Master Plan Subcommittee
Final Report to the Strategic Planning Task Force
Report of the
Master Plan Subcommittee
May 16, 2007
(Click Here for Full PDF File Including Preliminary Improvement Cost Analysis Table)
Chairs: Ellen O’Connor, Vice Chancellor, Administration & Finance
Gordon Wallace, Professor, Environmental, Earth, & Ocean Sciences
Membership:
• Elsa Auerbach, College of Liberal Arts
• John Benson, Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM)
• Pat Burns, Athletics
• Larry Chan, Chan Krieger Sieniewicz
• Caroline Coscia, Graduate Student Assembly
• Stephen Crosby, McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies
• Diane D’Arrigo, Campus Services
• Patrick Day, Student Affairs
• Daryl Ford, Information Technology
• Enrico Marcelli, College of Liberal Arts
• Peter McClure, College of Management
• John Pearson, Undergraduate Student
• Jason Pramas, Graduate Student
• Drew O’Brien, Chancellor’s Office
• Michael Shiaris, College of Science & Mathematics
• Gary Siperstein, Center for Social Development and Education
• Nancy Stieber, College of Liberal Arts
• Paul Tucker, College of Liberal Arts
• Jack Wiggin, Urban Harbors Institute
• Mike Williams, DCAM
Charge of Master Plan Subcommittee
Recognizing the need for a comprehensive assessment of the assets and needs
of the campus, this group will work with DCAM, the architects and the other
committees to develop a plan for the campus space that will support the
academic and campus life of UMass Boston for the future.
Proposed Issues
• 25-year horizon for physical plan
• Campus assessment
• Deferred maintenance plan
• In direct support of academic and campus life programs – aligned with
strategic priorities
• Living, learning communities
• Welcoming environment
• Implementation and internal and external communication about all
activities
Summary of Tasks
The role of the Master Plan Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) in the University’s
strategic planning process is unique to that of the other Subcommittees in that
the formulation of the Master Plan will be driven by the institutional goals and
priorities of UMass Boston’s long-term Strategic Plan. As such, while the other
Subcommittees have been developing recommended strategic priorities for their
issue areas, much of the work to date of the Master Plan Subcommittee, which
includes DCAM and Chan Krieger Sieniewicz (Chan Krieger), has focused on
understanding the current state of academic, campus life, and administrative
aspects of UMass Boston through data analysis and presentation, interviews with
a representative cross-section of students, faculty, and staff, and facility
inspection tours.
Issue areas that were studied include facilities and utilities management, space
allocation and utilization, student life, athletics, IT support, and future debt
capacity. DCAM and CKS have concurrently been collecting and reviewing all
available data about UMass Boston’s physical facilities including surveys,
drawings, and reports to create an inventory of all documents, as well as
improved CAD plans of the entire campus and its individual buildings. CKS has
also worked with the University to create an up-to-date inventory of all teaching
and campus spaces.
In addition, with the assistance of Chan Krieger and DCAM, a preliminary, highlevel
facilities assessment is being prepared that examines the repair and
upgrade costs of each University building and compares them to each other and
to the estimated replacement costs of each facility (a discussion of this
preliminary analysis follows later in the report). Lastly, based on campus plans of
other universities and the unique physical characteristics of UMass Boston, the
Subcommittee has begun to consider possible options for the future orientation of
the campus as well as the location of academic buildings, student housing,
indoor/outdoor athletic facilities, open space, and parking facilities.
The work of the Subcommittee will continue through the summer and fall with the
goal of presenting the final, high-level Master Plan to the Board of Trustees in
December 2007.
Subcommittee Vision and Evolving Recommendations
At its first meeting back in October 2006, it quickly became apparent to members
of the Master Plan Subcommittee that without a well-developed, comprehensive
Strategic Plan, the Subcommittee could not successfully develop a meaningful
and inclusive Campus Master Plan for UMass Boston. As a result, the
Subcommittee has formulated a vision statement for its work that emphasizes the
importance of a strategic planning document that clearly and comprehensively
defines institutional goals and priorities.
In addition, the Subcommittee’s vision statement is predicated on key value
propositions and the desired future state of the University as articulated at the
September 2006 Strategic Planning Retreat including a commitment to quality
teaching and research, service to the local and global community, and
construction of a state of the art campus.
Moreover, the basis of the Subcommittee’s work and vision is equally influenced
by the rapidly deteriorating state of the University’s physical plant which is the
result of years of inadequate resources and deferred maintenance. As such, the
need to develop a long-term solution for UMass Boston’s physical assets will be
a critical component of the Master Plan.
