Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ayers Saint GrossFOCUS EXPERIENCE
INTERDISCIPLINARY
• Architecture• Planning• Interiors• Landscape Architecture• Graphic Design• Space Analytics
250+Master Plan Projects
80%of our work is for Higher Education; 20% for campus edge environments
170Employees in 7 States
• Duke University
• Harvard University and Medical School
• University of Illinois at Chicago
• Johns Hopkins University and Medical Campus
• Kansas City Art Institute
• Medical University of South Carolina
• Ohio State University
• University of Maryland, Baltimore
• University of Missouri – St Louis
• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Southern California
• Virginia Commonwealth University
• Washington University in St. Louis
TeamHOUSING AND DINING
PLANNING
LOCAL ARCHITECT + RESOURCE
Brailsford & Dunlavey
Eastley + Partners, LLC
ODIMO
Master Plan Purpose: Align the Physical Campus with the Mission and Vision of UMKC
Master Plan Charge:Establish planning principles and a framework that will guide future renewal, development, and enhancement of the campus environment.
• Market demand
• Unit type
• Financial feasibility
• P3 options
• Dining and Student Life components
• Buildingsrenovations, repurposing, additions, new construction, demolition, divestment
• Open Space
• Transportation
• Connectivity
• Campus edge
• Prioritization and implementation
• Existing space
• Utilization
• Alignment of needs with projections
UMKC Master Plan 2021 Components
Campus Framework Space Assessment Housing and Dining
NOV - DECWorkshop 1
JANWorkshop 2
FEBWorkshop 3
MARWorkshop 4
APRWorkshop 5
MAYWorkshop 6
JUN-JULFinal Deliverable
Purpose:• Campus Tours• Existing Conditions
Assessment
Purpose:• Assessment Findings• Planning Goals
and Principles
Purpose:• Concept Plans• Space Needs Findings• Design Scenarios
Purpose:• Refined Design
Scenarios• Initial Prioritization and
Financial Feasibility
Purpose:• Draft Plan• Prioritization and
Financial Feasibility
Purpose:• Final Plan Review
Purpose:• Board of Curators
Meeting, June 24 + 25• Final Report
documentation
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder Meetings
and Listening Sessions• Housing Survey
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs
Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force • Thematic Groups• Campus-wide Survey
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs
Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs
Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force• Stakeholder groups and
campus community
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder groups and
campus community
Engagement:• Master Plan
Roll-out to Stakeholder groups campus community
Reco m m en d a t i o n s
Schedule and Process
C o n cep t D e vel o p m en tC a m p u s A ssessm en t
Meetings and Listening Sessions to Date
Deans Council ▫ School of Law ▫ Honors College ▫ College of Medicine ▫ School of Nursing and Health Studies ▫ School of
Computing and Engineering ▫ School of Biological and Chemical Sciences ▫ Conservatory ▫ Research + School of Graduate
Studies ▫ School of Pharmacy ▫ School of Dentistry ▫ Libraries ▫ Bloch School of Management ▫ School of Education Dean ▫
College of Arts & Sciences ▫ Joint Meeting with Health Sciences Deans ▫ UMKC Executive Council ▫ ERCE + UMKC Foundation
▫ Human Resources ▫ Finance and Administration ▫ Athletics ▫ UMKC Innovation Center ▫ Chief Information Officer ▫
Strategic Marketing and Communications ▫ Diversity and Inclusion
Academic Units + Administrative Units
Provost & Academic Strategy Team ▫ Residential Life and Dining ▫ Swinney Recreation Center ▫ Student Affairs Directors
Meeting ▫ Student Success + Enrollment Management ▫ Faculty Development
Student Affairs + Student Success + Faculty Affairs + Curriculum
Neighborhood Advisory Council ▫ UMKC Trustees ▫ Transportation
External Stakeholders
Neighborhood Groups ▫ Trustee Student Housing Task Force ▫ Innovation ▫ KC Delegation State Legislators ▫ City
Planning ▫ RUNC ▫ KC Workforce ▫ Neighboring Institutions - Rockhurst, Stowers, MRI Global, Russell Stovers, Brookside 51,
Central Methodist, T/M Board, Catholic Diocese ▫ UMKC Health Sciences District Partners ▫ Diversity Councils ▫ General
Constituent Session ▫ Diastole Chairs + Staff Liaisons ▫ Alumni Governing Board ▫ Foundation Board
Upcoming
Campus-wide Survey Participation, by type:
59
54
2162
98
37
98
23
44
78
171
207
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate /Professional
Faculty Staff /Administrator
87 / 6% 81 / 6%
156 / 11%124 / 8%
242 / 17%
289 / 20%
471 / 32%
How long have you been at UMKC?
