CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPATEFocus Group – P r e s e r vat i on a n d A d a p t iv e Re u s e

27 April 2016

What we heard Campus Framework and Open Space Network Preservation Approach Heritage Buildings and Spaces (Defining the List) Demolition Adaptive Reuse Challenges and Benchmarking Discussion and Next Steps

AGENDA

WHAT WE HEARD

Pedestrian Conflict Areas• Bizzell Street

• Academic / Engineering Area (Ross Mall, Ireland St., etc.)

• University Drive Crossings

White Creek• Erosion Issues

West Campus Remoteness• Connection from White Creek Housing to East Campus

• Connection from West Campus to East Campus

• West Campus feels remote due to lower population and

density

Memorial Student Center• Works well on multiple levels – Design Standards,

Signage, Branding, Green/Open Space, etc.

Traffic Congestion Points• Reed Arena/Parking Lots (100)

• Bizzell Street (Parking Lots 54)

Green Space• JK Williams Admin Building East Lawn (formal)

• All Quads (Cushing, Academic, Architecture)

• West Campus Green Space is underutilized

• Spence Park has great potential

• Simpson Drill Field – multifunctional open space

Build-to-Line• Identify (and Enforce?) – Is it still applicable?

Campus Policies and Process• Campus Policies and Process should align with the CMP

• Update in order to implement the plan accordingly

Campus Branding• Multiple opportunities to enhance TAMU branding

• Arrival points, institutional identity and campus traditions

need to be leveraged.

Off-Campus Development• Will lead to new access points and the need for improved

systems to support TAMU users of these developments

What We Heard: Collectivelisten:

Bush Library area and White Creek present an opportunity for future legacy buildings and are culturally significant.

What We Heard: Preservation & Adaptive Reuselisten:

The Academic Building, over 100 years old, is an iconic building for the institution but it has not been taken care of - particularly on the inside.

What We Heard: Preservation & Adaptive Reuselisten:

Simpson Drill Field – program the green space.

What We Heard: Preservation & Adaptive Reuselisten:

Bizzell/Beutal Hall area are prime locations. Some of these buildings are contributing to campus, and some are not.

What We Heard: Preservation & Adaptive Reuselisten:

Memorial Student Center is a good example of maintaining character - feels like the same building, but has been completely refreshed.

What We Heard: Preservation & Adaptive Reuselisten:

CAMPUS FRAMEWORK AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK

The 2004 Civic Structureframe:

Framework Updateframe:

Framework Updateframe:

Framework Updateframe:

Framework Updateframe:

Framework Updateframe:

Open Space Networkframe:

Expanded Open Space Networkframe:

Campus Character Zonesframe:

PRESERVATION APPROACH

The Preservation Approachapproach:

1. Identify potential historic resources -buildings, interior spaces, open spaces, streets and walkways, site furniture and view corridors - that are have historic significance and are therefore worthy of preservation and likely to be determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Identify opportunities for reconstruction or memorial projects.

2. Analyze the current campus process for preserving Heritage Buildings and ways in which other campus’ manage their heritage

resources using case studies.

3. Catalog the historic resources with respect to their level of significance or priority and gain stakeholder buy-in. • Description, date, architect, style,

condition, alterations and a statement of significance

• Utilize campus database or other means of easily communicating with other campus groups

• Define level of significance/priority level tied to standards for treatment

4. Create policies and guidelines that protect these resources.• Update extant guidelines• Create process organization chart • Include demolition and reconstruction

LEGACY RESOURCES

Identify Eligible Buildings: Building Agelegacy:

1

1909 – 1929 23 structures1930 – 1949 34 structures1950 – 1969 79 structures1970 – 1975 97 structures

1990 – 2009 excluded2009 – Present excluded

1975 – 1989 excluded

Identify Eligible Buildings: National Park Servicelegacy:

1

Historic Integrity requires at least 4 of 7 aspects:•Location• Design• Setting•Materials•Workmanship• Feeling• Association

Texas Historical Commission determines Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places for every building over 50 years old.

NPS suggests that historic resource surveys include properties over 50 years old AND include an additional 5 years.

