Illinois Wesleyan University IWU Historical Collections (Illinois Wesleyan University)
  Skip to content  collection home browse advanced search preferences my favorites help   
add to favorites : reference url back to results : previous : next
 
Campus Master Plan: A Vision for the Future
Open PDF in new window | Go to PDF description

TitleCampus Master Plan: A Vision for the Future
DescriptionILLINOIS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
OCTOBER 2002
October 2002
S H E P L E Y B U L F I N C H R I C H A R D S O N A N D A B B O T T
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
I L L I N O I S W E S L EYA N UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
A Vi s i o n f o r t h e Fut u r e
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Execut ive Summary 1
E l e m e n t s o f Campus Design 5
E x i s t i n g Con d i t i o n s Re v iew 13
Space a n d Fa c i l i t y Nee d s 27
Campus Planning Pr i n c i p l e s 33
Key P roj e c t s 39
P h a s i n g a n d Implemen t a t i o n 46
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Campus Plan
1
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
The long-term vision for Illinois Wesleyan University outlined in this document is not built upon major trans-formations
in academic programs or grand facilities expansion. Rather, it is defined by a series of strategic
upgrades and improvements that are each designed to reinforce the core values and historic character of this
great institution. Illinois Wesleyan University has long committed itself to environmental stewardship, and the
principles developed here assume that all planning efforts will continue to move Illinois Wesleyan toward the
goal of becoming a wholly sustainable environment.
This document is the product of an exciting and collaborative process that began in May of 2001 with over 25
interviews with campus constituent groups and was followed by reconnaissance efforts of the campus environs
and selected campus buildings. Throughout the fall of 2001 there was a rigorous evaluation of space and facility
needs that was then translated into a series of planning alternatives for future growth of the University. Ulti-mately,
these alternatives were refined into a preferred plan that is illustrated in this summary report.
WHY PLAN?
While many of the design concepts and planning principles articulated in the 1995 master plan prepared by
DeBartolo remain intact, there have been several developments that necessitated this update. Some of these
developments include the need to:
• assess the condition of Sheean Library, Holmes Hall, McPherson Theater and Shaw Hall;
• objectively evaluate reuse options for the Conference Center;
• define current and future space needs for classroom, faculty office and administrative support needs;
• develop a strategy for diversifying on-campus living options for students;
• identify siting options for a new theater;
• articulate a strategy for future land acquisition.
At its core, this Master Plan is focused on defining a strategy for achieving the highest possible utilization of
campus resources while at the same time offering students and faculty the exceptional quality in their learning
and living environment that distinguishes Illinois Wesleyan from its peers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
New North
Gateway Lawn
3
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
PLANNING CONCEPTS
There are five primary planning concepts embraced in the
Master Plan:
Renewal of the Learning Environment
The Master Plan has documented the need to add eleven additional
classrooms to serve an enrollment of 2,000 students. Moreover, nearly
thirty percent of the classrooms on the campus (those in Shaw Hall) are in
marginal condition. The Master Plan recommends the future addition of
a new academic building on the site of Sheean Library to address these
needs.
Welcome Center
The acquisition of the Conference Center on the corner of Park Street and
University Street is well suited to establish a facility that will serve as home
for campus visitors. With a modest addition, this facility will provide an
easily accessible location for the admissions office, development office,
alumni affairs and the Career Center.
Campus Gateway
The Ames Library has become one of the more significant landmarks for
the Bloomington/Normal community. The Master Plan proposes the
creation of an open space at the corner of Empire and Main Streets that
will both open the views of the Ames Library to the community along
Main Street and provide an attractive open space demarcation/gateway for
the campus along Main Street.
Theater Art s Corner
There is a pressing need to expand facilities for Theater Arts. Additions to
McPherson are not prudent given the projected renovation costs and land
constraints. The concept of creating a new theater at the corner of
Beecher and Park is proposed to feed off the excitement and energy of the
new Hansen Center while keeping this important academic building in
close proximity to the heart of the campus.
New Concepts in Student Housing
Students are a vital element of the Bloomington/Normal Community.
Traditionally, housing options for students have been concentrated in
dormitory clusters around the campus. To meet the growing demand for
more independent living options, the Master Plan recommends creating
new apartment style and small group housing options along the campus
perimeter and extending south along East Street.
WHO WILL USE THE MASTER PLAN?