- 10+ Years
- 6 – 10 Years
- 3 – 5 Years
- 1 – 2 Years
- < 1 Year
1,450 total respondents
Students Housing Survey Participation
1,038Total Respondents
9%
13%
13%
11%
16%
15%
20%
14%
42%
45%
Campus Population
Survey Respondents
F-T Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate
DEMOGRAPHICS
39%
25%
17%
13%
4%2% 1%
38%
25%
18%
13%
4% 1% 0.4%
21 or under 22 - 24 years 25 - 29 years 30 - 39 years 40 - 49 years 50 - 59 years 60 or over
Age
Survey Respondents Campus Population
37% over 24 years old
› Survey response was generally representative of the campus population
Campus Assessment OverviewInputs Assessment Planning Principles
• UMKC Mission and Vision
• UMKC Strategic Plan Pillars
• UMKC Forward
• Stakeholder Listening Sessions
• Campus Survey
• Physical Observations
• Previous Studies
• Data
• Experience with Similar InstitutionsSt
reng
ths
Chal
leng
es
Opp
ortu
nitie
s Interconnected, mission-driven goals
that help guide the physical
master planning process
Great
Not So Great
Indoor Environment
OutdoorEnvironment
Topography
Have outreach programs, but need more space
Availability and location of Student Housing
Wayfinding
Connectivity between buildings needs improvement
Availability and variety of dining options
Availability of large classrooms
Facilities do not reflect stature of programs
Lack of collaboration space
The abundance of open / green spaces in an urban setting
Seems like a commuter campus
New buildings reflect support modern research and instruction
Connectivity to Kansas City
Lack of development along Troost
Connection to community Opportunities to leverage partnerships
Lack of campus “heart”
Mix of old and new architectural styles
What We Are Hearing
UMKC identity is missing
Streetcar extension
Inconsistent space quality between buildings
UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus
Student Learning, Success, and Experience
Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding
Impactful Community Engagement
Emergent Themes
1
2
3
4
UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus
Student Learning, Success, and Experience
Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding
Impactful Community Engagement
Emergent Themes
1
2
3
4
UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus; Impactful Community EngagementStrengths
Public, Urban, Research Institution
Kansas City’s University
Diverse Campus Community
60+ community affiliate groupsMedical and health services to metro area
Volker Campus
Challenge:
First Impressions and Pedestrian Experience
Campus Building
Campus Parcel
Campus Arrival Point
Institutional Presence
Defined Campus / Town Edge
Ill-defined Campus Zone
Major Campus Street Edge
Major Pedestrian Entrance
Mixed Use Corridor
Admissions
Parking
Problematic Street Crossing
Key
PP
P
P
Volker and Rockhill
Volker and Brookside
Russell Stover
MRI GlobalStowers Institute
Challenge:
First Impressions & Pedestrian Experience
UMKC Olson Performing Arts Center
Volker
Confusing intersection for first time visitors
You only get one chance to make a first impression
51st and TroostChallenge:
First Impressions & Pedestrian Experience
“Greeted’ by ParkingMinimal Signage
Back of Facilities Building
Volker
Ill-defined campus zone
Landscape serves as a green barrier
Stone barrier
Looking north to Atterbury Center
Health Sciences Campus
Challenge:
First Impressions and Pedestrian Experience
Campus Building
Campus Parcel
Campus Arrival Point
Institutional Presence
Defined Campus / Town Edge
Ill-defined Campus Zone
Major Campus Street Edge
Major Pedestrian Entrance
Mixed Use Corridor
Parking
Problematic Street Crossing
Key
P
P
P P
P
Gilham and E 25th
Troost and E 25thChallenge:
First Impressions & Pedestrian Experience
Hard to tell new housing is UMKC
Small (off brand) signage
Buildings in the background
Vacant land
High speed crossing
Health Sciences
School of Dentistry blank facade
Challenge:
First Impressions & Pedestrian Experience
Health Sciences
Holmes Street – looking north
No streetscape elements
Unsafe pedestrian crossing
Charlotte Street – looking north
Wide street
Likely development site faces HSB loading dock
