).
same amenities as the Saginaw edge plus the
addition of trellis or arcade structures to
encourage a more passive use of the corridor.
Flowering trees and a low decorative fence
should be used to separate the residence hall
and the walkway.
Kearsley Plaza
City Square Park
Saginaw Street
Kearsley Boulevard
2. Residence Hall Parcel
Given the location of the Residence Hall Parcel,
the University’s first residence hall must not
only fulfill the goals for on-campus living but
must also contribute to the revitalization of
Flint’s downtown district. Design guidelines for
the Residence Hall Parcel should include:
Residence Hall Parcel
First Street
Figure 34. Proposed City Square
1. City Square Park
The predominant character of the City Square
Park is an open lawn sloping gently downward
from First Street to Kearsley Street. The design
elements which should be incorporated into the
Park include:
• An improved sidewalk promenade bordering
Saginaw Street providing a double row of
shade trees, seating, and pedestrian-oriented
lighting.
• A sidewalk promenade along the east edge of
the lawn adjacent to the proposed residence
hall. This promenade should incorporate the
• An architectural expression reflective of the
urban character of downtown Flint as well as
the architecture of the campus. Exterior
materials should be predominantly masonry,
preferably brick, in order to tie in with other
campus and downtown buildings. Roofs
should be flat, or very modestly pitched with
minimal overhangs.
• The elevation of the building’s first floor is
slightly above the level of First Street in
order to provide privacy for first floor residents. Given the site’s sloping condition,
the lower floor of the building should be
exposed at its north face, thus providing an
opportunity to incorporate active uses such
27
as a cafe, bookstore, or other neighborhood
retail serving students as well as downtown
visitors.
• Building massing which is three floors minimum in height, excluding the lower level,
and providing a continuous architectural
edge along City Square Park, First Street,
and the proposed Kearsley Plaza. The Harrison Street edge should be designed to
provide an entry court which can function as
a more student-oriented space.
3. Kearsley Boulevard
The proposed Kearsley Boulevard is a renovation of Kearsley Street between Saginaw Street
and Wallenberg Avenue and is designed to
create a more pedestrian-oriented environment
as well as an improved entrance to the University district from the downtown. Key elements
of the proposal include:
• A two lane roadway on each side of the
boulevard with a planted median. The
planted median should be complimented
with street trees on each side of the street,
and trees should be planted in curbed and
open planters to encourage their growth in
urban conditions.
• Crosswalks at intersections designed to
encourage pedestrian flow and reduce the
dominance of roadway paving through the
28
Figure 35. Rendering of a future City Square looking south across the park to the Mott Foundation Building
use of special paving. Mid-block pedestrian
crossings also should be considered, given
the potentially heavy volume of student
movement in the area.
4. Kearsley Plaza
Kearsley Plaza provides a key public open space
along the north edge of City Square. The Plaza
functions as a University/downtown connector
as well as an important link between the new
residence halls and the student services housed
in the Pavilion. Key elements of the Plaza
include:
• A predominantly paved area bordering
Kearsley Boulevard designed to accommodate activities such as fairs and festivals.
Provisions should be made for temporary
stage facilities for performances oriented to
audiences seated on the sloping lawn. The
paved area adjacent to the residence hall
should accommodate movable seating and
tables which could be associated with a cafe
in the lower level of the building.
• A fountain feature designed to engage pedestrians during the warmer months, but have a
minimal presence in the winter. Water jets
could be incorporated into the paving, bollards, or other features, thus avoiding the
issues of pools devoid of water in the winter.
• Pavilion structures at either or both ends of
the plaza designed to create a gateway into
the Plaza. The structures could accommodate temporary food vendors during the
summer months.
The implementation of the elements incorporated into the City Square Block will require
close coordination among the University, the
City, and affected abutters. Design coordination
will be critical to a successful result, and a well
organized and on-going maintenance program
will be essential for protecting the investment in
this important project.
Figure 36. Rendering of City Square along Kearsley Street looking east
29

University of Michigan - Flint

Transcription

Similar documents

the Guidelines for the registration on

TotalCard - Identification Systems Group

Vital Signs week 2 - Love God

Arizona Western College Northern Arizona University Yuma Branch

St. John of God - Planning Office for Urban Affairs

Tsuen Wan Government Secondary School Student Oriented

Group Finder - WestwoodToday.com

A Whole New World: Welcome to Michigan Tech

Bradley Peters Karissa Peyer

open space master plan, university of toronto, st. george campus