Certainly, the primary beneficiary of the Master Plan will be the Univer-sity,
as this document is intended to facilitate decision making for many
years. However, the Plan is intended to be used as a guide for many others
involved in the process. For community planners, the Plan provides a
context for development of future land use policies. For architects working
with the University, it establishes a set of criteria for the siting of buildings
and appropriate scale. And, for neighbors living around the campus, it
provides an understanding of the anticipated growth of the University and
intentions for land acquisition.
4
ELEMENTS O F C A M P U S
DESIGN
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
5
INTRODUCTION
A useful exercise in any planning or design process is the examination of the way in which other
institutions have addressed the challenges of creating places that are both utilitarian and beautiful. These
models, both successful and unsuccessful, can help to propel the planning process forward by reducing
the time spent reinventing existing solutions or repeating proven mistakes.
The premise of this evaluation is that there are three central elements defining the physical beauty of a
college or university campus: the Sense of Community, the Hierarchy for Movement, and the Symbolic
Identity.
ELEMENTS OF CAMPUS DESIGN
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
ELEMENTS OF CAMPUS DESIGN
6
SENSE OF COMMUNITY
The interaction of humans is critical to the success of a campus, because
after all, the central mission of most higher-education institutions is the
diffusion of knowledge and ideas between faculty and students. A true
campus can only exist in an environment where there are opportunities
for people to gather and interact.
Above: Building entrances are more than just means of access and egress to
buildings – they are also celebration points and gathering areas. The architecture
and site design of these portals need to capture their prominence in defining the
sense of community on a campus. (Keene State College Academic Building)
The civic fabric of Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts (above), is a
good example of the energy and excitement that occurs as the campus and city
mesh together. The sense of community in this example is reinforced by the mix
of land uses, intensity of pedestrian activity, and the use of architectural elements
to frame gathering spaces. The campus is as much a part of the city as the city is a
part of the campus.
The type and proximity of different land uses also influence the sense of
community within a campus. At the Harvard University Business School (left),
residential, academic, and student life uses are intertwined in an area slightly
larger than ten acres in size. The idea of limiting or restricting uses to specific
zones of a campus can negatively impact the sense of community.
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
7
Above: Small scale, intimate gathering spaces and lawns provide students and faculty opportunities for
groups of two or three to gather in a more private setting. These spaces are also ideal for individuals to
spend time on their own studying or relaxing. (Sweet Brier College Courtyard)
Informal and formal gathering spaces need to be distributed throughout the campus. Formal spaces such as the Fountain Plaza at the University of
Colorado - Boulder (above left) are intense spaces that are often adjacent to dining and student service facilities. Less formal spaces are found along any
pedestrian corridor such as Appian Way at Keene State College in New Hampshire (above right).
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
ELEMENTS OF CAMPUS DESIGN
8
HIERARCHY OF MOVEMENT
Colleges and universities are overflowing with resources and learning
opportunities. One of the greatest challenges in the planning and design
of a campus setting is maximizing access to these resources. Movement to,
through, and within a campus needs to be efficient, but at the same time,
graceful. The simple act of moving between two points on the campus
needs to be as exciting and engaging as the learning that takes place in the
classroom.
A walk along a campus can be much more inviting if it is animated either by
buildings, landscape, or people. In this example from the University of Illinois,
trees and pedestrian seating come together to shape a pathway that is welcoming
and dynamic.
Pathways along major campus axes should be reinforced with a visual icon or
reference points that visually orient pedestrians to their destinations. These
landmarks help the pedestrian judge distances. At the University of Florida,
Century Tower is positioned at the intersection of several major campus
pathways.
To further reinforce pedestrian orientation, pathways should align with building
entries. This example at Washington and Lee University (left) emphasizes this
point.
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
9
Corridors, whether vehicular or pedestrian, are more inviting if they are framed by the landscape or by architecture. To be effective, framing elements need to be of
sufficient scale. The Colonnade at Washington and Lee University (left), Newell Drive at the University of Florida (top right), and Main Street at Illinois Wesleyan
University (bottom right).
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
ELEMENTS OF CAMPUS DESIGN
10
SYMBOLIC IDENTITY
Each campus is a symbol. It is a symbol of the quality of education, it is a
symbol of civic pride, and it is a symbol for all the alumni. The scale of a
campus demands that the symbolic identity be strong and consistent. For
first-time visitors, campus symbols are critical in wayfinding and
orientation. For the everyday student, faculty, and staff member, these
symbols are subconscious reminders and guides that form their lasting
images of the campus.
