Campus Landscape and the Collegiate ExperienceDesigning Purposeful Spaces for the Contemporary Student

Joshua Robert Berry

A Graduate Terminal Project presented to the Department of Landscape Architecture of the University of Florida as a partial requirement for the Degree of Master of

Landscape Architecture

Committee Chair:Peggy Carr

Committee Members:Kay Williams

Dawn Jourdan

April 2012Department of Landscape Architecture

College of Design, Construction, and PlanningUniversity of Florida

All pictures utilized in this study are the author’s own.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to begin by thanking each of the landscape architecture faculty members at the University of Kentucky for instilling within me a love and a passion for landscape architecture, and for providing me with the solid foundation that has allowed me to reach the place I am at today. I also sincerely appreciate your encouragement for me to attend graduate school—it has truly been worth the time and effort, and I sincerely hope that my work here at UF and beyond exhibits the excellence of the department.

I would also like to thank the landscape architecture faculty members at the University of Florida for the tremendous amount that you have taught me over these last two years, and for helping me develop into the well-rounded designer that I came to UF to become. Each of you has played an instrumental role in my journey here, and I thank you for your insights, your criticism, your suggestions, and most of all your encouragement. I hope that this study and my future work reflects positively upon the qualities of the department.

I would specifically like to thank my committee members—Peggy Carr (my committee chair), Kay Williams, and Dawn Jourdan. Each of you has played a pivotal role in guiding my research; in offering comments, suggestions, and counsel throughout this whole process; and in helping to mold this research into the final study that is presented here. I cannot thank each of you enough for your dedication, patience, and effort towards this study—I hope my work is a positive reflection on each of you. I appreciate you not only as mentors, but as friends.

I would like to thank my father, mother, and brother for the constant love and support you have never failed to provide me—in my educational endeavors, and in life. Without each of you, I would not be the man I am today, and would never have come this far in life!

I would like to thank my beautiful wife Shaina—you are perfect in every way, and have always offered your love, patience, support, motivation, and encouragement freely and willingly. You have put up with countless late nights, moved far away to Florida, offered much-appreciated advice and counsel, and done so much more. I can never repay all you have given me, as I never could have made this journey without you, nor would I have wanted to! You are my constant inspiration, and I look forward to many more adventures in our future together.

Finally, I owe all I am to my loving Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without whom I am nothing, yet with whom I have everything.

To Shaina,

my beloved and my friend

Berry || 7

Table of ContentsAbstract 11

Chapter 1 – Introduction1 13Background1.1 Intent1.2 Terminology & Scope1.3

Chapter 2 – Literature Review2 17Overview2.1 The American Collegiate Ideal2.2 The Distinctive Nature of the College Campus2.3 Primary Functions of the Campus Landscape2.4

Organize and Connect Buildings2.4.1 Symbolize Higher Education2.4.2 Serve and Benefit Students, Faculty, and Visitors2.4.3 Beyond Function2.4.4

The Campus Landscape Mission2.5 Collision2.5.1 Community 2.5.2 Citizenship2.5.3 Campus Landscape as Enabling Medium2.5.4

The Production of Campus Landscape2.6 Overview2.6.1 Design Approaches2.6.2

Campus Landscape Design Determinants & Taxonomy2.6.2.1 Pattern Languages2.6.2.2 Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. & Olmsted Brothers 2.6.2.3 Cultural Sustainability2.6.2.4 Meaningful Places & Placemaking2.6.2.5 Subconscious Landscapes of the Heart2.6.2.6

Cultural Influence2.6.3 Academic Institutions2.6.4

Campus Landscape Master Plans2.6.4.1 Landscape Design Guidelines2.6.4.2

Student Input in the Production Process2.6.5 The Consumption of Campus Landscape2.7

Overview – Understanding the Student Perspective2.7.1 Preference Theory2.7.1.1 Outdoor Spaces for Living and Learning2.7.1.2 People Spaces and Campus Places2.7.1.3

Chapter 33 – Student Questionnaire: Methodology 39Purpose of Student Questionnaire3.1 Development Process3.2

Criteria for a good questionnaire3.2.1 Step 1: Determine survey objectives, resources, and constraints3.2.2 Step 2: Determine the data-collection method3.2.3 Step 3: Determine the question response format3.2.4 Step 4: Decide on the question wording3.2.5

Berry || 8

Step 5: Establish questionnaire flow and layout3.2.6 Section I: General Questions | 1–5 3.2.6.1 Section II: Aesthetics / Initial Impressions | 6–103.2.6.2 Section III: Study Habits | 11–153.2.6.3 Section IV: Non-Academic Activities / Community | 16–183.2.6.4 Section V: Community & Citizenship – Events | 19–233.2.6.5 Section VI: Favorite Spaces / Collision | 24–293.2.6.6 Section VII: Meaningful Spaces / Values | 30–323.2.6.7

Step 6: Evaluate the questionnaire3.2.7 Step 7: Obtain approval of all relevant parties3.2.8 Step 8: Pretest and revise 3.2.9 Step 9: Prepare final questionnaire copy3.2.10 Step 10: Implement the survey3.2.11

Sampling Method & Procedures3.3 Disadvantages of Nonprobability Samples:3.3.1 Advantages of Nonprobability Samples:3.3.2 Convenience Samples3.3.3 Judgment Samples3.3.4 Student Sample Used in this Project3.3.5

Data Analysis Procedure3.4 Step 1: Validation and editing3.4.1 Step 2: Coding (open-ended questions)3.4.2 Step 3: Data entry3.4.3 Step 4: Machine cleaning of data3.4.4 Step 5: Tabulation and statistical analysis3.4.5

Chapter 4 – Student Questionnaire: Results & Analysis 514 Introduction4.1

Notes4.1.1 Results & Analysis4.2

Section I: General Questions | 1–54.2.1 Section II: Aesthetics / Initial Impressions | 6–104.2.2 Section III: Study Habits | 11–154.2.3 Section IV: Non-Academic Activities / Community | 16–184.2.4 Section V: Community & Citizenship – Events | 19–234.2.5 Section VI: Favorite Spaces / Collision | 24–294.2.6 Section VII: Meaningful Spaces / Values | 30–324.2.7

Chapter 5 – Conclusions & Implications for the Campus Designer 775 Overview5.1 Student Needs 5.2

Accommodation of the Student5.2.1 Accommodation of Technology5.2.2 Shelter5.2.3 Sensory Experiences5.2.4 Natural Settings / Vegetation & Green Space5.2.5 Interest & Views5.2.6 Solitude & Privacy5.2.7

Student Values5.3 Community5.3.1 Collision5.3.2 Citizenship5.3.3

Berry || 9

Ambience 5.3.4 Holistic Experiences5.3.5 Inconspicuous Spaces5.3.6

Recommendations for Further Research5.4 In Closing5.5

References 95

Resources 97

Appendix A – Student Questionnaire (questions with summarized results)Appendix B – Student Questionnaire (tabulated results)Appendix C – Campus Landscape Design Determinants & Taxonomy (Dober)Appendix D – Examples of Design Patterns (Alexander et al.)Appendix E – Examples of Design Guidelines (Duke University)Appendix F – Outdoor Spaces for Living and Learning (Marcus &

Wischemann)Appendix G – Results of User Opinion Survey (Fitzurka)Appendix H – Executive Summary Posters

Berry || 10

Berry || 11

AbstractDuring the past few decades, several approaches have been developed by campus designers in order to address the core functions and mission of the campus landscape, and to enhance the overall collegiate experience for students. While providing effective strategies for designing functional, aesthetically-pleasing campus landscapes, these approaches often fail to recognize students’ core needs and values relative to how they use these designed spaces. A theoretical framework based on these needs and values is required to successfully implement one of these design approaches within the campus landscape, a framework within which these approaches may be appropriately applied. This study posits a powerful mission for the campus landscape—that it should be designed to present students with unplanned opportunities for collision (or interaction), encourage a sense of community among the student body, and prepare students for citizenship within society. Furthermore, this study identifies the major agents involved in the production and consumption of campus landscape, determines the needs and values of students as consumers within this process, and proposes a theoretical framework that allows campus designers to better understand and accommodate these needs and values within the campus landscape. In order to accomplish these goals, a majority of this study’s findings come from the results of an undergraduate student questionnaire designed to identify contemporary students’ needs and values regarding the campus landscape. These results are juxtaposed with the selected body of research—particularly the three-part mission—to offer a rationale for the required theoretical framework to guide the design of college campus landscapes. This framework is composed of seven needs and six values that were identified and determined from the summary of responses to the student questionnaire, and corresponded in part to some of the existing literature on designing campus landscapes with deeper meaning and purpose for students. These needs and values—in conjunction with the accepted literature—will guide the campus designer as to why and how the campus landscape might be designed to enable students to compose meaningful and memorable collegiate experiences.

Berry || 12

Berry || 13

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 BackgroundWith the European colonization of the Americas in the seventeenth century came the birth of new dreams, avant-garde ideologies, and fresh cultural pursuits. Each—to some degree—were empowered by the newly-discovered and ever-expansive American landscape, full of nature, wilderness, and untapped potential. In order for these dreams, ideologies, and cultural pursuits to become fully manifest, a uniquely American vision of academia was required. No longer did the physical confines of limited land or the aging social tenets of the European elite restrict the growth of the academe. America was free to explore the wide possibilities of higher education—and it did just that in the coming centuries. As those dreams, ideologies, and cultural pursuits were initially empowered by the landscape of the American continent, so the landscape of the college campus enabled their realization within the academic realm.

Since those early colonial times, much evolution has occurred within the realm of college campus design. Various ideals, styles, and paradigms for the college campus have risen, fallen, shifted, and adapted as attitudes and values have changed within American culture. During the past several decades, much effort has been placed on determining appropriate approaches for designing college campuses and the landscapes which they encompass. While these approaches have certainly enhanced the quality of many college campuses, and provide effective design strategies for those making decisions regarding a campus’ destiny, they fall short of offering a useful theoretical structure within which the approaches themselves may be applied. These approaches often fail to recognize students’ core needs and values relative to how they use these designed spaces.

While these design approaches do serve a vital purpose for campus designers, they simply do not fully address some of the more enigmatic issues present in collegiate environments. In order to bring the college campus landscape to a higher level of relevance and meaning, and to offer fulfillment for those consuming this landscape, campus designers require a theoretical framework within which these methodologies may be appropriately applied.

1.2 IntentThe intent of this study is to identify and define the mission of the campus landscape, to identify the major agents involved in the production and consumption of campus landscape, to determine the needs and values of students as agents in this process of production and consumption, and to propose a theoretical framework which will allow campus designers to better understand and accommodate these needs and values within the campus landscape. This theoretical framework is specifically intended to guide the future creation, expansion, and redevelopment of college campus landscapes within the United States.

Berry || 14

This study begins by offering a review of existing literature and research (Chapter 2) that presents various perspectives and background about college campus landscapes. The chapter begins by describing the uniquely American collegiate ideal that has driven campus landscape design for several centuries, followed by an overview of the primary functions of the campus landscape today. Next, a compelling argument will be postulated for a tripartite campus landscape mission, which states that campus landscapes should be designed to present students with unplanned opportunities for collision, encourage a sense of community among the student body, and prepare students for citizenship within society. The chapter will then discuss the processes of producing and consuming campus landscape, in order to begin a discussion on the merits of historical and contemporary approaches to collegiate campus landscape design. This chapter also begins bridging the theoretical gap that these approaches leave largely unaddressed for the campus designer. The body of reviewed literature includes research in the areas of historic college campus design, historical and contemporary campus design practice and theory, environmental psychology, and an overview of college students’ preferences for the college campus landscape.

In Chapter 3, the methods used to gather, organize, and analyze certain types of data required for the purposes of this study are described. The process utilized to develop and analyze a student questionnaire, which is intended to shed light on contemporary students’ needs and values regarding the campus landscape, is outlined.

Results and analysis of the undergraduate student questionnaire conducted at the University of Florida for the purposes of this study are provided in Chapter 4. The intent of this questionnaire is to identify and confirm successful, positive aspects of approaches used by campus designers, as well as to help identify areas of significance that may still be unacknowledged by campus designers, yet based on student responses are vital for developing the most successful and enriching collegiate environments. Analysis and conclusions are offered.

Concluding thoughts on the study, and its implications for campus landscape design are offered in Chapter 5. The proposed theoretical framework, developed from analysis provided in the literature review and the student questionnaire chapters, should have significant bearing on knowing why and how a campus should be designed, using any approach. The framework should also guide the campus designer to enable students to compose meaningful and memorable collegiate experiences.

1.3 Terminology & ScopeFor the reader’s clarity, several terms are defined as follows within this study:

College or institution includes most institutions of higher education within the United States, principally four-year colleges and universities, but also including many community colleges as well. There are no further distinctions of college type within the scope of this study, such as urban or rural, private or public, etc.

College campus refers to the entire physical domain of a college, including buildings, the spaces between and around the buildings, circulation networks, and other forms of infrastructure that support them.

Berry || 15

Campus landscape refers to the network of exterior and outdoor spaces within a college campus that serve three functions: to organize and connect buildings; to serve and benefit students, faculty, and visitors in various capacities; and to function as a symbol for higher education. The campus landscape includes (but is not limited to): quadrangles and plazas, paths and walkways, open-air spaces and courtyards, conservation and preservation areas, recreational areas, and bodies of water.

Agent refers to any person having the potential to effect change within or experience the campus landscape. Agents may be described as two very different yet interrelated types: producers and consumers.

Producers are agents with the power to effect change within the campus landscape, as they ‘produce’ the spaces that other agents experience and subsequently internalize, whether through design, planning, administrative approval, management, or some other form of input. In this study, producers include designers, institutions, and culture.

Consumers are agents that experience and internalize the campus landscape, as they ‘consume’ the spaces that producers design, construct, and manage. The reason consumer is used here instead of a similar term (such as user) is because consumer implies an inherent process of internalizing spaces and their various elements and sensory aspects as these spaces are experienced (i.e. consumed), while user simply implies an external interaction with a physical space (i.e. use). In this study, consumers are limited primarily to college students, but would also generally include faculty, staff, and guests within a college campus environment.

While this study references only selected perspectives, the intent and hope is that these represent a substantial voice in this broad discussion of deeper relationships with campus landscape. To borrow from the words of noted Stanford University architecture professor Paul Venable Turner, “These choices naturally reflect my own background and interests, as well as my interpretations of the historical forces that have shaped collegiate design. I hope that … this work will stimulate further studies, differing interpretations, and increased interest in this surprisingly neglected part of the American environment" (6). There are surprisingly few deep, cognitive theoretical discussions relating to the design of campus landscapes—may this study help to bridge the chasm.

Berry || 16

Berry || 17

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

2.1 OverviewTo fulfill this study’s intent, reviews of existing literature which address the design and development of the campus landscape; which seek to clarify deeper meanings, values, and theoretical perspectives that may be attributed to the campus landscape; and which identify the unique set of needs and values that are commonly attached to the campus landscape by students are included in this chapter. The bodies of literature that meet these criteria include research in the areas of historic college campus design, historical and contemporary campus design practice and theory, environmental psychology, and studies of contemporary college students. These perspectives from literature will be presented in order to begin a discussion on the merits of historical and contemporary design approaches for the college campus landscape, and to assess the theoretical gap that these approaches simply do not satisfactorily address.

This chapter begins by situating the college campus and the campus landscape within this study, respectively. To do this, it describes the predominant American collegiate ideal which has driven design decisions for the last few centuries, defines the primary functions that the campus landscape satisfies, and posits a tripartite campus landscape mission as a premise for successful campus design purpose upon which further chapters build. Next, the agents and processes involved with the production and consumption of the campus landscape are discussed. The principal producers of campus landscapes reviewed here consist of campus designers, cultural influences, academic institutions, and. Following is an assessment of the consumers of campus landscapes, emphasizing the perspective of the student. As the purpose of any college should be to serve their students (both current and prospective), and since students are the prime recipients of any benefits that the campus landscape may offer, the discussions within this study continuously keep student needs and desires in the forefront.

2.2 The American Collegiate IdealThe American college campus—as an idea—has certainly undergone many changes and developments in the past few centuries, but ideologically it seems to have changed little since European settlers began constructing the first American colleges. In Paul Venable Turner’s 1984 seminal work, Campus: An American Planning Tradition, he begins by grounding the American college campus within the broader Western tradition of college campus design, specifically in contrast with historic English colleges. "From its very beginning…,” he says, “the American college has largely rejected the European tradition of cloister-like structures in favor of separate buildings set in open green space." (4) When these various buildings and green spaces are considered together—even if they take up broad areas of rural land, or are spread apart within an urban environment—the entire composition becomes recognized as a campus.

When it was first used to describe the grounds of a college, probably at Princeton in the late eighteenth century, campus had simply its

Berry || 18

Latin meaning, a field, and described the green expansiveness already distinctive of American schools. … But beyond these purely physical meanings, the word has taken on other connotations, suggesting the pervasive spirit of a school, or its genius loci, as embodied in its architecture and grounds. Campus sums up the distinctive physical qualities of the American college, but also its integrity as a self-contained community and its architectural expression of educational and social ideals. (Turner 4)

The idea of the college campus as a ‘self-contained community’ quickly became a central theme for how American campuses became envisaged and physically designed. Thomas Jefferson, while designing the University of Virginia, described his desire for the university to become an academical village. This term effectively “summarizes a basic trait of American higher education from the colonial period to the twentieth century: the conception of colleges and universities as communities in themselves—in effect, as cities in microcosm" (Turner 3). Similarly, architect Le Corbusier observed (after spending time in the United States during the 1930s) that “each college or university is an urban unit in itself, a small or large city. But a green city…” (qtd. in Turner 4) He also expressed the idea that “the American campus is a world in itself, a temporary paradise, a gracious stage of life” (qtd. in Gaines 49). This uniquely American ideal of the college campus as a visually ‘green’ community, village, or city still resonates in American culture and academia today, placing incredible importance on the design, development, and presentation of a college’s campus.

2.3 The Distinctive Nature of the College Campus

That the college campus functions as a microcosm of an entire town is significant in and of itself. Encompassing a vast array of services, departments, and types of spaces within relatively close proximity to one another, the college campus distinguishes itself from most other cultural environments. In Campus Landscape, Richard P. Dober offers a profound vision for the college campus, that “in service and symbol, today’s campuses are the contemporary equivalent of cathedral precincts in medieval life, palaces and civic centers in the Renaissance, and railroad stations and central business districts in the age of commerce and urbanization” (xviii). These equivalences have incredible meaning for the college campus. Yet there are several specific aspects of the college campus that make it distinct from all other environments.

One of the most influential and comprehensive references utilized for this study is the book Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community through Campus Design by Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney. Regarding the distinctive nature of the college campus, the authors posit that there are three fundamental components of what they call institutional mission. Nearly all colleges promote “education, …productive social and personal development of the students, and service to community and society as institutional core values” within their institutional mission (Kenney et al. 28). The campus landscape plays a critical role in accommodating this distinctive nature, and provides three primary functions to help the college become successful in its distinctive place within societal structure.

Berry || 19

2.4 Primary Functions of the Campus Landscape

As mentioned earlier, the term campus landscape refers to the network of exterior and outdoor spaces within a college campus that serve three functions: to organize and connect buildings; to serve and benefit students, faculty, and visitors in various capacities; and to function as a symbol for higher education. Dober succinctly summarizes campus landscape as “the green environment that situates, serves, and symbolizes higher education” (xv). The following sections explain the intent behind each primary function.

2.4.1 Organize and Connect BuildingsRegarding this spatially-organizing and aesthetic campus landscape function, Dober conveys that the campus landscape has traditionally been perceived as “a green carpet upon which buildings are placed, or [which] is articulated as a device to extend a building design concept into open space, with a garnish for an architectural feast” (xvi). Similarly, Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney state that the campus landscape and network of open spaces should serve the campus by providing structure and unity to the campus as a whole. This structure provides ideal locations for building placement—assuming campus growth is adhering to a cohesive master plan—and allows the buildings to frame the campus as the landscape simultaneously unifies the buildings (Kenney et al. 9). A lot of weight is given to the campus landscape’s role in satisfying this function. This is obviously a critical function of the campus landscape, and forms the corporeal structure upon which the other two functions are organized. However, there is much more to the campus landscape than spatial organization and aesthetics.

2.4.2 Symbolize Higher EducationThe campus landscape should also serve as a symbol for the distinctive nature of higher education, specifically as it relates to the mission and values of the institution. In fact, according to Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney, “the campus plan, architecture, and landscape architecture facilitate the realization of fundamental values” in the areas of educational and co-curricular programs, student life, faculty interaction, and community relations (27). Furthermore, they suggest that “the [campus] landscape embodies the essence of the place the institution strives to be” (81). A failing or dysfunctional campus landscape is typically evidence of a failing or dysfunctional college campus. On the other hand, a vibrant campus landscape typically reflects a college campus that is fulfilling its institutional mission with excellence.

2.4.3 Serve and Benefit Students, Faculty, and VisitorsFinally, there are some basic services that the campus landscape must satisfy for those who use and occupy it. These include providing the means for people to move between spaces and buildings on campus (circulation routes), providing spaces

Berry || 20

where activities and events may occur, providing transitions for building entryways and exits, and similar services. Campus designers should have one or more groups of people in mind (students, faculty, staff, and/or visitors) when designing spaces within the campus landscape, so that each and every space fulfills services and benefits specific to those groups. While some spaces might serve and benefit only one group, it is generally more ideal to allow spaces to serve and benefit multiple groups to ensure better efficiency and use of the campus landscape.

2.4.4 Beyond FunctionNonetheless, there are more abstract purposes of the campus landscape that this basic list excludes. Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney begin to address these abstract purposes by acknowledging that the form of the campus landscape should follow its function (a prominent design philosophy), but they also insist that function can most certainly follow as a result of form as well. “If we design our buildings and spaces in certain ways, we can cause certain things—more effective learning, more vibrant community—to happen there. Physical changes can be a powerful tool in facilitating social and organizational change in an institution’s culture. We can also shape perceptions, opinions, and memory” (4, emphasis added). The authors are clearly expressing the notion that the campus landscape is capable of offering more profound benefits than simply “looking nice” for its students, faculty, and visitors. Most compelling is the potential to “shape perceptions, opinions, and memory”—if this is truly possible, then the campus designer becomes capable of enabling and stimulating powerful relationships to form between the campus landscape and those who exist within it. This possibility holds enormous implications for the campus designer, and will be discussed in much greater detail throughout the remainder of this study. In the next section, a tripartite institutional mission posited by Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney is discussed that may be specifically attributed to college campus landscapes, each of which deals directly with how individual students—and the student community as a whole—experience their time at college.

2.5 The Campus Landscape MissionAs is mentioned in Chapter 1, there is currently an absence of a theoretical framework within which any design approach may be applied. To begin an argument towards this theoretical framework, this section will postulate a higher mission for the campus landscape.

There are three very vital principles for successful college campuses which are referenced thoroughly by Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney in Mission and Place, as well as by others. In short, they insist that the campus should present students with opportunities for collision, community, and citizenship. While the authors propose these distinctive principles for the college campus as a whole, much of their discussion of these principles involves the campus landscape extensively. This section applies the same principles toward a campus landscape mission, which delves ever deeper into what it truly means to design the campus landscape to enhance the contemporary student’s collegiate experience. It is this tripartite mission that serves as the basis of this study, and against which the research in this chapter and the findings from the student questionnaire in Chapter 4 are juxtaposed.

Berry || 21

2.5.1 CollisionA strong focus on interdisciplinary study and research has developed within the modern American college. Therefore, the physical arrangement of spaces is as important as ever, as opportunities for interaction and collaboration become a more desirable result from the campus environment. “Every part of a campus must be considered a learning environment”—especially when considering that the vast majority of learning opportunities (including nonacademic activities) occur outside of the classroom (Kenney et al. 6). Those making design decisions for the college campus must consider the breadth of both academic and nonacademic learning opportunities in order to ensure its success.

In order to meet this growing focus, the campus landscape should present students with opportunities for beneficial collisions—essentially unplanned encounters or interactions between students, faculty, and others within the campus landscape—to occur in order to share and generate ideas and to spur personal and social growth.

Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney state that “students can learn wherever they have opportunities for interaction; and the more chance for running into friends, teachers, fellow students, or colleagues, the better” (28). Furthermore:

The learning campus is one that maximizes the probability of chance encounters, and encourages lingering once an encounter—whether by chance or by plan—takes place. This means that it is an exciting place where students and faculty alike enjoy “hanging out,” whether alone or in groups, where activities are available, or where pleasant places encourage lingering. (Kenney et al. 39)

A variety of campus settings which differ in design, layout, availability, and flexibility encourage students to become involved in the campus environment. These settings include multiple levels of involvement: spaces for public interaction; spaces that are quiet, intended for personal reflection, meditation, and study; and spaces for hanging out and socialization. It is important that these settings include (or are at least next to) interesting elements that students may personally engage with, such as building alcoves, wide stairways and walkways, cafés, stores, ponds and pools, cloisters and quadrangles, and hiking trails. Essentially, “every part of the campus must be thought of as part of the student learning experience” (41). Group-study spaces—such as cafés and lounge areas—are becoming increasingly valuable as peer-to-peer learning and group projects are more common in contemporary higher education (45). “Interaction among community members is fostered by the availability of indoor and outdoor spaces where people can come together without much effort. Institutions should consider whether their campuses have adequate places that encourage spontaneous, informal interaction among students” (Kuh et al. 309). Finally:

Density works together with enclosure, green space, mixed use, and a pedestrian scale to create vital spaces on campus. In a densely built and lively community, people are more likely to run into one another than in a spread-out one. Creating the right kind of density is all about creating human intersections—and intersections and the collegiality they generate are at the heart of community on campus. (Kenney et al. 80)

Berry || 22

Referencing urban social theorist William Whyte’s extensive studies of outdoor spaces and human use, Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney also insist that imbuing outdoor campus spaces with flexibility is necessary for encouraging students (and others) to use these spaces more often and for longer periods of time, leading to greater interaction. Flexibility allows for personalization of a space, diversity of activities, and use by groups of various sizes or by an individual (59).

Another idea proposed by Whyte in his book The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces is that of triangulation—“the process by which some external stimulus provides a linkage between people and prompts strangers to talk to each other as though they were not” (94). Referencing Whyte’s principle, Ned Crankshaw (landscape architecture chair and professor at the University of Kentucky) calls this external stimulus a ‘third thing’ that breaks the ice and provides viewers mutual focus and/or entertainment (163). Whyte and Crankshaw both state that many things can become triangulators or ‘third things,’ including both physical objects and sights. These can range from art pieces and sculpture to fountains and water features to settings that appear natural or full of vegetation to bold vistas of other spaces. Implementing such a principle within the campus landscape would assuredly prove beneficial towards presenting students with opportunities for collision.

2.5.2 Community An extremely common feeling among many campuses today is that there has been a loss of community, which is likely “a manifestation of today’s fast-paced television- and automobile-centric American culture. Nevertheless, institutions of higher education [should] demand of themselves leadership in counteracting this trend, in creating an environment in which community can flourish” (Kenney et al. 6, emphasis added). Today, further societal changes—particularly heavy reliance upon electronic devices and the Internet—only present more difficult challenges for the establishment of community within the college campus. The critical principle of community is central to realizing all aspects of a college campus, and if attained, improves the quality of experience for its students.

The purpose of presenting opportunities for community is to instill within the heart and mind of the student a deep connection with the social networks in which they are participants. The emphasis is on deepening the sense of relationship and interconnectedness with fellow students, faculty, and other members of the college community which comprise the student's social environment. This principle is especially significant, as the college community effectively serves as a precursor to the various types of community of which students will become a part following graduation.

Once again, Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney lead the way in advocating for inclusion of this purpose. They begin by saying the campus landscape should play a prominent role in encouraging students to communicate and engage with one another through the inclusion of comfortable, appropriately scaled common spaces (29). When one speaks of “creating a sense of community” within the collegiate environment, the connotation is of “a warm feeling in the heart about one’s fellows and a sense of identity with the institution and with one another that persists long after a person’s immediate physical relationship with the institution has ended. Caring for one another and interacting in ways that matter are essential parts of community” (47). College students during the

Berry || 23

past decade or two have begun to place higher value on the quality of campus life than have previous generations. In order to satisfy this increase in student value, “colleges need to provide a vibrant and exciting campus life and increase the opportunities for students to meet one another” (49). To this point, Duderstadt adds:

Beyond formal education in the traditional academic disciplines and professional fields, the university has been expected to play a far broader role in the maturation of students… The campus experience we tend to associate with undergraduate education does a remarkable job in preparing the student for later life, and clearly it does so through a complex social experience extending far beyond the classroom and the curriculum. (Duderstadt 39, emphasis added)

“The need to create a sense of community also traces back to a fundamental component of higher education—the free exchange of ideas. …A vital college creates the spaces where people can meet in a friendly way, where free interchange and discussion of ideas are fostered.” (Kenney et al. 48) These meeting spaces—or collision spaces—come together to form a rich network of open public spaces spread throughout the campus landscape in order to lay the structure for building a strong sense of community among students (55).

Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney bring in an additional element to the community equation, quoting Strange and Banning (2000) saying, “from the behavioral setting point of view, campus designs and spaces do not merely create a functional space, mood, or atmosphere; they facilitate certain behaviors” (54). They also quote sociologist of community life Ray Oldenburg, saying that issues of campuses lacking in community could be solved “if higher education’s leaders and faculty would pay more attention to promoting better talk among students, and if architects and planners would provide better places for students to ‘hang out’” (55 – originally found in “Making College a Great Place to Talk.” The Best of Planning for Higher Education, 1997: 90).

To summarize the importance that the college campus landscape has on providing opportunities for community to its students, Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney offer the following:

Like a town or small city, the campus is a community that is defined, in part, by geography. Within this geographical area, students (and sometimes faculty and staff) sleep, eat, work, study, play, and socialize. Unlike many new parts of our cities—suburban communities that are often gated or without sidewalks—the American campus has the potential to nurture the elements of active community life—places for conversation, discourse, and social engagement. (Kenney et al. 59)

2.5.3 CitizenshipKenney, Dumont, and Kenney propose that the college campus is more than just a microcosm of a city, but that it is in fact “a microcosm of society.”

In a tradition stretching back to the ancient Greek agora, the campus provides public spaces for people to meet, to post notices, and to

Berry || 24

engage in the activities of an aware citizenry. It also provides a small (or sometimes, not so small) piece of the natural world—one that before the eyes of all the institution can squander or can nurture and protect. An institution teaches social responsibility by its actions on campus, and the results of these actions are emblazoned in the campus landscape for all to see. (Kenney et al. 7)

As a microcosm of society, the college campus—as a relatively autonomous entity—accepts enormous responsibility to prepare students to become responsible and capable citizens of society and the world.

This third and final principle—citizenship—exists that the campus landscape might provide an ideal setting for events, activities, and interactions with communities at the college, local, regional, and global levels which allow each student to be instilled with a sense of responsibility to the communities of which they are a member. The emphasis of this purpose is on training new leaders and ambassadors for the immediate college community, as well as for social, cultural, civic, regional, and national communities as well.

Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney state that “colleges and universities are a microcosm of society whose every member has the opportunity to practice social values ranging from simple neighborliness to good citizenship to governance. The public spaces—large and small, indoors and out—of the university provide a forum in which all of these activities can be engaged” (30). As mentioned earlier in this literature review, Thomas Jefferson’s academic ideal for the University of Virginia was to develop an academical village, where students, professors, and others living on the campus would share life experiences beyond the educational experiences within the classroom. This broad view of a student’s collegiate experience was intended to foster a type of campus community that would help students realize their full potential as responsible citizens of a republic (90).

2.5.4 Campus Landscape as Enabling MediumIf these three vital principles are achieved within the campus landscape, it will become successful in reflecting the vision and values of the institution (Kenney et al. 6). Essentially, if students are presented opportunities for collision, then community necessarily develops as a result, and when combined with the other aspects of academic life, develops citizenship within the student. To summarize—if properly designed and actualized, the campus landscape serves as the physical medium through which the campus landscape mission’s three core principles may become reified for students.

2.6 The Production of Campus Landscape

2.6.1 OverviewThis section provides a summary of three of the major influencers of production of campus landscapes: campus designers (which include landscape architects and

Berry || 25

architects), cultural influence, and academic institutions. Emphasis is given to the design approaches that have been developed over the last few decades, in order to provide a synopsis of the current state of campus landscape design. This section concludes with an appeal toward the acceptance of students’ input—as the primary consumers of campus landscape—in the production processes which shape the very spaces they use daily.

2.6.2 Design ApproachesCampus designers possess certain knowledge and expertise that enable them to turn the desires and long-range plans of cultural influences and academic institutions into an actuality. Traditionally, two types of designers assume responsibility for design decisions relating to the campus landscape—landscape architects and architects. Both types are represented in the approaches that follow, which synopsize several designers’ principal philosophies, strategies, and methods as they relate to the design and development of the campus landscape.

2.6.2.1 Campus Landscape Design Determinants & Taxonomy

Richard P. Dober (a prominent campus architect) wrote Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Features in 2000, which provides an excellent overview of current campus design principles, as well as many of its historical precedents. Dober has spent considerable time in campus design and planning personally, and conveys his experience in this book for the benefit of anyone involved in the process of campus design. The chapters cover many relevant aspects of campus landscape design, and include the following as general categories: campus landscape design determinants; creating a distinctive place; first encounters; spaces; groves, gardens, and fields for education, entertainment, and enlightenment; and place marking and place using. Dober’s suggestion is that the landscape design determinants directly influence all of the latter categories, located under what Dober terms a landscape design taxonomy (covered in Section 2 of his book; reference Appendix C for a diagram showing these determinants and taxonomy).

The landscape design taxonomy summarizes Dober’s extensive campus research and design experience into a list of specific criteria from which practically any campus landscape may be evaluated or designed. These criteria are fairly extensive, and cover a wide range of design elements and opportunities that have historically enhanced the collegiate experience for students, faculty, and visitors.

Perhaps the best summary of Dober’s opinion of the worth of campus landscape comes in the following passage:

Through amplitude and application a significant increase in campus landscape will strengthen the image and substance of higher education venues. Colleges and universities will then be in a better position to attract and retain faculty and students, advance educational and research programs, energize fund-raising appeals to alumni and friends, demonstrate environmental design concepts

Berry || 26

and ethics, enlarge the presence of art, and strengthen the campus as a community design asset. (Dober xviii)

This passage, when combined with a synopsis of Dober’s summary chapters on campus landscape design, leads to the impression that Dober’s focus is predominantly on the aesthetic quality that the campus landscape presents to those who use its spaces, and subsequently on the pragmatic benefits to the institution that the improved aesthetics typically provide. Despite the obvious strengths of Dober’s extensive research, and beyond the visual aspects that he strongly advocates, he does not appear to expect much depth in meaning from the campus landscape itself. With that said, Dober does at least acknowledge that more powerful ends are possible via the campus landscape, as “buildings and grounds are integrated into a green precinct that is pleasant to see, well defined physically and with a specific sense of place, and productive in encouraging serendipitous and synergistic interaction among those sharing the site” (Dober xxiii).