Vision Statement
The Master Plan will develop a physical blueprint for UMass Boston that
optimally reflects and supports the strategic priorities and goals developed and
recommended by the Chancellor’s Strategic Planning Task Force. The physical
environment will be renewed and rebuilt to meet the needs of students, faculty,
and staff as they contribute to the University’s leadership in public higher
education and research in the twenty-first century while pursuing its urban
mission. The re-centering and reorganizing of campus space will result in a more
vibrant and engaging University life. State of the art facilities will inspire and
connect our students, faculty, and staff with the University’s local, national and
global communities and serve to bolster ties with our surrounding neighbors.
Evolving Recommendations/Master Plan Elements
The Subcommittee’s evolving thinking in regard to the future physical blueprint of
UMass Boston is consistent with this vision and is being shaped by tasks
undertaken to date by the Subcommittee and the emerging recommendations of
the Strategic Planning Task Force. Specifically, the preliminary high-level
facilities analysis and the decision to initially build at least two new academic
buildings and student housing have begun to inform the Subcommittee’s
decision-making and solidify the basis of the Master Plan.
Preliminary Facilities Improvement Cost Analysis (Attachment): In general, this
analysis makes clear on an order of magnitude basis the cost of repairing and
upgrading each building at UMass Boston and compares them to each other and
to projected replacement costs of each facility. The template that was developed
uses metrics, estimated costs, and known failings in building systems (roofs,
HVAC, mechanical/electrical, building envelopes, etc.) documented in recently
completed engineering studies and reports on the campus’ physical plant and
assets. The estimated $136 million in construction costs for the complete
restoration of the substructure (30-40 year solution) plus other project costs are
also allocated and factored into the estimated repair costs of each existing
building where appropriate.
Preliminary findings of this analysis reveal that for many of the University’s
facilities the repair costs come close to or in some cases exceed the cost to
construct new buildings. The picture that is emerging illustrates that UMass
Boston is beyond the norm of other college campuses in the number of its
facilities that have reached or are approaching the end of their useful life. The
University’s needs are clearly more profound than peer campuses in that most of
its facilities are at this stage simultaneously.
As a result, unlike other schools, it is imperative that a comprehensive approach
to solving the needs of the University’s physical assets be devised and
implemented for the long-term health of the campus on which the University
depends.
New Academic Building: One of the primary strategic priorities of the University
is to grow and retain its student enrollment and accordingly, strengthen the
financial footing of UMass Boston. Based on an enrollment goal of 15,000
students by 2010 and using industry standards, Chan Krieger has projected a
deficit of approximately 500,000 square feet of academic space, helping to affirm
the need for a new academic building.
In addition, it is widely recognized that the physical condition of the University’s
teaching space significantly hinders the pedagogical methods and learning
experience of faculty and students. As the traditional lecture-style of teaching is
currently being replaced with seminar discussions, and a more open exchange of
information between teachers and students, UMass Boston faculty and students
are at a disadvantage due to the outdated design of the classrooms.
Moreover, the condition of the University’s academic space is hindering its ability
to cultivate its academic programs and priorities in an effort to remain competitive
in the academic marketplace and elevate its stature as a first-class public
university.
Accordingly the Strategic Planning Task Force has reached consensus on the
need for a new academic building to accommodate an increase in the student
population and enhance the learning and teaching environment for students and
faculty.
New Academic Building: Based on preliminary findings of the facilities
improvement costs analysis, it may be more financially prudent to construct a
second academic building in the earlier stages of the Master Plan, rather than
invest in the repair and upgrade of an existing campus building that has reached
the end of its useful life. A second new building will also be needed to serve as
swing space as existing buildings are vacated to accommodate facility renovation
that is deemed appropriate.
Student Housing: The need for new student housing has been affirmed by the
Strategic Planning Task Force and will likely emerge as a primary strategic
objective in the University’s final Strategic Plan as a key vehicle for retaining and
growing student enrollment. What has come out of the study of this issue by the
Student Life Subcommittee is that of the top 30 competitors to UMass Boston, all
have residence halls on campus. These are the colleges and universities where
prospective UMass Boston students also apply. The leadership of UMass
Boston has come to understand that student housing is necessary if the
University is to stay competitive with these institutions and retain and increase its
student population.