Left: Colby College is also a good example of a campus with several large open
spaces: the Main Mall, the Chapel Lawn, and Roberts Row. All three spaces
radiate from the Miller Library, the most important building on the campus, but
only one is seen as the signature space for the campus. It would be awkward to
consider any redesign that may alter this hierarchy.
Landscape and buildings are equal partners in defining the symbology of the
campus. Buchtel Tower at the University of Denver (right) is a good architectural
example while the Lawn at the University of Virginia (above) is a classic example
of a symbolic landscape.
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
11
Significant campus buildings, such as the Ames Library at Illinois Wesleyan University (above), become important reference points for
all experiencing the campus. Much like the development of memorable open spaces, the use of architecture needs to be based on a hier-archy
where one or two buildings are understood as the most important and primary campus symbols, while the others are supporting.
Broad open lawns define the memorable
open space of a campus. Programmed
open spaces, such as play fields, should not
be classified as memorable open spaces
because of the restrictions placed on their
use. There should be only one signature
open space on a campus. This does not
suggest that open space should be
restricted, but instead suggests that when
there are several large open spaces on the
campus, there should be a clear hierarchy
reinforcing the symbolic importance of the
most important space. At Ohio State
University, the Oval is clearly the most
important open space on the campus. Both
the architecture and landscape architecture
reinforce its importance. Mirror Lake
Hollow, a space equally as large as the Oval,
is a much less formal space and likely never
considered the signature for Ohio State.
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
ELEMENTS OF CAMPUS DESIGN
12
The use of consistent building
and landscape materials can
create a symbolic identity for a
campus. One of the better
known examples is the
University of Colorado-Boulder
(left). Many designers will
debate or resist efforts to
carefully control the palette of
building materials: however,
few can deny that there is a true
symbolic identity established
for a campus when consistent
materials are used.
One of the strongest symbols
on any campus is the manner
in which it captures the
regional landscape. The
University of Colorado-
Boulder has views of the Flat
Irons, Utah State has views of
the Wasatch Mountains, and
MIT looks out over the Charles
River to the Boston skyline. For
the University of Utah (right),
distant views of the Rocky
Mountains are an important
part of the campus identity.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REV I EW
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
Existing Campus Plan
13
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS REVIEW
EXISTING BUILDINGS
With the completion of two new buildings on campus (the Ames Library and the Hansen Center), significant
changes in space use and organization have already begun to affect the campus. These new building projects have
created the opportunity to examine the role of several older buildings in the future. The 20-year vision for the
Illinois Wesleyan campus includes weighing the costs and benefits of renovation versus replacement for these
buildings. As a result, the following six buildings were evaluated not only on their ability to house alternate uses,
but also in terms of their ability to make a meaningful contribution to the fabric of the campus and to support
the academic mission of the University:
• Holmes Hall
• Sheean Library
• Shaw Hall
• Bookstore
• McPherson Theater
• Methodist Conference Center
14
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
Holmes Hall (24,732 gsf )
Holmes Hall, the main administrative office building on the campus
accommodates approximately ten different administrative units. The
interior renovation of this 45-year-old building has improved office
conditions; however, the second floor is not ADA accessible and most
departments housed in Holmes should have 30% to 40% more space to
properly accommodate the office population and visitor traffic. Moreover,
the active roof leaks and poor operation of the air-conditioning system
have made the building uncomfortable for most users. Finally, it has been
noted that Holmes Hall is one of the largest consumers of electric power
on the campus in a large part because of the inefficient design of the air
conditioning system.
Holmes Hall should remain a viable administrative office
facility for at least the next five years and appropriate repairs
and upgrades should be undertaken to keep the building
functional for this period of time. However, the University
should not undertake any comprehensive upgrade or renewal of
building systems.
Sheean Library (51,743 gsf )
Sheean Library has served as the main University library since its
construction in 1968. Following completion of the Ames Library, Sheean
has been vacated. The building offers many possibilities for reuse and
renovation, but would require a high degree of capital improvement to
assure that it is a valuable campus asset for the next fifty years. Some of
the recommended improvements are more functional while others are
focused on building code upgrades. In addition, exterior improvements
would be required to address the aesthetic character of the building in
relation to adjacent campus buildings.