These landscape design determinants and taxonomy provide an excellent grounding for campus landscape design, and offer well-researched and experienced suggestions for designing spaces that are both functional and aesthetically-pleasing. However, Dober generally excludes the importance of acknowledging both student needs and values for the campus landscape, focusing more on physical needs of campus users in general. More attention to the true purpose behind designing the campus landscape (i.e. designing it for the students who live, work, and play within it), as well as acknowledging deeper potential implications of the campus landscape’s effect upon people psychologically could be most helpful to Dober’s book, and suggestions for ways in which this might be included are discussed in the following design approaches.

2.6.2.2 Pattern Languages

Architect Christopher Alexander developed a useful yet intricate design theory called pattern languages in the 1970s, which are essentially a series of separate design patterns (i.e. guidelines, elements, components) that may be developed for a given design scenario and scale (individual buildings, cities and towns, college campuses, building complexes, etc.), and when combined together form functional and meaningful spaces within which people may dwell. His hope was that this theory would be used to develop an entirely new attitude to architecture and planning. He wrote a series of three volumes, the first of which is called The Timeless Way of Building and helps set the stage for the two that follow—A Pattern Language and The Oregon Experiment. The Timeless Way of Building (1979) helps the reader understand not only the significance of the pattern language approach, but also the theory that supports the approach. Alexander thoroughly explains and frankly discusses his thoughts on the quality without a name, which makes all built environments come ‘alive.’ He continues by explaining how to reach this quality by using a pattern language as a ‘gate,’ and concludes by talking about how to pass through this gate to follow in the ‘way’ of practicing the quality.

The second volume— A Pattern Language (1977)—provides an extensive list of 253 unique yet interwoven patterns that form a pattern language for building and planning. The patterns are generally divided between three areas: towns, buildings, and construction. However, the theory behind these patterns can be much more

Berry || 27

widely applied into other areas of design as well (such as campus design), and are merely a suggested reference for others to build upon and alter to fit a given design situation. The list of patterns is quite exhaustive and provides an excellent starting point for almost any type of design. Alexander describes this book as the “sourcebook of the timeless way” which may be customized to fit any project.

Finally, Alexander’s third volume—The Oregon Experiment (1975)—describes the process used to develop a master plan for the University of Oregon, based upon six core principles of implementation (organic order, participation, piecemeal growth, patterns, diagnosis, and coordination). This book provides practical details for how the theory presented in The Timeless Way of Building and the pattern language offered in A Pattern Language may actually be implemented in a real process of design and planning. It is intended to act as a process paradigm for other community projects, particularly those related to campus design. Most important to the intent of this study is Alexander’s list and description of a pattern language specific to the planning and design of the University of Oregon, which includes a selection of relevant patterns from volume 2, as well as several additional patterns which were added specifically for a college campus environment (please reference Appendix D for examples of these design patterns). Additionally, Alexander lays out practical steps that those producing college campuses may take in order to promote the use of patterns and to allow members of the campus community to improve upon and enlarge them over time. These are listed here (136):

We want to make sure that the community can use the published pattern - language.We want to make sure that the patterns have the status of formally adopted - planning and building principles.We want to make sure that there is a mechanism by which new patterns can - be introduced, and bad patterns replaced by better ones.We want to make sure that there is a process which will guarantee the gradual - improvement of patterns by empirical experiment and observations.

These steps—when combined with an institution-specific pattern language—effectively resemble important aspects of some college’s and university’s campus landscape master plans, as well as landscape design guidelines.

Besides the practicality of utilizing some or all of the relevant patterns proposed by Alexander for the campus landscape, there is a deeper connection between the work by Alexander and this study. The quality without a name—the intended consequence of pattern languages—should also be a vital, intentional result from design changes to the campus landscape. Unquestionably, campus landscapes should be environments that ‘come alive’ for those within it, for those who consume it. As students are the principal group consuming these landscapes, their values and desires should be taken into consideration. Alexander attempts to accomplish this, citing specific rationale for how certain patterns will directly benefit students in more than just pragmatic, measurable ways, but through the enhanced quality of their collegiate experience. Alexander desires that students (and others) develop deep connections and relationships with the designed environments they experience.

Additionally, as was just mentioned, Alexander essentially proposes the establishment of thoughtful and relevant master plans and design guidelines for all institutions, as they should enhance the collegiate environment for all who consume it. Specifically for this study, these would result in landscape master plans, and perhaps more

Berry || 28

pertinently, landscape design guidelines (or, landscape design patterns). Without overarching design guidelines in place, changes and additions to the campus landscape can become haphazard and irrelevant. This is why Alexander believes so strongly in establishing accepted guidelines and procedures for enhancing the quality of campus spaces for those who consume them.

2.6.2.3 Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. & Olmsted Brothers

The tremendous effect that Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. had on American campus landscape design cannot be ignored. Between his own work and that of the Olmsted Brothers firm which succeeded him (carried on by Olmsted, Sr.’s two sons, John Charles Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.), 355 different college campuses received landscape design or consulting services between 1857-1950. Their desire was not only that the physical layout of the campus landscape would function efficiently, nor only that the campus landscape would appear aesthetically pleasing to those existing within it, but that the campus landscape would actually “improve the overall learning experience that all students need to fully reach their potential” (Berry 9). Olmsted, Sr. “insisted that education be practical as well as theoretical, and [Olmsted-designed campuses] were planned to meet both of these purposes” (Berry 3). Olmsted’s philosophy on higher education could be summarized as follows:

Scholars should be prepared to lead, not to follow reluctantly after, the advancing line of civilization. To be qualified as leaders they must have an intelligent appreciation of and sympathy with the real life of civilization, and this can only be acquired through a familiarity with the higher and more characteristic forms in which it is developed. For this reason it is desirable that scholars, at least during the period of life in which character is most easily moulded [sic], should be surrounded by manifestations of refined domestic life, these being unquestionably the ripest and best fruits of civilization. (Olmsted 335)

These “higher and more characteristic forms” and “manifestations of refined domestic life” were to become actualized within the campus landscape, providing students every opportunity to become well-rounded, informed, and civilized members of society during their collegiate experience. Through the campus landscape, Olmsted, Sr. believed that students should have to opportunity to not only grow in practical education, but to fully become a civilized person, to compose powerful and memorable experiences that will be necessary if one is to become acceptable and relevant to society. This once again points beyond the functional and aesthetic purposes of the campus landscape, to the meaningful and memorable.

2.6.2.4 Cultural Sustainability

Joan Iverson Nassauer, professor of landscape architecture at the University of Michigan, believes that the campus landscape serves both those visiting for a brief period of time as well as those who work and live on the campus every day. In an article by The Michigan Daily on Michigan’s campus landscape, she declared that the campus community comes to the campus with “heightened expectations,” and that efforts by the campus landscape architect and the landscape architecture profession

Berry || 29

at large create “an opportunity to organize the outdoor spaces of a campus in a way that is essentially welcoming to people who are here for a brief time and that is stimulating in all the right ways for people that are here using their minds and growing their minds” (Jones). Ken Rapp, landscape architect for the University of Michigan, believes in emphasizing the natural elements within the campus landscape in order to promote sustainable maintenance practices and to bring these elements into the day-to-day lives of those on campus. Much of Nassauer’s work at the university has been focused on developing what she calls cultural sustainability—essentially “maintaining a balance between environmentally sustainable practices and fulfilling the public’s expectations of an appealing landscape.” She believes that the collegiate atmosphere offers a unique opportunity to physically showcase this idea. “You don’t get people to change by saying (they) should like something different. You get people to change by showing them something different that they discover they have a positive response to… (There is an) enormous opportunity for the University [of Michigan] to construct a landscape that helps people see the possibilities in a different way” (Jones).

Cultural sustainability is a strong design concept to acknowledge for campus landscapes, albeit one that is a bit broad. Nassauer appropriately recognizes the need to fulfill the “public’s expectations of an appealing landscape,” whether it be those of culture, the academic institution, students, faculty, or visitors. If these groups are not satisfied—at least to a certain degree—then they will simply find an institution that will satisfy their expectations. However, it is the designer’s role to maintain an appropriate, necessary balance between the public’s expectations and the ecological needs of the campus landscape. Those consuming campus landscapes expect and appreciate naturalistic, ecologically sustainable environments, but it is the designer’s responsibility to offer these environments in innovative ways that are appropriate for the physical landscape in addition to people’s expectations.

2.6.2.5 Meaningful Places & Placemaking

Kenney, Dumont, and Kenney place great importance on the act of making physical decisions about a place (called placemaking)—especially when that place is a campus and its environs—and propose that the decisions that college administrators and designers make relative to these places have great potential to transform challenging situations into campus-wide opportunities (3). This is implicated in the fact that in a majority of instances, the physical aspects of a college campus will reflect the overarching problems that the institution faces, and makes it all the more important to make wise decisions relative to how the campus landscape manifests itself (4). “Campuses need ‘meaningful places’—places that actually feel like the idea of the institution to students, faculty, and visitors” (6). The authors continue by insisting that “a memorable campus with unique, inviting spaces strengthens the institution by deepening the ways in which people experience it. The meaningful places on campus enhance a student’s college experience from everyday experiences to once-in-a-lifetime events” (74, emphasis added). “People want to be in places that feel good to them. They prefer nicely appointed places with beautiful views rather than adequate but uninteresting places. … The goal is to use the campus’s entire physical environment—its neighborhood, buildings and landscape, paths and roadways, parking lots, fountains, and bell-towers—to promote institutional goals.” In this way, the campus landscape may reflect the geography of the heart (Kenney et al. 5). In the foreword to Creating Campus Community, Parker J. Palmer adds:

Berry || 30

I believe that soul work, rightly understood, is higher education’s proper domain, and if we fail to make room for it, we fail to educate in any meaningful sense of the term. Indeed, I believe that all education is a process of forming or deforming the human soul—whether or not we understand, acknowledge, or embrace that fact. The only question is whether we will be thoughtful about that process and try to direct it toward the best possible ends. (xi)

“Places, like people, touch our lives more than we know… Whether grand or humble, the best architecture [or landscape architecture] defines a place that holds deep emotion for those whose lives the place has touched” (Odom 88, emphasis added). The same holds true of the campus landscape if its spaces are thoughtfully designed for standing still, for moving, and for gathering; for seeing, smelling, touching, hearing, and tasting; and for an individual to grasp a broader, more holistic understanding of the world of which they are part. The acts of coming, of going, and of being somewhere allow students to build places out of the spaces that have been provided. Once a student builds places that they cherish within the campus landscape, he or she is free to develop strong, lasting memories based on the experiences they have had because of those significant actions. The actions of coming, of going, and of being somewhere—made possible because spaces have been appropriately designed to enable them—often lead to the development of special, personal experiences as well as social traditions for the student community as a whole (Kenney et al. 74-75). These physical experiences—which may be understood as personal interactions and relationships with the places that students build—enable the attribution of meaning and memory to spaces within the campus landscape. It is this meaning and memory which will ideally become indelibly written into the mental texture and constitution of the student for the rest of his or her life, helping to more fully sculpt and enrich their understanding of the world.

2.6.2.6 Subconscious Landscapes of the Heart

Before working on a community development project in the island town of Manteo, North Carolina, landscape architect Randy Hester had already concluded—based on personal research regarding previous work—“that unconscious attachment to place might be a powerful factor in community planning” (11). At Manteo, he quickly found that his conclusion was correct, and eventually developed a term for the places that a community values and cherishes, but may not consciously acknowledge to those making design decisions for that community’s landscapes. He termed them sacred places, which are “those places—buildings, outdoor spaces, and landscapes—that exemplify, typify, reinforce, and perhaps even extol the everyday life patterns and special rituals of community life, places that have become so essential to the lives of the residents through use or symbolism that the community collectively identifies with the places.” Hester continues by saying that these “places become synonymous with residents’ concepts and use of their town. The loss of such places would reorder or destroy something or some social process familiar to the community’s collective being” (15). He describes the agglomeration of such sacred places as a sacred structure, which is essentially the full network of sacred places that a community holds dear. The community’s greatest collective values, perceptions, preferences, and traditions are upheld by this sacred structure, even though this may not be implicit to the community members themselves. “Daily ritual had place specificity,” Hester says, “and

Berry || 31

the cultural dependence on places seemed” widespread. In essence, Hester infers that people’s lifestyles and their encompassing landscape are deeply intertwined (12).

Perhaps the discovery most pertinent to this study is that sacred places are not always historic, high importance spaces, but are typically the spaces that are used by people on a day-to-day basis. Sacred places are often spaces that are inconspicuous and perhaps even insignificant to the untrained observer, but after fully understanding the daily routines and rituals of a community, one realizes the critical significance that these places have in the structure of the community. People within the community attribute personal meaning and memory to these spaces, through actions and activities that may certainly be designed for, but that often are not, and are merely the result of individuals and small groups making the space become what they desire it to be. In these instances of missed design opportunities and lack of acknowledgement of community needs and values, the consumer of a space actually becomes the producer of the space, in order to make places of their own. This occurs frequently within the campus landscape, as students seek either quicker routes or more desirable routes than those that were designed and installed by typical producers, and ‘cow paths’ form. This is just one example, but is a fairly common representation of missed design opportunities, or simply poor design.

Hester’s terms sacred place and sacred structure are useful metaphors for a community’s relationships with their environment. Both terms appropriately appraise a space or collection of spaces in terms of internal, heart-felt values that physical appraisals of space cannot measure. The ability to measure the unconscious sacredness of a space truly is a powerful factor when making design and planning decisions (Hester 11). However, there is a more potent significance yet to be grasped. Sacred structures—or more appropriately, subconscious landscapes of the heart—are the subconscious, collective product of being in relationship with a space. To be in relationship with a space requires first and foremost an incipient understanding of a space. Once a space is understood (coherently and legibly, as Kaplan and Kaplan suggest; reference “Preference Theory” section later in this chapter), it may be holistically internalized. This is a mental process which encompasses the totality of a person’s emotional and intellectual responses to external reality (Merriam-Webster.com, “mental”). It is during this process of mental internalization that the external landscape that a person experiences physically becomes a subconscious landscape of the heart.

2.6.3 Cultural InfluenceAs has already been discussed, there is a unique collegiate ideal to which many—if not most—American colleges have adhered since the seventeenth century. As Turner states, “The American campus, from the beginning, has been shaped less by European precedents than by the social, economic, and cultural forces around it. As a result, it has been the laboratory for perhaps the most distinctively American experiments in architectural planning." (Turner 6) The campus landscapes of American colleges have typically been designed to satisfy the unique set of beliefs and purposes within the American ideal that the culture advocates. For instance, there is a "romantic notion of a college in nature, removed from the corrupting forces of the city" which encapsulates this American ideal (Turner 4). "The idea of using the physical campus as a means for fostering a sense of community” was the focus of American colleges, which were being built in the countryside during the early stages of American colonization. "Thinking about a campus as a village adds to the idea of it being a unified community,

Berry || 32

where different people with varying ideas live together in a common environment for a common purpose" (Hough 9). Due to this cultural ideal of placing colleges in the countryside or wilderness, "the college had to become even more fully a kind of miniature city. And its design became an experiment in urbanism" (Turner 4). Because of these unique cultural influences, the campus landscape became more than just an aggregation of academic functions, but became a physical metaphor and functional extension of town squares and plazas, village greens, and public parks.

Nevertheless, cultural ideals are always evolving, and many facets of American society related to higher education have changed dramatically during this time period, including learning and teaching methods; student demographics (age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.); technological advancements used to learn and to engage with the college community, including extensive use of the Internet for online colleges, degrees, and courses; and general cultural attitudes toward and desires for certain types of education. These changes in cultural ideals, and certainly others not mentioned here have a tremendous effect on how the campus landscape becomes manifested for those existing within the campus. The ‘original’ American collegiate ideal has held firm at many institutions—at least ideologically—despite many of these changes. This is important to note—that even though cultural practices, ideals, and needs have changed significantly (particularly since the beginning of the twentieth century), the American ideal for the collegiate experience largely has not. Some designers, such as Turner, believe that “despite its continuity over the centuries, the American campus has experienced major changes in its form which reflect not only evolving notions of architectural planning but changing educational and social principles as well” (Turner 4). Even if Turner is correct in this, there is evidence of a need to augment the historic American collegiate ideal to accommodate these evolved ideals and principles within the campus landscape.

2.6.4 Academic InstitutionsAlthough ideologically tied very closely to the culture which sustains them, the leadership of an academic institution ultimately holds sway over most decisions regarding the campus landscape. Through implementation of institutional budgets, direction over physical grounds and maintenance divisions, and determination of future landscape development within campus landscape master plans, academic institutions have the final word on how the campus landscape mission becomes reified—or fails to do so—within the campus landscape.

2.6.4.1 Campus Landscape Master Plans

The campus landscape master plan is perhaps the most influential institutional instrument, and provides a structure by which the institution may formulate decisions regarding its campus. Master plans provide short- and long-range guidance for the design, construction, and development of the college campus, and specifically the campus landscape. Oklahoma State University’s 1999 Campus Landscape Master Plan provides a good overview of some of the focal points and attitudes of the university, which correspond to the campus landscape mission principles discussed earlier in this chapter. This campus landscape master plan is broken down here to serve as an example of how plans may be utilized to address this mission (note – a 2011 plan

Berry || 33

has been released by Oklahoma State University since this portion of the study was conducted, and at the time of this writing, may also be accessed through the weblink listed in the references section of this study):

It begins by stating its intention to “be utilized to direct and guide future - campus beautification, building, construction, and landscaping projects” and to provide a “framework to ensure synthesis of the extant [features and facilities] with proposed or anticipated projects” (1.2).

It focuses on underscoring the civic role of the campus and “its spatial - relationship to the surrounding community” (1.2).

It strives to “achieve a more beautiful, cohesive and interpretable campus,” - with the hope that once its recommendations are completed, the result will be an “improved visual appeal, appearance and functionality of the campus at large” (1.2).

The plan expresses the belief that “a campus displaying exceptional quality - in its architecture, landscaping, artful building placement, and open space arrangements is appealing to potential students and visitors. Selection of an institution for higher learning is often strongly based upon its appearance. The image and perception of the University as collegiate standard-bearer can be enhanced as the campus is perceived as a place where dreams can become reality” (1.2).

It strives “to maximize the sense of collegiality and to enhance the visual - quality of the campus, [in order to] contribute to fulfilling not only the mission of this Campus Landscape Master Plan, but the University as a whole” (1.2).

The plan’s - mission statement (2.1): “The campus is a valuable asset for Oklahoma State University and an important part of the University's heritage. The unity of building design and materials; the careful arrangement of buildings and the spaces between them; the appropriate choice and placement of plant material; the composition of streets, walks, pathways, plazas, lighting and signage; the appropriate location of drives, parking and service areas; the logical and orderly layout of utility services and how the campus interfaces with the city all function together as elements of the campus. The thoughtful development and management of these elements of the campus provide the University with a safe, accessible, liveable and sustainable environment that encourages social interaction and exchange of ideas, respects the historical perspective in the quest for knowledge and creates a strong sense of place and identity, with a visual image that instills pride and supports and enhances the goals, mission and activities of the University.”

The plan’s specific - goals & objectives (3.1):

Create a visitor friendly campus-

Define campus edges-

Encourage social interaction within the campus-

Enhance the campus image with landscape plantings-

Berry || 34

Minimize the impact of vehicles on campus core-

Enhance campus safety-

The aspects of the campus landscape master plan above illustrate the depth of consideration and detail that institutions are capable of seeking for their campus landscape. The campus landscape master plan—like the one just outlined—should appropriately address the three fundamental principles of campus landscape mission: collision, community, and citizenship.

2.6.4.2 Landscape Design Guidelines

More specific than campus landscape master plans, landscape design guidelines offer specific criteria and direction for maintaining and developing spaces within the campus landscape. These are similar in nature to part of Alexander’s proposal in The Oregon Experiment, offering textual and visual recommendations (based on intentional, site-specific research and analysis) for design efforts within the campus landscape. While landscape design guidelines have been established at many institutions, there are many institutions which could certainly benefit from the establishment of such guidelines for the future design and development of their campus landscape.

One such institution is Duke University, which has multiple landscape guidelines specific to designated areas within its campus. These guidelines consist of four components: a definition and description of the general design strategy; recommendations for future fulfillment of the strategy; guidelines for implementing the strategy; and visual examples of ideal and poor conditions to strive for or avoid, respectively (reference Appendix E for examples of these design guidelines) (Pearce et al.). Landscape design guidelines such as these help an institution offer consistent and legible campus landscape spaces to students (and others), allowing them to easily interact and form connections with the landscape, leading to meaningful and memorable collegiate experiences.

2.6.5 Student Input in the Production ProcessNevertheless, there is one voice that is all-too-often left out of the campus landscape master planning process—the student voice. Committees and focus groups who determine the final product of such campus landscape master plans typically do not include students (at least placed in any significant roles), and rarely do they ask students for their needs and values as they relate to the campus landscape. In one campus plan reviewed for this study, a survey was sent out to garner in-depth feedback on how the plan should affect the character of the campus landscape. Students were completely left out of the survey process. To be fair, there are established approaches for campus landscape design (discussed earlier in this section) that have proven successful over time, the knowledge of which most students will not be aware. Regardless, as mentioned earlier, attitudes and values change regarding higher education, and this fact should not be lost on the campus landscape. If student attitudes are left out of the landscape production process, the satisfaction of those consuming the landscape will most assuredly suffer as a result. Students, as the primary participants in and consumers of the campus landscape, must be given a voice in the process of producing

Berry || 35

it. Some of the research and studies that have included students will be discussed in the next section.

2.7 The Consumption of Campus Landscape

2.7.1 Overview – Understanding the Student PerspectiveThis section provides a summary of some existing research which attempts to understand the mindset of students as they experience the campus landscape. The section begins by taking a look at a contribution from the discipline of environmental psychology, followed by two studies which focus on determining student’s preferences and desires for campus landscape spaces (within two specific college campuses, but which are relevant to campus landscapes at large).

2.7.1.1 Preference Theory

Within the field of environmental psychology, yet following the pattern language methodology of Christopher Alexander, Stephen and Rachel Kaplan (professors at the University of Michigan) along with Robert L. Ryan used an extensive amount of research to propose a list of patterns to be used to design and manage areas of everyday nature in their book With People in Mind (1998). Much of the research was conducted by Kaplan and Kaplan, their students, and colleagues, and they pay special attention to the relationships between nature and people, and how these relationships can benefit people psychologically, physically, and emotionally. It is especially useful to designers of the campus landscape as many of the patterns may be specifically utilized with students in mind, owing much to the fact that the primary focus of the book holds special implications in an educational campus setting. Of great potential use is their proposed preference matrix, which helps determine preferences of those using a particular space, and may be used with great success in the design of campus landscapes (Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan).

Preference Matrix Understanding Exploration2-D Coherence Complexity3-D Legibility Mystery

The work by Kaplan and Kaplan extends much further beyond this book, however. For example:

Professors Steve and Rachel Kaplan have done extensive research on the effect of the natural environment on humans. They said that while color is attractive, what the mind really responds to is the presence of trees. By studying public housing in Chicago, the Kaplans found that residents who had trees visible from their windows showed a higher capacity to make long-term goals and greater civility than residents who did not have visible trees. They also found that students

Berry || 36

suffering from mental fatigue felt better after taking a walk outside, stating that these students reported much more energy after taking a study break to stroll around outside than they did after taking a study break to watch television.” (Jones)

“‘It’s easy to lose track of how important the trees are,’ Steve Kaplan said [in an interview]. ‘And you would think since there’s a lot of mental fatigue at a university, it would be a high priority for things that include trees, and it’s not clear that that’s the case’” (Jones). Students may not consciously realize that they are being influenced or affected by the campus landscape, and particularly the natural elements within it. However, they are still influenced, and that fact is something designers must take into account when making decisions about the campus landscape.

What is important to this study is the understanding that the natural environment has measurable, positive influences on people (and thus students), psychologically. As Kaplan and Kaplan suggest, it is imperative that the campus landscape offer an environment that not only contains these beneficial, naturalistic qualities, but that it provides them in such a way that people will prefer them. If students prefer the spaces within the campus landscape, they will enjoy them more frequently, leading to a better overall quality of his or her collegiate experience.

2.7.1.2 Outdoor Spaces for Living and Learning

In their 1986 article Outdoor Spaces for Living and Learning (reference Appendix F), Clare Cooper Marcus and Trudy Wischemann address the critical need for college campuses to merge architecture and landscape in useful, effective, and meaningful ways. They establish a series of spatial types for the campus landscape based on a 1981 study of the campus at the University of California-Berkeley. These include:

Home Base-

Front Yards-

Backyards-

Common Turf-

Favorite Spaces-

Outdoor Study Areas-

For each of these unique spatial types, Marcus and Wischemann propose that campus designers should consider the basics of student behavior and comfort when designing spaces within the campus landscape. They believe that too often, campus designers (here, landscape architects specifically) are brought into the campus design process too late, leaving the ‘leftover’ spaces for campus landscape. Marcus and Wischemann believe that if campus designers skilled in the design of campus landscape are brought into the design process from the outset, the outdoor experience for students will be enhanced for study, relaxation, contemplation, socializing and entertainment (61).

Berry || 37

2.7.1.3 People Spaces and Campus Places

This in-depth senior thesis project (developed by Jan Marie Fitzurka at the University of Florida in 1989) focuses on ways to reinforce the belief that “outdoor spaces on the University of Florida campus should have a positive impact on all users of the university; students, faculty and staff” (Fitzurka 2). It includes an analysis of the university’s open spaces, a study model of Turlington Hall Plaza, proposes general and specific design guidelines, and explains how the findings might be utilized.

Fitzurka’s sections on defining campus spaces, specific outdoor use areas, and guidelines for outdoor spaces are solid resources for campus design, and offer a basis from which one may pursue specific design needs in a project. Her attention to referencing appropriate and relevant works is quite useful for conducting additional research.

Of particular relevance to this study is the questionnaire Fitzurka conducted in order to garner opinions from all users of campus outdoor spaces (although a large majority of the responses were from students). This helped determine what they “like and dislike most in their outdoor campus environment” (65). This survey posed some excellent questions to respondents, and provided findings in three ways. First, she provided a summary of all responses, broken down first by gender and then by either percentage or highest returned answers, depending on the type of question. Second, she provided a list of written conclusions based on significant statistical findings, important written responses, and other logical inferences made from the data. Finally, a graph visually depicts which spaces were respondents’ favorites, as well as the reasons why these spaces were important to respondents. The general format was referenced for this study as a basis from which a new questionnaire could be constructed. The results are quite useful for understanding student preferences and values, and may be referenced in full in Appendix G.

Of significance from Fitzurka’s analysis is that students strongly desire spaces that physically accommodate themselves as well as the various uses for which they need the space (studying, relaxation, socialization, etc.). Students also desired that the campus landscape helped to control the microclimate of the area, in order to alleviate some of the climate extremes that are otherwise present (in this case located in Florida, students overwhelmingly desired shade to protect from bright sunlight and intense heat). Furthermore, students desired lively spaces with activities, events, and people, as well as spaces that are more quiet and contemplative in character for individual use. Naturalistic, ecologically-sensitive areas were also quite popular and desired according to her analysis of responses. Each of these primary conclusions are also discussed in greater detail within Chapter 5, as similar findings were identified in the student questionnaire prepared for this study.

Berry || 38

Berry || 39

Chapter 3 – Student Questionnaire: Methodology

3.1 Purpose of Student QuestionnaireSince a major goal of this research project is to address how college campus landscapes may be designed to enhance the contemporary student's collegiate experience, the research under consideration should necessarily include input from students. This type of input is often garnered by means of a questionnaire (sometimes called a survey). According to McDaniel and Gates, a questionnaire is “a set of questions designed to generate the data necessary to accomplish the objectives of the research project” (286). The questionnaire approach provides structure and order to the way in which data is collected, and allows the researcher to learn descriptive, and sometimes causal values held by the respondents. The questionnaire approach typically allows for quicker analysis of larger pools of data than other approaches, such as self-administered interviews. Due to these benefits, a questionnaire approach will be utilized in this project to help determine students’ needs and values as they relate to the college campus landscape. The data will be analyzed and subsequently juxtaposed with the findings of the literature review to determine overlapping areas of significance with traditional theories and methodologies regarding the design of college campus landscapes, as well as to determine potentially significant areas for students that have not yet been widely accepted by those making design decisions.

3.2 Development ProcessThe questionnaire utilized in this project was developed and analyzed using the basic principles found in Marketing Research Essentials by Carl McDaniel and Roger Gates. In their chapter “Questionnaire Design,” the authors lay out a sequential (yet sometimes circular) process of developing a questionnaire (284-322). The ten steps of this process are outlined here, with commentary on how they were utilized in the development of the student questionnaire used in this project.

3.2.1 Criteria for a good questionnaireIn order for a questionnaire to garner information appropriate for the research project, there are three primary questions one must ask throughout the development process:

Does it provide the necessary decision-making information?- - The questionnaire’s primary purpose is to provide important insights and decision-making information to the researcher, and thus must be developed in order to garner responses toward this end (McDaniel and Gates 287).

Berry || 40

Does it consider the respondent?- - The questionnaire must be appropriately and explicitly designed for the target respondent type. This includes considering the topics discussed; managing the length of individual questions, a s well as overall questionnaire length; considering the interview environment; and removing confusing jargon and terminology that respondents may misunderstand. Typically, using simple, everyday language—without sounding insulting or demeaning—is often the best means of communicating intent to the respondent. “Respondents will answer somewhat longer questionnaires when they are interested in the topic and when they perceive that they will have little difficulty in responding to the questions” (McDaniel and Gates 287-288).

Does it meet editing, coding, and data processing requirements?- - The questionnaire must be developed so that it will be easy to check for errors, fix errors if they exist, check for completeness, and process the raw data into meaningful information (McDaniel and Gates 288, 291).

These three guiding questions may seem rudimentary, but were nonetheless indispensable throughout the entire questionnaire development process; they were essentially used as overarching guidelines as each step of the following processes was completed. All components of the questionnaire must meet these three criteria, or else responses will be limited in number, of poor quality, or of little value for analysis.

3.2.2 Step 1: Determine survey objectives, resources, and constraintsAs mentioned previously, a questionnaire is typically needed when new information is required; thus, it is important to first evaluate all secondary sources to make certain that the needed information is not already available. All parties involved in the project—in this case, the researcher and supervising committee members—should help determine which data is needed and what objectives should be established to garner this data. Objectives should be clear and concise to allow the rest of the questionnaire development process to flow smoothly and efficiently (McDaniel and Gates 293).

From the research conducted for this study, it was determined that student input has traditionally been left out of the campus landscape design process, and that very few studies have been conducted to determine students’ preferences regarding this important aspect of the college campus. Furthermore, some of the most useful studies were conducted over two decades ago, and while still greatly useful, do not necessarily reflect contemporary student’s needs and values and certainly cannot account for many of the changes in higher education since they were completed. The overriding objective was to determine if the three principles of campus landscape mission (collision, community, citizenship) are reflective of what contemporary students desire from the campus landscape to enhance their collegiate experience. These three principles provided the framework around which a majority of the questions were developed, in order to determine how strongly students agreed, disagreed, or felt indifferent towards each principle. Additionally, other questions (many of the open-ended questions) were developed to identify any additional needs and values that students still have for the campus landscape.

Berry || 41

3.2.3 Step 2: Determine the data-collection methodVarious methods of administering questionnaires exist, and should be evaluated for use on a case-by-case basis. Questionnaires may be administered via Internet, e-mail, mail, telephone, or in person. Each of these carry strengths and weaknesses of their own and should be used if the research will most benefit from that method (McDaniel and Gates 293). For this project, a questionnaire design website (Kwik Surveys) was selected to take advantage of several inherent benefits:

Flexibility and full control over questionnaire format and editing-

Automatic data collection, data analysis, and results reporting-

Virtually no time or location constraints-

No need for software, programming knowledge, or questionnaire - administration

Ability to view results in real-time from any web browser-

No financial costs for design, distribution, or analysis-

Ease of respondent’s input-

3.2.4 Step 3: Determine the question response formatAll three of these question types are utilized in this project in order to receive a diverse set of feedback, to keep the responses in-line with the questionnaire’s objectives, and to keep respondents on-track as they navigate the questionnaire:

Closed-ended questions- – These allow the respondent to choose from two or more provided answer choices, removing some of the ambiguity inherent in open-ended questions. These responses make it easy to quickly review and analyze results, as answer choices are pre-determined. Closed-ended questions are either dichotomous (two answer choices) or multiple-choice (multi-item response option) (McDaniel and Gates 297).

This question format proved extremely useful where simple, specific, and concise responses were required. Closed-ended questions allow the respondent to answer a question relatively quickly, and thus allows more questions to be included in the questionnaire without taking too much of the respondent’s time, which is of particular importance with student respondents.

Scaled-response questions- – These allow the researcher to gauge a respondent’s intensity of feeling relative to a given topic. This can be much more helpful and insightful to the researcher than a dichotomous close-ended question for instance, but care must be taken to ensure the respondent understands the scale being used (McDaniel and Gates 299-300).

This question format was helpful to gauge exactly how strongly each respondent felt about a particular issue. This allowed value judgments to be

Berry || 42

made by the researcher that would not be possible using normal close-ended questions, yet avoided the potential wide field of responses that an open-ended question typically receives.

Open-ended questions- – These allow the respondent to answer a question freely, in his or her own words. The respondent is not confined to a set of answer choices, but rather may be encouraged to offer further insight into a topic. It is important to word open-ended questions carefully to ensure relevant, clear responses are received that are useful to the questionnaire objectives (McDaniel and Gates 293).

The open-ended question format proved extremely helpful to identify students’ needs and values that had not already been strongly acknowledged in the literature review, and particularly in the campus landscape mission. It also served to strongly affirm those which had already been identified in the literature, and perhaps to identify new aspects of certain issues which have surfaced in recent years. When exact responses, or a specific set of responses are not (or cannot be) pre-determined, meticulously-worded open-ended questions allow for thoughtful and reflective responses offering the most depth of all question formats.

