July/August 2003
Aerial photographs of campus and surrounding
areas are available on the Campus
Views / Maps section of the site.
The design team is continuing to convert the preliminary
campus planning principles, derived from the overall goals of
the master plan (improved campus quality, effective use of assets
and respect for the campus’ setting) into design alternatives
for campus.
Three early ideas for Main Campus and one for West Campus were
discussed at a Facility Planning Committee Workshop on 14 July
2003. These options, titled A-Dispersed Campus, B-Sub-Campus
Areas, and C-Unified Campus, can be
compared using a variety of evaluation factors, including the
following:
- Linkages
- Open Space Patterns
-
Pedestrian Corridors
- Architecture
- Building Removals
-
Building Additions
-
Historic Campus
- Vehicular Circulation
- Community Interface
The team will continue to refine the design choices and evaluations
in anticipation of this fall’s two public meetings, both
to be held on 18 September 2003. In addition, work will begin
on several enhancement projects which are part of the master planning
project’s scope of work. These enhancement efforts are more
detailed in their design and could be implemented in a 2-5 year
planning horizon, if funding is available. Project examples include
major campus entry areas and campus edge treatments. Suggested
design options will also be part of the September meetings’
agenda.
Approach to Evaluating Individual Buildings on EMU’s
Main Campus
Building evaluations for the six selected buildings include
Bowen, Briggs, Brown-Munson, King, Rackham and
Strong. The heating plant was also added to the
list given its location next to the new library.
Qualitative assessment is based on a number of factors. The factors
used were tailored to the purpose of the project, that of describing
and recommending a master plan for future development and changes
to campus, and included:
- Condition, as determined from EMU assessment of building
deficiencies and EMU housing study
- Location in relationship to the core of EMU’s main
campus
- Relationship to areas of change, as suggested in preliminary
Master Plan concepts
Criteria for Building Evaluation
1. Site efficiency is analyzed on the basis of floor plan,
number of stories, interior arrangement of the structure, use
of space and accessible entrances.
2. Historic integrity is the building’s overall architectural
and historic significance, as well as any exterior and interior
details that contribute to that significance. Standards used
are the presence or absence of historic design elements, materials,
and spaces; and, changes that positively or negatively affect
historic character, as well as their degree of reversibility.
It should be noted that all of the structures have passed or
are soon approaching the 50-year standard for historic designation.
3. Context or setting refers to the building’s placement
on its site, its immediate surroundings, and its relationship
to historic and existing buildings and spaces. Geographic features,
such as site grade and relationship to major vehicle and pedestrian
corridors, are also included.
4. Flexibility for adaptive use considers three factors representing
the issues raised if the building is:
a. left as it is, aside from general maintenance and upgrades
in the form of replacement in kind;
b. adaptively used, through reconfiguration of interior spaces
and/or additions; and,
c. demolished, with the possibility of a replacement building.
Summary of Findings
Bowen: While the exposed steel truss span
is significant, architecturally the building has been compromised
by numerous additions. The building does have potential for
a denser use, although the exposed span should be retained.
If demolition is an option, the fate of the attached buildings
should be carefully considered.
Briggs: While not as architecturally significant
as other buildings of its period, Briggs does fit well into
the collegiate style of the campus. There does not appear to
be much scope for increasing the efficiency of the present building,
nor for increased density on the site with a replacement building.
Brown/Munson: Brown and Munson are significant
primarily for their use rather than their architecture, being
secondary in integrity to King Hall. Site efficiency is good
but could be improved with infill.
King Hall: King Hall is significant to the
campus in terms of its historic and architectural integrity.
It gains greater meaning if Brown and Munson are demolished.
Relatively efficient as to its site, the building could be more
densely used via infill at the rear.
Rackham: Rackham Hall, along with King, ranks
highly in historic and architectural significance, although
contextually it is farther away from the historic core of campus.
The significance of its distance from the historic core of campus
is diminished, and it gains greater meaning if Brown and Munson
or King Hall are demolished. The building possesses great potential
for denser use while still retaining its architectural integrity
as it sits on a large, sloping site that is currently underutilized.
Strong: Strong Hall retains its original
function and many original features, although it is not particularly
significant for its architecture or within the campus context.
The building is efficient on its site and possesses flexibility
for a variety of uses.
In addition, and in response to issues germane to the planning
process:
Heating Plant: The Heating Plant is not particularly
important in terms of its historic or architectural significance,
although it does retain integrity of style and use, and fits
into the context of the campus collegiate style. The building
appears to be sufficient for its current use, and has good potential
for adaptive use. The main issue to consider in relation to
adaptive use or demolition is the location of the steam tunnels.
Preliminary Findings: Building Rankings, according to criteria
| Rank | Site Efficiency | Historic Integrity | Context or Setting | Flexibility
for Adaptive Use |
| 1 | Strong | Rackham | King | Strong |
| 2 | Brown/Munson | King | Brown/Munson | Rackham |
| 3 | King | Strong | Rackham | King |
| 4 | Rackham | Briggs | Briggs | Brown/Munson |
| 5 | Bowen | Bowen | Strong | Bowen |
| 6 | Briggs | Brown/Munson | Bowen | Briggs |
The design team’s work will continue to relate these
six buildings to the potentials of the preliminary master plans
in the search for the optimum combination of conserving existing
assets while adding needed new facilities.
The facilities planning committee will continue to
meet through late summer and early fall in preparation for the
public meetings September 18. The
public is invited to attend this meeting.
Back to Master Plan Main Page