Moreover, it has become widely recognized by the University’s leadership that if
UMass Boston is going to attract and retain students that the lack of student life
on the campus needs to be addressed. Student housing can help enliven the
campus and enhance the student culture that prospective students look for in a
school. It can also provide greater connections between students that serve to
enhance the learning experience.
Guiding Principles & Other Considerations
The Subcommittee has begun to establish guiding principles to help in its
decision-making on the broad framework and specific components of the Master
Plan. This is an initial list which will be expanded as the work of the
Subcommittee moves forward.
Pursuit of urban mission: From its founding in 1964, UMass Boston was defined
as a University with an “urban mission” whose teaching, research and service
programs will serve the local public and promote community engagement. For
the Master Plan, particular attention will be paid to the site location and design of
facilities in support of academic priorities that seek to advance UMass Boston’s
urban mission. In addition, collaborative strategies will be considered that
cultivate partnerships with the community and integrate campus plans with those
of the larger community.
Student life: In recognition of the need to improve student life at UMass Boston,
the Master Plan will focus on re-conceptualizing space to meet the specific needs
of both commuting and resident students (i.e. accessibility of information, social
and cultural events, dining, rest and comfort, intercollegiate athletics, recreation,
physical fitness & wellness) and determine how it can support the enhancement
of the student experience at UMass Boston.
Green/sustainable facilities: The University’s strong commitment to
environmental sustainability will be integral to the Master Plan. Sustainable site
development, use of energy efficient alternatives, and the use of recyclable and
locally available materials will be prioritized in this process.
Durability & flexibility of space: Given the environmental conditions of the
campus, durability of facilities is an important design standard for future
buildings. Moreover, the need to maximize the versatility of space must be
considered in the design of academic buildings that will enable space to be
reconfigured over time without major structural modifications, while providing an
inviting teaching and learning environment for students and faculty.
Integration of space functions: New and renovated academic facilities should
house a mix of academic programs so as to help support interdisciplinary
instruction and research at UMass Boston. Under this concept, non-academic
and co-curricula activities regarding student life and other social activities, would
also reside in academic facilities as one method of helping to meet student needs
and concerns.
Use of ground level space: In an effort to help enliven campus life and provide
an asset to the larger community, campus buildings should accommodate nonacademic
functions such as retail, recreation, physical fitness & wellness, and
public safety.
Incorporation with the natural surroundings: The future campus design and
orientation should take full advantage of the natural beauty of Columbia Point
and sensibly integrate the physical plant with the waterfront.
Integration with the surrounding community: Through the rebuilding of the
campus options exist to strengthen, in a respectful manner, the University’s
physical connection with its neighbors, including the JFK Library and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Archives, and enhance its place in the
neighborhood as an accessible public area.
As described below, the Subcommittee is also mindful that ongoing discussions
and initiatives occurring outside of the master planning process will likely
influence and help shape the design of the future campus.
Viability of shared spaces: While UMass Boston shares Columbia Point with
other public and private entities, in many ways it exists as an island in that it has
not yet cultivated as many formal business, cultural, or communal relationships
with its neighbors as it could. In this context, not only is there an opportunity, for
example, to improve the connection of the JFK Library and State Archives with
the campus, but to develop mutually beneficial programs as well. In addition, as
it has been discussed previously, collaboration between the Mt. Vernon Street
neighbors, the City of Boston, and the University can help to improve the
streetscape and commercial foundation of Mt. Vernon Street as a gateway to the
harbor and a means of strengthening community connections.
Safety planning: The safety and security of all UMass Boston students, faculty,
and staff is a top priority of the University administration. An internal committee
representing all stakeholders and relevant departments is currently studying best
practices and other institutional models in an effort to develop recommendations
for addressing and improving safety concerns and issues on the campus. The
results of this effort will have a direct effect on campus and facility design
considerations.
Conceptual Approaches to Campus Orientation
The decision to pursue a 7-10 year interim solution for the campus substructure
presents enormous opportunities for UMass Boston as it works to develop a
long-term Master Plan. The University has the chance to eliminate the existing
fortress-like nature of its physical plant and take better advantage of its
waterfront location, improve access to the campus, provide more open space,
and better connect with its surrounding neighbors and urban community.
The Master Plan Subcommittee has begun to study different conceptual
approaches to organizing and orienting the campus. These include models
based on the following modes of organization:
• Network of Quads
• Central Spine
• Town Square
Network of Quads: This model represents the traditional style of college
architecture where clusters of buildings fully or partially surround open space
(e.g., Oxford University).