Unfortunately, open-ended questions are also the most difficult and time-consuming to analyze, as each must be appropriately coded to be subsequently analyzed for significance. This is particularly why wording is so critical to the successful utilization of this question format, because even somewhat poor wording can result in numerous, yet quite useless responses. These questions also typically take the longest time to answer, and thus should be used sparingly (few total of this question type, and spread out throughout the questionnaire as much as is practicable)

3.2.5 Step 4: Decide on the question wordingSeveral guidelines were followed during question development in order to help respondents provide intelligent, useful, honest answers during the questionnaire (McDaniel and Gates 300):

Make sure the wording is clear-

Avoid biasing the respondent-

Consider the respondent’s willingness to answer the questions-

Consider the respondent’s ability to answer the questions-

As the respondents for this questionnaire were college undergraduates, it was important to try and understand their mindset , in order to help them quickly and easily comprehend questions representing complex fields of research and practice. Wordy questions, imprecise language, professional jargon, and wording that leads the respondent toward specific ends can result in poor response numbers and inaccurate data.

Berry || 43

3.2.6 Step 5: Establish questionnaire flow and layoutWhile not all of the following guidelines were utilized in this project’s questionnaire, they represent excellent general advice that should be followed when possible. Each of these allows the respondent to better comprehend the questionnaire, more readily answer the questions posed, and provide more carefully thought out and detailed answers (McDaniel and Gates 303-304, 307):

Use screening questions to identify qualified respondents-

Begin with a question that gets the respondent’s interest and is non-- threatening

Ask general questions first-

Ask questions that require “work” in the middle-

Insert “prompters” at strategic points-

Position sensitive, threatening, and demographic questions at the end-

Allow plenty of space for open-ended response-

Put instructions in capital letters-

Use a proper introduction and closing-

Each group of questions utilized in this questionnaire is discussed and explained below, in the order they were presented in the final draft. In general, each group contains mostly closed-ended and scaled-response questions with one or two open-response questions, so that respondents do not feel overwhelmed by numerous open-ended questions, nor feel bored by repetitive close-ended responses. The full questionnaire may be referenced in Appendix A.

3.2.6.1 Section I: General Questions | 1–5

These questions are simple and quick to answer, which ‘warms up’ the respondents to answer more difficult questions later. These questions include consenting to participate in the study, as well as general questions such as gender, years completed at UF, major, and current living situation. A question regarding ethnicity was included in preliminary drafts, but due to the highly sensitive nature of this question and its general irrelevance when using a nonprobability sample as this questionnaire did, it was ultimately excluded in the final draft.

3.2.6.2 Section II: Aesthetics / Initial Impressions | 6–10

These questions are grouped together toward the beginning because they are relatively easy to answer, yet urge the student to begin thinking about their collegiate

Berry || 44

experiences up to this point while at UF. They also all relate to issues of aesthetic preference, aesthetic experience within the campus environment, and initial impressions of campus visits, which once again evokes the student’s specific memories of the campus landscape.

3.2.6.3 Section III: Study Habits | 11–15

As academic study is a primary component of collegiate life, these questions attempt to gauge the amount of time that students currently spend in the campus landscape for study purposes compared with total time spent studying, the level to which they desire to use the campus landscape for study purposes, and what might encourage them to more frequently use the campus landscape during study. These questions also attempt to gauge how much students value spending time alone or in small groups within the campus landscape, and what types of spaces might encourage this type of behavior.

This grouping represents the first of several sections using similar structure (Sections III, IV, and V), which seems fairly successful and useful upon analysis. Each begins with two questions to establish relative levels of use for different uses within the campus landscape, and ends with questions serving to establish value judgments regarding these different uses. Section IV does so with one, two-part question due to the general nature of community, which could have multiple meanings. It is left open-ended to allow for identification of certain types of campus community that contemporary students find relevant.

3.2.6.4 Section IV: Non-Academic Activities / Community | 16–18

These questions attempt to gauge similar responses as the questions in Section III, except regarding non-academic activities. These questions certainly speak to individual activities, but also begin to delve into the student’s experiences with others while within the campus landscape. The third and final question in this group asks directly about the student’s experience relative to campus communities, and asks for elaboration on this topic, partly to further open up the student to more personal questions about their experiences within the campus landscape.

3.2.6.5 Section V: Community & Citizenship – Events | 19–23

This grouping of questions speaks to the proposed principles of community and citizenship, as they all relate to students’ behaviors regarding events held within the campus landscape. Structured identically to the questions in Section III, this section seeks to gauge the importance of campus events in the collegiate life of students, to determine whether or not the campus landscape played a significant role in attendance behaviors, and to establish value judgments based on how strong a role community and citizenship—in the form of campus events—seemed to play in students’ collegiate experience.

Berry || 45

3.2.6.6 Section VI: Favorite Spaces / Collision | 24–29

This group of questions covers a wide range of more personal, value-based issues relative to the student’s collegiate experience within the campus landscape. This section begins by asking students to list their top three favorite spaces, and the rationale behind their most favorite space. This is one of the most important sets of questions, and is listed here as students have been mentally positioned to answer this type of question thoughtfully and appropriately. The question that follows deals with the student’s connection to the natural environment, and is the only question to do so as this was not initially determined as a primary function or mission principle for the campus landscape; however, as campus landscapes obviously deal with natural spaces, vegetation, and green space, this question briefly gauges how much students value deeper connections with ‘nature,’ however they conceptualize it. The final set of three questions relates to those spaces where collisions have occurred or could occur, and students’ values relating to this mission principle. These final four questions provide somewhat of a brief mental break between the thought-provoking ‘favorite spaces’ questions and the final section, which consists of three open-ended, thought-intensive questions.

3.2.6.7 Section VII: Meaningful Spaces / Values | 30–32

This final grouping of questions is placed at the end of the questionnaire, as the previous questions help to fully position the student to answer these open-ended questions thoughtfully, after thinking through a variety of issues, memories, and experiences they have undergone while at UF. The first two questions are similar, as both ask which places within the campus landscape are most important to the student, although in slightly different ways. The first asks about which places the student considers ‘iconic,’ while the second asks which places the students considers ‘personally meaningful,’ and why. These were asked together to see if the set of iconic places at UF were the same, similar, or different than personally meaningful places. Students are asked to expound upon the second question in order to determine what spatial qualities enable students to label certain places as ‘meaningful,’ which is of primary importance due to findings in the literature. The final question is perhaps the most open-ended question in the entire questionnaire, asking what could be done to the campus landscape to enhance the student’s collegiate experience. This question is intentionally written in such a way that students feel allowed to answer freely based upon their personal feelings and experiences regarding the campus landscape at UF, but once again, located at the end so that the students are appropriately positioned to provide significant responses for the purposes of the study. The answers to these questions are also analyzed relative to Questions 24 and 25, which deal with students’ ‘favorite spaces,’ in order to determine any similarities between student needs and values regarding significant spaces within the campus landscape.

3.2.7 Step 6: Evaluate the questionnaireThis step of the questionnaire development process is for preliminary evaluation of a rough draft, and allows the researcher to make any necessary edits, alterations, or amendments as needed. The researcher should ask the following questions throughout this evaluation phase (McDaniel and Gates 308):

Berry || 46

Is the question necessary?-

Is the questionnaire too long?-

Will the questions provide the information needed to accomplish the research - objectives?

These questions were constantly asked at several points throughout the questionnaire, and proved beneficial to the overall flow and performance of the questionnaire. Several questions were omitted or altered to provide specific responses directly related to the intent of this study. Many questions might have provided interesting findings, but would not have been pertinent to the overall goals and objectives of the questionnaire or the study at large. Question format was highly regulated for time constraint purposes, to ensure that the time required to take the questionnaire did not take longer than 15-20 minutes (for the average student respondent), as lengths longer than this are typically not met favorably with student respondents. Shorter questionnaires with higher quality of responses are more valuable than asking many questions that do not provide sufficient depth for analysis, particularly when using a nonprobability sample.

3.2.8 Step 7: Obtain approval of all relevant partiesAfter the preliminary evaluation phase, it is important to distribute the first draft to all parties involved in the questionnaire development process in order for the researcher to receive and implement new information, requests, or concerns regarding the questionnaire. For this project, all three supervising committee members reviewed the first draft and offered comments, edits, and suggestions for final revisions (McDaniel and Gates 309).

Receiving additional input, advice, and suggestions is extremely important, particularly from those supervising a study such as this. One or two phases of evaluation proved most useful in developing a more pertinent, streamlined questionnaire, as multiple perspectives and points of view contribute to a better overall product. It is important to remember however, that at some point one must move forward to the final steps in the development process, so that pretesting and final revisions may occur and the questionnaire may be distributed. More than one or two main evaluation phases will most likely show little significant improvement in the overall quality of the questionnaire, and final development should commence.

3.2.9 Step 8: Pretest and revise After final approval by all involved, the questionnaire should be pretested with target respondents via the same method that will be used in the final questionnaire. Several issues should be checked for during this pretesting phase:

Misinterpretations by respondents-

Lack of continuity-

Poor skip patterns, if used-

Berry || 47

Non-useful or misunderstood responses-

General respondent reaction to the questionnaire-

After these (or potentially other) issues are checked for, any necessary changes should be made, additional pretesting should be conducted (if necessary), and final approval by involved parties should be obtained (McDaniel and Gates 309).

Pretesting proved to be one of the most significant steps in the development process, as only those taking the questionnaire in ‘live’ conditions and from a similar perspective as the target participants can offer the clearest feedback at this stage. For this questionnaire, several post-college adults and two undergraduate students from another university (with different majors/educational backgrounds) were asked to pretest this questionnaire. Particularly, the two undergraduate students were quite successful in identifying several issues listed above, and the necessary adjustments were subsequently made. Also, one of the post-college adults had experience in marketing, public relations, and communications, and offered invaluable suggestions for the final draft of the questionnaire. It is the researcher’s suggestion that if possible, several target respondents as well as someone with experience in understanding and communicating with various publics should be consulted in the pretesting and final revision phase.

3.2.10 Step 9: Prepare final questionnaire copyDuring this phase, the researcher should conduct final proofreading, lay out question numbering, and prepare any final formatting of the questionnaire before releasing it to respondents (McDaniel and Gates 309-310).

3.2.11 Step 10: Implement the surveyAt this point in the questionnaire development process, the questionnaire is ready for release to target respondents. Any final instructions to those conducting the questionnaire should be prepared and provided (which was not applicable in this study, as it was implemented via the Internet) (McDaniel and Gates 310).

3.3 Sampling Method & ProceduresThere are two general types of sampling methods one may choose as recipients of a questionnaire: probability sampling and nonprobability sampling. Generally speaking, probability sampling allows the researcher to know the extent to which the sample is representative of the entire target population, to compute the sampling error, and to project results to the total target population within a specific level of certainty (McDaniel and Gates 334, 336). For this project, a nonprobability sampling method was chosen because its advantages and practicability (within an academic setting) merited its use over a probability sampling method. The disadvantages and advantages of nonprobability sampling methods—as compared with probability sampling methods—are listed here:

Berry || 48

3.3.1 Disadvantages of Nonprobability Samples:It cannot be known to what extent the sample is representative of the entire - target population

Sampling error cannot be computed-

Results cannot, with specific level of certainty, be projected to the total target - population (McDaniel and Gates 336)

3.3.2 Advantages of Nonprobability Samples:Low costs-

Samples typically may be gathered more quickly than probability samples-

Samples can be reasonably representative of the entire target population, if - collected in a careful and thorough manner

In situations where accuracy is not of critical importance (such as exploratory - research), nonprobability samples may be ideal (McDaniel and Gates 336)

There are four basic nonprobability sampling procedures one may choose from in selecting a sample; two of these were selected and combined to collect the sample for the questionnaire developed for this project:

3.3.3 Convenience SamplesA convenience sample is a type of nonprobability sample that is based on using people who are easily accessible. In certain situations, “convenience sampling may represent an efficient and effective means of obtaining the required information. This is particularly true in an exploratory situation, where there is a pressing need to get an inexpensive approximation of true value” (McDaniel and Gates 345).

3.3.4 Judgment SamplesA judgment sample is a type of nonprobability sample “in which the selection criteria are based on the researcher’s personal judgment about representativeness of the population under study.” The researcher essentially makes the educated assumption that a particular sample will constitute a reasonable representation of the target population as a whole (McDaniel and Gates 346).

3.3.5 Student Sample Used in this ProjectSince the primary objective of the questionnaire was to determine college students’ needs and values as they relate to the college campus landscape, it was appropriate

Berry || 49

to narrow down the target population to include only undergraduate students, as they not only make up the largest percentage of the student population but also tend to have more direct experiences with the campus landscape than graduate students (as many undergraduates live on campus, or have done so in the past). Furthermore, due to the nature of this project (limited time and financial resources, restricted access to students’ contact information, personal knowledge of and physical presence on the University of Florida campus, etc.), it was logical to narrow the population to undergraduate students currently attending the University of Florida during the spring 2012 semester. Particularly due to the restricted access to students’ contact information, a probability sample was not possible for utilization in this project. Thus, it was necessary to reach students by means of contacting professors, teaching assistants, faculty, and others within the University of Florida community and asking them to forward students an invitation to participate in the research via a weblink to the online questionnaire. In this way, students’ personal information was kept confidential, and several hundred undergraduate students became part of the convenience sample. It also became a judgment sample as the researcher sought to disperse the weblink to a variety of disciplines, departments, and colleges in an attempt to garner a diverse set of responses that would be more representative of the entire undergraduate student population at the University of Florida.

3.4 Data Analysis ProcedureIn order to produce the most accurate results from the questionnaire, certain steps must be taken to ensure that responses are analyzed in an appropriate manner. In their chapter “Data Processing, Fundamental Data Analysis, and the Statistical Testing of Differences,” McDaniel and Gates lay out a procedure for analyzing data from a variety of questionnaire formats (388-431). This procedure will be outlined here, with special emphasis on the aspects that will be utilized in the analysis phase of this project.

3.4.1 Step 1: Validation and editingThe validation and editing phase of data analysis is important to ensure that questions were answered in a manner that is acceptable for inclusion in the final analysis. Validation is the process of ascertaining that respondents followed the instructions as outlined in the questionnaire, and eliminates unacceptable or non-useful responses (McDaniel and Gates 390). Editing is the process of ascertaining that questionnaires were filled out properly and completely, while checking for and eliminating any mistakes. This includes making “judgment calls in regard to substandard responses to open-ended questions,” and discarding responses that are deemed too limited to be useful (McDaniel and Gates 391, 396). Most of the editing required in this phase involved responses to open-ended questions, as close-ended responses typically do not contain errors when using an online questionnaire format (and would otherwise be relatively difficult to determine, unless multiple responses contained identical responses that seem out of the ordinary). Minor editing such as spelling and grammatical corrections were also made where necessary (e.g. where open-ended responses are included in Chapter 4). Online questionnaires eliminate much of the typical hassle found in this step.

Berry || 50

3.4.2 Step 2: Coding (open-ended questions)Coding is the “process of grouping and assigning numeric codes to the various responses to a question.” While questionnaire design websites automatically code closed-ended questions, open-ended questions still require manual coding in order to make more useful analysis of this type of data. The process of coding responses to open-ended questions is as follows (McDaniel and Gates 396):

List all responses-

Consolidate responses into like categories-

Assign numeric codes to each newly defined category-

Enter codes in questionnaire database based on individual responses-

The coding process was utilized as stated above for Questions 8, 14, 18, 22, 24, and 30. A similar coding process, but with written summaries (instead of quantitative, numerical summaries) was utilized for Questions 25, 31, and 32. Keep in mind that coding requires extensive amounts of time to accomplish, so it is important to limit open-ended questions that require coding to only those that are truly pertinent and necessary for reaching the study’s goals and objectives.

3.4.3 Step 3: Data entryData entry is the “process of converting information to an electronic format” (McDaniel and Gates 399). Due to the inherent benefits of an online questionnaire, this step was unnecessary for the closed-ended questions used in this questionnaire. However, once the open-ended questions were coded, they required entry into an electronic format so that a frequency table could be developed and utilized in the data analysis process.

3.4.4 Step 4: Machine cleaning of dataMachine cleaning of data is the “final computerized error check of data” (McDaniel and Gates 401). Due to the inherent benefits of an online questionnaire, this step was unnecessary for this project.

3.4.5 Step 5: Tabulation and statistical analysisOne-way frequency tables – These are basic tabulations of data, in table format, that show the number of respondents (often by percentage) choosing each answer to a survey question. For this project, two somewhat different bases will be used for the percentages determined in each table: total respondents and number of people answering the question (as not every respondent answered every question) (McDaniel and Gates 403-404). One-way frequency tables will include open-ended questions after they have been appropriately coded. Frequency tables proved to be the most successful and easy-to-understand statistical analysis method for this questionnaire.

Berry || 51

Chapter 4 – Student Questionnaire: Results &

Analysis

4.1 IntroductionDoes the contemporary student desire that each component of their college’s institutional mission be fulfilled through the campus landscape? To what degree do the components of the campus landscape mission (collision, community, citizenship) harmonize with the desires and values of the students who exist within it? If there is harmony between institutional mission, campus landscape mission, and student values, does the contemporary student feel that their college’s campus landscape has succeeded? Perhaps in some ways and not in others? Perhaps not at all? Or, does the contemporary student hold entirely different values for the campus landscape than have already been mentioned?

This chapter provides the results and analysis of an undergraduate student questionnaire—conducted at the University of Florida—to begin answering these questions. To accomplish this, general statistics will be provided for each question asked, as well as more reflective, discerning analysis and conclusions where practicable. The intent of this questionnaire is to determine students’ needs and values as they relate to the college campus landscape. This will help answer the questions above; identify and confirm certain successful, relevant aspects of design methodologies already established; and identify potential areas of significance that may still be unacknowledged by campus designers, and yet could be critical for developing ever more successful and enriching collegiate landscapes for the students who exist within them.

4.1.1 NotesThis chapter cannot, practically, analyze all possible conclusions based on the results of this questionnaire. However, it does attempt to analyze and present the most pertinent conclusions possible as they relate to designing campus landscapes with the contemporary student in mind.

Several hundred undergraduate students were contacted regarding this questionnaire; forty questionnaires were submitted by students, though not all are complete.

Most results are shown as a one-way frequency table, where the response item represents an answer option for a question, the frequency represents the number of times a response item was given as an answer, and the percent represents the frequency of an answer divided by the total frequency (total number of responses) for that question. Other results are represented by selected open-ended responses that are typical of the full set of responses given. Open-ended responses may be edited for

Berry || 52

clarity, brevity, and spelling/grammatical errors, but have not been altered from their original meaning.

For a copy of the questionnaire that was distributed, please reference Appendix A. Appendix A also provides results in a summarized format for each question. For a tabulated version of the results, showing the complete set of responses for this questionnaire, please reference Appendix B.

4.2 Results & AnalysisThe following section outlines each of the thirty-two questions from the student questionnaire, given in the following format:

Question #-

Question asked-

Results of student responses-

Commentary and analysis by the author-

The questions are divided here into several sections to assist in understanding the role each set of questions plays in the overall purpose of this study.

4.2.1 Section I: General Questions | 1–5

Question 1

* Consent to participate in questionnaire

Question 2

What is your gender?

Response Item Frequency PercentFemale 24 61.54%Male 15 38.46%Total 39 100.00%

The majority of respondents were female.

Berry || 53

Question 3

How many years have you completed at the University of Florida?

Response Item Frequency Percent<1 7 17.95%1 10 25.64%2 11 28.21%3 5 12.82%4+ 6 15.38%Total 39 100.00%

Over 70% of respondents have completed 2 or less years at UF, which could limit their knowledge of spaces or number of experiences within the campus landscape.

Question 4

What is your major?

Response Item Frequency PercentAnthropology 4 10.81%Architecture 1 2.70%Biology 1 2.70%Civil Engineering 1 2.70%Classics 1 2.70%East Asian Languages and Literature 1 2.70%Food and Resource Economics 2 5.41%Food Animal Science 1 2.70%Health Science 1 2.70%Hospitality 1 2.70%Interior Design 1 2.70%Landscape Architecture 15 40.54%Math 1 2.70%Political Science 2 5.41%Pre-pharmacy 1 2.70%Religion 3 8.11%Total 37 100.00%

There is a fairly even distribution of majors represented in the student responses, which should offer a rather balanced overview of student values. Due to the ‘convenience sampling’ method partly used for this questionnaire, a disproportionately high number of respondents major in landscape architecture. While not allowing projections of conclusions upon larger student groups (statistically speaking), this does not necessarily affect the quality or accuracy of responses given, and thus all responses are given equal weight during analysis.

Berry || 54

Question 5

Do you currently live on campus?

Response Item Frequency PercentYes 11 28.21%No 28 71.79%Total 39 100.00%

The majority of responding students do not currently live on campus, which could have a significant effect upon the time each respondent spends within the campus landscape on a day-to-day basis. Nonetheless, this does not negate the possibility that those responding ‘no’ have lived on campus during a previous semester. Due to the potential significance and implications of the differences of time spent living on and off campus, a question ascertaining the total amount of time a student has lived on campus would have been an excellent addition to this questionnaire, and should be considered in future student questionnaires.

4.2.2 Section II: Aesthetics / Initial Impressions | 6–10

Question 6

How did you first visit UF's campus?

Response Item Frequency PercentOfficial UF Tour 10 26.32%Independent visit (non-tour)

12 31.58%

Shadowing a student 0 0.00%Visiting a friend 10 26.32%Other 6 15.79%Total 38 100.00%

Most respondents first experienced UF independently. Thus, the immediate imageability, legibility, and character of the campus landscape seems to be quite important (especially for student recruitment), as there typically may not be someone familiar with the campus to help orient or interpret during this initial experience.

Berry || 55

Question 7

Please rate your initial impression of the campus landscape.

Response Item Frequency PercentVery attractive 7 18.42%Attractive 19 50.00%Indifferent 9 23.68%Unattractive 2 5.26%Very unattractive 1 2.63%Total 38 100.00%

Almost 70% of respondents indicated that they felt the campus landscape was attractive or very attractive during their initial impression, almost 25% were indifferent; and just 8% felt it was unattractive or very unattractive. Reference Question 8 for possible rationale.

Question 8

Please describe your initial impression of the campus landscape.

* (negative impressions are listed in parentheses)

Response Item Frequency PercentVegetation, green, foliage 10 13.70%Live oaks, moss, North FL, oaks, magnolias,azaleas, Southern, sinkholes

9 12.33%

Brick buildings, authority, classic, university feel, collegiate feel, collegiate gothic

9 12.33%

Clean, well-tended 6 8.22%Natural settings, peaceful 5 6.85%Monotonous, boring, forgettable 5 6.85%Unplanned, disorganized, confusinf, disorienting 5 6.85%Accesible, organized, planned, uniformity 4 5.48%Beautiful, pretty 3 4.11%Litter, unmaintained 2 2.74%Modern buildings 2 2.74%Overwhelming, large campus 2 2.74%Lack of landscaping 2 2.74%Poorly lit 1 1.37%Pedestrian friendly 1 1.37%Openess 1 1.37%Good facilities 1 1.37%Athletic event 1 1.37%Not enough green 1 1.37%Lack of identity 1 1.37%Student union 1 1.37%Town feel 1 1.37%Total 73 100.00%

Berry || 56

Initial impressions appear to be largely based upon aesthetic responses to the campus landscape, and particularly upon uniformity of landscape character (green or filled with vegetation, North Florida / Southern character, similar materials / plant materials utilized, similar building types, etc.). Some of the highest frequency responses may also be understood as spatial characteristics or ‘feelings’ conveyed to the student (such as natural or peaceful, classic and collegiate, Southern, confusing or disorienting, etc.).

Question 9

How significantly did your initial impression of the campus landscape influence your decision to attend UF?

Response Item Frequency PercentVery Significant 3 7.89%Significant 15 39.47%Neutral 9 23.68%Insignificant 6 15.79%Very Insignificant 5 13.16%Total 38 100.00%

Slightly less than half of students (~47%) responded that their initial impression of the campus landscape had at least a significant influence on their decision to attend UF, while more than half (~53%) responded that it did not matter or was insignificant or very insignificant. Still, the ~47% ‘significant’ responses implies that initial impressions of the campus landscape are very important to most students’ decision-making process when selecting a college to attend, and special emphasis should be placed on designing a campus landscape that allows visitors to form unforgettable experiences (reference the positive and negative impressions listed in Question 8).

Question 10

Did your initial impression of the campus landscape influence your decision to attend UF instead of another institution?

Response Item Frequency PercentYes 6 16.22%No 31 83.78%Total 37 100.00%

Students’ initial impression of the campus landscape does not appear to be the sole or primary determining factor in choosing a college to attend for higher education, but does have an influential effect on some. Perhaps in future research, a series of influential factors could be included in order to allow students to ‘rank’ which factors influenced their college selection process, allowing relative importance to be placed on the influence of campus landscape in this process.

Berry || 57

4.2.3 Section III: Study Habits | 11–15

Question 11

In a typical week, how many hours do you spend studying?

Response Item Frequency Percent0-2 3 9.09%3-5 8 24.24%6-8 11 33.33%9-11 2 6.06%12+ 9 27.27%Total 33 100.00%

Question 12

In a typical week, how many hours do you spend studying outdoors on campus?

Response Item Frequency Percent0-2 22 66.67%3-5 10 30.30%6-8 0 0.00%9-11 1 3.03%12+ 0 0.00%Total 33 100.00%

Between Questions 11 and 12, it appears that students currently do not spend very much time studying within the campus landscape in general, and significantly less when compared with the total amount of time spent studying during a typical week. Reference Questions 13–15 for potential rationale and solutions for increasing desire to study within the campus landscape.

Question 13

Does the current campus landscape encourage you to study outdoors?

Response Item Frequency PercentYes 17 51.52%No 16 48.48%Total 33 100.00%

Neither of these responses was more popular than the other, signifying that, while there may be aspects of the campus landscape that some find attractive and accommodating, others either do not agree that such aspects exist currently, or have not yet found the spaces that would encourage them to spend more time studying outdoors.

Berry || 58

Question 14

What facilities or types of spaces would encourage you to study outdoors on campus more often?

Response Item Frequency PercentShade, coverage 15 28.30%Benches, picnic tables 10 18.87%Outlets for laptops etc. 6 11.32%Gardenlike areas 5 9.43%Openess 4 7.55%Water feature to cover noise 3 5.66%Privacy 2 3.77%None, preference to study indoors 2 3.77%Hammocks 2 3.77%Protection from wind 2 3.77%Cleaner, less litter 1 1.89%Better Wifi 1 1.89%Total 53 100.00%

This question and the next offer two of the clearest response groupings given in this questionnaire. Students overwhelmingly desire spaces for study that are designed with the local climate in mind, spaces that on UF’s campus would offer protection from direct sunlight (due to heat and excessive light), quick rain events, wind, etc. Students also require adequate environments for studying tasks and behaviors, such as well-placed and easy-to-use tables, benches, and other places to sit such as seatwalls. With the use of electronic devices such as laptops, cell phones, and tablets becoming standard practice among the vast majority of students, students demand work spaces that offer electrical outlets, ability to connect to Wi-Fi networks or LANs for Internet access, and of course the appropriate climate protection to keep these devices from being potentially damaged (by sunlight, rain, dust particles, etc.). [As an example of responding to this specific student need, in 2011 the University of Florida installed a solar-powered picnic table in Diamond Village that provides four standard electrical outlets, two USB outlets, and an LED light for night time use.] These factors appear to be requirements when it comes to allowing students the option of studying outdoors (or indoors, for that matter), and cannot continue to be neglected.

Other factors tend to focus on having an appropriate atmosphere for a study environment, such as adequate vegetation or garden areas, water features to conceal unwanted audial distractions, privacy, etc. These appear to have significance as well, but if the major set of factors is not met at the outset, then providing an appropriate study atmosphere might be a futile attempt to remedy the situation.

Berry || 59

Question 15

How likely are you to spend more time studying outdoors on campus if the facilities or types of spaces you listed above were implemented at UF?

Response Item Frequency PercentVery Likely 13 39.39%Likely 16 48.48%Neutral 2 6.06%Unlikely 0 0.00%Very Unlikely 2 6.06%Total 33 100.00%

Students overwhelmingly responded in the affirmative to this question, sending a clear message that if the right factors are met in the campus landscape, they would be quite likely to spend more time studying in the campus landscape.

4.2.4 Section IV: Non-Academic Activities / Community | 16–18

Question 16

In a typical week, how many hours are you engaged in non-academic activities on campus (sports/recreation/exercise, reading, visiting with friends and other social interaction, resting, tanning, etc.)?

Response Item Frequency Percent0-2 6 17.65%3-5 18 52.94%6-8 6 17.65%9-11 1 2.94%12+ 3 8.82%Total 34 100.00%

Question 17

In a typical week, how many hours are you engaged in non-academic activities outdoors on campus (sports/recreation/exercise, reading, visiting with friends and other social interaction, resting, sunbathing, etc.)?

Response Item Frequency Percent0-2 18 52.94%3-5 13 38.24%6-8 2 5.88%9-11 1 2.94%12+ 0 0.00%Total 34 100.00%

Berry || 60

Again, between Questions 16 and 17, it appears that students spend significantly less of their time engaged in non-academic activities within the campus landscape relative to their time spent indoors. While more time appears to be spent outdoors here than in study, over 90% of respondents state that they spend less than 5 hours in the campus landscape in a week’s time. The implication is that once again, non-academic and leisure activities are not accommodated or encouraged within the landscape, which does not allow students to engage the landscape itself, or to engage others within the college community while within the landscape.

Question 18

Are there spaces on campus in which you gather with others that make you feel part of a community?

Response Item Frequency PercentYes 25 73.53%No 9 26.47%Total 34 100.00%

18a – “Yes” response; which spaces?

Response Item Frequency PercentPlaza of the Americas 8 22.86%Reitz Union 4 11.43%Architecture Atrium 4 11.43%Architecture lawn 4 11.43%Turlington Plaza 3 8.57%Library West/ Keene-Flint Hall 3 8.57%Hub 3 8.57%Stadiums 2 5.71%Plazas/Enclosures 1 2.86%Lake Alice 1 2.86%Athletic fields 1 2.86%Broward Athletic Courts 1 2.86%Total 35 100.00%

18b – “No” response; why not?

Response Item Frequency PercentNot actively seeking community outdoors, enjoys personal time alone 3 50.00%Commuter- no extra fee time on campus to spend outdoors 2 33.33%Don't identify with any campus community 1 16.67%Total 6 100.00%

It seems apparent that most students do feel like there are spaces within the campus landscape that engender feelings of community, most of which are spaces directly adjacent to major campus student nodes. Areas such as the Plaza of the Americas, the Reitz Student Union (and surrounding areas), the Architecture Building atrium and lawn, Turlington Plaza, etc. (all of the top responses listed) are next to buildings that contain classrooms, areas to buy food and refreshments, and other areas that

Berry || 61

encourage students to gather. Due to this act of gathering, student traffic volumes are high in these areas, as well as the number of students engaging in various activities while within these spaces. There are clearly opportunities for connection and community in these spaces, as well as other stimuli to encourage students toward or into these spaces, and to remain there for extended periods of time.

Hindrances to community appear to be primarily either personality preferences or issues of campus access due to commute times.

4.2.5 Section V: Community & Citizenship – Events | 19–23

Question 19

How many events do you attend on campus in a typical month?

Response Item Frequency Percent0 5 14.71%1-3 22 64.71%4-6 2 5.88%7-9 3 8.82%10+ 2 5.88%Total 34 100.00%

Question 20

How many events do you attend outdoors on campus in a typical month?

Response Item Frequency Percent0 13 38.24%1-3 21 61.76%4-6 0 0.00%7-9 0 0.00%10+ 0 0.00%Total 34 100.00%

Between Questions 19 and 20, it is clear that students attend relatively few events on campus (the large majority attend between 0-3/month), and even less within the campus landscape. Since events can have the beneficial effect of establishing community and relationships with others, it is important to understand what might encourage more students to attend more events in general and within the landscape. Possible rationale for the current lack of event attendance as well as solutions for encouraging future event attendance are offered in Questions 21–23.

Berry || 62

Question 21

Does the current campus landscape encourage you to attend events outdoors?

Response Item Frequency PercentYes 20 60.61%No 13 39.39%Total 33 100.00%

About the same number of students who responded (in the previous question) that they attend at least 1 event in the campus landscape responded affirmatively here; the same is true of those responding that they do not attend events outdoors, responding negatively in this question. The real question here is this: If most respondents feel that the campus landscape currently encourages outdoor event attendance, why is attendance so low? Please reference Question 22 for possible rationale for this discrepancy.

Question 22

What facilities or types of spaces would encourage you to attend events outdoors on campus more often?

Response Item Frequency PercentSpaces protected from extreme climate conditions (hot, cold, sunlight, rain, etc.)

9 26.47%

Venues- spaces that accommodate lectures, musical events, comedians, movies, plays, etc.

8 23.53%

Lack of interesting programming/events/gatherings outdoors 5 14.71%Spaces that are wide and open, "natural" spaces, aestheically-pleasing

4 11.76%

None, indifferent, prefer indoors 4 11.76%Benches, seating areas, gathering spaces 2 5.88%Transition spaces from inside to outside 1 2.94%Water elements 1 2.94%Total 34 100.00%

Responses here are similar in fashion to those provided in Question 14—protection from extreme climate conditions is a requirement for attending events within the campus landscape; appropriate accommodations for events (such as venues that adequately serve a variety of event types) are also a must; and aesthetically-pleasing and/or ‘natural’ open spaces seem to be important here also, but only after the primary conditions are met.

Another common response was that there is currently a lack of interesting programming, and that if a greater number and greater variety of events/gatherings were offered, students would be more inclined (or at least have more opportunities) to attend events in general as well as in the campus landscape.

Berry || 63

Question 23

How likely are you to attend more events outdoors on campus if the facilities or types of spaces you listed above were implemented at UF?

Response Item Frequency PercentVery Likely 11 35.48%Likely 10 32.26%Neutral 9 29.03%Unlikely 0 0.00%Very Unlikely 1 3.23%Total 31 100.00%

Nearly 70% of students responded positively when asked if implementing their recommendations in Question 22 would encourage them to attend more events within the campus landscape, leading to the conclusion that by appropriately accommodating and programming outdoor events, it is likely that more students will attend. This would help instill a greater sense of campus community within the students who attend these outdoor events.