Lacking vegetationNo relief from the street
Theme 1: UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse CampusOpportunities
Establish gateways and improve signage
Create consistent identity
Showcase signature spaces
Establish a heart for both campuses
Leverage the streetcar
Theme 4: Impactful Community Engagement Opportunities
Places for the campus and Kansas City community to come together
UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus
Student Learning, Success, and Experience
Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding
Impactful Community Engagement
Emergent Themes
1
2
3
4
Theme 2: Student Learning, Success, and Experience Strengths
Comprehensive Curriculum
Access to city life and culture
Access to Faculty
Recent Investments
Volker Campus
Challenge: Distribution of Instructional + Student Space
Volker Campus
I N S TRUCTIONA L
S TUDENT S PA C E
• Good distribution of instructional space
• Large concentration on the west side of campus where there are less amenities and east-west connectivity challenges
• Limited study and collaboration space outside of the library and dining areas
• Dining hall is not proximate to residence halls
S C A L E R E F :
2 0 K N A S F
Oak St Residence Hall
Johnson Residence Hall
Health Sciences Campus
Challenge: Distribution of Instructional + Student Space
I N S TRUCTIONA L
S TUDENT S PA C E
• Location of instructional space in each building reinforces siloed approach
• Limited study and collaboration space outside of the library
• Limited food and dining options on campus
S C A L E R E F :
2 0 K N A S F
Theme 2: Student Learning, Success, and Experience Challenges // Limited Collaboration, Study, and Amenity Space
Rate the quality / availability of the non-classroom spaces:
Almost always find a preferred space
Usually find space, maybe not ideal
Difficult to find space
NA / CJ
Individual study or work spaces
Group study or collaboration spaces
Indoor social spaces
Outdoorsocial spaces
Students
14%
28%
19%
39%
14%
28%
19%
39%
26%
55%
13%6%
7%
29%
25%
39%
7%
29%
25%
39%
17%
42%23%
18%
9%
27%
30%
34%
9%
27%
30%
34%
27%
46%
20%
7%
18%
33%23%
26%
21%
37%16%
26%
38%
33%
15%
14%
Faculty
Staff / Administrator
Rate the quality of the campus resource spaces:
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
Academic Support(Maker Space, Writing Labs, Tutoring)
Recreation Spaces(Rec Center, Rec Fields. Etc.)
Student Health / Wellness(Health Center, Counseling)
Students
4%
35%
44%
17%
6%
31%
39%
24%
22%
47%
25%
6%
7%
32%
37%
24%
5%
35%
37%
23%
16%
48%
29%
7%
8%
38%35%
19%
9%
23%
40%
28%
23%
47%
24%
6%
Faculty
Staff / Administrator
45%
46%
33%
25%
17%
21%
17%
5%
48%
47%
51%
58%
57%
52%
49%
32%
6%
7%
9%
11%
21%
22%
25%
39%
1%
1%
7%
6%
5%
5%
10%
23%
Location of housing
Safety and Security within theresidential building
Proximity and availability ofparking
Building cleanliness andmaintenance
Lounge and social spaces withinthe building
Study spaces within the building
Proximity to campus dining
Cost of housing
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
20% 67% 11% 2%Overall Condition• Despite low capture rates, on-campus students are generally satisfied with their housing offerings
• Overall condition (87%)⎼ Johnson Hall – 86%⎼ Oak St Hall – 89%⎼ Hospital Hill – 83%
• Students are least satisfied with cost of housing and proximity to campus dining
On-Campus Housing SatisfactionFALL 2020 SURVEY RESULTS FOR ON CAMPUS STUDENTS
What is lacking in the existing dining spaces or offerings?
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
VendingServices
Grab and Go Café /Coffee Shops
FastCasual
All You Can Eat Restaurant RotatingVendors
Kitchenettes Other
Students
Faculty
Staff / Administrator
Responses
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
NA / CJ
2%17%
28%
23%
30%
AllRespondents
How would you rate the on-campus dining experience?On-Campus
Dining
Opportunities:
Where on the Volker Campus could be a good location for additional dining facilities?
Opportunities:
Where on the Health Sciences Campus could be a good location for additional dining facilities?