Central Spine: Under this approach, a central building or corridor is used to
interconnect buildings on campus where the “central spine” could accommodate
social, academic, and circulatory space (e.g., MIT).
Town Square: The idea of a town square seeks to bring together different
functions and groups at centers of activity. It supports and stimulates community
and engages its surroundings (e.g., Copley Square).
Each of the above three design elements can play a significant role towards
creating a new campus for UMass Boston. Firstly, new quadrangles, courtyards,
and promenades would enhance and reinforce the relationship between buildings
and provide an attractive and sustainable environment for campus activity.
Secondly, strengthening the interconnectivity between campus buildings through
an improved pedestrian circulation system would help clarify wayfinding and
improve opportunities for academic, functional, and social interactions across the
entire campus.
Thirdly, the incorporation of a major campus space would help establish a place
of identity for the campus and enhance the sense of campus life and community.
Each of the above design elements has merit on any campus. As the exploration
and analyses of alternative campus plans proceed, the campus planning team
will consider and incorporate each of the above elements in various degrees to
find the ideal combination that would best fit the culture of the UMass Boston
campus, complement its extraordinary surroundings, and maximize the
availability of resources to implement a new campus plan.
Master Plan Implementation: A 20-25 year Timeframe
It is becoming explicitly clear to the Subcommittee that the potentially extensive
and profound scope of the final Master Plan will require UMass Boston to move
in an incremental and phased fashion over a 20-25 year timeframe. This will
allow the University to minimize disruption to campus operations and proceed in
a fiscally responsible manner as capital debt, both for UMass Boston and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is spread out over time.
The following sample or option (Option A) illustrates what a possible phased
implementation plan would look like and is intended to generate discussion on
the formulation of a final plan. Certainly this represents one of many options that
could be considered in the context of strategic priorities, debt service
implications, and operational considerations.
Phase I: Under this initial phase, the highest strategic priorities would be
addressed.
• construction of two new academic buildings
• creation of new student housing – 1,000 beds
• relocation of the utilities backbone in preparation for taking down the plaza
and the upper and lower parking levels)
• begin modifications to the circulation and open space network towards
implementation of a new campus plan
Phase II: The University would continue to pursue its long-term strategic goals
and objectives.
• creation of another 1,000 beds, for a total of 2,000 beds
• construction of new athletic facilities to replace existing ones which must
be relocated
• building of structured parking - (1,000-1,500 spaces)
• renovation and/or construction of additional academic building(s)
• dismantle substructure in phases
• continue modifications to the circulation and open space network towards
implementation of a new campus plan
Phase III: The last elements of the Master Plan would be implemented in this
phase.
• renovation and/or construction of academic building(s)
• building of other needed structured parking
• complete modifications to the circulation and open space network towards
implementation of a new campus plan
Next Steps & Future Actions
While the work of the other Subcommittees concludes with the submission of its
final reports in May 2007, the Master Plan Subcommittee will continue its work
through the summer and fall with the goal of presenting the final, high-level
Master Plan to the Board of Trustees in December 2007.
The following steps will be taken in order to fulfill this schedule:
• Development of Alternative Campus Plan Scenarios (Options B, C, D) –
Spring/Summer 2007
• Development of the Preferred Campus Plan – Summer/Fall 2007
• Public presentation of Preferred Plan – Fall 2007
• Finalization of Preferred Plan – November 2007
• Presentation of final Master Plan to Board of Trustees – December 2007
• Detailed development of Master Plan – January 2008 and beyond
• Public presentation of detailed Master Plan – subsequent to completion of
detailed plan
To supplement the efforts of the Subcommittee, two work groups have recently
been formed to study and make recommendations on the design of two new
academic buildings and campus housing.
Academic Buildings: This group will identify what departments and the mix of
departments will move into the first building(s); research recent trends in
academic facility design; and explore campus location scenarios and implications
for optimizing teaching.
Campus Housing: This group will survey other campuses and identify successful
models of campus housing; identify costs and financial feasibility implications;
and explore options for the number of buildings needed, floors per building, and
site adjacencies.
In sum, after months of studying issues and conditions of the current campus, the
Master Plan Subcommittee is now at a point where it can begin to formulate its
recommendations for the future re-design of UMass Boston. The
Subcommittee’s goal is to create a more welcoming, purposeful and functional
campus that is better integrated with its neighbors and surroundings, and better
meets the needs of its students, faculty, and staff.