4.2.6 Section VI: Favorite Spaces / Collision | 24–29

Question 24

Please list your 3 favorite outdoor spaces on campus (not including stadiums). (please list in rank order)

Berry || 64

Response Item F #1 P #1 F #2 P #2 F #3 P #3 TOT F TOT PPlaza of the Americas 4 12.12% 10 32.26% 5 16.13% 19 20.00%Lake Alice 3 9.09% 1 3.23% 4 12.90% 8 8.42%Reitz lawn (Reitz Union North Lawn/ Green Banana)

1 3.03% 2 6.45% 5 16.13% 8 8.42%

Reitz Union amphitheater and pond

1 3.03% 3 9.68% 1 3.23% 5 5.26%

Fine Arts D table area/plaza/courtyard

2 6.06% 1 3.23% 1 3.23% 4 4.21%

Pugh Hall front courtyard 3 9.09% 0.00% 1 3.23% 4 4.21%Warrington College of Business courtyard/plaza

1 3.03% 1 3.23% 1 3.23% 3 3.16%

Architecture Lawn 1 3.03% 1 3.23% 1 3.23% 3 3.16%Architecture pond/sinkhole (benches)

1 3.03% 2 6.45% 0.00% 3 3.16%

Turlington Plaza 0.00% 3 9.68% 0.00% 3 3.16%Matherly Hall tables 1 3.03% 0.00% 1 3.23% 2 2.11%Bat House 2 6.06% 0.00% 0.00% 2 2.11%Murphree Hall residence area/commons/courtyard

2 6.06% 0.00% 0.00% 2 2.11%

Library West front lawn 0.00% 2 6.45% 0.00% 2 2.11%Physics Building front lawn (seatwall, view of sculpture)

0.00% 2 6.45% 0.00% 2 2.11%

Century Tower (surrounding areas/spaces/seatwalls)

0.00% 1 3.23% 1 3.23% 2 2.11%

Southwest recreation fields 0.00% 0.00% 2 6.45% 2 2.11%Architecture atrium/courtyard 0.00% 0.00% 2 6.45% 2 2.11%Reitz Union colonnade 0.00% 0.00% 2 6.45% 2 2.11%Plaza of Americas table area 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%Little Hall Express courtyard 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%Leigh Hall benches 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%University Gardens 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%UF Organic Gardens 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%Residence's porches 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%FL Museum of Natural History, research and collections

1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%

Studio balcony 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%Baseball Stadium 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%Bartram-Carr Woods 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%McCarty Drive walkway 1 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.05%Norman Hall's surrounding space/area

0.00% 1 3.23% 0.00% 1 1.05%

Broward Beach 0.00% 1 3.23% 0.00% 1 1.05%Hub area 0.00% 0.00% 1 3.23% 1 1.05%Farrior Hall sitting areas 0.00% 0.00% 1 3.23% 1 1.05%Fine Arts (seatwall and Ocala pond)

0.00% 0.00% 1 3.23% 1 1.05%

Stadium Road 0.00% 0.00% 1 3.23% 1 1.05%Total 33 100.00% 31 100.00% 31 100.00% 95 100.00%

The most important conclusions to be drawn here appear twofold. First, there are clearly several spaces that most students tend to agree are ‘favorite outdoor spaces’ within the student community. Most obvious is the Plaza of the Americas, followed by Lake Alice, the Reitz Student Union (including amphitheater and pond, the North

Berry || 65

Lawn, and other surrounding spaces), and several central gathering spaces for individual colleges or departments within the university.

However, the second conclusion—and perhaps one of the most important conclusions from this questionnaire—is that there are many more spaces that are some students’ favorites, but they are spaces that are much more personal, out-of-the-way, quiet and peaceful, or closer to their home building or area of work. These spaces appear to be the day-to-day spaces within which (or through which) students spend their time working, playing, and living. While not necessarily ‘popular,’ these spaces are nonetheless important and meaningful to those who experience them, and evidently crucial for establishing a quality student experience. It could even be understood that it is precisely because these spaces are not popular that they have become someone’s ‘favorite space.’ It is also critical to note how frequently specific spaces and elements are mentioned, as opposed to an holistic space. Such elements listed include: lawn, amphitheater, pond/sinkhole, bench/seatwall/sitting area, table, woods, balcony, courtyard, colonnade, porch, sculpture, and gardens. This implies that these specific elements and spaces—the ones which students use, walk through/around, and dwell in daily—are vital places full of individual meaning, purpose, and value for students, and should never be underestimated within the campus landscape.

Question 25

Referencing the previous question, why did you rank your most favorite outdoor space as number 1?

* Provided here are a selection of thoughtful answers that might shed some light on what makes a particular space someone’s ‘favorite’:

Warrington College of Business courtyard- : Because the architecture in this area is beautiful to me. The way the buildings kind of border/enclose the courtyard but yet there's still so many trees and you can see the sky and it's just beautiful. … it kind of has the qualities that I mentioned earlier [like] the way the buildings are placed the courtyard is covered a lot from rain and wind and etc. but yet you still feel so connected to all the trees/nature when you're in it.

Reitz Union Amphitheater- : I love the fountain. It's a great thinking and studying spot.

Tables next to Fine Arts D- : The three tables are kind of set away from a lot of traffic which makes it easier to focus on any studying I'm doing.

Courtyard by Little Hall Express- : Because it's a small little nook that's outside but kind of nestled away from most foot traffic.

Plaza of the Americas- : I like it most because I enjoy the environment there. It is quieter, open, green, and breezy. I like the shade that the trees provide.

UF Organic Gardens- : Sense of activity and purpose.

The porches where I live- : It is convenient for me also a great space for me to study, eat, tan, etc.

Berry || 66

Balcony outside our studio- : Because we are there all the time, and it helps maintain my sanity. We have filled it with plants and the balcony offers a great view of the campus to the south. Good for observation and people watching, we are above the crowds.

The walkway between the Reitz Union and the bus stop- : Beautiful wooden walkway through a dense lowland forest with a sinkhole nearby.

Forest by HPNP- : Because it is a good place to study and it is pretty.

Expounding on the analysis of Question 24, the personal and explanatory responses to Question 25 reflect several common themes among students:

Privacy and solitude- : Students value spaces that offer sanctuary from high-traffic and noisy areas, spaces that provide a temporary escape from the hustle and bustle of college life. These spaces may be physically separated by distance, or may be set apart by building enclosure or vegetation.

Shelter- : Students require spaces that will protect them from the elements, whether rain, wind, blazing sun, extreme heat, etc. This shelter may be formed in the landscape by organizing buildings to appropriately provide shade or act as a wind block, by providing adequately specified trees to provide shade and to block minor rain events, or by providing water elements to help passively cool surrounding spaces, just to list a few examples.

Interest and views- : Students desire spaces that offer interesting views, even if at a distance. Spaces completely secluded from all activity may feel too boring or unsafe. Instead, favorite spaces tend to be those areas where students may passively engage in people watching; admire art installations and sculpture; or view unique plant specimens, wooded areas, ponds, sinkholes, or other natural features. The concept of triangulation becomes applicable here, helping spaces become vibrant and alive for those within them (please reference Chapter II for a discussion of this concept in further detail).

Accommodation- : Students require spaces that will accommodate their basic needs and activities while within the campus landscape. Whether a student engages in study, relaxation or restoration, recreation or exercise, socialization, or simply movement from one space to another, outdoor spaces must provide adequate accommodation for this variety of possibilities.

Vegetation and green space- : Students enjoy spaces that incorporate thoughtful placement of vegetation (such as trees, bushes, special plantings, ‘natural’ areas, hedges, and borders) and green space (such as lawns, fields,). These areas typically help control microclimate conditions and provide shelter from various weather elements (see Shelter above). Perhaps most importantly, vegetation and green spaces—if designed or managed appropriately—provide the backdrop for an aesthetically-pleasing campus landscape. This creates specific ambience depending on the individual purpose(s) for the space, the type of space, and regional plant palettes. This green, natural ambience appears to be what a majority of students strongly desire in their favorite spaces within the campus landscape.

Berry || 67

Sensory experiences- : It may be inferred from the responses given and the previous themes that students prefer spaces that fully engage the senses. The spaces that become students’ favorites are those that moderate microclimate and weather conditions (touch), allow for visual stimulation and interest (sight), regulate distractive noises and offer either silence or pleasant sounds (hearing), ensure that unpleasant smells are kept away and pleasant ones are present (smell), and provide convenient access to food and refreshments (taste).

Question 26

Please specify how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: My experience outdoors at UF makes me feel more connected to the natural environment.

Response Item Frequency PercentStrongly Agree 5 15.15%Agree 18 54.55%Neutral 8 24.24%Disagree 1 3.03%Strongly Disagree 1 3.03%Total 33 100.00%

Most students tended to agree with this statement, probably due to many of the answers given during the ‘initial impression’ questions, namely that there is lots of ‘green’ and vegetation present within the campus landscape. However, due to the significant number of neutral and disagreeing responses, it is clear that mere presence is not enough to effect a connection between students and the natural environment.

Question 27

Please specify how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: There are outdoor spaces on campus that have presented unplanned opportunities for me to meet, interact with, or befriend new people.

Response Item Frequency PercentStrongly Agree 2 6.06%Agree 20 60.61%Neutral 7 21.21%Disagree 3 9.09%Strongly Disagree 1 3.03%Total 33 100.00%

Two-thirds of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (some of the rationale is provided in the next question). Several of those responding ‘neutral’ or ‘disagree’ (and providing explanations in Question 28) tend to either not enjoy the interactions of random collisions that occur in these types of spaces, or simply have not experienced these spaces at all.

Berry || 68

Question 28

Referencing the previous question, in which outdoor spaces on campus have these types of unplanned encounters occurred for you? If you have not experienced these encounters personally, please give your thoughts about where these types of encounters might occur for you or others.

* Provided here are a selection of thoughtful answers that help clarify what makes a particular space ideal for unplanned encounters (collisions):

Strongly Agree- : Major, busy plazas and intersections, i.e. Turlington Plaza, Plaza of the Americas, etc.

Agree- : UF is full of nooks and crannies where one might stumble upon an interesting courtyard or water feature when walking around a building. I love the little spaces that pop up out of nowhere, like the pond to the east of the Fine Arts building, or the inner courtyards of some other buildings. … I just like little intimate spaces.

Agree- : I feel like the Plaza of the Americas holds opportunities to have unplanned experiences. … Also the Reitz Lawn sees a lot of traffic. I think that it would be the perfect place for activities and it would also be a good candidate to implement new landscape ideas.

Agree- : Smaller intimate spaces like community benches under trees.

Agree- : The bus stops mainly.

Agree- : None really because I'm a rather shy person but they definitely encourage you to sit at a table near a beautiful lake with a stranger and get to know them or etc.

Agree- : The crosswalk on Newell connecting Turlington and the music building

Neutral- : Possibly the Plaza, I feel like there's a lot of spontaneous interaction there, and at Turlington.

Neutral- : I don't really try to meet new people.

Neutral- : People line up on the sidewalk and pass out flyers. That's the only interaction. It's annoying.

Disagree- : Turlington, Reitz North Lawn.

Most students felt that the spaces in which they are most likely to experience collisions are typically those spaces which contain the highest volumes of pedestrian traffic and activity. Areas such as Turlington Plaza (a major hub of activity between classes, ‘free speech’ area, club activity), the Plaza of the Americas (a central open space, near the main library, ‘free speech’ area, various activities and events throughout the week), the Reitz Union North Lawn (vast open field, multiple crisscrossing paths, adjacent to student union), and pedestrian circulation nodes (such as bus stops and crosswalks) seemed typical responses.

Berry || 69

Some students also mentioned more inconspicuous spaces, “nooks and crannies,” and intimate spaces that accommodate gathering and subtle interaction. Several mentioned that spaces containing benches and tables arranged for interaction made collisions more likely and enjoyable, which again points out the fact that not all important spaces on a campus are the ‘primary’ plazas and lawn areas. While the larger spaces are seemingly the most significant for enabling opportunities for collision, the inconspicuous spaces are perhaps capable of enabling more intimate and personal interactions between students or others within the campus landscape.

Question 29

Please specify how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: The campus landscape should present me with unplanned opportunities to meet, interact with, or otherwise encounter new people in order to share and generate ideas and/or to spur social connections and friendships.

Response Item Frequency PercentStrongly Agree 14 42.42%Agree 11 33.33%Neutral 6 18.18%Disagree 0 0.00%Strongly Disagree 2 6.06%Total 33 100.00%

The responses hear clearly demonstrate that students value the benefits of unplanned interactions and collisions that occur within the campus landscape, and believe that the campus landscape should enable these types of opportunities. This speaks not only to students’ desire for collisions, but also reflects a willingness to broaden their community and their collegiate experience to include others, even those with new thoughts, ideas, and opportunities.

4.2.7 Section VII: Meaningful Spaces / Values | 30–32

Question 30

If you were to show a first-time visitor around UF, which iconic places within the campus landscape would you make certain to show him/her? (please list up to 3)

Berry || 70

Response Item F #1 P #1 F #2 P #2 F #3 P #3 TOT F TOT PPlaza of the Americas 7 20.59% 5 14.29% 5 17.86% 17 17.53%Reitz lawn (Reitz Union North Lawn/ Green Banana)

3 8.82% 4 11.43% 5 17.86% 12 12.37%

Reitz Union amphitheater and pond

3 8.82% 5 14.29% 2 7.14% 10 10.31%

Ben Hill Griffin Stadium 6 17.65% 2 5.71% 2 7.14% 10 10.31%Lake Alice 4 11.76% 3 8.57% 2 7.14% 9 9.28%Century Tower (surrounding areas/spaces/seatwalls)

1 2.94% 4 11.43% 4 14.29% 9 9.28%

Turlington Plaza 1 2.94% 3 8.57% 2 7.14% 6 6.19%Reitz Union building 1 2.94% 3 8.57% 0.00% 4 4.12%Bat House 1 2.94% 2 5.71% 0.00% 3 3.09%Architecture building 1 2.94% 0.00% 1 3.57% 2 2.06%University Auditorium 0.00% 1 2.86% 1 3.57% 2 2.06%UF Organic Gardens 1 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.03%Murphree Hall residence area/commons/courtyard

0.00% 1 2.86% 0.00% 1 1.03%

Baseball Stadium 1 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.03%Bartram-Carr Woods 1 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.03%Stadium Road 0.00% 0.00% 1 3.57% 1 1.03%HPNP building 1 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.03%Historic campus 1 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.03%Green pond conservation area 1 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1.03%

Green roof at DCP 0.00% 1 2.86% 0.00% 1 1.03%Baughman Meditation Center 0.00% 1 2.86% 0.00% 1 1.03%

Buckman Drive residence hall courtyards

0.00% 0.00% 1 3.57% 1 1.03%

Museums 0.00% 0.00% 1 3.57% 1 1.03%Butterfly Gardens 0.00% 0.00% 1 3.57% 1 1.03%Total 34 100.00% 35 100.00% 28 100.00% 97 100.00%

The responses to this question form similarities to Question 24, in that there are certain iconic places that the student body seems to hold dear to their hearts as a symbol of the University of Florida, as well as less-pronounced places that are still significant to smaller groups of students, perhaps places that are specific to certain colleges, departments, or dormitories, for instance. The main difference here is that structures are included, whereas they generally were not in previous responses. This alludes to the fact that buildings may hold more significance as an ‘icon’ than they do as ‘favorite spaces’ within the campus landscape.

Question 31

If you were to show a first-time visitor around UF, which personally meaningful places within the campus landscape would you make certain to show him/her, and why? (please list up to 3)

Berry || 71

* While the selected responses given here are similar to Questions 24 and 30, some rationale is provided to help clarify what makes a particular space personally meaningful for a student:

The Plaza of the Americas, but on the side that has the trees with the tables to - sit at, mainly because I like the indirect interaction, you can just sit there, in the shade, and people watch or do work or possibly read. It's a nice spot.

Organic Gardens - professional interest likely to be shared with someone - who would visit with me.

Ben Hill Griffin Stadium - many of my favorite memories happened here, both - during games and not during games.

I would show them Plaza of the Americas because that's where my friends - and I eat Krishna.

Alachua French Fries [a sculptural piece], personal significance.-

Architecture lawn, because it's where I spend most of my time on campus.-

Escaping from the crowd is important to me sometimes, so I would show - them the various trails and ponds around campus where a person can get a moments peace from the campus excitement.

Green outside of architecture building because this is where I spend most of - my time outside of studio with people in other studios.

Warrington Business School, since the trees there make a canopy of leaves - that fills the sky.

Turlington Plaza – Freedom of speech.-

East Hall because that's where I lived my freshman year.-

Lake Alice, just because there are so many different spots with very beautiful - views.

Reitz North Lawn - great place to spend napping in the sun or eating lunch - with friends.

I would show them the dining halls because that's where I met all my friends - when I lived on campus.

The area between the Reitz and the Hub is so serene and calm, I love to just - walk through that area with friends and sometimes even take a seat on the ground/picnic tables and just talk.

Plaza of the Americas because of the diversity and activities like hula hooping, - rope walking, and Krishna.

Berry || 72

Amphitheater at the Reitz - great place to sit at night to spend time with - someone special.

Turlington Plaza – lots of energy in this space, lots to see and people watch.-

These responses highlight some of the strongest and most important themes identified in this questionnaire, particularly because they explain which characteristics enable a physical space to become a place, or in other words, what it is that enables a space to become personally meaningful for a student. If a space is personally meaningful, it will become memorable for the student, impacting their collegiate experience in the present and in the future. Personally meaningful spaces tended to include the following:

Events- : Students appear to attach meaning to spaces in which a particular event or events occur, events toward which the student holds positive feelings. A space becomes memorable if something occurs in it; thus, if some of the recommendations discussed earlier in this chapter are followed, students are typically more likely to use spaces and attend events within the campus landscape, allowing greater opportunities for spaces to become personally meaningful. This speaks to the call for community and citizenship within the campus landscape.

People- : Many of the students reflected upon spaces in which they engaged in some activity or experience with other people, whether others in the Gainesville or college community, classmates, colleagues, acquaintances, or close friends. Students find campus spaces more meaningful when the experience is shared with others. This speaks to the call for community and collision.

Familiarity, or day-to-day use- : A majority of the responses are based on extended experience and familiarity with a space. This includes spaces around a student’s ‘home building,’ spaces enjoyed due to many similar experiences there, spaces near the student’s residence while living on campus, or other spaces in which the student spends a large portion of their time while on campus. Even though many of the same ‘favorite spaces’ from Question 24 were also listed here as holding personal meaning, many more were listed as being places in which the student spends most of his or her time, and not necessarily the ‘primary’ plazas and gathering areas on campus.

Complex, cohesive aesthetics- : Many students also listed spaces that are ‘beautiful,’ ‘pretty,’ or similar phrasing due to the overall ambience they experience within the space. The responses here seem to involve somewhat more complex aesthetic experiences than similar responses in previous questions, such as “Warrington Business School, since the trees there make a canopy of leaves that fills the sky” (emphasis added), or the multiple references to multiple locations around Lake Alice instead of a single location. While not definitive (based on this one question), it would seem that a space’s inclusion of complex yet interesting and cohesive vegetation and natural features has a greater effect upon a student’s sense of meaning and memory than spaces with more simplified landscape ‘backdrops.’

Berry || 73

Question 32

In your opinion, what new outdoor spaces or improvements to existing outdoor spaces on campus should be added to enhance the student experience at UF?

* Provided here are a selection of thoughtful answers that help summarize how students would like to see change within the campus landscape:

Something where I can truly appreciate the sun and foliage and stuff without - getting bit up by ants or having my papers blown off the table.

I think the campus should be more eye appealing in terms of landscape. - Although the buildings may be very beautiful and classic, I think the surrounding areas should involve more flowers, plants and trees and less litter.

More covered outdoor space with tables or sitting [areas].-

I always like the idea of more trees.-

Rain covering over bike racks!!!!!!!!-

More conservation forest areas. Possibly with a "secret" quiet study area. - Almost like an outdoor silent study library floor. The rules could be posted outside of it, and people could go there to meditate or study or do homework without the usual noise pollution that most places have.

Add more power outlets and covered seating to accommodate laptop use - outdoors.

Water features, more places to eat/study at (we need more picnic tables).-

An official entrance from Archer Rd, like a sign that you are entering UF, a - threshold.

More natural spaces, where students could retreat to study or exercise.-

On campus water ways are somewhat unappealing, perhaps a revitalization. - Perhaps a more open amphitheater visible to students on a daily campus commute.

More shade.-

Electrical outlets. Students WANT to be outside, but we need power for our - laptops, to charge cell phones, etc.

I think UF is missing out on the aspect of outdoor cafes (i.e. Starbucks’ or - Panera's outdoor eating areas). Coffee shops are always filled with people studying, indoors and outdoors, and I think the umbrella/patio furniture type of space really encourages and facilitates a studying and communal environment.

I think simple things like covered seating and tables around the social hubs - could create better spaces for outdoor gathering. Around the hub there is

Berry || 74

very little outdoor seating, and the same around the Reitz. Turlington Plaza has the nice elms, but maybe all those planters could be picnic tables under elms... boy that would be nice. Keep the shade, but make it a place where people should sit, not just where they can sit. (emphasis added)

Better landscaping and more green space.-

Better maintenance, outdoor eating facilities, places to hang out.-

Incorporate more peaceful intimate spaces that can be used as a "getaway" - space.

Trees inside Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, more trees that arch over streets, less - heavily wooded areas, … include the Alligator mascot somewhere on campus, focus on removing the ugly brick or find a way to incorporate "Old South" with classic Florida Cracker style, as in wide shutters, maybe closed shelters with open air circulation. Also, take some notes from Wake Forest, easily the most beautiful school in the nation.

Redesign Turlington Plaza.-

Anything that would promote community, safety, and shade.-

More shaded green spaces, and maybe less auto traffic.-

Given the opportunity to respond freely, students offered a wide range of suggestions for enhancing the student experience at UF. However, several overarching themes once again emerge, offering valuable insight into the true values and perspectives of the contemporary college student.

Basic accommodation- : Before the campus landscape may be considered useful to students, basic accommodations must be provided so that students are able to use outdoor spaces. The primary response here regards the accommodation of electronic devices. Students require power/USB outlets for charging various devices, campus-wide Wi-Fi networks, shelter from the elements specifically for electronic devices, etc. Until these basic requirements are accepted and met by those making design decisions, the contemporary student will be less and less inclined to venture outside of campus buildings into the landscape, creating an ever-diminishing collegiate world in which a student exists.

Shade, cover, shelter- : Similar to the latter theme, students themselves require basic accommodation in order to spend extended periods of time in the campus landscape. Shade is a major issue at UF and was repeated constantly by many respondents, followed by the need for cover during periods of rain and wind. This theme applies generally to shelter against any regional weather elements that are typical for the college landscape under consideration.

Desirable sitting areas- : Coinciding with the previous theme is the desire for desirable sitting areas. Seating—whether benches, picnic tables, seatwalls, or otherwise—must involve more than just the presence of these elements within the campus landscape. Students repeatedly responded that thoughtful placement and design of these elements is critical, or else they will simply

Berry || 75

be ignored. As one respondent put it, “Keep the shade, but make it a place where people should sit, not just where they can sit.” (emphasis added) The majority of these elements should be covered or somehow sheltered from the elements, especially in areas with extreme climatic conditions, and incorporation of natural elements such as shade trees beside or within these areas seems particularly favorable by respondents.

Natural settings- : As was just mentioned, the majority of students favor natural settings filled with thoughtful plantings, green areas, and trees. These seem to not only have an aesthetic effect on students, but also more psychological effects that affect how students choose to behave and activities in which they choose to engage within the campus landscape.

Outdoor cafés- : One strong suggestion was to include more ‘outdoor cafés,’ such as those near coffee shops and boutique restaurants, within social hubs and elsewhere around the campus landscape. The suggestion lies in the fact that most students are favorable to studying and socializing in these settings away from the campus landscape (whether off-campus or indoors), so why not bring these into the campus landscape so as to garner the benefits of this accepted practice? The primary requested element is the umbrella-covered picnic table, arranged near areas where students would prefer to gather either for study or for socialization.

Solitude, ‘secret places’- : Another strong suggestion was to not only include additional natural settings, but to design places of solitude or ‘secret places’ within these settings. For instance, one student suggested that within a conservation forest there might be “a ‘secret’ quiet study area. Almost like an outdoor silent study library floor. The rules could be posted outside of it, and people could go there to meditate or study or do homework without the usual noise pollution that most places have.” Spaces such as these not only enable students to engage in these activities in a unique outdoor setting, but also provide welcome respite for students who are constantly involved in the rigors of academic life.

Berry || 76

Berry || 77

Chapter 5 – Conclusions & Implications for the Campus

Designer

5.1 OverviewA great deal of information is discussed in the previous chapters, offering overviews and analysis of historical and contemporary design ideas as they relate to the campus landscape, providing an outline for what the purpose and mission of the campus landscape should be, and an understanding of student perspectives regarding their needs, values, and desires for the campus landscape. Based upon the analysis offered in the Literature Review and Student Questionnaire chapters, this summary chapter codifies the overarching themes identified from that analysis into a comprehensive theoretical framework—with the contemporary student at its heart—specific to the future creation, expansion, and redevelopment of campus landscapes. This theory addresses the vital components of the campus landscape mission identified in Chapter II (collision, community, citizenship), but also draws logical conclusions regarding additional student needs and values for the campus landscape that were identified in the student questionnaire but are not necessarily encompassed by these three components. For the full analysis of the student questionnaire, which includes some additional conclusions which are not as concrete or verifiably significant as the ones mentioned here, please reference the previous chapter.

It is important to remember that, as the student questionnaire utilized a nonprobability sampling method, the following conclusions based on the questionnaire results cannot be reliably generalized or projected on other colleges’ campus landscapes or student populations. Regardless, because students’ responses were collected and analyzed carefully and thoughtfully, the conclusions described here may still be regarded as reasonably representative of undergraduate students at the University of Florida, as well as other undergraduate students within the United States. The questionnaire’s intent was to provide thoughtful feedback and insights regarding contemporary students’ needs and values for their campus landscape, which has been accomplished. Please reference the section in this chapter entitled “Recommendations for Further Research” for ways in which future student questionnaires might be enhanced and expanded for additional research outcomes.

5.2 Student NeedsTo begin with, the student questionnaire conducted for this study identified a number of common themes comprised of specific elements and spatial design criteria that students generally deem as needs. These themes are termed needs because when considered holistically, they appear to be non-negotiable aspects of the campus landscape that must be acknowledged and addressed if students are to even use its spaces to any significant degree. While there is a natural hierarchy to this list of needs,

Berry || 78

and not every need must be met in every campus landscape space, the spaces meeting these needs will enable students to not only use the space for a greater range of activities, but will also enable them to imbue personal meaning and lasting memories to the same degree that these needs are met.

5.2.1 Accommodation of the StudentIt is clear that in order for students to use campus landscape spaces, even on a practical level, the space must be able to accommodate their basic needs and activities. This includes spaces for study, relaxation or restoration, recreation or exercise, socialization, and movement from one space to another. These basic accommodations may appear trivial to the campus designer, but it is clear that in many instances this basic theme is forgotten in the design of campus landscapes. Spaces must be designed to allow flexibility in use, so that a wide variety of activities may occur within. If outdoor spaces do not accommodate student uses, they will most often simply be ignored in preference of indoor spaces or spaces off-campus. Additionally, the thoughtful placement and design of sitting areas (benches, picnic tables, seatwalls, etc.) showed up repeatedly in the student responses. These elements often seemed as important to students—if not more so—than the spaces in which they were located. Proper siting, selection, and/or design of seating elements (i.e. in combination with adjacent buildings, relative to surrounding trees and vegetation, the quality of the element itself) is critical for student use, and seem to take ordinary spaces into the next level of importance for students.

Berry || 79

5.2.2 Accommodation of TechnologyIn addition to accommodating student uses for campus landscape spaces, designers must constantly be aware of the evolving nature of technology and its myriad uses in the collegiate environment. The need for technological accommodation was one of the strongest themes expressed in the student questionnaire, yet many institutions and designers seem oblivious to the urgency of this need. Campus designers must understand that the contemporary student relies on technology, including electronic devices such as laptops, cell phones, tablets, and others, as well as technological infrastructure such as campus-wide Wi-Fi networks with strong signals for instant and reliable connectivity to the Internet and localized college intranets. In order for students to become more willing to use the campus landscape (which they are ready to do…), spaces must accommodate the various technological means by which and through which they learn, communicate, and socialize on a daily basis.

5.2.3 ShelterAnother theme which became obvious in the questionnaire, and which is also noted by many of the authors discussed in the Literature Review, is the need for shelter (or ‘cover,’ or ‘shade’) within the campus landscape. Surprisingly, colleges often portray very little acknowledgment of this vital need, leaving many spaces and landscape elements vacant and underutilized simply for being poorly designed or located incorrectly. Students require protection from weather elements, especially in regional climates that are prone to frequent extreme weather conditions. If an area is bright and sunny for a majority of the year, much greater attention should be provided towards offering shaded areas and covered walkways and gathering spaces. If rain events are frequent, similar cover may be provided, as well as thoughtful building location. Students want the microclimate of their campus landscape to regulate extreme regional climate effects and to enhance, rather than ignore the student experience outdoors.

Berry || 80

5.2.4 Sensory ExperiencesSimilarly to adjusting microclimate is the student need for sensory experiences within the campus landscape. Students are enabled to more completely enjoy their experience of the campus landscape when spaces fully engage their senses. While protection from extreme weather conditions helps this need (through the sense of touch), proper stimulation of the other four senses is a requirement for spaces to become used or meaningful. Spaces that offer the following will typically be more frequently utilized by students, and will also become more meaningful:

An appropriate and enjoyable microclimate (- touch)

Visual stimulation and interest (- sight)

Regulate distractive noises (mostly from high-traffic areas), but allow for - either complete silence or pleasant sounds (hearing)

Ensure that at least unpleasant smells are kept away and at best pleasant - ones are included (smell)

Convenient access to food and refreshments (- taste)

Berry || 81

5.2.5 Natural Settings / Vegetation & Green SpaceIn more responses than could be counted, students expressed powerful experiences with the campus landscape when it included natural settings, appropriate vegetation, and accessible green space. To use an analogy from the theater, if these natural elements are designed and managed appropriately, they effectively provide a ‘backdrop’ or ‘setting’ for the campus landscape, in front of which or within which students are enabled to ‘act out’ their collegiate experience. Beyond providing aesthetically-pleasing views, most students seem to have positive psychological responses to these natural or ‘green’ spaces that ultimately affect their behavior within the campus landscape (reference Kaplan and Kaplan). If designers are to access this seemingly obvious, yet critical component of the campus landscape, adequate attention to detail must be given to the inclusion and design of these elements and types of spaces.

Berry || 82

5.2.6 Interest & ViewsThe strong concept of triangulation comes into play here (reference Whyte, Crankshaw), as students clearly need spaces that offer appealing and interesting views. Campus designers should include interesting elements and enable opportunities for intriguing activities to occur throughout the campus landscape. This will especially enhance the opportunities for collision, as well as allow for students to compose more meaningful spaces than they would be able to otherwise. Spaces cannot risk being too secluded or closed-off (except in rare circumstances, perhaps), as they might be considered boring or even unsafe. Students enjoy people watching, viewing art and sculpture, and observing natural settings/features/vegetation.

Berry || 83

5.2.7 Solitude & PrivacyThe final identified theme—spaces that offer sanctuary and solitude—is identified here as a student need, but pushes close to being labeled a value as well. Students clearly demonstrated their preference for spaces that provide a respite from the day-to-day grind of academic life, as well as from the negative physical influences of high-traffic and noise. These spaces may be separated from ‘negative’ areas by physical distance, building enclosures, or natural settings / vegetation barriers. The campus designer must provide a scattering of ‘secret places’ throughout the campus landscape, appropriately designed and situated to serve the most students possible, but done so with caution to avoid making these spaces too ‘popular,’ overcrowded, and public, defeating their purpose. Of course, the previous needs should be included in these areas to enable students to compose intimate and personally-meaningful experiences within these unique but vital spaces.

Berry || 84

5.3 Student ValuesAfter the more pragmatic needs mentioned in the previous section are addressed, a higher purpose for design exists to which campus designers should hold themselves accountable—student values. Student values differ from needs in that, while not completely necessary for students to use a space (i.e. needs), if values are met within the campus landscape, students become enabled to compose a deeper set of psychological, emotional, and physical reactions and relationships with the college itself, which enhances the quality of their overall collegiate experience. While values will certainly differ somewhat from student to student (just as they would in any situation from one person to another), the literature review provides a basis from which certain ‘assumed’ values could be derived (the campus landscape mission), and the student questionnaire offers insights into the true values of the contemporary student, allowing both to be juxtaposed for consistency and variance. The campus landscape mission—community, collision, and citizenship—is treated first, followed by synopses of values newly-identified from the student questionnaire—ambience, holistic experiences, and inconspicuous spaces. The three latter values were identified in large part from Question 31, which sought to infer which criteria make certain campus landscape spaces personally meaningful to students; other questions (primarily 24, 25, and 32) were referenced as well to identify common values of the responding students.

Berry || 85

5.3.1 CommunityPerhaps the most clear and analogous theme identified from both the literature review and the student questionnaire was the value of community for the collegiate experience. Kenney et al. lay out a strong case for enabling opportunities for students to engage in communal relationships and activities within the campus landscape. Similarly, students consistently responded positively towards desiring the same types of opportunities. Students clearly value the benefits that come from engaging with others (students, faculty, etc.), whether in intimate spaces, primary/core campus spaces, or during events held within the campus landscape. Memorable and personally meaningful spaces for students were often identified as spaces in which they had shared common experiences with one or more people, whether others in the Gainesville or college community, classmates, colleagues, acquaintances, or close friends.

Students place high value and personal meaning on the communal qualities of campus landscape spaces, particularly when they allow for shared experiences. Campus landscape spaces should be designed, ideally, to enable communal interactions and relationships to not only occur, but to flourish. The more opportunities a student has to share experiences within a campus landscape space, the more likely that space is to become significant, meaningful, and memorable.

Berry || 86

5.3.2 CollisionOnce again, the agreement between the premise of enabling opportunities for collision within the campus landscape and the desire of students for these opportunities is strong. Students expressed a willingness to broaden their collegiate experience to include others, even those with new thoughts, ideas, and opportunities. Spaces with the highest volumes of pedestrian traffic and activity seem to offer the most viable opportunities for collisions to occur, but several students noted the importance of more intimate spaces that could potentially allow for more subtle and personal interactions, especially those with benches and tables suitably situated for easy conversation.

The concept of triangulation (reference Whyte, Crankshaw) is extremely significant here, as well as accommodating the need for interest and views. The more opportunities a student is offered to engage in conversation with someone else, the greater the likelihood that new ideas, social connections, and friendships will be generated.

Berry || 87

5.3.3 CitizenshipThe least significant (based on the student questionnaire results) of the proposed principles is citizenship. Perhaps the clearest acknowledgement of this value came as students responded positively toward the programming and accommodation of events within the campus landscape. Meaning and significance often seemed to be placed in spaces where particular events occur, particularly those toward which a student holds positive feelings. Attendance of any event certainly speaks to community, but also enters the realm where students learn to become responsible citizens of society.

Perhaps the lack of significance and response here is due to an inadequate attempt to garner relevant responses within the student questionnaire; perhaps it is due to genuine irrelevance on the part of students. More focused research on this issue would be needed to discern the reason, but within the scope of this study, citizenship appears to hold little value for the contemporary student.