The Master Plan recommends removing Sheean Library and
utilizing the site to create a new classroom/faculty office
building.
15
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Shaw Hall (19,180 gsf )
Shaw, built in 1955, is one of the main classroom buildings on the campus.
There are offices located on the first and second floors at the north end of
the building where it joins Holmes Hall. The office portion of the
building has undergone some recent renovation and reorganization.
Some of the classroom space on the second floor has been converted to
administrative offices. Although the building is an important teaching
facility from a space standpoint, it has numerous functional and
organization problems that make it the least desirable classroom building
on the campus. Some of these problems include leaking roof, old single-pane
windows, poor climatic control, awkward classroom sizes and lack of
ADA access.
Shaw Hall should ultimately be removed following completion
of a new classroom building. In the meantime, appropriate
repairs should be undertaken to keep the building credibly
habitable. Extensive renovations and modifications such as
installation of an elevator, window replacement or replacement
of mechanical systems are not recommended for this building.
Bookstore (3,340 gsf )
The Bookstore is a simple brick structure with a flat roof built in the
1960s. This facility has limited reuse potential because of the lack of
natural light, limited restroom facilities, inadequate electrical and HVAC
service and lack of fire protection for the wood structure supporting the
roof.
The Master Plan recommends removal of the old Bookstore,
with landscape improvements in its place to enhance views out
from the faculty dining room and cabana.
16
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
McPherson Theater (16,924 gsf )
McPherson Hall was built in 1962 and is the main performance facility for
Illinois Wesleyan's Theater Department. The stage and shop setup does
not allow for the theater to accommodate outside performances when a
University production is being constructed.
The theater seats approximately 300, but is not handicap accessible. There
are some seats available for disabled persons that must be accessed
through the receiving door. In addition to the theatrical performances,
the building also accommodates a wide range of support and teaching
functions for the theater department. Some of these functions include set
production, costume design, lighting design, painting shop, and faculty/
staff offices.
Today the building's performance is impacted by the awkward circulation
patterns, inaccessibility for disabled persons, poor acoustic isolation of the
mechanical systems, poor sight lines, and overcrowding in teaching and
production spaces. While some of these issues can be addressed through
capital improvement and repair projects, the crowded conditions and
poor sight lines for the audience can only be corrected through substantial
additions and redesign of the building. Over the long term, alternative
sites and strategies should be considered for replacement of McPherson
Hall.
Following completion of a new Theater Arts building,
McPherson should be removed. Major capital replacements or
upgrades should not be undertaken on this building.
Conference Center (12,750 gsf )
The Conference Center, located on the corner of Park Street and
University Avenue, now houses offices, a library, printing facilities, and
meeting spaces for the Methodist Church. The building is approximately
37 years old and generally in good repair. While the building may be
easily adapted for administrative office/meeting-type uses by the
University, some near-term capital investment will be needed to address
ADA access and fire-protection systems. Other systems that may need
attention within the next five to ten years include the roof, plumbing, and
the HVAC.
Should the University be given the opportunity to reuse the
Conference Center, significant capital investments will be
needed in selected building systems and upgrades needed to
make the building fully accessible. Conceptual scenarios for
reuse are presented in the following sections of the report.
17
• OCTOBER 2 0 0 2 •
I L L INOI S WES LEYAN UNIVERS ITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
CLASSROOM INVENTORY
As part of the master planning process, Rickes Associates prepared an
inventory (see fig. 1 below) and utilization analysis of the University's 46
general-purpose classrooms and a benchmarking analysis of peer
institutions. In their study, they found that class scheduling at IWU is
fairly steady across the entire five-day week. This is reflected in the fact
that all classrooms are currently scheduled 69% of the 29 hours they are
available – slightly higher than the 66% utilization rate that is usually
recommended as an upper limit. In addition to this relatively high
utilization rate, it was determined that many classrooms are not properly
sized or outfitted to support the classes taught within them.
For example, while 90% of all classes at IWU enroll 30 students or less,
just 52% of all classroom space on campus is designed to support this
class size. As a result, on average, only about half of classroom seats are
occupied during a typically scheduled course. However, the fact that
1
10
13
8 8
3 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 31 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 100 +
Number of Seats
Current Classroom Inventory
Figure 1
18
Number of Classrooms
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
classrooms are oversized does not necessarily imply that there is
sufficient space for each individual student. In fact, the average
station size (or square feet per classroom seat) at Illinois Wesleyan is
about 20% smaller than is typically found at other peer institutions
(see fig. 2 opposite page).
