Series : Conceptual Vision Home : Table of Contents, Executive Summary : Chapter One : Chapter Two : Chapter Three : Chapter Four : Chapter Five : Chapter Six :

This Page : Title : Acknowledgements : Workshop Participants : Table of Contents : Executive Summary

Lane Community College
DRAFT CONCEPTUAL VISION, AUGUST 2010

Report prepared by: THE URBAN DESIGN LAB
University of Oregon, School of Architecture and Allied Arts in association with:
The Sustainable Cities Studio Dustin Capri, Emily Clancy, Colin Dean, Matt Dreska, Nicole Gay, Allyson Harris, Ian Hoffman, Mark Holsman, Harlan Justice, Tim Kuzma, Sean Landry, Patrick Madulid, Phil Nachbar, Stephanie Nelson, Amanda Rae, Rochelle Sanchez, Susan Spence, Nicholas Tsontakis, Mike Wilson.
Mark Gillem, Phd, AIA, AICP
Barry Gordon, MLA, MCRP
Richard Shugar, AIA

Acknowledgements:

Special thanks to: Mary Spilde, LCC President; Sonya Christian, LCC Vice President, Academic & Student Affairs; LCC Facilities Council and Master Planning Task Force: Alen Bahret*, Paul Croker*, Jennifer Hayward, Phil Martinez*, Robert Mention*, Andrea Newton*, Tamara Pinkas***, Catherine Reschke*, Margaret Robertson**, Joe Russin*, Todd Smith, Craig Taylor*, Dave Willis*,
Additional thanks to: Marston Morgan, AIA and numerous other participants.

* denotes Master Planning Task Force members
** denotes Facilities Council Chair
***denotes Master Planning Task Force Chair

Return to top

Workshop Participants:

Brian Kelly, Donna Koechig, Tracy Simms, Mark Oberle, Ken Murdoff, Craig Taylor, Rodger Bates, Andrea Newton, Michael O’Neil, Barb Decansky, Marston Morgan, AIA, Elizabeth Andrade, Stacey Schultz, Helen B. Garrett, Kate Barry, Deanna Murphy, Jonathon Price, Margaret Robertson, Todd Lutz, Greg Morgan, Brett Rowlett, Len W. Heflin, Alan Bahner, Jennifer Hayward, Jim Lindly, Marilyn Walker, Dennis Carr, Pat Albright, Rodger W. Gamblin, Sarah Ulerich, Philip Richardson, Le Andra Bell Matson, Moshtz Immgrman, Barbara Dumbleton, Joe Russin, Melissa Hicks, Jim Lewis, Robert Thompson, Rick Satre, Principal, Satre Associates Landscape Architecture, John Lawless, Principal, TBG Architects, David Dougherty, Dougherty Landscape Architecture, Larry Reed, JHR Engineering, Toby Barwood, Principle, Pivot Architecture, Randy Nishimura, Senior Associate, Robertson Sherwood Architecture, Mark Miksis, Director of Development, Arlie and Co., Brian McCarthy, Principal, CMGS Landscape Architecture, Carol Schirmer, Principal, Schirmer & Associates Landscape Architecture, Erika Palmer, AssociatePlanner, Damascus, Michael Fifield, AIA, Matt Bray, GBD Archtects, Rob Thallon, AIA, Erik Knobelspiesse, Associate AIA, Dannon Canterbuty, Associate AIA, David Posada, Don Kahle, Peter Keyes, AIA, Josh Hilton, AIA, Solarc Architecture and Engineering, Anita Van Aspert, Lucas Posada, LEED AP, GBD Architects, Phil Farrington, Kurt Albrecht, Alison Kwok, Phil Beyl, AIA, Principal, GBD Architects, Jenny Young, Paul Dustrud, Patrick Stevens, Gabe Grainer, Jenna Fribley, Associate AIA, and Greg Sanders.

Return to top

Table of Contents
12 Part One: Executive Summary On Colleges
16 Chapter One: The Perfect Storm
18 Components of the Problem
20 Adaptation
22 Making Sense of Change
23 Literature on Residential Colleges
28 Chapter Two: Perpetual Transformation
30 Human Settlement
32 Representative Fringe Development
33 Blurring the Boundaries
33 Fiscal Sustainability
36 Chapter Three: The Campus Paradigm
38 Campus Planning Trends
44 Defining Form and Character
46 Comparative Mapping
Part Two: LCC Today
70 Chapter Four: Participation
72 Definitions
73 Seven Degrees of Participation
76 A Brief History
78 Benefits and Limitations
80 The Six Principles
83 The Role of the Professional
88 Chapter Five: The Present Conditions
90 The Study Area
94 Participatory Planning in Action
103 Research for the Future
106 Vision, Goals, Principles
Part Three: LCC Tomorrow
120 Chapter Six: Putting It All Together
122 Twelve Schemes
136 Development Option 1
138 Development Option 2
140 Development Option 3
142 Evaluation Workshop
146 Revised Development Option 4
148 Option 4 Phasing
152 Revised Development Option 5: LCC Owned Land
154 Revised Development Option 5: Land Swap
156 Revised Development Option 5: Purchase Parcel
158 Appendix I: Student Prototype Projects and Proformas
168 Appendix II: Bond Project Comparison
170 Appendix III: Survey Results
194 Appendix IV: Survey Questionnaire
188 Appendix V: Design Guideline Evaluation
204 Bibiliography