Berry || 88

5.3.4 Ambience

“Education is an endeavor that is most sensitive to ambience; students respond all their lives to memories of the place that nourished their intellectual growth.” (Gaines 11)

The first newly-identified student value is ambience, defined here as the overall aesthetic quality and mood of a space. Students clearly and repeatedly expressed their interest in and preference toward natural settings, vegetation, and green space, but also described those spaces which offered complexity and cohesiveness as preferable. Spaces holding such qualities appear to have a greater effect upon a student’s sense of meaning and memory than more simple landscape spaces, leading to the conclusion that students value the overall ambience of a space, instead of merely spaces with some aesthetically-pleasing qualities.

The preference theory (reference Kaplan and Kaplan) speaks to this value quite clearly, stating that spaces within a landscape designed with coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery offer preferable experiences for those using the space. This involves enabling the student to become visually stimulated toward both two- and three-dimensional understanding and exploration of a space. Campus designers should take this theory to heart in order to design landscape spaces that are not just ‘beautiful’ or ‘pretty,’ but that have depth in meaning and comprehension.

Berry || 89

5.3.5 Holistic ExperiencesThe second newly-identified student value is that of holistic experiences, essentially the preference of students for spaces that offer a full range of sensory and mental stimuli. Students tend to spend a large majority of their time within the campus landscape in a relatively small number of spaces, often near their department or ‘home’ building. This naturally allows for the student to develop a familiarity with these few spaces—in essence, a sort of bond or relationship with a space. Students expressed value in having these day-to-day spaces include most or all of the student needs, as well as many of the student values as well, in order for these familiar spaces to continually be intriguing and interesting for the student. Also, many students value the experiential qualities of moving through the campus landscape, and not simply using one particular location for sitting, socializing, etc.

Designing spaces for student movement through or around them holds different challenges than a space which is typically viewed from a static position. However, if campus designers are successful in immersing students in spaces with ambience and natural settings, opportunities for collision or communal engagement, interesting views, and sensory experiences, then powerfully meaningful experiences are enabled within the campus landscape for the student to easily enjoy.

Berry || 90

5.3.6 Inconspicuous Spaces

“Our first memories will be of fellow students, a hallowed professor or two, perhaps many more, and of a special niche or corner of this beautiful campus. That’s as it should be.” – former UF President Robert Q. Marston, 1984 (Thompson 51)

The final, and quite possibly the most significant newly-identified student value is that of inconspicuous spaces, those spaces which are not the popular, predominant plazas and wide lawns which tend to receive most of the public recognition on a college campus. Rather, these spaces are typically intimate, private, personal, out-of-the-way, hidden, quiet, near the student’s ‘home’ building, sometimes unplanned, and perhaps even insignificant at first glance (reference Hester). These spaces appear to be the day-to-day spaces within which (or through which) students spend the majority of their time working, playing, and living. These spaces are often the most meaningful to the students who experience them on a day-to-day basis, and are seemingly crucial for establishing a quality collegiate experience. Specific features and elements are also mentioned frequently alongside these inconspicuous spaces, implying significant personal attachment to very small spaces, and even the elements within those small spaces. Such elements include lawns, amphitheaters, ponds/sinkholes, benches/seatwalls/sitting areas, picnic tables, woods, balconies, courtyards, colonnades, porches, sculpture, art installations, and gardens.

This knowledge should be considered invaluable to the campus designer, as the careful design and selection of specific elements and spaces appears at least as important (to students) as the holistic design of larger areas, and possibly more so. These day-to-day spaces and elements may seem insignificant or superfluous at first glance, but for the students who use them, walk through and around them, and dwell within them, these are typically the places full of intense individual meaning, purpose, and value. These spaces and elements should never be underestimated by the campus designer, and conversely, should be given high priority when designing spaces within the campus landscape. While more popular spaces are vital too, the inconspicuous spaces are where many, if not most students spend the majority of their time while on the college campus. These spaces should be thoughtfully interspersed throughout the campus landscape so that all students have the ability to use them, and should be intelligently designed to accommodate student needs and values as well to provide for deeply immersive experiences. The inconspicuous spaces within a campus landscape are its lifeblood, and campus designers would be wise to hold this vital student value in a prominent place when making any decision, from minor design changes to broad, future-oriented campus master plans.

Berry || 91

Berry || 92

5.4 Recommendations for Further Research

No research is ever able to encompass every aspect of the topic under consideration, although the hope is that this research provides a satisfactory overview of historical and contemporary research relative to college campus landscapes, and that new insights gained from this student questionnaire into the needs and values of college students as they relate to the college campus landscape will be found useful and relevant to current design practice and future research.

It is the researcher’s recommendation that if a similar questionnaire is conducted in the future, that several suggestions are taken into consideration to increase the potential insights and knowledge formed by that research. They are as follows:

Include more institutions of higher education in the target population. Ideally, - respondents (students or others) would represent a myriad of institution types:

Public, private, and community colleges/universities-

Rural, suburban, and urban campus locations-

Large, medium, and small student populations-

Varied geographical regions-

Varied demographic backgrounds-

Larger sample sizes should be utilized in order to garner results more - representative of entire student populations.

Other groups should be represented, such as faculty, administration, staff, - and visitors if possible.

Berry || 93

Probability sampling methods and procedures should be utilized if practicable - to achieve knowable representative target populations, to compute sampling error, to allow results to be projected to the total target population, and to allow for more extensive statistical analysis of the results.

Cross tabulations should be utilized if larger sample sizes and probability - sampling methods are attainable. Cross tabulations are “examinations of the responses to one question relative to the responses to one or more other questions,” and are powerful, yet easy-to-understand analytical tools. However, because there are nearly endless configurations to cross tabulate data, only certain important criteria should be analyzed in this manner (McDaniel and Gates 405, 407). These criteria include comparing demographic and other basic factors (major/discipline, years attending college, live on/off campus, gender, etc.) with other results throughout the questionnaire.

Neither the literature review nor the student questionnaire addressed issues of using campus landscape spaces at night or nighttime lighting conditions within the campus landscape. Further research should acknowledge the anticipated differences and complications when considering these issues in the campus landscape. For instance, it is possible that students require that a different set of needs and values be met specifically during nighttime use, or perhaps certain needs and values become more significant or meaningful to students at night than they are during the day.

5.5 In ClosingAs the literature review, student questionnaire, and conclusions drawn from both have demonstrated, there has been a need for a theoretical framework within which any design approach may be applied toward the design of campus landscapes. The previous themes derived from this study’s research—presented as student needs and values—provides this necessary framework. The theory lies in the belief that campus landscapes must be designed primarily for the college student, or else the

Berry || 94

effort expended by those producing campus landscape is largely in vain. By applying one’s design approach within the proposed framework of student needs and values, campus landscape spaces are enabled to serve more than simply functional and aesthetic purposes; these spaces become the very medium through which students compose their collegiate experience.

Students internalize and psychologically process the campus environment in which they dwell. Physical spaces within the campus landscape—even those designed by the best of designers—are merely that—physical spaces—until a deeper connection is made between student and space. A deeper connection essentially brings the student into relationship with a space, a relationship which not only directly enhances the student’s collegiate experience, but which will also enhance the space itself. This occurs as the student’s newly realized perceptions allow them to imbue the space with deep meaning as personal values become fulfilled through this relationship. Furthermore, one student’s perception of a place will invariably have a substantial effect upon those with whom he or she associates. One student’s meaningful space will often become that of another, having a multiplying effect.

The ultimate goal of the campus designer must be to create spaces that allow students to reach this level of relationship, understanding, and internalization. It is the campus designer’s responsibility to ensure that the student’s external reality becomes his or her perceptual reality, resulting in a memorable collegiate experience within a distinct set of meaningful spaces. Moving beyond the benefits of aesthetic affection and preference, a positive and genuine personal affection for place will ultimately offer both the student and his or her college the appropriate enabling opportunities to realize their greatest potential and to reap lifelong benefits that other environments simply cannot offer.

Berry || 95

ReferencesAlexander, Christopher et al. The Oregon Experiment. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1975.

Alexander, Christopher et al. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Alexander, Christopher et al. The Timeless Way of Building. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Berry, Joshua R. Principles of Olmsted Campus Design. Personal essay. University of Kentucky, 2009.

Crankshaw, Ned. Creating Vibrant Public Spaces: Streetscape Design in Commercial and Historic Districts. Washington: Island Press, 2009.

Dober, Richard P. Campus Landscape: Functions, Forms, Features. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000.

Duderstadt, James J. A University For the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

Fitzurka, Jan Marie. People Spaces and Campus Places: User Analysis and Site-User Planning Guidelines: For Outdoor Spaces on the University of Florida Campus. Senior Thesis Project. The University of Florida, 1989.

Gaines, Thomas A. The Campus as a Work of Art. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1991.

Hester, Randy. “Subconscious Landscapes of the Heart,” Places 2:3 (1982): 10-22.

Hough, Mark. The Campus Landscape: Conserving An American Tradition. MLA Final Project. North Carolina State University, 1997.

Jones, Mallory. “Master planning: The theory behind campus landscaping.” The Michigan Daily. Feb 23 2010. Web. 10 Feb 2012. <http://www.michigandaily.com/content/campus-landscaping>.

Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan, and Robert L. Ryan. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1998.

Kenney, Daniel R., Ricardo Dumont, and Ginger Kenney. Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community through Campus Design. Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers, 2005.

Kuh, George D., John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, et al. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development Outside the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Marcus, Clare Cooper and Trudy Wischemann. “Outdoor Spaces for Living and Learning.” Landscape Architecture (March/April 1987): 52-61.

Berry || 96

McDaniel, Carl and Roger Gates. Marketing Research Essentials. 6th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.

“mental.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web. 19 March 2012.

Odom, J. Scott. “My Place.” South Carolina Architecture (2003/2004). The American Institute of Architects South Carolina Chapter.

Oklahoma State University. "Campus Landscape Master Plan." Physical Plan Services. 31 Mar 1999. Web. 13 Apr 2012. <http://www.pp.okstate.edu/grounds.php>.

Olmsted, Frederick Law. “The Project for the Improvement of the College Property.” Report Upon a Projected Improvement of the Estate of the College of California. New York: Wm. C. Bryant & Co., 1866.

Palmer, Parker J. Foreword. Creating Campus Community. By William M. McDonald and Associates. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002. ix-xv.

Pearce, John, Mark Hough, and Renae Kranick. Duke University West Campus Quad Landscape Design Guidelines. Office of the University Architect, Duke University. Sep 2005. PDF File.

Thompson, Tommy L. The University of Florida. 1st Ed. Louisville: Harmony House Publishers, 1990.

Turner, Paul Venable. Campus: An American Planning Tradition. The Architectural History Foundation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1984.

Whyte, William H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York, NY: Project for Public Spaces, 1980.

Berry || 97

Resources“Kwik Surveys.” Web. First accessed Oct 2011. <http://kwiksurveys.com>.

Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2012. Web.

Appendix A

Student Questionnaire(questions with summarized results)

Appendix B

Student Questionnaire(tabulated results)

Question 1 2 3

session_ID Start Time End Time Duration IP Address

Informed

Consent What is your gender? How many years have you completed at the University of Florida?

10842580 2012-02-23 22:18:58 2012-02-23 22:32:49 00:13:51 128.227.62.220 Accept Female 1

10842649 2012-02-23 22:21:22 128.227.86.213 Accept Female <1

10842837 2012-02-23 22:30:42 2012-02-23 23:41:21 01:10:39 98.180.42.169 Accept Female 2

10843427 2012-02-23 23:02:30 128.227.199.135 Accept Male 2

10844276 2012-02-24 00:02:38 2012-02-24 00:13:01 00:10:23 128.227.3.143 Accept Female 3

10845140 2012-02-24 01:41:22 2012-02-24 02:00:29 00:19:07 24.250.144.233 Accept Female 2

10848689 2012-02-24 07:32:11 2012-02-24 07:50:32 00:18:21 66.253.135.22 Accept Female 3

10854711 2012-02-24 13:44:09 128.227.3.83 Accept Female 3

10861291 2012-02-24 18:10:02 2012-02-24 18:17:01 00:06:59 216.155.116.49 Accept Female 1

10862366 2012-02-24 19:01:40 2012-02-24 19:09:17 00:07:37 70.171.34.177 Accept Male 2

10865414 2012-02-24 22:03:27 64.238.186.138 Accept Female 2

10867639 2012-02-25 01:10:43 2012-02-25 01:26:12 00:15:29 66.231.140.209 Accept Female 1

10882808 2012-02-25 23:02:42 128.227.98.47 Accept Female 1

10886042 2012-02-26 05:45:50 2012-02-26 06:05:57 00:20:07 128.227.27.130 Accept Female <1

10912126 2012-02-27 14:45:05 2012-02-27 15:12:07 00:27:02 128.227.113.112 Accept Female 2

10912310 2012-02-27 15:10:06 2012-02-27 15:24:40 00:14:34 70.185.99.121 Accept Female 4+

10912436 2012-02-27 15:15:54 2012-02-27 15:24:53 00:08:59 98.70.132.235 Accept Female 4+

10912499 2012-02-27 15:18:52 24.250.152.5 Accept Male 4+

10912544 2012-02-27 15:17:25 2012-02-27 15:45:16 00:27:51 128.227.4.70 Accept Female 3

10912575 2012-02-27 15:21:27 2012-02-27 15:35:19 00:13:52 128.227.135.253 Accept Male 2

10917401 2012-02-27 18:56:03 98.180.50.114 Accept Male 4+

10923914 2012-02-28 01:59:20 2012-02-28 02:11:20 00:12:00 98.180.53.126 Accept Male 1

10946663 2012-02-28 23:47:13 2012-02-29 00:02:08 00:14:55 24.136.37.18 Accept Male 1

10948702 2012-02-29 02:50:56 2012-02-29 02:57:48 00:06:52 128.227.179.74 Accept Female 2

10972794 2012-03-01 01:54:08 2012-03-01 02:05:48 00:11:40 98.180.34.248 Accept Female 1

10980014 2012-03-01 12:23:23 2012-03-01 12:36:19 00:12:56 98.180.49.211 Accept Female 4+

11042504 2012-03-05 12:54:28 2012-03-05 13:26:49 00:32:21 72.196.99.124 Accept Male 2

11084980 2012-03-07 03:50:20 2012-03-07 03:58:44 00:08:24 173.171.196.38 Accept Male <1

11093520 2012-03-07 14:50:21 2012-03-07 15:06:03 00:15:42 71.100.184.92 Accept Male <1

11141028 2012-03-09 21:54:47 2012-03-09 22:09:56 00:15:09 128.227.53.119 Accept Male 1

11164545 2012-03-11 22:53:18 2012-03-11 23:07:27 00:14:09 65.122.15.169 Accept Female 2

11178109 2012-03-12 15:42:06 208.54.85.196 Accept Female <1

11180257 2012-03-12 17:07:03 2012-03-12 17:17:56 00:10:53 128.227.133.59 Accept Female 2

11185256 2012-03-12 20:35:42 2012-03-12 20:49:28 00:13:46 128.227.3.51 Accept Male 1

11215684 2012-03-14 04:12:36 2012-03-14 04:27:20 00:14:44 128.227.98.36 Accept Female <1

11221195 2012-03-14 11:41:15 2012-03-14 11:50:47 00:09:32 70.185.123.253 Accept Male 4+

11237497 2012-03-15 00:45:41 98.190.168.20 Accept Female 3

11237566 2012-03-15 00:57:16 98.190.168.20 Accept

11245550 2012-03-15 12:08:23 2012-03-15 12:27:23 00:19:00 98.180.59.65 Accept Male <1

11277253 2012-03-16 21:59:43 2012-03-16 23:15:53 01:16:10 64.238.176.222 Accept Male 1

4 5 6 6 7

What is your major? Do you currently live on campus? How did you first visit UF&#39;s campus? Other (please explain below) Please rate your initial impression of the campus landscape.

Religion Yes Visiting a friend Very attractive

Anthropology No Independent visit (non-tour) Very attractive

Religion No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

Anthropology Yes Preview Attractive

Classics Yes Visiting a friend Attractive

Religion No Independent visit (non-tour) Indifferent

East Asian Languages and Literature No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

Political Science No Independent visit (non-tour) Very attractive

Hospitality No Visiting a friend Very attractive

Food and Resource Economics No Visiting a friend Attractive

Math No Official UF tour Very attractive

Health Science No Visiting a friend Indifferent

Food Animal Science Yes Visiting a friend Attractive

Biology Yes Official UF tour Indifferent

N/A No Parent attended Indifferent

Landscape Architecture No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

Landscape Architecture No Visiting a friend Indifferent

N/A No Official UF tour Indifferent

Landscape Architecture No Official UF tour Attractive

Landscape Architecture Yes Official UF tour Attractive

Landscape Architecture No

Food and Resource Economics No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

Anthropology No Official UF tour Attractive

Landscape Architecture No Independent visit (non-tour) Indifferent

Anthropology No Official UF tour Very attractive

Landscape Architecture No Have lived in Gainesville almost my entire life Attractive

Landscape Architecture No I used to skateboard on campus all the time. Attractive

Civil Engineering Yes Independent visit (non-tour) Unattractive

Architecture Yes Visiting a friend Indifferent

Landscape Architecture No Recieved a job. Very unattractive

Interior Design No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

Landscape Architecture Yes Official UF tour Attractive

Landscape Architecture Yes Visiting a friend Attractive

Political Science No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

Pre-Pharmacy Yes Visiting a friend Unattractive

Landscape Architecture No First day of classes Indifferent

Landscape Architecture No Official UF tour Very attractive

Landscape Architecture No Official UF tour Attractive

Landscape Architecture No Independent visit (non-tour) Attractive

8 9 10 11 12 13

Please describe your initial impression of the campus landscape.

How significantly did your initial

impression of the campus landscape

influence your decision to attend UF?

Did your initial impression of the campus

landscape influence your decision to attend

UF instead of another institution?

In a typical week,

how many hours do

you spend studying?

In a typical week, how many

hours do you spend studying

outdoors on campus?

Does the current campus landscape

encourage you to study outdoors?

Since I'm from South Florida I thought the northern style foliage was absolutely BEAUTIFUL compared to all the palm

trees that I see back home. I felt like I saw green everywhere and the moss made it feel like a cozy kinda jungle that I was

traversing. I just love it here. Significant Yes 6-8 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I was impressed with the amount of natural settings throughout the campus. The well kept trees, lawns, and other foliage

was noticeable. There seemed to be a real effort to keep the campus clean and accessible. However, I did notice that some

areas (streets and walkways) of campus were not very well lit at night. Significant No 12+ 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I thought the campus landscape was very pretty but could use some work in terms of litter Significant Yes 6-8 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I like all of the old Magnolia trees and the Oaks. Significant No

Very neat and put together. Insignificant No 3-5 0-2 No

Some buildings were ugly but other parts of campus were beautiful. I loved the brick buildings! I thought things for the

most part were not too far apart. Significant No 12+ 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I liked how the architecture mimics the older styles of some of the universities in the northeast (i.e. Harvard, Yale etc). It

gave an air of authority/legitimacy. I was impressed. Neutral No 6-8 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

Very collegiate looking, peaceful Significant No 6-8 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

Very Insignificant No 6-8 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

Clean Very Insignificant No 3-5 0-2 No

Significant Yes

It was very monotonousness. Every building, open area, and library looked just like one another. I did enjoy the

openness of campus and the facilities within it. Looking ahead in question 10, the campus environment did influence me

to prefer another university instead of UF but since UF is the higher ranked institution. Neutral No 3-5 0-2 No

My initial visit was good, it was at a football game so there were barely any leaves on trees or anything but it still looked

attractive. Very Insignificant No 9-11 9-11 No

I thought it was nice and well kept. I am a nature lover though, so I would like to see more green. Insignificant No 6-8 0-2 No

Some areas are very well tended and planned, others not so much Insignificant No 0-2 0-2 No

classic southern campus - lots of bricks, live oaks, and azaleas. I liked that the whole campus was congruous, but areas

still stood out individually. Neutral No 12+ 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I DIDN'T REALLY PAY ATTENTION, I GUESS IT WAS NICE ENOUGH. I DIDN'T HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION. I GUESS

NO IMPRESSION IS BETTER THAN A BAD ONE? Neutral No 6-8 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

southern - live oaks and moss (I came from the northeast) but without a strong central plan - very piecemeal development.Insignificant

I got lost because I did not know if I had entered campus yet, but then I found the student union Very Significant Yes 12+ 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I liked all the brick buildings and how green the campus seemed. Neutral No 6-8 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

The older architecture was absolutely stunning. The building from the 60's, 70's, and modern buildings were less so.

Turlington was downright ugly. Significant No 3-5 0-2 No

My first impression on the landscape was that it was well taken care of and it reminded me of a town filled with my

interpretation of Manors. Neutral No 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I found it confusing and overwhelming. Very Significant No 3-5 0-2 No

It had a very peaceful and sophisticated look, but it could have used more flowers. Neutral No 12+ 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I don't remember my initial impression, since I was very young Neutral No 6-8 0-2 No

I enjoy the overall landscape. The brick and old oaks create quite a scene. Neutral No 12+ 0-2 No

Very Insignificant No 3-5 0-2 No

Its was okay nothing spectacular. It could use some better landscapes. Significant No 0-2 0-2 No

Unmaintained and in poor condition compaired to other universities Very Insignificant No 9-11 0-2 No

Collegiate gothic mixed with the comfort of nature and the coziness of large oaks Significant No 12+ 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I really like how they kept so many trees in the area. Where I live, it's all concrete. Significant Yes

Cluttered Significant Yes 12+ 3-5 No

I really enjoyed the spanish moss, the vertical levels of green from overhanging trees, and the fusion of south florida and

north florida flora. Significant No 6-8 0-2 No

thought if was dull and all looked the same Insignificant No 6-8 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I wasn't taken aback or anything. I eventually found some nice places to be, but there was no wow factor. Insignificant No 12+ 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

I am from a small island that mainly has palms and smaller plants, so UF's large oaks, magnolias, and hills were an

incredible sight and very different from what I was used to seeing in south Florida. Significant No

Very big, lots of vegetation. Significant No 3-5 0-2 No

Beautiful Representation of florida. Loved the trees, the sink holes, and the general green spaces Very Significant No 0-2 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please list the

facilities or types of spaces that

encourage you to study outdoors)

13

My answer really is yes/no to this question. There are a lot of benches/tables/etc outside for you to sit at but the majority of them are sitting in dirt or grass or some other place where bugs can crawl up onto them or trees can drop

debris all over. I always WANT to study outside, but I never do because everytime I've tried to I get bombarded by ants or the wind is too crazy or the table is just dirty with debris from trees. I would love to study outside under

some kind of breezeway or something where I can be shielded from bugs, tree stuff, and wind so that I can study comfortably but still enjoy the beautiful outdoors.

There are many tables, benches, and large open fields available to use. It usually isn't too hard to find a space available.

I like the study around Keene-Flint and outside of Library west, although I think we need more tables located around campus

Lots of picnic tables and lawns with trees

All the different outdoor areas that have seating. My personal favorite is the courtyard area outside of the building next to Little Hall Express

I enjoy sitting on the benches near Library West. I'd like to study outside even more though

at various picnic tables throughout campus, also at open spaces like yulee pit or plaza of the americas - mostly what stops me from studying outdoors is the fact that I need my computer for everything I do, and I can't read the screen

in the sunlight.

I PREFER THE SHADY SPACES THAT ARE A LITTLE SMALLER. PLAZA OF THE AMERICAS IS TOO BIG, TOO MANY DISTRACTIONS. I PREFER THE PLAZA IN THE FINE ARTS BUILDINGS OR NORMAN HALL. THE BUSINESS BUILDINGS

PROVIDE NICE STUDY AREAS TOO.

plaza of the americas, murphree area

picnic tables, my sorority house has porches with benches and tables

Plaza of Americas, Century Tower, Turlington Plaza area, Reitz Union field

There are tables and a few gazeebos, but studying outside is always a little difficult with the rain, heat, and crowds of the UF climate.

large grassy and sporadically shaded areas like plaza of americas and the green outside of the architecture building

Open air patios, spots with cool air circulation, beneath tree foliage, a place with desks

picnic tables everywhere

There are benches around the Architecture building - when the weather isn't too hot it's nice to be outside. I've also studied in the plaza area near the Reitz Union.

I study indoors.

Shaded areas under trees

14 15 16 17 18

What facilities or types of spaces would encourage you to study outdoors on

campus more often?

How likely are you to spend more time studying

outdoors on campus if the facilities or types of spaces

you listed above were implemented at UF?

In a typical week, how many hours are you engaged in non-academic

activities on campus (sports/recreation/exercise, reading, visiting with

friends and other social interaction, resting, tanning, etc.)?

In a typical week, how many hours are you engaged in non-academic activities

outdoors on campus (sports/recreation/exercise, reading, visiting with

friends and other social interaction, resting, sunbathing, etc.)?

Are there spaces on campus in which

you gather with others that make you

feel part of a community?

Someplace that is smartly designed to be covered but yet kinda open at the same

time. Something that shields you from everything that might stop you from studying

outdoors but still lets you appreciate the outdoors. Very Likely 12+ 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Covered spaces with tables such as a pavilion type structure in case the sun happens

to get to hot or it starts raining. Very Likely 0-2 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

More benches/picnic tables. cleaner campus in terms of litter Very Likely 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

None because I have allergies. Very Unlikely 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

spaces with cover so that you can study outside even if it's raining Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

more tables then are currently available, in areas other then directly outside of

campus restaurants Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Perhaps a tented area due to inclement weather sometimes Likely 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Likely 6-8 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Libraries in fields Very Likely 0-2 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

More tables in a shaded environment and perhaps outlets. It is difficult to see the

laptop with the glare of the sun and sometimes when my battery is low I would

prefer to go indoors and look for an outlet. Very Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

More benches with table tops, study gardens. Likely 12+ 6-8

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

Quiet secluded areas with a lot of trees. I need quiet spaces to study but UF is just so

large that it is hard to find somewhere outdoors without noise pollution. Very Likely 6-8 0-2

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

power connections for laptops Likely 6-8 0-2

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

picnic tables or seating Neutral 12+ 6-8

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

SMALLER, SHADY SPOTS WITH SOME WHITE NOISE. OUR CAMPUS DOES NOT HAVE

ENOUGH WATER FEATURES. Very Likely 6-8 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

power for computer laptops, more tables, shelter when it is raining! Very Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

semi open spaces, porches, covered areas that are still outside Likely 9-11 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Hammocks. Covered patios. Benches that allow you to sit and have a space for your

books, like picnic benches. Likely 3-5 3-5

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

Something with an open format, but wind resistant would be ideal Likely 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

shaded outdoor benches Likely 3-5 0-2

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

Electrical outlets on the outside of buildings Very Likely 0-2 0-2

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

Picnic tables, benches, tables with umbrellas, covered patio areas with seating Likely 0-2 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Shady structures with wind blockage. Wind is the most annoying characteristic

when it comes to outside studying, in my opinion. Also, these days, everyone needs

a power outlet... Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Tables in covered areas Neutral 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

If we had more benches in garden areas. Likely 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

quiet places that are cool in the summer and warm in the winter Very Likely 3-5 9-11

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

vast greens with shady trees Likely 3-5 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Large open spaces Very Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

Desks, benches, workspaces outside. I use the computer a lot @ the computer lab,

but I'd definitely use it if it were outside. Likely 3-5 3-5

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

botanical gardens; a place with trickling water streams and beautiful plants that

attract a sense of serenity that draws away stress Very Likely 6-8 3-5

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

Shade and benches with tables. And WiFi. Likely 6-8 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

0-2 0-2

Yes (in the space below, please specify

the spaces in which you typically gather)

None. I study indoors. Very Unlikely 3-5 0-2

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

benches under trees or hammock locations Very Likely 0-2 0-2

No (in the space below, please explain

why not)

18 19 20 21 22 23

How many events do

you attend on campus

in a typical month?

How many events do you

attend outdoors on campus

in a typical month?

Does the current campus

landscape encourage you to

attend events outdoors?

What facilities or types of spaces would encourage you to attend events outdoors on

campus more often?

How likely are you to attend more events outdoors on

campus if the facilities or types of spaces you listed

above were implemented at UF?

The many plazas and other spaces on campus that give a kind of encompassing feel are good

ones to have gatherings in because the architecture promotes the feeling of being in that area

together as a group. Sorry I can't think of any specific examples. 1-3 0 Yes

I'm not sure. I guess maybe similar to what I answered before. Maybe some kind of sun room so

you can still appreciate the outdoors while having a club meeting or something but be safe from

the rain or etc. Likely

Turlington Plaza. 1-3 1-3 Yes

Around library west, Keene-flint and the Hub. 4-6 1-3 No Neutral

Reitz Union or club meeting areas. 1-3 0 No Very Unlikely

plaza of the americas, library, union 1-3 1-3 Yes none Neutral

Any time we hang out around the Plaza or possibly just chat in the Turlington area 1-3 1-3 Yes More areas like the Plaza of the Americas. Open, without being too confined by buildings Neutral

Reitz Union, Islam on Campus office 7-9 0 Yes Likely

1-3 1-3 Yes Very Likely

Library 0 0 No Waterslides Very Likely

Plaza of the Americas is my favorite outdoor area to spend time with friends. As for indoor

spaces I like the Reitz Union and University Auditorium. 7-9 1-3 No

I prefer indoors for events and activities because of the extreme hot or extreme cold weather

patterns. Neutral

10+ 1-3 Yes More benches Very Likely

I really only congregate with friends to study in a library or to eat food. 10+ 1-3 No I'm not sure, I have a busy schedule. I am sort of indifferent. Neutral

I do not live in the city and spend little time outside classes on campus 1-3 0 No talks, music Neutral

plaza of the americas, architecture atrium 0 0 Yes it's not a matter of facilities, it's a lack of interesting programming/events. Neutral

ARCHITECTURE BUILDING 1-3 1-3 Yes

I REALLY ENJOY THE OUTDOOR CONCERTS. I THINK THE SCHOOL IS MISSING AN

OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE AMPHITHEATER AT THE REITZ FOR EVENTS. THEY COULD BRING

COMEDIANS OR MUSICIANS OR SOMETHING. Very Likely

plaza of the americas, the hub 1-3 1-3 Yes

sports fields 1-3 1-3 Yes food gatherings, spaces that transition inside to outside Likely

I don't identify with any community on campus. 1-3 1-3 No Outdoor places to view movies and such. Very Likely

I suppose Plaza of Americas during Krshna would qualify. 1-3 1-3 Yes The Reitz Amphitheater is pretty innovative and encouraging Likely

0 0 Yes more shade from heat Likely

0 0 No It has no effect. I'd rather be at home than at school. Neutral

Plaza of the Americas, Turlington, the Hub 1-3 0 Yes Ampitheater, covered pavilion/stage areas Likely

The lawn North of the Arch. building is great for frisbee, but we LA students rarely have the

time to enjoy other spaces outside our realm. 1-3 1-3

I'm not sure what kind of events we might be suggesting, but I don't think there is anything

particular about the campus that keeps me from being outdoors other than extreme heat due to

climate.

Reitz Union Lawn 1-3 0 Yes outdoor amphitheater Likely

Plaza de Americas 1-3 0 No More open space with nice facilities. i.e Bathrooms, overhangs, pavillions Very Likely

The studio in the ARCH building 1-3 0 No nothing of interest takes place outside, maybe if speakers were scheduled in outdoor areas Very Likely

architecture atrium and the green outside of the architecture building 1-3 1-3 Yes incorporation of water Likely

in front of Arch building and in plaza under arch building 1-3 1-3 No large open space Very Likely

Broward Courts, Philips Center, and especially the Florida baseball field, which is so damn cool. 7-9 1-3 No

More concerts at Flavet, seriously!!! Also, maybe classes outdoors, or free classes, or

discussions. But there needs to be a space, and it needs to be cooled since it's getting hot. Likely

I run a lot on my own and prefer exercise and studying as a time to myself 4-6 1-3 Yes more amplitheatres like at reitz Very Likely

The football stadium on gameday! 1-3 1-3 Yes Neutral

architecture lawn, lake alice 0 0 No improved microclimate (more cool, shaded areas), more aesthetically pleasing spaces Very Likely

I have not explored the campus much to seek such spaces. 1-3 1-3 Yes Turlington Plaza, Ritz Colonnade. Likely

dont live on campus 1-3 1-3 Yes shadedwalks Very Likely

24 24 24 25

1 2 3 Referencing the previous question, why did you rank your most favorite outdoor space as number 1?

court yard by warrington

college of business court yard by the art buildings lake alice

Because the architecture in this area is beautiful to me. The way the buildings kind of border/enclose the courtyard but yet there's still so many trees and you can see the sky and it's just beautiful. I just discovered this area the other day and I've only

been there once so it's kind of hard to describe too many details about it since I have a bad memory. I guess it kind of has the qualities that I mentioned earlier in questions where I answered what kind of outdoor buildings I'd like to see on campus.

The way the buildings are placed the courtyard is covered a lot from rain and wind and etc but yet you still feel so connected to all the trees/nature when you're in it.

Tables next to Fine Arts D Turlington Plaza Plaza of the Americas The three tables are kind of set away from a lot of traffic which makes it easier to focus on any studying I'm doing.

picnic table outside of

library West and the plaza of

the Americas anywhere outside of normal hall The Hub area Library west and the surrounding area of the Plaza of the America's is such a fun place to be around.

None None None N/A

Reitz Union Amphitheater Plaza of the Americas Picnic Tables by Matherly Hall I love the fountain. It's a great thinking and studying spot.

the courtyard by the little

hall express The Plaza of the Americas

The sitting areas outside of the CLAS

student advising center Because it's a small little nook that's outside but kinda nestled away from most foot traffic

Benches near Leigh Hall

The outdoor seating by the Reitz

where the lake is in front Lake Alice I like the privacy and the bench where I can read and write on

Plaza of the Americas Broward Beach Southwest Rec Fields

Bat House Lawn in front of library west Lawn in front of McCarty It looks cool when the bat's fly out

Plaza of the Americas North Lawn (Reitz Union)

Area next to Fine Arts Library and

the Museum I like it most because I enjoy the environment there. It is quieter, open, green, and breezy. I like the shade that the trees provide.

University Gardens Lake Alice Fountain and stairs at the Reitz It's quiet and peaceful and I love all the trees and the green-ness of the gardens.

UF Organic Gardens

Seatwall at physics building with

view of sculpture Seatwall at Ocala pond / Art building sense of activity and purpose

bat house/lake alice plaza of the americas architecture atrium lakeside, less crowded

FINE ARTS PLAZA

BUSINESS BUILDING PLAZA

AREAS PLAZA OF THE AMERICAS IT IS CLOSE TO MY HOUSE AND THE ARCHITECTURE BUILDING, THE TWO PLACES I SPEND MOST OF MY TIME. IT HAS A NICE TREE THAT PROVIDES A LOT OF SHADE. IT HAS LOW TRAFFIC SO THERE ARE FEW DISTRACTIONS.

