State of the Art in Planning for College and University Campuses: Site Planning and Beyond

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Colleges and universities have been planning their campuses for centuries, yet scholars have conducted little empirical research regarding the nature of campus planning in the United States. We review recent scholarship on campus planning, discovering that it is dominated by case studies (sometimes in edited collections) and some comparative studies. In this review we organize the literature into 3 geographic scales: the campus per se (or campus park), the campus–­community interface, and the larger campus district. The literature addresses 5 topics: land use, design, sustainability, economic development, and collaboration. Most of the studies focus on research-oriented universities in metropolitan locations. The literature emphasizes how campus master planning can support student learning, how design and building guidelines can make a campus more cohesive, and how campuses are adopting sustainable development and operations. At the campus–­community interface, the research documents how some colleges and universities have expanded beyond their traditional boundaries, invested in local economic development, and worked with their communities to improve transportation and reduce environmental impacts. Studies of campus district planning emphasize community adoption of development regulations and code enforcement procedures to reduce the impact of students living in nearby neighborhoods. The literature stresses the importance of partnerships, collaboration, and enhanced communications between the university and the community.

Takeaway for practice: University planners should continue to focus on site design that reinforces student learning and environmental sustainability and on community interface planning that supports economic development and reduces environmental impacts. City planners should expand campus district planning to address a broad array of issues and opportunities. Both university and city planners should facilitate collaboration between their institutions. Scholars should study a wide range of colleges and universities, including 2-year as well as 4-year institutions and those in nonurban settings.

Keywords:

• campus planning
• master planning
• town–gown relations

Notes

1. The Society for College and University Planning (http://www.scup.org/page/resources) and the American Council on Education (http://www.acenet.edu/higher-education/Pages/default.aspx) provide extensive resources and publications on strategic planning in higher education, which we do not address given our focus on physical planning for campuses (Society for College and University Planning, 2017).

2. The comparative data in this section draw from the Carnegie data and typologies (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2015). About half of the institutions of higher education in the United States are in cities, one-fourth are in suburbs, and the other fourth are in small towns and rural areas.

3. Only a few of the case studies were conducted by authors not affiliated with any of the colleges or universities covered (Bromley & Kent, 2006; Cooper, Kotval-K, Kotval, & Mullin, 2014; Hajrasouliha, 2017b). We used authors’ biographical summaries to determine their affiliations. We were not always able to discern whether an author was directly involved in the planning or implementation of the initiative or relationship. Furthermore, some authors had moved to other institutions by the time the article was published.

4. We focus on physical planning yet recognize that universities may also engage in other kinds of activities that affect student learning and community development, such as applied research, service-learning, and community empowerment. See, for example, Britton and Aires (2014), Corburn, Curl, Arredondo, and Malagon (2015), Dewar and Isaacs (1998), Heaney (2013), Lambert-Pennington, Reardon, and Robinson (2011), Lowe (2008), McClintock, Cooper, and Khandeshi (2013), Nyden, Figert, Shibley, and Burrows (1997), Raja, Ball, Booth, ­Haberstro, and Veith (2009), Reardon (1998, 2000), and Rubin (1998). A number of these activities have been funded by federal grants or private foundations.

5. To see a typical campus master plan, see http://www.masterplan.wisc.edu/2005report.htm.

6. Campus master plans sometimes cover some interface topics, such as traffic, as off-site impacts, particularly if the plan is subject to environmental review. We consider traffic extensively at the campus–community interface planning level. To learn more about a typical partnership ­agreement, see the City of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan (https://goo.gl/ABdAN7), agreed to as a part of negotiations over the campus master plan (http://www.berkeley.edu/administration/lrdp/pdf/settlement.pdf).

7. To see a typical campus district plan, see http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2535413.pdf.

8. Several authors suggest the topic of technology and smart campuses should be addressed by campus planners (Hipwell, 2014; McGee & Diaz, 2005; Ng et al., 2010; Yu, Liang, Xu, Yang, & Guo, 2011). However, this topic is yet to be fully discussed in the literature.

9. See the University of California, Riverside, campus design guidelines (2007) at http://ae.ucr.edu/campus/2007design.pdf.

10. Unlike the regular Carnegie classification, which includes all higher education institutions in the United States, universities must apply for the engaged university status. This process is now managed by the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (n.d.), housed at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. Urban-serving universities are also self-identified and are a smaller group because they only include public research institutions (Coalition of Urban Serving Universities, 2018). This review includes engaged university studies that focus on the campus–community interface or campus district. For a sampling of broader activities, see, for example, Feld (1998) and Mayfield (2001).

11. The literature rarely addresses the municipal or community perspective on universities and colleges and how they specifically approach campus district planning. We find references to campus and university districts on city websites and by attending conference sessions of the American Planning Association and its chapters, but these postings or sessions do not provide a scholarly perspective on campus district planning.

12. This trend appears in the form of litigation by the local government or community organizations rather than in scholarly articles (e.g., Pinsker, 1996).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Linda C. Dalton

Linda C. Dalton, FAICP ([email protected]), is professor emerita of city and regional planning at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Amir H. Hajrasouliha

Amir H. Hajrasouliha ([email protected]) is assistant professor of city and regional planning at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

William W. Riggs

William W. Riggs, AICP ([email protected]), is an assistant professor in the School of Management at the University of San Francisco (CA).