Return to top

Executive Summary

This conceptual visioning document and the master planning process is a Lane Community College shared governance led process that the Urban Design Lab is helping to carry out. The New Oxford American dictionary defines the verb planning as the act of making “preparations for an anticipated event or time”; and the noun, plan, as “a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something” (McKean 2005). Planning for new development is created by forming a vision, assembling a team, and by generating goals and principles to implement the vision. It is imperative to have a plan in place prior to the need. Planning takes foresight and timing. By linking contemporary research and lessons from case studies with results from a survey, this conceptual vision attempts to identify a sustainable growth management strategy for the twenty-first century community college. Institutions of higher education across the country are
being hit by economic hardship. The current recession is forcing more state legislatures to cut funding in support of higher education, leaving schools to compete for limited resources just at the time when enrollment is increasing (Halligan 2008). The initial extent of this project was to
prepare a visioning document for Lane Community College (LCC) that uses its perimeter – non-core campus land – for expansion. Subsequently, it has led the Urban Design Lab to develop a long range conceptual vision proposal* plan that uses its land as a resource to support the educational mission of the institution through economic, social, and environmental sustainability. (*This proposal is not an official LCC approved document.) Although LCC did not choose to hire a professional design team, they knew that outside collaboration was necessary. A local architect affiliated with LCC and with prior experience working with the University of Oregon’s School of Architecture and Allied Arts Department, contacted the Urban Design Lab (UDL), a landscape architecture, architecture and urban design based organization. The initial design team consisted of students in their final architecture studio working to collect data, research case studies and formulate alternative framework designs. Later in the process, the design team consisted of four architecture student interns and a project manager. The Urban Design Lab started with the following hypothesis: By integrating housing and services with the campus, Lane Community College could create a living, learning, and working environment that generates an alternative revenue stream while supporting its educational mission and fulfilling its obligations to the community in a sustainable and ethical manner. To facilitate this process, the UDL developed a mixed methodological approach that investigates the history of campus form leading up to contemporary community colleges. First, if one is to design for the future of community colleges, one must understand its past. How did commu-nity colleges originally develop? What factors were used in choosing sites? What development typologies, characteristics and forms exist? Part one, On Community Colleges, focuses on these questions. The first chapter gives an account of how institutions of higher education are dealing with the economic crisis, budget cuts and spiking enrollment. The second chapter tracks the influence sprawl and contemporary urbanization has had on urban form, presents community colleges as a representative development typology, and
illustrates examples of how contemporary innovations are changing the community college campus. The third chapter explores the characteristics and forms of the campus as it
has evolved and concludes the chapter with key lessons from a comparative mapping case study.
Part two, LCC Today, focuses on the site and the participatory planning process that facilitated the identification of the choices, preferences and opinions of the people who use LCC in its current state. Chapter four presents the history and theory behind the method of participatory planning; highlight its history, advantages, shortcomings, and outline the over arching concepts and procedures of the process. The fifth chapter looks at the site, its characteristics and history, and provide a description of the site through narrative of the people who use it on a daily basis – highlighting the findings from public workshops. Ultimately, it will link together the findings from the previous chapters to bridge the gap between the iterative planning and design processes to identify the vision, goals, and principles. The vision and goals have been developed by the Urban Design Lab with data gathered through two collaborative, public design workshops. The principles incorporate 100% of LCC’s existing design guidelines with several additions also gathered at the design workshops. The Vision, Goals and Principles would need to go through Lane Community College’s shared governance system to be formally approved, adopted, and incorporated into the College’s planning efforts. Part three, LCC Tomorrow, introduces the draft alternative visions, reports on the iterative stakeholder evaluation process, and presents the draft preferred framework. Chapter six addresses how, by integrating housing and services with the campus, LCC could create a living & learning environment that also generates an alternative revenue stream supporting its educational mission while fulfilling its obligations to the community in an sustainable and ethical manner. Several appendicies present other research and findings from the planning and design process. Appendix I presents prototype designs produced by graduating architecture students in the 2009-2010 academic year. Appendix II reviews the existing LCC Bond Projects. These bond projects are a list of projects made possible through voter-approved bonds. Appendices III-V present and discuss the methodology and results from the dual-objective preference assessment survey, and documents multiple survey/questionnaires.

Return to top