Murphree area Plaza of the americas Architecture lawn small spaces, more traditional

the porches where i live plaza of the americas recreation fields it is convenient for me also a great space for me to study, eat, tan, etc

Reitz Lawn Plaza of the Americas Colonnade It's a really nice place to nap, and would be nice to study if there were shaded areas.

Plaza of Americas Reitz Amphitheater Century Tower low walls I tend to go there most often

architecture lawn plaza of the americas reitz lawn I'm always by there.

Florida Museum of Natural

History Research and

collections Pond by little hall Plaza of the Americas Interesting architecture, quiet.

Lake Alice Plaza of the Americas Business plaza Access, natural, beautiful, architecture (Baughman Ctr), jogging/walking paths, photography opportunity

Balcony outside our studio Lawn north of the Arch Building Lake Alice Because we are there all the time, and it helps maintain my sanity. We have filled it with plants and the balcony offers a great view of the campus to the south. Good for observation and people watching, we are above the crowds.

Murphree courtyard Reitz Union Lawn Plaza of the Americas Live near by

Plaza de Americas Turlington Plaza Pugh Hall area Typically nice area to be outside, the only thing is that is gets so packed because it is one of the only big open spaces that is relevant to classes.

lake alice physics building plaza of the americas I know it the best, and the water and wild life is great

green outside of architecture

building plaza of americas architecture atrium it's vast, completely exposed to sun, and close to my studio

in front of arch in front of main library behind dining hall near the place I'm at most

Florida Baseball Field Century Tower area

The street between Carleton

auditorium and the architecture

building Fusion of North and South florida fauna, especially the trees surrounding left, right and center field. It really sends a message.

forest by hpnp reitz ampitheatre lake alice because it ia a good place to study and it is pretty

The Benches around the

Architecture Pond Plaza of the Americas Reitz Union Quad I visit it the most and there is always adequate shade and I can continuously pick up a WiFi signal.

Architecture Lawn Turlington Ritz Colonnade Great space for a Frisbee.

the walkway between the

reitz union and the bus stop

the sinkhole near the architecture

building the green banana beautiful wooden walkway through a dense lowland forest with a winkhole nearby

26 27 28

Please specify how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement:

My experience outdoors at UF makes me feel more connected to the natural

environment.

Please specify how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement:

There are outdoor spaces on campus that have presented unplanned opportunities

for me to meet, interact with, or befriend new people.

Referencing the previous question, in which outdoor spaces on campus have these types of unplanned encounters occurred for

you? If you have not experienced these encounters personally, please give your thoughts about where these types of encounters

might occur for you or others.

Strongly Agree Agree

None really because I'm a rather shy person but they definitely encourage you to sit at a table near a beautiful lake with a stranger and

get to know them or etc.

Agree Agree Turlington Plaza

Agree Agree

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Probably out in an open field.

Neutral Agree Plaza of the Americas

Neutral Neutral Possibly the Plaza, I feel like there's a lot of spontaneous interaction there, and at Turlington

Agree Agree Plaza of the Americas

Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Neutral Agree

Agree Agree Turlington.

Neutral Agree

I feel like the Plaza of the Americas hold opportunities to have unplanned experiences. Personally, I do not find myself in that area very

often so I have not experienced anything there as of yet. ALso the Reitz Lawn sees a lot of traffic. I think that it would be the perfect

place for activities and it would also be a good candidate to implement new landscape ideas.

Agree Agree The campus is diverse enough in its spaces that it would be hard not to agree with this statement

Agree Agree plaza of the americas, uf student gardens at bat house

Agree Strongly Agree MAJOR, BUSY PLAZAS AND INTERSECTIONS. IE, TURLINGTON PLAZA, PLAZA OF THE AMERICAS, ETC.

Strongly Agree Disagree turlington, reitz north lawn

Agree Agree the crosswalk on newell connecting turlington and the music building

Disagree Neutral People line up on the sidewalk and pass out flyers. That's the only interaction. It's annoying.

Neutral Agree Plaza of Americas and around the Hub most often

Agree Neutral plaza of the americas

Agree Neutral I don't really try to meet new people.

Agree Disagree

Agree Agree

UF is full of nooks and crannies where one might stumble upon an interesting courtyard or water feature when walking around a

building. I love the little spaces that pop up out of nowhere, like the pond to the east of the Fine Arts building, or the inner courtyards

of some other buildings. (Sorry, I don't know all there names, I just like little intimate spaces.)

Agree Neutral

Neutral Agree Plaza de Americas and Turlington Plaza.

Agree Disagree bus stops, but I dont like strangers they are dirty

Agree Agree smaller intimate spaces like community benches under trees

Agree Neutral turlington plaza

Strongly Agree Agree Little Hall (outside), Carleton, Plaza of the Americas. Also, the florida baseball field.

Agree Neutral

Neutral Agree Plaza of the Americas or a similar space where you bump into someone.

Agree Agree running into friends while walking between class buildings near the plaza of the americas

Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree Agree The bus stops mainly

29 30 30 30 31 31

Please specify how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement:

The campus landscape should present me with unplanned opportunities to meet, interact with, or otherwise

encounter new people in order to share and generate ideas and/or to spur social connections and friendships.

Neutral

Plaza of the

Americas Lake Alice Reitz Fountain

Because it is a staple image of the University. From there you can see the famous century tower, library west, and

many other important buildings while at the same time appreciating the nature that is incorporated with the

layout of the campus by looking at the huge open plain in front of library west.

Because it gives you that swampy feel that

every gator knows. :)

Agree

Strongly Agree

Around the

area around the

reitz union

The landscape

around The plaza

of the America's

The area between the reitz and the

hub and the area between the

dorms on Buchman

The plaza of the America's is such a fun place

to hang out, I also love the man and woman

statue that rests in that area.

Strongly Disagree Turlington Century Tower Plaza of the Americas I wouldn't be showing anyone around because I have allergies.

I wouldn't be showing anyone around because

I have allergies.

Agree Stadium Reitz Union Plaza of the Americas The Bat Houses because they're awesome

East Hall because that's where I lived my

freshman year

Agree Lake Alice

Plaza of the

Americas North Lawn

The Plazas, but on the side that has the trees with the tables to sit at, mainly because I like the indirect interaction,

you can just sit there, in the shade, and people watch or do work or possibly read. It's a nice spot.

Lake Alice, just because there are so many

different spots with very beautiful views

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree Bat House Lake Alice

Strongly Agree Reitz Union

University

Auditorium Turlington

Plaza of the Americas; My favorite spot and its a great place to sit and talk about UF. Also able to see a lot from

there.

Fine Arts area; UF has a lot of interesting

aspects besides education.

Strongly Agree Lake Alice Bat Houses Fountain and stairs at the Reitz Lake Alice: It is beautiful and I really like to go there.

University Gardens: Right next to Lake Alice

and it is quiet and peaceful with a lot of pretty

nature.

Agree

Organic

Gardens Green Roof at DCP Lake Alice Organic Gardens - professional interest likely to be shared with someone who would visit with me

Green Roof at DCP - professional interest

likely to be shared with someone who would

visit with me

Strongly Agree

plaza of the

americas reitz union lawn stadium architecture building, where I live

Strongly Agree

BEN HILL

GRIFFIN

STADIUM

PLAZA OF THE

AMERICAS

AREAS AROUND THE HUB AND

REITZ

THE STADIUM - MANY OF MY FAVORITE MEMORIES HAPPENED HERE, BOTH DURING GAMES AND NOT

DURING GAMES

NORTH LAWN - GREAT PLACE TO SPEND

NAPPING IN THE SUN OR EATING LUNCH

WITH FRIENDS

Strongly Agree

plaza of the

americas, murphree century tower architecture building fine arts tunnel

Neutral

plaza of the

americas

outside

auditorium at reitz turlington plaza lots of different people gather here

its a neat space with the water in the

background, and most auditoriums are not

outside

Neutral Stadium The Century Tower Plaza of the Americas I would show them Plaza of the Americas because that's where my friends and I eat Krishna

I would show them the dining halls because

that's where I met all my friends when I lived

on campus

Strongly Agree Stadium Reitz Century Tower area Alachua French Fries, personal significance Library West, seems like an important area

Agree bell tower stadium architecture lawn, because it's where I spend most of my time on campus

Strongly Disagree

Plaza of the

americas Little Hall, where I had a class with a super hot TA.

Keene-Flint, because I'm also a history major

and the building is really interesting. Plus, I

used to take naps outside there.

Neutral Stadium

Lake

Alice/Baughman

Center

Century Tower/University

Auditorium Architecture Building because it's the place I've spent the most time

Stadium, because it's a central part of the

university and everyone knows about Gator

football

Strongly Agree Lake Alice

The Reitz

ampitheater Plaza of the Americas

Escaping from the crowd is important to me sometimes, so I would show them the various trails and ponds

around campus where a person can get a moments peace from the campus excitement.

Lake Alice for its multitude of views and

peaceful stroll-ability.

Agree

Historic

Campus

Plaza of the

Americas Reitz Union Lawn

Strongly Agree Reitz Area Turlington Plaza de Americas A lot of time will be spent there studying and the area outside the reitz is open for relaxong and studying.

Turlington because Place where all students

have been.

Neutral Lake Alice Tower Stadium Lake Alice ARCH

Agree

plaza of

americas turlington Reitz field

green outside of architecture building because this is where I spend most of my time outside of studio with

people in other studios

plaza of americas because of the diversity and

activities like hula hooping, rope walking, and

krishna

Agree Arch building Bats Museums arch building - spend most of my time ritz union - to show a common area of campus

Neutral

Florida

Baseball Field

Ben Hill Griffin

Stadium Century Tower Warrington Business School, since the trees there make a canopy of leaves that fills the sky.

Florida Baseball Field. Because it's so damn

relaxing.

Strongly Agree hpnp

plaza of the

americas butterfly gardens

Agree

Football

Stadium

Century Tower -

Plaza of the

Americas Architecture Building Most recognizable tourist attraction for the campus

Best place to showcase UF and the interaction

of students

Strongly Agree

Agree

Conservation

Area - Green

Pond Turlington Lake Alice Turlington-Freedom of Speech Architecture Lawn - Freedom to Frisbee

Agree

Plaza of the

Americas Reitz Union the road along the arch building plaza of the americas, because a lot of people gather there and it is a p[lace people meet

reitz union, it is a great hub for people, and im

always hungry

31 32

In your opinion, what new outdoor spaces or improvements to existing outdoor spaces on campus should be added to enhance the student experience at UF?

I find this place especially serene and beautiful and it shows the other side of the campus. Whereas the

Plaza of the Americas gives a little more academic feel this area emphasizes more on the arts (like the

theatre and such) that are also a huge part of this University. Pretty much just like I mentioned earlier. Something where I can truly appreciate the sun and foliage and stuff without getting bit up by ants or having my papers blown off the table.

The area between the Reitz and the Hub is so serene and calm, I love to just walk through that area with

friends and sometimes even take a seat on the ground/picnic tables and just talk.

I think the campus should be more eye appealing in terms of landscape. Although the buldings may be very beautiful and classic, I think the surrounding area's should involve more

flowers, plants and trees and less litter

I wouldn't be showing anyone around because I have allergies. N/A

The stadium because it is a gator nation must! more covered outdoor space with tables or sitting

I always like the idea of more trees

Rain covering over bike racks!!!!!!!!

Reitz Union; perfect place to show student life and interactions

More conservation forest areas. Possibly with a "secret" quiet study area. Almost like an outdoor silent study library floor. The rules could be posted outside of it, and people could go

there to meditate or study or do homework without the usual noise pollution that most places have.

Add more power outlets and covered seating to accommodate laptop use outdoors

AMPHITHEATER AT THE REITZ - GREAT PLACE TO SIT AT NIGHT TO SPEND TIME WITH SOMEONE

SPECIAL WATER FEATURES, MORE PLACES TO EAT/STUDY AT (WE NEED MORE PICNIC TABLES)

chemistry area/ murphree An official entrance from archer, like a sign that you are entering UF, a threshold.

lots of energy in this space, lots to see and people watch more natural spaces, where students could retreat to study or exercise

The Reitz, because my friends and I spend a lot of time there Make things prettier. Turlington is super ugly.

misc. lakes, natural feeling On campus water ways are somewhat unappealing, perhaps a revitalization. Perhaps a more open amphitheater visible to students on a daily campus commute.

more shade

FLMNH Research and collections, because its interesting and I volunteer there. Electrical outlets. Students WANT to be outside, but we need power for our laptops, to charge cell phones, etc.

Century Tower/Univ. Auditorium, because it is the centerpiece of campus

I think UF is missing out on the aspect of outdoor cafes (ie. Starbucks or Panera's outdoor eating areas). Coffee shops are always filled with people studying, indoors and outdoors, and I

think the umbrella/patio furniture type of space really encourages and facilitates a studying and communal environment

The strip from the Plaza of the Americas to the Reitz (The Green Banana, if you will) because that is

where a lot of the action happens.

I think simple things like covered seating and tables around the social hubs could create better spaces for outdoor gathering. Around the hub there is very little outdoor seating, and the

same around the Reitz. Turlington Plaza has the nice elms, but maybe all those planters could be picnic tables under elms... boy that would be nice. Keep the shade, but make it a place where

people should sit, not just where they can sit.

Plaza de Americas because it is a huge mecca for people from all different backgrounds. Better landscaping and more green space.

Harn Museum Better maintenance, outdoor eating facilities, places to hang out

lake near fine arts building because it is a nice place to get away that seems separated from school but

yet still a part of campus incorporate more peaceful intimate spaces that can be used as a "getaway" space.

bats slides and swings

Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, because it's historical and awe inspiring and the best place on campus.

Trees inside Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, more trees that arch over streets, less heavily wooded areas, please remove that stupid, stupid statue in plaza of the americas, include the Alligator

mascot somewhere on campus, focus on removing the ugly brick or find a way to incorporate "Old South" with classic Florida Cracker style, as in wide shutters, maybe closed shelters

with open air circulation. Also, take some notes from Wake Forest, easily the most beautiful school in the nation.

Where I work/live. Redesign Turlington Plaza.

Anything that would promote community, safety, and shade.

the road, because it is a nice tree lines paths that is quite peacefull more shaded green spaces, and maybe less auto traffic

Appendix C

Campus Landscape Design Determinants & Taxonomy

(Dober)

txxe)elard

'sldef,uoJ edecspuel snd

-ruBf, IIBJelo uE ol uortnqrJruo) r8ln3lrred rreqr IUJUuoJ or sE IIe,/r\ sE uoll-EInJrlJE Jner{tseB puB Iuuoulury or elqndecsns suJoJ u8rsap sE stueruele

Ienprlrpur eqt tno eseel ol sr earrce(qo rn6 'edecspuel Surugap-retautradeql sE a^ras reuel er{t lsarrupunoq sndruer lreu dlaq sderteru8 snduruc

'aldturxe rod 'sraqto erroJurer puu dupa,ro srueruele atuos .{lsnoraqg'leuonuetur sr xrtu eql 'lB)rtaJoer{t lou 'crteru8u.rd sr ,{uouoxrr erlJ

'saurtnor u8rsep pue Suruueyd peurldrc

-srp q8norqr paqsrlqelsa sorrueeJ leorsdqd dq eaucuusrp eperu pus slueu

-rruJolep u8rsep dq parcagur eJB sruJoJ pur 'suro3 ot esrJ ear8 suortcury

'uou)BJetur srql Jo ]lnseJ B sy dtraueerc pue 'ecueuedxe 'eEpe1.trou1

s,.rau8rsep aqr pue 'ra8pnq ruarlc 'uoucerrp f,IlBIUurBJSord 'e1drs sE IIe,/$

su uorlernSguoo pue ezrs puBI pue ',{qdurSodot 'atetutlc go z(Eoyrr edeos

-puBI JrsBq ar{r epnlJur deql'secuangul pue sJotf,BJ esel{t Jo ueotJrql

'ru1 'sarerrossy puu 3rur3 'lqspr.1\agoq:uqdrtS uollgntls pue uolletrol tgnedser{t Jo e,rnuf,o,ra sJnsrralJeJ?r{r enbrun seJrr}Eq pue suJoJ aqr Sur,tr8 snqt taru:o1aqr dq paruanuur aq IIr^\ rerlel eqr srsaS8ns ue:6erp eqa ',{ruouoxur eqr ur parsrl

e.re srueuoduror aderspuel sndusr eqr puB pozruall eJe slueurrurerap u8rsap aqastueuoduo3

dtuouoxea u8rseq pue srueurruroraq u8rsag / WVUCVIO Jf,VdI iI

'sen1e,r adecspu:' .:. j -r

Etuor{ello -: "-

esr.lep o1s:::-:-..:-

3!!tBSarnrrulnl ells

,u!1q3fl

iu3!S

saseds rolFtuluoFtarra! PUE splag &U

tuo$lH .r!!su.PJEg auaqlfrJeds

saPaq4qduv

uv lol Ju6PJe,

.Iul Pur $llPM armeN

$d.sild luBeNBaJoq.rv

ruaPJe9 luoln)FJoHruaPre9 ls'uBo€

FdDtllOsadt:aa;1

sotsds lJePJrlsa)Pds &ePUoraS

so?ds atqpoHtuqrEd

suluolPloqsq.l.sleaq!g

ell"rispal snduel

rlEAae!soFer{ lrsPunog

ralau!Jad

lPunilns

I,XIO.\iOXYI NrlS',JO SdYJSONY'I Sn{XVJ

x JoltrPl

rPunf

l8olouq).1

J@ueq) lmlr^

uqrdd

adrs

suorl^u3

uoounSsuoX arr5

arls als

rluq)a!oa9 orrPnsqns

uoper$,Pol^l urErra"L

oda:uo1 urog puel

lrllq"rFs l6uauuorr^uf

!oeaa8i^

oJlH Pur drell :alrultJ

SJNVNIT{UII,XO NTIS3O 3dY:}S(NV'I SnAWVJ

Appendix D

Examples of Design Patterns(Alexander et al.)

N

\to^tIoba

-t:

:>'qu*die-O

Ci-r

.r (ork

E

s;E E

€ :

;

E zoos-o

$ e:E

.iE

EY

! s

E- -{.E

3, s i;E

E

i;5 S

.) ,,2

x; :

=E

o ;:;

i .S

': -n Lq!€.=

;

ziE

.= 53-s

!

: E

:iEE

-

liss iiil

a

06;-l=r':er'"t';o

2; ay:i;

;:;" IE

ytid,

; <

E

j'a ?

o l.z

)^ e)

E E

it;i5; B

!rriXE

iiEi- E

Eilzi7t

o=E

_!EE

iZ

e.-f

E:,e"E

s- 5;E

:EE

Eag.F

.- F >

d - 7 .- .

!.9 2 3 "=

E ?*

oJ

E B

;;-o.i6 o\- .,*E

I i, i F

= E

E =

= ;:;

'ir,a -.-

' =

,=

r! =

t

5nU-]:':

i i

;.!:: F

B-vtrE

;E

-if-?.: =

E"oE

4:12*i =

3.:; al

3*!iO7*

E

E'1 T

q I; -i

s * j3= e'E

! =

r 5

-, =

L

! i

=

Z

- i

.- _ .I

+

r i

c.j E.:

* r_d=!=

=i

^iiiX;E

:E:

t i F E

+ ;- I:

I = - 8 u F

E e o.=

=4

i4i2,Z

:BE

;€ E

-EgE

I 9

!'iLol O

O^S *io'=

+

*vO

\qJ':*_v.io'S

;-o

i, .:

e.l-a=

olJl<

9bu-\

r'SB

.L !

.- U

sz'(f-b

r..l i -V

\o

-\zu\ii6.)l.1:F

(-cqsarJcR

a'Hs:-oll:H

H(d

S^Q

OL

'q*han'D

r)aP\;\o!

() &

$:^+\F

(ducoc-;o-.,tr.,H

LP(Ji

ctX

YH

V!

-.-.)!!-.t=

5!du:{=*:!

E

.dd j

;'b- E

g,g s

PS

.! o-_\6

ri!

ilt L

p -

S'-^th'(J.I.u-.;\

v,3e z,

>

:-t!^-^.i

u) u

E

! r,cs

X.!

il2

+E

E

Biii,

il E

5{ 5,;!=

Lu-cr^O-l

fLllP!q!-

I fr,raE €d p+

") 0 >ts'

! ! t

hn

ili'! A

+E

.g-(J€.ij..4;-'E;7o

" ! R

:=t?E

: f a:5A

U

'i:0:or-2?.q')i--rr:i

U*

- ?

OO

-r) E

.: -

O

r-

bO

\-aoS6bOa\s

+_h? +

ii,iF

$=

Eo=

o.:9aFiA

Frct=

f^3-. o-co

-.-d ^ h ry s

+E P

E .{

H "f

i S

r.IEt1'7

"i3&i

ibO

'O

X

=

- -

A-r-1 -

>\ i:

id'=

['E;H

-c:-1 .:

o-c 5 7'* a=

-:4 E

r-cu19'^;u-a!r-s!

7 r

U

--c ):,,

aa-E

Eb.0oori-I

2.dL-c,lcl-r..r-r::=

qJPuc

il b;,*ii3*A

EA

>c=

'ir-.^.Y+

1 q

<

?'}-.! dE

'='=

-)

B E

E 4 fr I

>-Y

il-. i';

h i " 5 :. !

u - a3 frE

E a,.

b r:'€

oi L ,

J>

Ci^.|i

q .a'-

c3-d qr

u &

i

rl'==

i-c-ic=qri:=

:JUfC

d<

l '=

I

:''i tr 5v

F

EJ. !

>

c.,t l;: i

I.3 b

< E

^P

E

-t -^ 5o-5 .

I:ltha'7aT

.P^:Y

a.0:ibr,1rur!':<

.=a2

.=f.f.

b4\{\6{oU

-+

'qcoboi

kaoU

)=

?, ) =

? J ) $:

d I

I U

d

ci p

Su

J -

-c =

-

. -

;-u,

L.^ c

-: ^d

*'oC

J tr -

Y

u :

-PL

o :

c -O

E -c

: -r-!

i E

; =

: i

un =

:s.:=

.=ti;-c.:-ii

--a>'E

a

i v

=

r\-d )7

i; i

i g=

:

d J

l'a >

-- i:

ct)

:

2 n?gE#g;E

; :

d zG

i-o*.=I3i

r!+

-AL

- u,

., -

-; n

d *

aV?.;?3Y

'i:aQ:

/.!=-Y

=-o::l

iol,cj-::E-c^

2t-.nZl=

)v*]-

? - :'. s

a I

.-^-.-4?d-.cn=

7'.4r;'r=

.)-:'>

t>-..c-.i

j":J,rl!l-u);

! .,

U

+

) -

) aL

r't;--_:'r\Ftri

., d

- '=

;.

rt -

i=

.lx.il.nd=

;*2r. 1,

.qEt'iilJEdU

-CIl^u)

-.J i:

O-=

cJ -:

oi ct

IL,t&

Appendix E

Examples of Design Guidelines(Duke University)

Landscape Guidelines

The Landscape Guidelines represent general goals and strategies for landscape and site design, repair and renovation on the Quad. This information will inform those responsible for design and maintenance of the desired condition of the landscape.

123West Campus Quad Landscape Design Guidelines

Plantings in the area between the buildings and the main fl agstone walkway that borders the central lawn

Due to the lack of existing vegetation, this zone will require the most extensive planting additions. This space has signifi cantly different implications across the Quad due to sun/shade conditions and the program use of the associated building. These spaces in front of the residence halls often are often heavily used in conjunction with events and social activities, which can have a detrimental effect on the planting area. The design for these areas needs to provide some pedestrian traffi c control, space for seating and fl exible social interaction, and accompanying site furniture that helps create more functional spaces. A 1965 Olmsted Brothers plan calls for fl agstone plazas in front of some of the residence halls; this should be considered an option in certain areas. Control measures need to be provided on both the residential and academic quads to keep pedestrians on the walkways and prevent desire lines through planting beds.

Recommendations

1. Keep plantings simple and appropriately scaled in relation to the buildings. 2. Respect the architecture of the buildings when designing these spaces.3. Consider the ultimate size of proposed plants and choose plants that will not require a great deal of future maintenance.4. Remove, trim, or limb-up overgrown shrubs that cover windows, block architectural details, or create security issues.5. Use a plant palette that focuses on evergreen material that displays variation in color, size and texture.6. Expand paved areas in certain locations to accommodate and promote a variety of opportunities for social interaction.7. Use an evergreen hedge in certain locations on the inside edge of the main walkway to control pedestrian traffi c. Avoid using bollards for this purpose.8. Develop a plant list that accounts for the microclimates of deep shade and part shade and sun areas.9. Consider the effects of planting around existing large trees and root zones; avoid expansive areas of mulch,10. Do not plant large canopy trees in this zone.

Example of guidelines for planting between buildings and the main fl agstone walkway (see the Landscape Plan for layout and plant list)

2.5’ ht. max. evergreen hedge along edge of walkway to control pedestrian traffi c and reduce soil runoff onto sidewalk.Low evergreen groundcover.Deciduous understory tree/shrub planted away from the building face and in relationship to architectural features of the elevation (avoid windows and signifi cant architectural features).4’ ht. max. evergreen foundation shrub.

Allen Building main entry

Example of existing condition to avoid

1

2

3

4

12

3

4

124West Campus Quad Landscape Guidelines

Accent plantings at primary and secondary building entries, archways and other designated focal areas

Accent plantings are used to emphasize certain spaces on the Quad. Examples are the roses at the Chapel Drive entrance and the annuals aligning the main entrance into the Allen Building. The amount of accent plantings at a specifi c location should depend on the relative importance of the space, with goal being a unifi ed Quad landscape with a reserved but effective display of color in limited locations. Flowering shrubs and understory trees should be used more to accent building entrances and arches, frame views and punctuate axial views. All accent planting needs to complement rather than compete with the architecture and surrounding landscape. Simple, elegant and understated plantings are preferable to large, “gardenesque” displays.

Recommendations

1. Use accent plantings to identify and enhance building entrances, walkways, entries to the Quad, and other important focal areas.2. Use annuals and seasonal plantings as part of a larger composition to create a rich year-round planting.3. Coordinate accent plantings with established plant palette and the building architecture.

Primary building entry

Example of guidelines for planting at primary and secondary building entries, archways and other designated focal areas (see the Landscape Plan for layout and plant list)

All primary building entries to be planted with small fl owering trees large accent shrubs and/or annualsAll secondary building entries to be planted with small accent shrubs and/or evergreen vertical accent shrubsAll archways to be planted with small fl owering treesDesignated focal areas of the Quad to be planted with large fl owering trees and focal accent shrubs and/or small accent shrubs

Secondary building entry

Archways

Designated focal areas

Example of entry conditions to avoid

Guideline/desired condition

1

23

4

5

1

67

1

1

2

3

44

5

6

6

7

7

125West Campus Quad Landscape Guidelines

Lawn

The West Quad is a prime example of a traditional campus landscape, made up predominately of open lawn and mature canopy trees. The obvious goal of any landscape improvement plan for such a space is to provide the means for lush, green lawn for the entire year. However, in such a heavily-used pedestrian space, this can be very diffi cult. The forces against the establishment of a successful lawn (constant foot traffi c, frequent large events, tents, mature trees with extensive root zones, full-shade areas) will make this task very diffi cult on the Quad. The horticultural requirements of the trees need to be respected in order to maximize their health. Shade tolerant grass blends can be used with some success. However, the diffi cult part of this problem is how to program only the uses that can be realistically sustained by the selected and installed lawn. Such decisions are beyond the scope of this study, but the recommendation will be made that a lawn use strategy and implementation plan should be developed to deal with how the lawn is used and enforced.

Recommendations

1. Develop an Open Space Management Program that promotes an appropriate level of use on the Quad that will allow the establishment and maintainability of a healthy lawn.2. Develop a Lawn Restoration and Maintenance Strategy.3. Consider a long-term sod program that addresses fertilization, sod replacement and impacts on the health of mature trees.4. Install new fl agstone walkways where needed to accommodate consistent and obvious pedestrian circulation patterns. The goal is to limit the number of walkways that bisect the central lawn, so the location of proposed walkways needs to be carefully considered.5. Use evergreen groundcover under trees where grass is not a viable option. Providing well-defi ned, maintained mulch beds is an option when the health of the tree is in question.

Example of guidelines for lawn growth and maintenance (see the Landscape Plan for layout and plant list)

The base of existing trees to be planted with groundcover where grass is too diffi cult to grow. The health of the tree must be considered before this is done.To control pedestrian traffi c across the central lawn during periods of establishment, develop a new standard for temporary control (do not use current method as shown). Use bollards at important pedestrian intersections to control traffi c.Refer to the Open Space Management Program to control the level of use on the Quad

Examples of lawn conditions to avoid or control Guideline/desired condition

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

4

126West Campus Quad Landscape Guidelines

Existing Trees

Aside from the buildings, it is the mature canopy trees that do the most to create and defi ne the main Quad space, and without them it would be a completely different kind of place. The predominant type of the tree is the willow oak (Quercus phellos), a fast-growing, relatively short-lived tree that has a large, uniform growth habit and extensive canopy. Due to age and environmental conditions, many of the trees are in various stages of deteriorating health. Their health needs to be continually monitored and a tree replacement program needs to be established. A decision needs to be made about whether they are replaced with other willow oaks, or a different species. Even though a uniform planting of a single tree type is more desirable aesthetically, a diverse selection should at least be considered to avoid the potential of a disease that could wipe out an entire monoculture planting. Two maples were planted several years ago in front of Perkins. This breaks the pattern of the oak plantings, but offers impressive fall color and should be considered an option in the same location across the drive in front of West Union.

Recommendations

1. Employ arborists on a regular basis to monitor the health of the trees in the main Quad. The health of the mature oaks needs to be a priority and considered when making any major decision regarding the landscape.2. Plant new, specimen sized trees in selected locations before an older tree has actually died in order for it to maximize its size before the other one is removed.5. Consider an oak species other than willow oak.

Example of guidelines for existing tree replacement (see the Landscape Plan for layout and plant list)

Maintain overall canopy of trees on the central lawn side of the main sidewalk. Do not replant existing trees between main sidewalk and buildings as they die out.Develop a Tree Replacement Plan. Plant new trees adjacent to dying trees. Eliminate large gaps.Consider species other than willow oak.

Example of tree conditions to avoid

Guideline/desired condition

1

23

1

2

3

127West Campus Quad Landscape Guidelines

Appendix F

Outdoor Spaces for Living and Learning(Marcus & Wischemann)

~~esfor•tearrung

~~esfor•tearrung

Marchi April 55

Front Yards. While the front path andporch of a typical house are hard-sur­faced , a front yard usually provides asoft , green transition or buffer betweenprivate and public spaces . Some campusbuild ings, too, appear to have "frontyards"-significant green spaces wherestudents and faculty can relax in a dif­ferent way than on the "front porch. "Here one can go with a friend to talk inprivate, to sunbathe or sleep, to eat, tostudy, or to hold a class meeting close tohome base .

Such a change of environment can fos­ter mental health and lessen stress .Buildings seem to "expect" something ofus (study, work, delivering or attendinglectures, filing, answering phones, attend­ing meet ings), while the outdoors expect

tainers should be provided close to seat­ing areas .• Very long benches should be avoided,because they tend to intimidate the sin­gle user and inhibit conversation betweenmore than two people.• In regions where outdoor use is unre­alistic much of the year, designers mightconsider locating the equivalent of afront porch just inside the main entrance,so that casual meeting, eating, study andsocializing can still occur close to mainpedestrian flows.

The steps and lawn areas fronting Berkeley 's Sproul Hall constitute a "front porch' l-»­a critical transition space fo r casual meeting, socializing, eating and study.

winter season of northern latitudes, apropitious location that garners low win­ter sun and the outfall of hot-air ventscould encourage snowmelt and create ausable place during warm spring and falldays . In any case, the arrangement ofbuilding walls, doorway, plantings, seat ­ing and so on needs to create as sheltereda spot as possible.• In hot climates, overhangs, plantingsand natural breezeways should be coordi­nated to create a cool and shaded place.• Comfortable seating, with backs ,should be located at each side of themain pedestrian traffic .• Some seating should be designed forone or two people to use comfortably,and somewhat privately. Other arrange­ments should permit three or four tomeet and talk as a group . On the Univer­sity of New Mexico campus, the Mitch­ell Seating Hub offers a popular build­ing-entry feature. Shaped like adoughnut, the Hub provides semiprivateseating in the interior ring and people­watching seating on the outer ring.• Picnic benches and tables might beprovided for brown-bag lunches or groupstudying.• A source of reasonably priced food anddrink should be located at or close to thefront porch /door of major buildings.• A water fountain and ample litter con-

dents to gather in and around b~ilding

ntries, it may be useful to consider cam-e "houses" d h dius buildings as ouses an tea Ja-~ent outdoor places as possessing some ofthe characteristics of "front porches"and "front and back yards."

Front Porches. The main building en­try--Dr "fro nt porch 't-c-constitutes ~ crit­ical transition space for casual meeting,socializing, eating and study. In a de­tailedstudy of outdoor behavior at LongBeach State University, Deasy notedthat the main pedestrian entries to build­ings (i.e., the "front doors") involved thegreatest concentration of outdoor campususe. Student interviews revealed that se­rious needs existed for more places tostudy and eat comfortably outdoors , andfor opportunities to meet casually withfaculty outside classes and office hours .Deasy developed a plan for redesigningcampus entries to incorporate study, eat­ing and sitt ing spaces. This strategywould be an excellent concept to emulateon campuses where the weather is oftenconducive to outdoor use.

The Berkeley campus study showedthat those entries that already have someform of seating or steps to accommodatecasual waiting and meeting are espe­cially popular. Others that are heavilyused but that have no provision for sit­tingor studying represent at best awasted potential; at worst, they becomeproblem areas. Indeed, the situation atone location (Evans Hall)-with vendingmachines just inside the entry (encourag­ing quick snacks) and enormous numbersentering and leaving the building, but nofacilities for sitt ing or standing to oneside- has resulted in one of the campus'smost acute entry problems. Worn land­scaping, littering and jostling attest tothis fact.

• Planning of any new campus buildingshould consider the main entrance interms of stude nt pedestrian flows;ensure that this is the main entrance~rchitectu rally; and design some form offront porch" accordingly.