Holm
es
UMKC Identity: Welcoming, Accessible, and Diverse Campus
Student Learning, Success, and Experience
Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding
Impactful Community Engagement
Emergent Themes
1
2
3
4
Existing programmatic synergies
Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding Strengths
Mix of historic and new buildings
Proximity to institutional partners
Site capacity for new facilities and additions
93,851, 3%
1,248,212, 42%914,385,
31%
702,780, 23%
31,944, 1%
93,851, 4%
752,752, 34%
903,770, 41%
440,165, 20%
31,944, 1%
495,460, 65%
10,615, 1%
262,615, 34%
Challenge: Facility Condition
.1-.2 .3-.4 .5-.6 .7-.8 .9+<.1
Facility Condition Needs Index (FCNI) Key
Volker2,225,458 SF
UMKCTotal
2,994,148 SF
Health Sciences768,690 SF
The Facility Condition Needs Index (FCNI) is a measure of the recommended repair costs divided by the estimated building replacement cost. Buildings with an FCNI greater than .50 should be considered for replacement.
25% of UMKC facilities have an FCNI greater than .50
Classrooms(Lecture Halls, Seminar Rooms, Etc.)
6%
33%
46%
15%
7%
32%
37%
24%
20%
45%
27%
8%
Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and FundingChallenge: Inconsistent Quality of Space -Instruction
Fixed Seating
Singular Focus
Access to Technology
Collaborative EnvironmentCollaborative Environment
Outdated furniture
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
Students
Faculty
Staff / Administrator
Fixed Seating
Teaching Labs(Science/Computer Labs. Studios, Etc.)
11%
36%36%
17%
10%
30%
27%
33%
25%
43%
25%
7%
Students
Faculty
Staff / Administrator
Research Labs
12%
37%32%
19%
9%
29%
30%
32%
25%
45%
26%
4%
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
Students
Faculty
Staff / Administrator
Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and FundingChallenge: Inconsistent Quality of Space - Research
Volker Campus
Which building / indoor space is your favorite?
Which building / indoor space needs the most investment?
Which outdoor space needs the most investment?
Health Sciences Campus
Which building / indoor space is your favorite?
Which building / indoor space needs the most investment?
Which outdoor space needs the most investment?
Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding Opportunities: Renovation and Renewal of Existing Facilities
Incremental investments to improve the quality of space and technology
Theme 3: Real Estate, Facilities, Space and Funding Opportunities: Potential Redevelopment Areas
Volker Health Sciences
Volker
Planning Principles
Student Success
Resiliency and Stewardship
Identity and Connectivity
Physical Environment
Impactful Engagement
Promote professional and social mobility for all learners
Ensure stewardship of UMKC’s mission, facilities and campus community
Celebrate the UMKC’s unique identity and role as an anchor institution in Kansas City
Elevate the quality and condition of buildings, landscape and streetscape
Advance engagement for the benefit of the community and the university
Five planning principles have emerged from a large cross-section of stakeholder
engagement sessions to create a vision for UMKC’s campus that will support its
students, faculty, staff, alumni and the larger Kansas City community.
Draft
Design Scenario Drivers
• Creating gateways
• Rethinking the streets
• Reinvesting in existing assets
• Activating open spaces
• Reinforcing interdisciplinary and interprofessional interactions and collaboration
NOV - DECWorkshop 1
JANWorkshop 2
FEBWorkshop 3
MARWorkshop 4
APRWorkshop 5
MAYWorkshop 6
JUN-JULFinal Deliverable
Purpose:• Campus Tours• Existing Conditions
Assessment
Purpose:• Assessment Findings• Planning Goals
and Principles
Purpose:• Concept Plans• Space Needs Findings• Design Scenarios
Purpose:• Refined Design
Scenarios• Initial Prioritization and
Financial Feasibility
Purpose:• Draft Plan• Prioritization and
Financial Feasibility
Purpose:• Final Plan Review
Purpose:• Board of Curators
Meeting, June 24 + 25• Final Report
documentation
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder Meetings
and Listening Sessions• Housing Survey
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs
Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force • Thematic Groups• Campus-wide Survey
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs
Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Space Needs
Assessment Committee• Housing Task Force• Stakeholder groups and
campus community
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group
Engagement:• Executive Council• Working Group • Stakeholder groups and
campus community
Engagement:• Master Plan
Roll-out to Stakeholder groups campus community
Reco m m en d a t i o n s
Next Steps
C o n cep t D e vel o p m en tC a m p u s A ssessm en t