Following NPS standards for Determination of Eligibility takes into account, Age, Architectural and Cultural Significance, and Historic Integrity.

legacy:

1

Identify Eligible Resources: Buildings

47 - Total Eligible Buildings

Identify Eligible Resources: Heritage Buildingslegacy:

1

20 - Considered Heritage or Historic

Identify Eligible Resources: Heritage Buildingslegacy:

1 Jack K. Williams Cushing Library

Academic Nagle

Identify Eligible Resources: On the Fence Buildingslegacy:

1

20 - “On the Fence” Buildings

Identify Eligible Resources: On the Fence Buildingslegacy:

1 Corps Quadrangle

Utilities and Energy Services

Former Greenhouses

Thompson Hall

Identify Eligible Resources: 1970 - 1975legacy:

11 - Potential Buildings

Harrington

O & M Building

Identify Eligible Resources: Interior Spaceslegacy:

1

10 - Buildings with Potentially Important Interiors

Identify Eligible Resources: Open Spaceslegacy:

1

Identify Eligible Resources: Streets & Walkwayslegacy:

1

Identify Eligible Resources: Site Furniturelegacy:

1

Identify Eligible Resources: View Corridorslegacy:

1

Analyze: Extant Process and Guidelineslegacy:

1

Develop Flow Chart for each type of project, from Routine Maintenance to Capital Projects to integrate heritage building guidelines into the process:

• Planning Campus-Wide • Programming to Determine Appropriate Fit• Final Program of Requirements• Selection of A/E• Selection of Contractor or CM• Facility Design Standards/Preservation

Guidelines• Design Review Committee• Construction Phase Standards• Maintenance• Record keeping

Campus Heritage Building Guidelines - 2008

legacy:

University of Texas Campus Master Plan

Analyze: Case Study 1 – UT Austin

Campus Master Plan – Historic Resource Survey Appendix• Tiered ranking system based on architectural or cultural importance• Each level tied to preservation approach

Catalog of Historic and Significant Campus Interiors• Reference catalog• Building, room and significant features information

Getty Foundation grant for conservation study for the historic buildings on The Forty Acres

legacy:

University of Arkansas Campus Preservation Master Plan

Analyze: Case Study 2 – University of Arkansas

Chronology of Campus Development

Inventory and Evaluation• Defines character and styles of campus

Planning• Tiered ranking system

Treatment• Secretary of Interior Standards• Treatment Recommendations• Treatment Guidelines

Stewardship• Implementation• National Register Process

National Register District 2009

legacy:

University of Virginia Historic Preservation Framework Plan

Analyze: Case Study 3 – University of Virginia

National Register District 1970

Chronology of Campus Development• Building and landscape style and history• Defines character and styles of campus

Evaluation• Tiered ranking system based on architectural or cultural

importance and integrity • Each level tied to preservation approach

legacy:

Stanford University Historic District

Analyze: Case Study 4 – Stanford

Campus functions similar to municipal historic district• If included in county Heritage Resource Inventory, follows Sec.

of Interior’s Standards.

• If not on county inventory, Stanford shall evaluate structure for inclusion and submit to County Planning Office.

legacy:

Texas Tech University Campus Master Plan

Analyze: Case Study 5 – Texas Tech University

National Register District 1996

Chronology of Campus Development• Building and landscape style and history• Defines character and style of campus

Campus construction zones• Provides architectural design guidelines for future compatible

development

ADAPTIVE REUSE CHALLENGES AND BENCHMARKING

Challenges and Opportunitiesreuse:

1. Accessibility

2. Sustainability

3. Educating the Public

Accessibility reuse:

Sustainabilityreuse:

Educating the Public (Campus Users)reuse:

Johns Hopkins University Homewood CampusHopkins Retrospective is an initiative to better understand the history of Johns Hopkins University Student-led signage project

Signage Content Example Signs installedSign Locations

Educating the Public (Facilities Staff)reuse:

University of Chicago Facilities ServicesFacilities Standards DocumentStewardship and Heritage Resources

Building Resource Sheet Significant Space Resource Sheet Significant Space Resource Sheet

Significant Features

Educating the Public (Facilities Staff)reuse:

University of Texas Project Management and Constructions ServicesCatalog of Historic and Significant Interior Spaces

Room InformationBuilding Information

DISCUSSION/NEXT STEPS

Next Stepslegacy:

1. Preliminary Determination of Eligibility List

2. Categorization of Eligible Buildings • Exceptional• Heritage• Eligible• Not Eligible

3. Obtaining buy-in for heritage resource plan

4. Integration of Heritage Buildings Guidelines into process

5. Case Studies – further research

Thank you!

27 April 2016