• The front porch should reflect a feelingof P~rtial enclosure, so that a person~asSIng through senses a place of transi­h?n, and so that a stationary user feelssl.lghtly apart from nearby pedestrian orbIcycle traffic.• In regions with cool to warm weatherthroughout much of the year users~oUld appreciate a sun trap. 'Though theront porch might be rarely used in the

Over the centuries, many dif­ferent campus plans haveemerged in the Westernworld, from the urbane en­closed courtyards of Oxford

and Cambridge to the formal "academi­cal village" of Jefferson's University ofVirginia ; the mix of form al planning anad hoc building placement on the Uni­versity of California campus at Berkelesingle megastructures at several Cana ­dian locations; and the ecologically detemined scattered plan of the UniversityCalifornia at Santa Cruz.

Whatever the model selected, andwherever the site or region, campus pianing will generall y comprise some ar­rangement of buildings on the landscawith spaces created between buildings.Frequently ignored in books on campusplanning and design , these outdoorspaces-their uses for circulation, studyrelaxation and aesthetic pleasure---de­serve far greater attention than theyhave yet received. Observations indicatthat a great deal of casual interchange,chance meet ings, entertainment andstud y between classes takes place out­doors when the weather permits. As inthe city, a good deal of life and learn inoccurs between scheduled events or spe­cific buildings. Some would argue thatthis is the very stuff of education.

The guidelines that follow are basedon a 1981 study of the Berkeley cam puby a landscape architecture class. Thecampus was divided into 26 subareas;each was studied in depth by three stu­dents using such methods as behaviortrace analysis, activity mapping and formal interviews. This study has been supiplemented by less formal observations ofiopen space at other campuses, and by areview of published studies.

Home BaseIn an attempt to determine whether stu­dent s felt they had a home base on theBerkeley campus, a random sample of400 was asked to indicate on a campusmap which build ing or other space theywould consider their "home" building 0

base. Surprisingly, more than 90 percenfelt they did have a home base; this re­sult was perhaps to be expected fromgraduate students, employees and fac­ulty-all likely to have an office, desk o~

major department-but it proved equaltrue for undergraduates. Given this psy­chological need for "a home away fromhome," and given the proclivity for stu-

.,,

Marchi April 55

Front Yards. While the front path andporch of a typical house are hard-sur­faced , a front yard usually provides asoft , green transition or buffer betweenprivate and public spaces . Some campusbuild ings, too, appear to have "frontyards"-significant green spaces wherestudents and faculty can relax in a dif­ferent way than on the "front porch. "Here one can go with a friend to talk inprivate, to sunbathe or sleep, to eat, tostudy, or to hold a class meeting close tohome base .

Such a change of environment can fos­ter mental health and lessen stress .Buildings seem to "expect" something ofus (study, work, delivering or attendinglectures, filing, answering phones, attend­ing meet ings), while the outdoors expect

tainers should be provided close to seat­ing areas .• Very long benches should be avoided,because they tend to intimidate the sin­gle user and inhibit conversation betweenmore than two people.• In regions where outdoor use is unre­alistic much of the year, designers mightconsider locating the equivalent of afront porch just inside the main entrance,so that casual meeting, eating, study andsocializing can still occur close to mainpedestrian flows.

The steps and lawn areas fronting Berkeley 's Sproul Hall constitute a "front porch' l-»­a critical transition space fo r casual meeting, socializing, eating and study.

winter season of northern latitudes, apropitious location that garners low win­ter sun and the outfall of hot-air ventscould encourage snowmelt and create ausable place during warm spring and falldays . In any case, the arrangement ofbuilding walls, doorway, plantings, seat ­ing and so on needs to create as sheltereda spot as possible.• In hot climates, overhangs, plantingsand natural breezeways should be coordi­nated to create a cool and shaded place.• Comfortable seating, with backs ,should be located at each side of themain pedestrian traffic .• Some seating should be designed forone or two people to use comfortably,and somewhat privately. Other arrange­ments should permit three or four tomeet and talk as a group . On the Univer­sity of New Mexico campus, the Mitch­ell Seating Hub offers a popular build­ing-entry feature. Shaped like adoughnut, the Hub provides semiprivateseating in the interior ring and people­watching seating on the outer ring.• Picnic benches and tables might beprovided for brown-bag lunches or groupstudying.• A source of reasonably priced food anddrink should be located at or close to thefront porch /door of major buildings.• A water fountain and ample litter con-

dents to gather in and around b~ilding

ntries, it may be useful to consider cam-e "houses" d h dius buildings as ouses an tea Ja-~ent outdoor places as possessing some ofthe characteristics of "front porches"and "front and back yards."

Front Porches. The main building en­try--Dr "fro nt porch 't-c-constitutes ~ crit­ical transition space for casual meeting,socializing, eating and study. In a de­tailedstudy of outdoor behavior at LongBeach State University, Deasy notedthat the main pedestrian entries to build­ings (i.e., the "front doors") involved thegreatest concentration of outdoor campususe. Student interviews revealed that se­rious needs existed for more places tostudy and eat comfortably outdoors , andfor opportunities to meet casually withfaculty outside classes and office hours .Deasy developed a plan for redesigningcampus entries to incorporate study, eat­ing and sitt ing spaces. This strategywould be an excellent concept to emulateon campuses where the weather is oftenconducive to outdoor use.

The Berkeley campus study showedthat those entries that already have someform of seating or steps to accommodatecasual waiting and meeting are espe­cially popular. Others that are heavilyused but that have no provision for sit­tingor studying represent at best awasted potential; at worst, they becomeproblem areas. Indeed, the situation atone location (Evans Hall)-with vendingmachines just inside the entry (encourag­ing quick snacks) and enormous numbersentering and leaving the building, but nofacilities for sitt ing or standing to oneside- has resulted in one of the campus'smost acute entry problems. Worn land­scaping, littering and jostling attest tothis fact.

• Planning of any new campus buildingshould consider the main entrance interms of stude nt pedestrian flows;ensure that this is the main entrance~rchitectu rally; and design some form offront porch" accordingly.

• The front porch should reflect a feelingof P~rtial enclosure, so that a person~asSIng through senses a place of transi­h?n, and so that a stationary user feelssl.lghtly apart from nearby pedestrian orbIcycle traffic.• In regions with cool to warm weatherthroughout much of the year users~oUld appreciate a sun trap. 'Though theront porch might be rarely used in the

Over the centuries, many dif­ferent campus plans haveemerged in the Westernworld, from the urbane en­closed courtyards of Oxford

and Cambridge to the formal "academi­cal village" of Jefferson's University ofVirginia ; the mix of form al planning anad hoc building placement on the Uni­versity of California campus at Berkelesingle megastructures at several Cana ­dian locations; and the ecologically detemined scattered plan of the UniversityCalifornia at Santa Cruz.

Whatever the model selected, andwherever the site or region, campus pianing will generall y comprise some ar­rangement of buildings on the landscawith spaces created between buildings.Frequently ignored in books on campusplanning and design , these outdoorspaces-their uses for circulation, studyrelaxation and aesthetic pleasure---de­serve far greater attention than theyhave yet received. Observations indicatthat a great deal of casual interchange,chance meet ings, entertainment andstud y between classes takes place out­doors when the weather permits. As inthe city, a good deal of life and learn inoccurs between scheduled events or spe­cific buildings. Some would argue thatthis is the very stuff of education.

The guidelines that follow are basedon a 1981 study of the Berkeley cam puby a landscape architecture class. Thecampus was divided into 26 subareas;each was studied in depth by three stu­dents using such methods as behaviortrace analysis, activity mapping and formal interviews. This study has been supiplemented by less formal observations ofiopen space at other campuses, and by areview of published studies.

Home BaseIn an attempt to determine whether stu­dent s felt they had a home base on theBerkeley campus, a random sample of400 was asked to indicate on a campusmap which build ing or other space theywould consider their "home" building 0

base. Surprisingly, more than 90 percenfelt they did have a home base; this re­sult was perhaps to be expected fromgraduate students, employees and fac­ulty-all likely to have an office, desk o~

major department-but it proved equaltrue for undergraduates. Given this psy­chological need for "a home away fromhome," and given the proclivity for stu-

.,,

entry (a problem at many campuses); onthe west, a formal entry conceived inOlmsted's original campus plan and re­designed by Thomas Church in the six­ties seems a misplaced monument, sincefew enter the campus from this direc­tion. If a design is to address day-to-dayneeds, campus entries should be placedwhere most students will enter on foot,and they should provide pleasantsubspaces for waiting, casual study, pe­rusing notices and picking up newspapersor flyers. Entry points are also importantlocations for legible, well-lit campusmaps and adequate directional signs.

Almost every campus includes somekind of central plaza or gathering place .Just as the traditional village or smalltown had its common green or townsquare, so each campus communityseems to need a place for the "action" atlunchtime. This is where friends meet,displays are placed and rallies happen.The character of these spaces varies,from the grand central mall of grass andtrees at the University of Illinois at Ur­bana-Champaign to the large, buff-brickSmith Plaza at the University of NewMexico and the distinctly urban SproulPlaza at Berkeley.

Size. One issue regarding size shouldbe very sensitively handled: the central

Virtually every campus has notableexamples ofunsuccessful"backyard" spaces-often

courtyards left desolate oremptybecause ofinadequate access and

little concern for the details ofaesthetics andfunction.

"Front yards" should provide comf ortable seating. such as these wooden benchesalong Berkeley 's Sproul Plaza. A combination ofsunny and shady spaces offers visualvariety and contrasting microclimates .

planned as a "wheel" of campus build­ings and peripheral parking lots, withmultiple entries . This design makes sensefunctionally, though it leaves the campuswith a slightly disturbing lack of focus.

At the Berkeley campus, by contrast,the formally designated main entry atBancroft and Telegraph avenues is alsothe main gathering place (Sproul Plaza)and the principal entry point for studentsapproaching on foot. All of these ele­ments-pius lack of a vehicular entryhere---eombine to create a highly usedand imageable gateway.

Other entry points at Berkeley are lesssuccessful. On the north side, pedestriansand cars share a confused, unaesthetic

ations of comfort (warm spots, shade)and function (seating, study, conversa­tion) in such spaces need to be muchmore carefully addressed. Virtually everycampus has notable examples of unsuc­cessful backyard spaces-s-often court­vards left desolate or empty because ofinadequate access and little concern forthedetails of aesthetics and function.

• A backyard space should be locatedaway from major pedestrian flows, andyet be easily accessible from the buildingit serves. Its presence should be obvious10 building habitues, but not so obviousto passersby.• The majority of those passing throughthespace should have the building itselfasa destination. It is not appropriatethat a backyard space be a passagewayfor a high volume of pedestrian traffic.• Though a hard-surfaced courtyardspace may be the most appropriate for abackyard, its materials should be warmand inviting. A study of an unused medi­cal school quad at the University of Cali­fornia at Irvine revealed that glaring,concrete surfaces and lack of shade pre­cluded use of the few seats available.Changes proposed by a study team ofenvironmental psychology students in­cluded adding a wooden deck with a lat­tice for shade and movable seating.• Seating should be grouped around theedges or attached to islands, since peoplegenerally feel more comfortable with awallor planting at their back .• Where appropriate, movable seatingand tables should be provided so thatpeople can arrange their own clusters.• A backyard space should be large~nough to accommodate temporary seat­109 forspecial "family" events such asgraduation, yet not so large and open thatusers feel exposed or uncomfortable whenalone or in pairs.

Common TurfIf the spaces close to campus buildings:an usefully be regarded as adjuncts to ahouse," then the common areas be­

tween these precincts might be viewed as~~e str~,ets and parks of the campustown. For campuses located in a rural

~r SUburba~ context, with approaches by~r Or public transit from a number of

dIrections, it may be counterproductivetopl.an a single grand entry, however ap­peahng. it may look in plan. For example,th.eUmversity of California at Irvinewllh 'many commuting students, was

Backyards. Some campus buildingsalso feature successful "backyards"­spaces attached to or perhaps partiallyenclosed by buildings , where "residentsfeel a greater sense of territory than inthe front yard and where semipriva te dpartmental or college events can occur.One example is the U-shaped east court­yard of Wurster Hall on the Berkeleycampus. Enclosed on three sides by thebuilding it serves, it is used casually asone might use a house's backyard.Though certainly capable of aestheti cimprovements, the space is at least quisheltered and unhurried. Faculty andstaff from the building often eat brown­bag lunches here, avoiding the morelively, crowded, west-facing "frontporch" favored by students. Residentsalso use Wurster's backyard for designpresent ations, model building, photogra­phy, drawing classes and volleyballgames , as well as for infrequent specialevents such as graduation, the BeauxArts Ball and memorial services for de­ceased facult y members.

Clearly this space plays an importanrole in enhancing Wurster Hall's sensecommunity. In the hurried milieu of alarge university, such a sense is oftensadly lacking. Certainly basic consider-

• Lawns, plant ings and paths should besubtl y organized to suggest (but not "en­force" ) the notion of a front yard . Thereshould be enough visual cues that usersof a particular building can easily claimand enjoy this space .• It is desirable to provide lawn areas inboth sun and shade. This diversity notonly provides pleasing visual contras tsfor passersby but also ensures contrastinmicroclimates for stationary users.• Shade trees should not possess cha rac­teristics likely to inhibit people from sit­ting or sleeping beneath them (for exampie, the spiky fallen leaves of theCalifornia live oak, or sticky summernectar under the tulip poplar).• Some regular bench seating may beappropriate around the edges of thisspace, or around the bases of particular!large and impressive trees.• In seasons when sitt ing on the grass ispossible and irrigation is necessary, wa­tering should occur in the evening.

they become familiar with its sights,sounds and sensations while relaxing, eat.ing or conversing.

D

D

DSEATING

ENTRANCE

Frequently ignored in books oncampus planning and design,outdoorspaces-theiruses for

circulation, study, relaxation andpleasure-deservefar greater

attention.

into a sense of home territory. A$ in aresidential neighborhood, people on theBerkeley campus feel comfortable ontheir "home turf' partly because theyrecognize other people there. But morethan in a residential area , people becomeattached to a campus area because theyuse the outdoors as a resting place aswell as a passing-through space-that is,

MAIN THOROUGHFARE

Observations and surveys on a variety of campuses have confirmed students' tendencyto study outdoors near main building entrances. Benches. seats and other outdoor f ur­niture should include tablet arms or tables. and should be arranged to permit bothgroup and solitary study. (Illustration fr om C. M. Deasy. Design for Human Affairs.Cambridge. MA : Schenkman Books Inc. © 1974. Reprinted with permission.)

Designing a "Front Porch"

nothing and therefore offer a calmingantidote to these pressures . (And weshould not overlook the relief the out­doors provide to the physiologicalstresses of institutional buildings-airconditioning, fluorescent lighting, videodisplay terminals, building materials pol­lution and so on.)

In the institutional atmosphere of amajor campus, people have particularneeds for "irnageable" outdoor spaces­places where they feel at home and towhich they can easily return to meetfriends or to relax. More than 18 percentof a sample of 400 Berkeley studentswere "able to indicate on a map an areathey considered as "home turf'-usuallyextending around and beyond their"home base." Since most campus userswalk between buildings, and since theclimate at Berkeley is hospitable, a grad ­ual daily familiarity with place evolves

I:I

56 Landscape Architecture March i April 57

entry (a problem at many campuses); onthe west, a formal entry conceived inOlmsted's original campus plan and re­designed by Thomas Church in the six­ties seems a misplaced monument, sincefew enter the campus from this direc­tion. If a design is to address day-to-dayneeds, campus entries should be placedwhere most students will enter on foot,and they should provide pleasantsubspaces for waiting, casual study, pe­rusing notices and picking up newspapersor flyers. Entry points are also importantlocations for legible, well-lit campusmaps and adequate directional signs.

Almost every campus includes somekind of central plaza or gathering place .Just as the traditional village or smalltown had its common green or townsquare, so each campus communityseems to need a place for the "action" atlunchtime. This is where friends meet,displays are placed and rallies happen.The character of these spaces varies,from the grand central mall of grass andtrees at the University of Illinois at Ur­bana-Champaign to the large, buff-brickSmith Plaza at the University of NewMexico and the distinctly urban SproulPlaza at Berkeley.

Size. One issue regarding size shouldbe very sensitively handled: the central

Virtually every campus has notableexamples ofunsuccessful"backyard" spaces-often

courtyards left desolate oremptybecause ofinadequate access and

little concern for the details ofaesthetics andfunction.

"Front yards" should provide comf ortable seating. such as these wooden benchesalong Berkeley 's Sproul Plaza. A combination ofsunny and shady spaces offers visualvariety and contrasting microclimates .

planned as a "wheel" of campus build­ings and peripheral parking lots, withmultiple entries . This design makes sensefunctionally, though it leaves the campuswith a slightly disturbing lack of focus.

At the Berkeley campus, by contrast,the formally designated main entry atBancroft and Telegraph avenues is alsothe main gathering place (Sproul Plaza)and the principal entry point for studentsapproaching on foot. All of these ele­ments-pius lack of a vehicular entryhere---eombine to create a highly usedand imageable gateway.

Other entry points at Berkeley are lesssuccessful. On the north side, pedestriansand cars share a confused, unaesthetic

ations of comfort (warm spots, shade)and function (seating, study, conversa­tion) in such spaces need to be muchmore carefully addressed. Virtually everycampus has notable examples of unsuc­cessful backyard spaces-s-often court­vards left desolate or empty because ofinadequate access and little concern forthedetails of aesthetics and function.

• A backyard space should be locatedaway from major pedestrian flows, andyet be easily accessible from the buildingit serves. Its presence should be obvious10 building habitues, but not so obviousto passersby.• The majority of those passing throughthespace should have the building itselfasa destination. It is not appropriatethat a backyard space be a passagewayfor a high volume of pedestrian traffic.• Though a hard-surfaced courtyardspace may be the most appropriate for abackyard, its materials should be warmand inviting. A study of an unused medi­cal school quad at the University of Cali­fornia at Irvine revealed that glaring,concrete surfaces and lack of shade pre­cluded use of the few seats available.Changes proposed by a study team ofenvironmental psychology students in­cluded adding a wooden deck with a lat­tice for shade and movable seating.• Seating should be grouped around theedges or attached to islands, since peoplegenerally feel more comfortable with awallor planting at their back .• Where appropriate, movable seatingand tables should be provided so thatpeople can arrange their own clusters.• A backyard space should be large~nough to accommodate temporary seat­109 forspecial "family" events such asgraduation, yet not so large and open thatusers feel exposed or uncomfortable whenalone or in pairs.

Common TurfIf the spaces close to campus buildings:an usefully be regarded as adjuncts to ahouse," then the common areas be­

tween these precincts might be viewed as~~e str~,ets and parks of the campustown. For campuses located in a rural

~r SUburba~ context, with approaches by~r Or public transit from a number of

dIrections, it may be counterproductivetopl.an a single grand entry, however ap­peahng. it may look in plan. For example,th.eUmversity of California at Irvinewllh 'many commuting students, was

Backyards. Some campus buildingsalso feature successful "backyards"­spaces attached to or perhaps partiallyenclosed by buildings , where "residentsfeel a greater sense of territory than inthe front yard and where semipriva te dpartmental or college events can occur.One example is the U-shaped east court­yard of Wurster Hall on the Berkeleycampus. Enclosed on three sides by thebuilding it serves, it is used casually asone might use a house's backyard.Though certainly capable of aestheti cimprovements, the space is at least quisheltered and unhurried. Faculty andstaff from the building often eat brown­bag lunches here, avoiding the morelively, crowded, west-facing "frontporch" favored by students. Residentsalso use Wurster's backyard for designpresent ations, model building, photogra­phy, drawing classes and volleyballgames , as well as for infrequent specialevents such as graduation, the BeauxArts Ball and memorial services for de­ceased facult y members.

Clearly this space plays an importanrole in enhancing Wurster Hall's sensecommunity. In the hurried milieu of alarge university, such a sense is oftensadly lacking. Certainly basic consider-

• Lawns, plant ings and paths should besubtl y organized to suggest (but not "en­force" ) the notion of a front yard . Thereshould be enough visual cues that usersof a particular building can easily claimand enjoy this space .• It is desirable to provide lawn areas inboth sun and shade. This diversity notonly provides pleasing visual contras tsfor passersby but also ensures contrastinmicroclimates for stationary users.• Shade trees should not possess cha rac­teristics likely to inhibit people from sit­ting or sleeping beneath them (for exampie, the spiky fallen leaves of theCalifornia live oak, or sticky summernectar under the tulip poplar).• Some regular bench seating may beappropriate around the edges of thisspace, or around the bases of particular!large and impressive trees.• In seasons when sitt ing on the grass ispossible and irrigation is necessary, wa­tering should occur in the evening.

they become familiar with its sights,sounds and sensations while relaxing, eat.ing or conversing.

D

D

DSEATING

ENTRANCE

Frequently ignored in books oncampus planning and design,outdoorspaces-theiruses for

circulation, study, relaxation andpleasure-deservefar greater

attention.

into a sense of home territory. A$ in aresidential neighborhood, people on theBerkeley campus feel comfortable ontheir "home turf' partly because theyrecognize other people there. But morethan in a residential area , people becomeattached to a campus area because theyuse the outdoors as a resting place aswell as a passing-through space-that is,

MAIN THOROUGHFARE

Observations and surveys on a variety of campuses have confirmed students' tendencyto study outdoors near main building entrances. Benches. seats and other outdoor f ur­niture should include tablet arms or tables. and should be arranged to permit bothgroup and solitary study. (Illustration fr om C. M. Deasy. Design for Human Affairs.Cambridge. MA : Schenkman Books Inc. © 1974. Reprinted with permission.)

Designing a "Front Porch"

nothing and therefore offer a calmingantidote to these pressures . (And weshould not overlook the relief the out­doors provide to the physiologicalstresses of institutional buildings-airconditioning, fluorescent lighting, videodisplay terminals, building materials pol­lution and so on.)

In the institutional atmosphere of amajor campus, people have particularneeds for "irnageable" outdoor spaces­places where they feel at home and towhich they can easily return to meetfriends or to relax. More than 18 percentof a sample of 400 Berkeley studentswere "able to indicate on a map an areathey considered as "home turf'-usuallyextending around and beyond their"home base." Since most campus userswalk between buildings, and since theclimate at Berkeley is hospitable, a grad ­ual daily familiarity with place evolves

I:I

56 Landscape Architecture March i April 57

Marchi April 59

ma ny people that need ed "excuse" to oc­cu py a public space while at the sametim e read ing, studying or watching theworld go by. T his excuse seems to beneeded by women more than men, andespecia lly by women of certain back­grounds (e.g., Chica na, Taiwane se)whose cultural upbringing may have dis­couraged the use of public spaces alone.

Where the climate is appropriate, aneye-catching fountain can be a wonderfuladdition to a large plaza. Not only can itprovide an aesthetic focal point , animagea ble and unique symbol of thespace, but if people ca n sit on its edge,trai l hands or feet in it, walk through iton stepping stones or otherwise interactwith the water, then it becomes an at­tra ctive adult play space.

Favorite SpacesTh e campus environment rem ains one ofthe few orth American urb an precinctswhere pedest rians predominat e. Manyca mpuses constitute an unusual milieu inwhich " urba nity" and "greenery" arepleasantl y juxtaposed. The Berkel ey sur­vey revealed that most students enjoyedhaving easy access to both types of envi­ronments; yet, looking to the future, themajority favored more "open spaces andgreenery" ra ther tha n more "malls andplazas." Th ey feared the encroachent of

Successful campus plazas accommodate the needs of both "performers " and "audi­ences." Sproul Plaza has hosted a rich diversity of spontaneous events and gatherings:here, "Holy Hubert " preaches to passersby in /969 .

for example, elde rly people (especiallymen) will tend to use the main plaza asan outdoor sitt ing room , seeking quiet,back-seat positions. Since the uses varyso greatl y, the actual fo rm of sea tingshould vary accordingly, from bencheswith and without backs to steps, retain­ing walls, fountain edges and so on.

If bicycles are common on campus,there must be adequate bicycle racks.Otherwise, benches and trees will beused for this purpose, cluttering the envi­ronment visually and functionally. No­tice boards for official and unofficial no­tices should be provided . Glass-frontedcases for the former, and kiosks or bulle­tin boards for the latt er, have provensuccessful. Other important det ails in­clude locat ing open boards in wind-shel­tered places ; a nd positioning nearby sea t­ing so that people neither feel inhibitedfrom sitti ng there nor obstruct thenot ices.

Food service should be ava ilable on amain plaza, pre ferably in at least twoforms: a cafeteria or restau rant with out­door seating (where clima te permits)within view of the plaza, and food-vend­ing kiosks or carts so that students canbuy inexpensive snacks and eat infor­mally in or near the plaza. Observationsin downtown office districts and campusplazas alike indicate that eat ing gives

seasons. and gra dually appropriate the .space cogniti~ely. This par ad e of pass­ersby is also Important so that those whohave come to people-watch or wai t for afriend have plenty to observe. Part ofupper Sproul Plaza 's success is du e toits layout along the former stree t align­ment of Telegraph Avenue , a major ac­cess street for the Berkeley campus.

A central plaza can be an importan torienting device in sociopsychologial andperceptual terms. At the University ofCalifornia at Sa nta Cruz, where theplanners were specifica lly instructed notto include such a gathering place (forfea r of repeating the "problematic"Berkeley rallies of the 1960s), there is adisturbing sense of disorientati on, evenamong campus regul ars .

Spatial Attributes. The mai n plaza ofa large campus tak es on the functi on ofa stage, where some come to "perform"(walk by, play music, give speeches, dis­tribute leaflets) and the rest ac t as a n au­dience to watch and perh aps be watched.The design must enabl e these two activi­ties-passing through and sta tionary be­havior- to occur simulta neously withoutimpeding each other. As an analogy, onemight imagine a flowing river (pedes­trian movement), with eddy spaces off totheside (sitt ing, watching, etc .). The"eddy spaces" for sea ting need to be pro­vided in prominent and less prominentpositions, with symbolic buffers betweensitters and passersby. Steps abutting aplaza can provide a good vantage pointfor watching the action.

As in any public place, people usuallyfee l more comfortable sitti ng on the edgeof a space with something at their backs.Hence, the overall planning of a majorcampus plaza should articulate the edgesas much as possible and provide man yanchor spots (trees, columns, plantersand so on). Observations at Berkeley'sSproul Plaza suggest tha t women aremuch more likely tha n men to seek outedg~, COrners and physical props in theenvI ronment. Men, on the other hand,tend to be the predominant users ofmore exposed positions- lawns for sun­b~thing, a prominent set of steps for ob­VIOUS people-watc hing. To provide forboth sexes, a variety of seat ing andspraWling locat ions should be provided .~e main plaza must provide a greater

vanety of seati ng locations than any~~her single campus space, since it is1 ely to draw to it the greatest variety ofPtople. On campuses near downtowns,

plaza or gathering space is likely to bewhere large rallies , speeches or perfo r­mances are scheduled, yet a space largeenough to accommodate such gatherinmay seem empty and ambiguous withoa scheduled event. While a central greemall-as at the University of Virginia iCharlottesville-i-does not appear"empty" when unused, a ha rd-surfacedspace often does . At the University of

ew Mexico, for example, stu dents re­gard Smith Plaza as the center of cam­pus and recog nize its value for ra lliesand fiestas . When crowds are notpresent, however, campus users regardthe space as overwhelming and uncom­fortable to walk through. When rela­tively empty, it is used primarily byskateboarders and frisbee throwers-asure sign in any context that a plaza isoverscaled for conversation and relax­at ion. Lower Sproul Plaza on the Berke­ley campus, measuring approximately250 by 150 feet, largely empty of treesor site furniture, and modeled on the Pi­azza San Marco, is similarly perceivedand used . In Upper Sproul Plaza (ap­proximately 550 by 100 feet and featur­ing a canopy of London plane trees),however, designers Vernon De Mars,Donald Reay, Donald Hardison andLawrence Halprin cre ated a supe rb ur­ban space that splen didly complementsactivities ranging from multi-thousa nd­person political rallies to quiet study anconversation (but not sim ulta neously!).

Location. A ce ntral plaza should be Icated on common turf, where the deni­zens of any building or precinct can feelequally comfo rtable. In the 1980 surveof Berkeley stu dents, virtually all wereable to name areas on campus they con;sidered common turf; the largest group(a lmost two-thirds) mentioned the mainentry / gathering place of Sproul Plaza.

A central plaza should also bebounded by high-use generators, sucha student center or student union; li­brary; theater; gymnasium; cafeteria; aministration bu ilding; bookstore; post 0­

rice. The main plaza at Foothill Col legin San Mateo County, California, isbounded by no active buildings an d isempty most of the time; conversely, asmall cul-de-sac bounded by the studenunion and bookstore is alwa ys uncom foably overcrowded.

A central plaza must be located on amajor pedestrian traffic route so thatmany people become familiar with theplace, see it in its different moods and

Marchi April 59

ma ny people that need ed "excuse" to oc­cu py a public space while at the sametim e read ing, studying or watching theworld go by. T his excuse seems to beneeded by women more than men, andespecia lly by women of certain back­grounds (e.g., Chica na, Taiwane se)whose cultural upbringing may have dis­couraged the use of public spaces alone.

Where the climate is appropriate, aneye-catching fountain can be a wonderfuladdition to a large plaza. Not only can itprovide an aesthetic focal point , animagea ble and unique symbol of thespace, but if people ca n sit on its edge,trai l hands or feet in it, walk through iton stepping stones or otherwise interactwith the water, then it becomes an at­tra ctive adult play space.

Favorite SpacesTh e campus environment rem ains one ofthe few orth American urb an precinctswhere pedest rians predominat e. Manyca mpuses constitute an unusual milieu inwhich " urba nity" and "greenery" arepleasantl y juxtaposed. The Berkel ey sur­vey revealed that most students enjoyedhaving easy access to both types of envi­ronments; yet, looking to the future, themajority favored more "open spaces andgreenery" ra ther tha n more "malls andplazas." Th ey feared the encroachent of

Successful campus plazas accommodate the needs of both "performers " and "audi­ences." Sproul Plaza has hosted a rich diversity of spontaneous events and gatherings:here, "Holy Hubert " preaches to passersby in /969 .

for example, elde rly people (especiallymen) will tend to use the main plaza asan outdoor sitt ing room , seeking quiet,back-seat positions. Since the uses varyso greatl y, the actual fo rm of sea tingshould vary accordingly, from bencheswith and without backs to steps, retain­ing walls, fountain edges and so on.

If bicycles are common on campus,there must be adequate bicycle racks.Otherwise, benches and trees will beused for this purpose, cluttering the envi­ronment visually and functionally. No­tice boards for official and unofficial no­tices should be provided . Glass-frontedcases for the former, and kiosks or bulle­tin boards for the latt er, have provensuccessful. Other important det ails in­clude locat ing open boards in wind-shel­tered places ; a nd positioning nearby sea t­ing so that people neither feel inhibitedfrom sitti ng there nor obstruct thenot ices.

Food service should be ava ilable on amain plaza, pre ferably in at least twoforms: a cafeteria or restau rant with out­door seating (where clima te permits)within view of the plaza, and food-vend­ing kiosks or carts so that students canbuy inexpensive snacks and eat infor­mally in or near the plaza. Observationsin downtown office districts and campusplazas alike indicate that eat ing gives

seasons. and gra dually appropriate the .space cogniti~ely. This par ad e of pass­ersby is also Important so that those whohave come to people-watch or wai t for afriend have plenty to observe. Part ofupper Sproul Plaza 's success is du e toits layout along the former stree t align­ment of Telegraph Avenue , a major ac­cess street for the Berkeley campus.

A central plaza can be an importan torienting device in sociopsychologial andperceptual terms. At the University ofCalifornia at Sa nta Cruz, where theplanners were specifica lly instructed notto include such a gathering place (forfea r of repeating the "problematic"Berkeley rallies of the 1960s), there is adisturbing sense of disorientati on, evenamong campus regul ars .

Spatial Attributes. The mai n plaza ofa large campus tak es on the functi on ofa stage, where some come to "perform"(walk by, play music, give speeches, dis­tribute leaflets) and the rest ac t as a n au­dience to watch and perh aps be watched.The design must enabl e these two activi­ties-passing through and sta tionary be­havior- to occur simulta neously withoutimpeding each other. As an analogy, onemight imagine a flowing river (pedes­trian movement), with eddy spaces off totheside (sitt ing, watching, etc .). The"eddy spaces" for sea ting need to be pro­vided in prominent and less prominentpositions, with symbolic buffers betweensitters and passersby. Steps abutting aplaza can provide a good vantage pointfor watching the action.

As in any public place, people usuallyfee l more comfortable sitti ng on the edgeof a space with something at their backs.Hence, the overall planning of a majorcampus plaza should articulate the edgesas much as possible and provide man yanchor spots (trees, columns, plantersand so on). Observations at Berkeley'sSproul Plaza suggest tha t women aremuch more likely tha n men to seek outedg~, COrners and physical props in theenvI ronment. Men, on the other hand,tend to be the predominant users ofmore exposed positions- lawns for sun­b~thing, a prominent set of steps for ob­VIOUS people-watc hing. To provide forboth sexes, a variety of seat ing andspraWling locat ions should be provided .~e main plaza must provide a greater

vanety of seati ng locations than any~~her single campus space, since it is1 ely to draw to it the greatest variety ofPtople. On campuses near downtowns,

plaza or gathering space is likely to bewhere large rallies , speeches or perfo r­mances are scheduled, yet a space largeenough to accommodate such gatherinmay seem empty and ambiguous withoa scheduled event. While a central greemall-as at the University of Virginia iCharlottesville-i-does not appear"empty" when unused, a ha rd-surfacedspace often does . At the University of

ew Mexico, for example, stu dents re­gard Smith Plaza as the center of cam­pus and recog nize its value for ra lliesand fiestas . When crowds are notpresent, however, campus users regardthe space as overwhelming and uncom­fortable to walk through. When rela­tively empty, it is used primarily byskateboarders and frisbee throwers-asure sign in any context that a plaza isoverscaled for conversation and relax­at ion. Lower Sproul Plaza on the Berke­ley campus, measuring approximately250 by 150 feet, largely empty of treesor site furniture, and modeled on the Pi­azza San Marco, is similarly perceivedand used . In Upper Sproul Plaza (ap­proximately 550 by 100 feet and featur­ing a canopy of London plane trees),however, designers Vernon De Mars,Donald Reay, Donald Hardison andLawrence Halprin cre ated a supe rb ur­ban space that splen didly complementsactivities ranging from multi-thousa nd­person political rallies to quiet study anconversation (but not sim ulta neously!).

Location. A ce ntral plaza should be Icated on common turf, where the deni­zens of any building or precinct can feelequally comfo rtable. In the 1980 surveof Berkeley stu dents, virtually all wereable to name areas on campus they con;sidered common turf; the largest group(a lmost two-thirds) mentioned the mainentry / gathering place of Sproul Plaza.

A central plaza should also bebounded by high-use generators, sucha student center or student union; li­brary; theater; gymnasium; cafeteria; aministration bu ilding; bookstore; post 0­

rice. The main plaza at Foothill Col legin San Mateo County, California, isbounded by no active buildings an d isempty most of the time; conversely, asmall cul-de-sac bounded by the studenunion and bookstore is alwa ys uncom foably overcrowded.

A central plaza must be located on amajor pedestrian traffic route so thatmany people become familiar with theplace, see it in its different moods and

hance the full use of the outdoors forstudy. relaxation, contemp lat ion, socializ­ing and entertainment .•

SO UR C ESCa mpus Environment Assessment Team .

"Medical Science Qu ad Area Evaluat ion."Irvine: University of California. 1982.

Deasy, C. M. Designfo r Human Affairs.Cambridge. MA: Schenkman Books. 1974.

Marcus. Clare Cooper. Daniel lacofano,and Christopher Grampp. "The Ca mpus inthe Country." The Berkeley Graduate.Spring 1982.

Marcus. Cla re Cooper, and TrudyWischemann. "Campus Outdoor Space: An

nderutilized Potential." Berkeley: nive r-sity of California. 1982. -

Montgomery. Roger. "Center of Action."In Cities Fit to Live In. and How We CanMake Them Happen. ed. by WalterMcQ uade. New York: Macmillan. 1971.

Rohane, Kevin. lark Eshelman. andWolfgang Preiser. "An Evaluation of Out­door Space se: The University of NewMexico Campus." Albuque rque: Institutefor Environmental Educa tion. 1982.

A group ofsemi-ou tdoor study carrels on the roof garden of Berkeley 's Bechtel Centerattracts frequent users. When asked what additions would most enhance outdoorstudy, three-quarters ofa student sample cited "more benches or tables."

glass. Th is is the only instance I can re­call of study tables consciously designedinto a campus space-and they are im­mensely popular.

ConclusionToo often, campus outdoor spaces havebeen regarded as merely "what's leftover" after the building decisions havebeen made . Perhaps this situation re­flects another case of the landscape ar­chitect entering a design process too late,after major site-planning decisions havebeen made. and being reduced to"shrubbing up" or detailing a space , theuses of which have scarcel y been consid­ered . In campus planning- as in anyother form of site planning-design pro­fessionals whose focus is the outdoorsneed to be involved from the start, press­ing for "front porches." aware of theneed for common turf. sensitive to theprotection of special places , and skilledin the use of planting and materials andplacement of site furniture so as to en-

The author wishes to thank former Berkeley landscape archi tect ure students Daniel lacofanoand Christopher Grampp, who assisted in preparing the 1982 ca mpus use report on whichthis paper is based.

• Close to sources of inexpensive food ornacks, ince read ing and eat ing are of­

ten combined.• On open lawn areas, for those who pre­fer to study close to the ir home base orina more "public" place, with lots ofspace around them .• In secluded, small spaces for those whowish to do more contemplative or privatework. One-third of those questioned onthe Berkeley campus wanted more placesto sit and study in the riparian vegetationalong a creek that bisects the campus.(This need should be sensitively handledtoavoid erosion problems.)• Away from vehicular traffic or parkingareas, since the noise can be distracting.• Semi-enclosed patios or terraces off li­braries, for a change from indoorreading.

In designing and detailing spaces thatmaybe u ed for outdoor study, thefollowing characteristics should beconsidered:

• Pedestrian flows should be screened bydistance. planting, level changes and soon.so that the sights and sounds of pass­ersby are not too distracting.• Some study spaces might be semi-en­closed with defined boundaries, so thatusers will feel sheltered from possible in­trusion. Comfortable seating should be atop priority.• Although some will find comfortableseating sufficient for reading, conversa­tionor thinking, others will prefer tospread books out on a hard surface andlean on a table while writing. A varietyof writing surfaces should be offered,from flip-up writing tables to benchesand tables. Since many people prefer tostudy alone or perhaps with one friend,small, one- to two-person tables and seat­109 arrangements may be preferable tolarge. picnic-sized tabes. When askedwhat additions would enhance outdoorstudy on the Berkeley campus, three­~uaners of those questioned citedbenches or tables." It seems surprising

that outdoor tables are so rarely providedOn ca":lpuse : they tend to be specifiedb~' desIgners primarily as adjuncts to pic­mcs and eating. One of the favorite~tudy places cited by many Berkeley stu-ems was the Bechtel Center roof gar­

den. Located on the roof of a partiallys~r"ken bUilding. this space receives sun~ day and comprises a small cafe seat-109 I '. Pantings and roofed outdoor studycarrels Surrounded on three sides by

• At major building entries , where be­tween-classes or lunch-hour study canconducted in familiar territory.

Outdoor Study AreasWeather permitting, the common turfeas of a campus can offer valuable locations for casual outdoor study betweenclasses. or when conversation with afriend would be distracting in a library.In a Berkeley survey conducted duringwarm fall weather. half the respondenreported studying outdoors "often" or"sometimes." Factors inhibiting outdstudy were (in order of importance): tmany people; nowhere to sit; lack oftime; glare from sun and buildings onbooks and paper; noise from vehicles;outdoor distractions; dogs; and lack ofplace to write or lean on.

Several locations appear to be themost favored for casual outdoor study:

by those willing to sit on the grass.• Ensure that trees or other plant mateals form a natura l boundary to suchspaces in the vert ical and/or the horizotal plane. Such a strategy will often en­tail careful , long-term planning regardithe location of future buildings and thelongevity and growth rate of trees .• Plan the peripheral and internal plant.ing of such spaces to enhance the psy­chological need of many users to "at­tach" themselves to an edge or an islandat their backs.• Separate such spaces from campusbuildings so that they will not be claimas the semiexclusive territory of any ondepartment or group of students.• Plan for major circulation routes toskirt these spaces , so that they are easilaccessible yet not disrupted by traffic.• The very nature of favorite campusspaces (separate from buildings , screenby vegetation ) may also render themtent ially unsafe at night, particularly fowomen. Indeed , most of the favoritespaces cited by Berkeley students werealso perceived as being the campus ar"most unsafe at night." In student sur­veys at Berkeley and the University of

ew Mexico, fear of crime was the prdominant reason inhibiting use of thecampus at night. A proposal at the Uni­versity of ew Mexico to designate aconcise, integrated system of well-lit anpatrolled "night safety paths" linkingmain campus entries and nighttime ac­tivity centers on campus could be emulated elsewhere.

Eating gives many people thatneeded "excuse" to occupy a

public space while at the same timereading, studyingor watching the

world go by.

• On a new campus, designate unique orparticularly att ractive natural features as"sacred," never to be built over or visu­ally encroached upon bY,'neighboringbuildings. On an existing campus, con­firm by a surveyor observations whichplaces are the favorites of students, notjust of planners. As on a new site, suchspaces need to be documented and pro­tected from urban encroachment.• Plan for a variety of natural spaces­from large, open lawns or hillsides to se­cluded creekside spaces. People's needsand moods vary.• Sensitively locate adequate seating andbench /table arrangements to enhanceuse for study. eating and conversation . Auser study of a popular duck pond andadjacent park at the Universit y of ewMexico revealed these lush, landscapedspaces to be quite inadequately providedwith seating; they could only be enjoyed

Though "n atu ralness" dominated thequalities of spaces that were desirable atBerkeley, what was meant by "natural"varied a great deal, ranging from theneatly trimmed lawns and lines ofpleached plane trees beneath the centralCampanile to the grassy, tree-bordered"bowl" of Faculty Glade and a grove oftowering eucalyptus trees bounded bymeandering Strawberry Creek. Whatseemed common to all these favoritespaces is that natural elements (trees,shrubs, grass, creeks) form their bound­aries, largely or totally blocking out thepresence of nearby buildings and roads.

The activities were varied-from sun­bathing and napping to occasional sched­uled events (music, dance, receptions) toquiet study, conversation, eating, people­watching, meditation, feeding birds andsquirrels, and playing frisbee or catch. Aplace for such act ivities is essential to al­leviate potent ial stress among studentsand university employees, rendering theintensity or boredom of classes, seminarsand office work more tolerable .

TR UDY WI SCH EMAr-;N

more buildings, parking lots and "urban­ity," and complained of narrow, crowdedsidewalks, dangerous bike riders, andnoise from service vehicles and shuttlebuses. As in the city, pedestrian/vehic­ular conflict can be a major campusproblem; unlike the city, the campus wasoriginally built as a pedestrian environ­ment , upon which roads and parking lotshave gradually encroached.

The Berkeley survey asked respon­dents to indica te on a map their "favor­ite spaces." The fact that virtuall y every­one was able. without hesitation. toindicate such a space suggests its poten­tial importa nce. For the most part, thesespaces were green or " natural" environ­ments. not seen as the territory or hometurf of any particular build ing or depart­ment. The y seemed to be used much asa downtown office worker might use apark- as a place to retreat to, to escapethe pressures of work and colleagues. tocatch one's breath and relax.

A number of reasons were given forchoosing a favorite space . The most fre­quently cited were naturalness and openspace, peace and quiet, shade or sun,people-watching, and proximity to water.

The Berkeley campus has its share ofunsuccessful "backyard" spaces. Top: A'fishbowl" space suffers f rom a lack ofvegetation and privacy. Above: A glaring,overscaled courtyard offers scant seating.

I:

I

60 Landscape Architecture Marchi April 61

hance the full use of the outdoors forstudy. relaxation, contemp lat ion, socializ­ing and entertainment .•

SO UR C ESCa mpus Environment Assessment Team .

"Medical Science Qu ad Area Evaluat ion."Irvine: University of California. 1982.

Deasy, C. M. Designfo r Human Affairs.Cambridge. MA: Schenkman Books. 1974.

Marcus. Clare Cooper. Daniel lacofano,and Christopher Grampp. "The Ca mpus inthe Country." The Berkeley Graduate.Spring 1982.

Marcus. Cla re Cooper, and TrudyWischemann. "Campus Outdoor Space: An

nderutilized Potential." Berkeley: nive r-sity of California. 1982. -

Montgomery. Roger. "Center of Action."In Cities Fit to Live In. and How We CanMake Them Happen. ed. by WalterMcQ uade. New York: Macmillan. 1971.

Rohane, Kevin. lark Eshelman. andWolfgang Preiser. "An Evaluation of Out­door Space se: The University of NewMexico Campus." Albuque rque: Institutefor Environmental Educa tion. 1982.

A group ofsemi-ou tdoor study carrels on the roof garden of Berkeley 's Bechtel Centerattracts frequent users. When asked what additions would most enhance outdoorstudy, three-quarters ofa student sample cited "more benches or tables."

glass. Th is is the only instance I can re­call of study tables consciously designedinto a campus space-and they are im­mensely popular.

ConclusionToo often, campus outdoor spaces havebeen regarded as merely "what's leftover" after the building decisions havebeen made . Perhaps this situation re­flects another case of the landscape ar­chitect entering a design process too late,after major site-planning decisions havebeen made. and being reduced to"shrubbing up" or detailing a space , theuses of which have scarcel y been consid­ered . In campus planning- as in anyother form of site planning-design pro­fessionals whose focus is the outdoorsneed to be involved from the start, press­ing for "front porches." aware of theneed for common turf. sensitive to theprotection of special places , and skilledin the use of planting and materials andplacement of site furniture so as to en-

The author wishes to thank former Berkeley landscape archi tect ure students Daniel lacofanoand Christopher Grampp, who assisted in preparing the 1982 ca mpus use report on whichthis paper is based.

• Close to sources of inexpensive food ornacks, ince read ing and eat ing are of­

ten combined.• On open lawn areas, for those who pre­fer to study close to the ir home base orina more "public" place, with lots ofspace around them .• In secluded, small spaces for those whowish to do more contemplative or privatework. One-third of those questioned onthe Berkeley campus wanted more placesto sit and study in the riparian vegetationalong a creek that bisects the campus.(This need should be sensitively handledtoavoid erosion problems.)• Away from vehicular traffic or parkingareas, since the noise can be distracting.• Semi-enclosed patios or terraces off li­braries, for a change from indoorreading.

In designing and detailing spaces thatmaybe u ed for outdoor study, thefollowing characteristics should beconsidered:

• Pedestrian flows should be screened bydistance. planting, level changes and soon.so that the sights and sounds of pass­ersby are not too distracting.• Some study spaces might be semi-en­closed with defined boundaries, so thatusers will feel sheltered from possible in­trusion. Comfortable seating should be atop priority.• Although some will find comfortableseating sufficient for reading, conversa­tionor thinking, others will prefer tospread books out on a hard surface andlean on a table while writing. A varietyof writing surfaces should be offered,from flip-up writing tables to benchesand tables. Since many people prefer tostudy alone or perhaps with one friend,small, one- to two-person tables and seat­109 arrangements may be preferable tolarge. picnic-sized tabes. When askedwhat additions would enhance outdoorstudy on the Berkeley campus, three­~uaners of those questioned citedbenches or tables." It seems surprising

that outdoor tables are so rarely providedOn ca":lpuse : they tend to be specifiedb~' desIgners primarily as adjuncts to pic­mcs and eating. One of the favorite~tudy places cited by many Berkeley stu-ems was the Bechtel Center roof gar­

den. Located on the roof of a partiallys~r"ken bUilding. this space receives sun~ day and comprises a small cafe seat-109 I '. Pantings and roofed outdoor studycarrels Surrounded on three sides by

• At major building entries , where be­tween-classes or lunch-hour study canconducted in familiar territory.

Outdoor Study AreasWeather permitting, the common turfeas of a campus can offer valuable locations for casual outdoor study betweenclasses. or when conversation with afriend would be distracting in a library.In a Berkeley survey conducted duringwarm fall weather. half the respondenreported studying outdoors "often" or"sometimes." Factors inhibiting outdstudy were (in order of importance): tmany people; nowhere to sit; lack oftime; glare from sun and buildings onbooks and paper; noise from vehicles;outdoor distractions; dogs; and lack ofplace to write or lean on.

Several locations appear to be themost favored for casual outdoor study:

by those willing to sit on the grass.• Ensure that trees or other plant mateals form a natura l boundary to suchspaces in the vert ical and/or the horizotal plane. Such a strategy will often en­tail careful , long-term planning regardithe location of future buildings and thelongevity and growth rate of trees .• Plan the peripheral and internal plant.ing of such spaces to enhance the psy­chological need of many users to "at­tach" themselves to an edge or an islandat their backs.• Separate such spaces from campusbuildings so that they will not be claimas the semiexclusive territory of any ondepartment or group of students.• Plan for major circulation routes toskirt these spaces , so that they are easilaccessible yet not disrupted by traffic.• The very nature of favorite campusspaces (separate from buildings , screenby vegetation ) may also render themtent ially unsafe at night, particularly fowomen. Indeed , most of the favoritespaces cited by Berkeley students werealso perceived as being the campus ar"most unsafe at night." In student sur­veys at Berkeley and the University of

ew Mexico, fear of crime was the prdominant reason inhibiting use of thecampus at night. A proposal at the Uni­versity of ew Mexico to designate aconcise, integrated system of well-lit anpatrolled "night safety paths" linkingmain campus entries and nighttime ac­tivity centers on campus could be emulated elsewhere.

Eating gives many people thatneeded "excuse" to occupy a

public space while at the same timereading, studyingor watching the

world go by.

• On a new campus, designate unique orparticularly att ractive natural features as"sacred," never to be built over or visu­ally encroached upon bY,'neighboringbuildings. On an existing campus, con­firm by a surveyor observations whichplaces are the favorites of students, notjust of planners. As on a new site, suchspaces need to be documented and pro­tected from urban encroachment.• Plan for a variety of natural spaces­from large, open lawns or hillsides to se­cluded creekside spaces. People's needsand moods vary.• Sensitively locate adequate seating andbench /table arrangements to enhanceuse for study. eating and conversation . Auser study of a popular duck pond andadjacent park at the Universit y of ewMexico revealed these lush, landscapedspaces to be quite inadequately providedwith seating; they could only be enjoyed

Though "n atu ralness" dominated thequalities of spaces that were desirable atBerkeley, what was meant by "natural"varied a great deal, ranging from theneatly trimmed lawns and lines ofpleached plane trees beneath the centralCampanile to the grassy, tree-bordered"bowl" of Faculty Glade and a grove oftowering eucalyptus trees bounded bymeandering Strawberry Creek. Whatseemed common to all these favoritespaces is that natural elements (trees,shrubs, grass, creeks) form their bound­aries, largely or totally blocking out thepresence of nearby buildings and roads.

The activities were varied-from sun­bathing and napping to occasional sched­uled events (music, dance, receptions) toquiet study, conversation, eating, people­watching, meditation, feeding birds andsquirrels, and playing frisbee or catch. Aplace for such act ivities is essential to al­leviate potent ial stress among studentsand university employees, rendering theintensity or boredom of classes, seminarsand office work more tolerable .

TR UDY WI SCH EMAr-;N

more buildings, parking lots and "urban­ity," and complained of narrow, crowdedsidewalks, dangerous bike riders, andnoise from service vehicles and shuttlebuses. As in the city, pedestrian/vehic­ular conflict can be a major campusproblem; unlike the city, the campus wasoriginally built as a pedestrian environ­ment , upon which roads and parking lotshave gradually encroached.

The Berkeley survey asked respon­dents to indica te on a map their "favor­ite spaces." The fact that virtuall y every­one was able. without hesitation. toindicate such a space suggests its poten­tial importa nce. For the most part, thesespaces were green or " natural" environ­ments. not seen as the territory or hometurf of any particular build ing or depart­ment. The y seemed to be used much asa downtown office worker might use apark- as a place to retreat to, to escapethe pressures of work and colleagues. tocatch one's breath and relax.

A number of reasons were given forchoosing a favorite space . The most fre­quently cited were naturalness and openspace, peace and quiet, shade or sun,people-watching, and proximity to water.

The Berkeley campus has its share ofunsuccessful "backyard" spaces. Top: A'fishbowl" space suffers f rom a lack ofvegetation and privacy. Above: A glaring,overscaled courtyard offers scant seating.

I:

I

60 Landscape Architecture Marchi April 61

Appendix G

Results of User Opinion Survey (Fitzurka)

A FINAL INTERPRETATION OF USE AREAS AND ELEMENTS, ACTIVITIES, ANDOUTDOOR SPACES MUST BE MADE BY THE USERS THEMSELVES. THEREFORE, AUSER SURVEY AND USER INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED TO GATHERINFORMATION AND CONFIRM HYPOTHESES ABOUT WHAT THE USERS LIKEAND DISLIKE MOST IN THEIR OUTDOOR CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT. THEFOLLOWING SURVEY WAS DISTRIBUTED TO 300 MEN AND WOMEN ON THEUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS. HERE ARE THE RESULTS.

US ER ANAL V 5 I S sus vE '

r El; S QNfl L PI~Of.:l1AT 101>1 00 vuu C ':Lf=." 51111 " UI ; 110 11111 .1 ll' I I I 'Ol l"S f tl l r, ',t ir 1 f";

FEMAL E

3/

I F VE; . LOC.\T rou ­m~UIJT Dr r rur '

A) ()tlf: ( A r' l l n f l I ln r. tr" l )l ll . f Hf r I

[ I rlf,':':: H(1U'H Ok IF.S!'OJ OTHE~'

~ 00 YOU USE til PII E on OTHE R VEH ICL E TO Ge T " , . f:<:QUU O cnHf" U!1""OF F CAMPUS

I AM A • • • • HALE~

AI L Ot"'E R DI V I SION ST U DEN TEe l tl F FER DIVIS ION S lUDENTC > GRA n STUD E NTD> E l.CH/UJG E SrUDHI.TE ) F ACUL T'rFI ~TAF F

G) OT HE R

1 L i VE.. .. CN CAMPUS 1(0 '70

SURV EY QUE STI ONS

'( ( 9

IF YES, WHtlIT IS 'IT" ( FoUS . norau, HQTonC-' CL E . ElC .)

A ) ONCE A WF EI on 110n r -!1_7__o~foil A CQI Il'"I ( or f l l1r s A l.n"TI

C) A COl n \. E Ot - r ucs A H{ II " " ="-ic::L -/D0 ) L ESS THAN UN CE A t1U"' TH

E I I 'EVER ~./.F") OTHER

h HOW OFTEN 00 YOU VISIT CAI"' l ~ AT N I GUT n l m ..,...v >72.%YE S _-,-,=--",,-_

= #H OW HUCH THIE 0 0 you SF' E.UD THERE ?

A l V IS I T MORE T H AN ONCE A CAY~ / 0., V I S I T O ~'CE A DAVC > V i S i T Orl C E A WE E K ~01 VI S I T ON C E A MONTH -----2-E l NOT VER Y OF TEN -d-

rr YE S , WHEl;E 19 I T ? ( 1•• T IGER T HALL . LIBRARY E AST , f!.ROWE R D

:<EACH> U N IO /-J) Li 812AQ.Y) Er PA )C0c.J .....L'CJT?~U~) ETG ,

: . WHAT I S YOU R FAVO R I TE OUT DOOR SF-AC E ON CAM P US? CI • • F L AZA OF

THE AI1ER I CA' S , GP A ROCK, ETC. I 7 lD % H """CJ~ F O>.V CXUTE-

SP.6Ce ,

1 . DO YOU H'='v E A F'L A CE ON CAMPU S THA T you CONe I OER YOUR HOI1£MSE? i e , EcUILD lI lG OR AR E A WHERE YOU SF' END MOS T OF' YOUR TIME( E XCL U D I NG DORMA TOR IE S J

~ WHAT I S I T A EiOU T T H I S P L ACE T HtliT I'1AI<ES I T YOUR F' AVO~ITE " WHATACT I V IT I ES TAI~E P LACE THER E THAT BR ING S YOU BACK? WHAT A&OUT ITHH E RE S TS YOU" •• HARK ALL TH AT AF'PLY __

A1 F. E ~ RE SHHENT S 4z.... a/oEll COOL At>lD SHA DY 5 9C l F EOP L E WATCHING Co '3D I OU IE T =M==£1 SO C I AL I Z I NGFI SF ACE T O STUDY S _GI AOOM TO SIT _~

H I ~1E E T lNG F'L ACE ~1) N':'l Uf~AL EN VI RON t'IENT

US E R ANAL YS IS sunvsv

r ER SQt JA L lt l F or~11AT I Q'~ ~~ DO \UU [ ':l. P S II JI ' , (IF IJO 111" ,1 llq'"ntl. ~, ,,:,: 1111 r ;, I "" I I~

- -~-- - %4>,_iSL

~4_ ~o

_ LD__ 0/0

~·/o

A) arleE A "'F [I on t101~E

P I A COIIfI[ 1)(" r mr s 1\ WFTIC ) n cuu' , En, ' " 1'1[5 i\ H('ln ..OJ LE5;, THAN ~~r.E A MUNTHE) 'l£vtRF) OTH E R

(ACT I VIT '()A) CL ASSPI TO ST UDY OP no H{JMElotOR IC) EXT RA -CI RnJCULM AC T J VITIES

I F YES, WHAT IS 'IT ? (flUS. nor'E ll. HOTonC YCLE. E 1'C . )

. rs (e~ %

H ' "£ 3. L OCIH It',t "·(\tlllllIH or I I nr ".

l=lo) ' 11Ir E i\ r ... fl U ,.,nr'",F ~f)_ 0/",r " ' JI " ,F' • • I-Jl r l ~

C I 'of lr:: io "'0""'1 Of. IF..S!) -2..L0 1 orHEP

I" NOT. '..n TA:::>D~

WHY'"

~ 0 0 "00 USE A PI I E on OTHER \' F.H t CL E TO GET · r. r.O\1IIO C"""" U! '-'

h HQW OFTEN DO YOU V IS I T CAI1f 't19 A T NIG'tl ""n "", ,, .,

OFF CAMPUS __~~~_

NO :lA%Co Co %

ON CAMPUS go %

YE S

I LIVE • • ••

I AM A•• •• "' AL E FEHALE-L-

AI LO\~E R D I V IS I ON S TUDENT -'1-4 a/O[<) lIF":ER O f V I S I ON STUDENT ?(P ' "C ) GRAD ST UOEr-H -L2:....0 ) E XCHntJGE S TUD ENT

E ) ""CUL T> ] 8F ) ~TAF F

GI OTHER

_ WHAT 15 YOUR FA VOR ITE OUTDOOR SF'ACE ON CAMPUSi' t 1 _ . f L A ZA OF

THE AI1ER I CA' S . GPAROCK. ETC . ' aa·~ ~A FAVOLITe..

=-:.. .HO W MUCH TIME 00 YOU SP EN O THER E?A) V i S IT HORE THAN ONCE A DAVBJ V I S I T ONCE A DAYC) V I S I T ONCE A WEE I<0) V ISI T ONC E A MONTHE ) NOT VERY OFTEN

1 , 0 0 YOU HAVE A P L ACE ON CAMPUS THAT YOU CONCI DER YOUR HQI1EBAS E? t e • BU IL DING OR ARE A WHERE YOU S F END ,.10ST OF YOUR TIME( EXCLUDI NG OORHATORIES)

I F YES , WHE RE 15 1 T1 (l e . TIGER T HALL , L IB RARY EAST, BROWERO[-E ACH ) -

S URVE Y OUES T ION S

.i:.. WHAT IS IT A[ol OUT nns PLACE T HAT MAKES IT YOUR FA VORITE" WHATACT I V IT I ES TA"E PLA CE THERE THAT flRJ NGS YOU BACK? WHAT ABOU T ITI NTE RESTS YOU" •• '1ARK ALL THAT AP PLY ••

A ) RE"RESHMEN TS ;Z;"'~ %EO COOL Ar>lO SHADY .!.- $C) PEOPL E WA TCHIN8 rn BD) CU lE T ~§

EJ SOC lAL I Z ING 2..pJF) SFACE T O STUDY~G ) ROOM TO S I T

.... "'EE11 1.JG F'LAC E1) N':'TU RAL ENV t RON ""E N T I.

CC(Q) NCClL lIJ§II(Q)N§gTHESE GENERAL CONCLUSIONS CAN BE MADE FROM THE RESULTS OF THESURVEY.

* 75% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION SURVEYED FELT THEY HAD A "HOME BASE"ON CAMPUS. THIS COINCIDED WITH THE BERKELEY STUDY.

* MOST GRADUATE AND UPPER DIVISION STUDENTS CONSIDERED THEIRDEPARTMENT THEIR "HOMEBASE".

* MOST LOWER DIVISION UNDERGRADUATES CONSIDERED EITHER GPA(TURLINGTON HALL ) OR THE STUDENT UNION THEIR "HOME BASE ",THISILLUSTRATES THE MULTI-PURPOSE USE OF THESE BUILDINGS.

* MOST PEOPLE'S FAVORITE CAMPUS SPACE WAS LOCATED NEAR ORADJACENT TO THEIR HOMEBASE. THEREFORE, PEOPLE LIKE TO REMAIN INTHE FAMILIAR. EACH BUILDING CLUSTER SHOULD PROVIDE ITS OWN SPECIALOUTDOOR AREAS.

* THE TOP THREE THINGS THAT PEOPLE LIKE ABOUT THE OUTDOOR CAMPUSSPACES THEY FREQUENT ARE:

#1. PEOPLE WATCHING#2. ACCESS TO PLACES THAT ARE COOL AND SHADY#3. PLENTY OF ROOM TO SIT

* MORE WOMEN NOTED THE "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT" AS AN IMPORTANTELEMENT THAN MEN.

* MEN SITED THE PRESENCE OF "FOOD" AS A PRIMARY INGREDIENT TO THEIRFAVORITE SPACES. (PROVING THE POINT, "THE WAY TO A MAN'S HEART ISTHROUGH HIS STOMACH!") WOMEN RATED FOOD LAST IN IMPORTANCE.

* MORE WOMEN STATED "THEY STUDY OUTSIDE" THAN MEN. ONLY 25% OFTHE MEN SAID THEY STUDIED OUTSIDE. "TOO MANY DISTRACTIONS" WASTHE REASON LISTED MOST FREQUENTLY, WHEN USERS WERE ASKED WHYTHEY DIDN'T STUDY OUTSIDE.

*MORE MEN SAID THEY RIDE BIKES TO SCHOOL THAN WOMEN. THE MOSTCOMMON ANSWERS STATED FOR NOT RIDING TO SCHOOL WERE; "IT'S EASIERTO WALK" AND " TOO MUCH BICYCLE THEIT".

* 75% OF ALL THE PEOPLE SURVEYED STATED THEY CAME TO CAMPUS ATNIGHT AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK OR MORE. THIS PLACES MORE CONCERN ONTHE ISSUES OF NIGHTTIME SAFETY.

USER SUGGESTIONS:THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF SUGGESTIONS THAT USERS HAD MADE FORIMPROVING THEIR OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENT. THIS INFORMATION WASGATHERED. , DURING SEVERAL INTERVIEWS. THESE WERE THE MOSTFREQUENT RENOUNCES.--* "QUIT PAVING!!!!!!!"* "ADD MORE GREEN SPOTS AND LESS BUILDINGS"*" HAVE ARCHITECTURE THAT IS MORE USER FRIENDLY'*" PROVIDE FREE MUSIC OUTSIDE DURING DAYTIME HOURS"* "ADD BETTER PARKING FACILITIES"* " GET RID OF THE CARS"* " ADD MORE TABLES AND BENCHES"*" IMPROVE CAMPUS BEAUTY'*"GET BETTER LIGHTING AND SECURITY"* "PROVIDE MORE ACTIVITIES FOR MINORITY STUDENTS"

•

./

Uf-Jlm.J Pf'7dVI~H~ OIV~

tv1 e:::t:Vrl- eJ~1UaJI~

10 '20 ~ 4&'~El'Z.c.e:t-.JT~ ~~ "To~~~ "ll-l~~

~A '-./ orz.., IT E::.- 0PA0eC;?~

Fe~L~mRJ~rn:wmHrffilTrlTrn-1'1lI ~~

N1£eT7

~t.~It?cU ~~~~ •

10 -.0 to ~ -40 6::? '0 7~;:

~t!1.( Arz.e THt:0E 0P4~'-rtVtu~YC7t21Te-r

•......,

q-pA----.,

=::IDreurLJ~I~

ptp,ZAdO~,~

~1Utt.&.. -../An.,~

6Tl-t~.

---

Appendix H

Executive Summary Posters

The Campus LandsCape missionCol l is ion

Presenting opportunities for unplanned encounters or interactions between students,

faculty, and others within the campus landscape, in order to share and generate ideas

and to spur personal and social growth.

CommunityAllowing deep, personal connections and

relationships within the social networks in which students are participants.

Cit izenshipProviding an ideal setting for events, activities,

and interactions which allow students to become the new leaders and ambassadors for local and global communities of which they are

a member.

design approaChesCampus Landscape Design Determinants & Taxonomy

Pattern LanguagesFrederick Law Olmsted, Sr. & Olmsted Brothers

Cultural SustainabilityMeaningful Places & Placemaking

Subconscious Landscapes of the Heart

aCademiC insTiTuTionsCampus Landscape Master Plans

Landscape Design Guidelines

sTudenT preferenCes

CuLTuraL infLuenCe

primary funCTions of The Campus LandsCape

Organize and Connect BuildingsSymbolize Higher Education

Serve and Benefit Students, Faculty, and Visitors

Example of Campus Landscape Patterns by Christopher Alexander

Phase I – exIstIng LIterature

Example of Duke University Landscape Design Guidelines

+

LaCk of sTudenT inpuT in proCess of produCing Campus LandsCapes

gap BeTween design approaChes and Theory

the Plaza of the americas, but on the side that has the trees with the tables to sit at, mainly because I like the indirect interaction, you can just sit there, in the shade, and people watch or do work or possibly read. It’s a nice spot.

architecture lawn, because it’s where I spend most of my time on campus.

escaping from the crowd is important to me sometimes, so I would show them the various trails and ponds around campus where a person can get a moments peace from the campus excitement.

Warrington Business school, since the trees there make a canopy of leaves that fills the sky.

Lake alice, just because there are so many different spots with very beautiful views.

the area between the reitz and the hub is so serene and calm, I love to just walk through that area with friends and sometimes even take a seat on the ground/picnic tables and just talk.

amphitheater at the reitz - great place to sit at night to spend time with someone special.

More covered outdoor space with tables or sitting [areas].

More conservation forest areas. Possibly with a “secret” quiet study area. almost like an outdoor silent study library floor. The rules could be posted outside of it, and people could go there to meditate or study or do homework without the usual noise pollution that most places have.

add more power outlets and covered seating to accommodate laptop use outdoors.

Water features, more places to eat/study at (we need more picnic tables).

More natural spaces, where students could retreat to study or exercise.

electrical outlets. students Want to be outside, but we need power for our laptops, to charge cell phones, etc.

I think uF is missing out on the aspect of outdoor cafes (i.e. starbucks’ or Panera’s outdoor eating areas). Coffee shops are always filled with people studying, indoors and outdoors, and I think the umbrella/patio furniture type of space really encourages and facilitates a studying and communal environment.

Incorporate more peaceful intimate spaces that can be used as a “getaway” space.

I think simple things like covered seating and tables around the social hubs could create better spaces for outdoor gathering. around the hub there is very little outdoor seating, and the same around the reitz. turlington Plaza has the nice elms, but maybe all those planters could be picnic tables under elms... boy that would be nice. Keep the shade, but make it a place where people should sit, not just where they can sit. (emphasis added)

Phase II – FILLIng the gaP Phase III – DraWIng ConCLusIons

undergraduaTe sTudenT QuesTionnaire deveLoped To fiLL The gap

(onLine impLemenTaTion formaT)

sampLe QuesTions & responses:

Response Item Frequency PercentVery Significant 3 7.89%Significant 15 39.47%Neutral 9 23.68%Insignificant 6 15.79%Very Insignificant 5 13.16%Total 38 100.00%

Response Item Frequency PercentYes 6 16.22%No 31 83.78%Total 37 100.00%

Response Item Frequency PercentVery attractive 7 18.42%Attractive 19 50.00%Indifferent 9 23.68%Unattractive 2 5.26%Very unattractive 1 2.63%Total 38 100.00%

sTudenT needsAccommodation of the StudentAccommodation of Technology

ShelterSensory Experiences

Natural Settings / Vegetation & Green SpaceInterest & Views

Solitude & Privacy

sPaCes that Meet stuDents’ neeDs

Natural Settings / Vegetation & Green Space

Solitude & Privacy

Sensory Experiences

Interest & Views

Shelter

Accommodation of the Student

sTudenT vaLuesCommunity

CollisionCitizenshipAmbience

Holistic ExperiencesInconspicuous Spaces

sPaCes that Meet stuDents’ VaLues

Collision & Citizenship

Community

Needs & Values Met

Holistic Experiences

Inconspicuous SpacesAmbience