Other physical demands include access to more technology in the
classroom and flexibility in use. The three items considered part of
the "minimum suite" of technology are an overhead projector, video
equipment, and a computer with a data port. In general, faculty also
appreciate classrooms with light control, enough whiteboard/
blackboard space, and the ability to use the projection system and
blackboard space simultaneously. In terms of meeting these
requirements, the Center for Natural Science and the Center for
Liberal Arts were deemed the best while Shaw Hall was least favored
by its users.
Recommendations of the report include:
• Increase the number of general purpose classrooms from 46 to
55-57.
• Increase the number of square feet of classroom space per
student from the current figure of 17 to the generally accepted
figure of 25 square feet per seat.
Refer to the full report prepared by Rickes Associates for additional
data, analysis, and recommendations on classroom programming
and improvement.
19
• OCTOBER 2 0 0 2 •
I L L INOI S WES LEYAN UNIVERS ITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Figure 2
Figure 3
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 31 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 +
Seating Capacity
Course Enrollment to Classroom Capacity (Fall 2000)
Room Capacity
Course Enrollment
20
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Net Square Feet per Student
Net Square Feet
Bowdoin
Colby
Grinnell
Illinois Wesleyan
Middlebury
Swarthmore
Williams
668
491
690
385
661
659
639
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
Existing Parking Analysis
By dividing the campus into three zones, the
geographic relationship between parking
supply and demand may be analyzed. At
IWU, the average daily demand within the
center of campus (Zone 2) far exceeds the
supply.
21
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
On average, one car requires between 400 to 450 square feet of pavement
for parking on a campus – nearly the same area as an average size student
residence. At Illinois Wesleyan, approximately 11 acres of the 72 acre-campus
are covered by parking lots – over 15% of the total land area.
Therefore, while parking may at first seem to be an accessory or secondary
use, it is actually a major contributor to the physical layout of the campus.
And while the placement of parking to significant open spaces and
pedestrian corridors affects the visual character of the campus, the
proximity of parking supply near activity centers is necessary to maintain
functionality of the campus.
By estimating the parking demand for each residential, academic, and
administrative building on campus, it was determined that there is a daily
demand for 1,258 spaces on campus versus a supply of 1,211 spaces. This
47-space deficit does not include event demand or on-street parking. The
University estimates that there are 355 on-street spaces available for
student use on, or immediately adjacent to, the campus. If included, these
spaces result in a total supply of 1,566 spaces – a 308-space surplus.
Although the total numbers for supply and demand suggest that there is
currently enough parking on the campus, the individual calculations for
students, visitors, faculty, and staff suggest that parking spaces may need
to be reallocated to more accurately reflect demand. This can be illustrated
by dividing the parking supply and demand for the campus into three
zones: the Athletics Campus north of Emerson Street, the Main Campus
between Emerson and University Streets, and the South Campus south of
University Street. Using this analysis, we can see that the South Campus is
relatively well-served by parking lots with a surplus of about 60 spaces.
However, there is an imbalance of parking in both the Athletics Campus (a
surplus of 412 spaces) and the Main Campus (a deficit of 521 spaces). A
22
potential result of this imbalance is intra-campus automobile use, which
can be alleviated by enhancing pedestrian routes to encourage walking
rather than driving between campus destinations.
While the event parking demand totals 1,840 spaces (well above the total
supply), this number would only be approached if several major campus
events were to occur simultaneously. However, a basketball game at the
Shirk Center could generate a demand for as many as 1,250 spaces, which
exceeds parking availability at the northern end of the campus. Similarly,
the demand for parking in the campus core is much higher than the
supply of nearby spaces. (This is particularly true at the Center for
Natural Sciences and adjacent residence halls.) The parking analysis
diagram (see attached) illustrates this geographical relationship between
supply and demand on campus.
Future departmental space moves, as well as the completion of the new
Ames Library, will undoubtedly affect the dynamics of parking on
campus. However, the addition of a significant number of new spaces on
campus may not be the only or best solution. For example, there is only
one permit type for both commuting students and on-campus residents.
A permitting system that designates more clearly where and when
individuals are allowed to park on campus may lead to more efficient
management of existing spaces.
Not included in this analysis is an assumption for commuting students,
which would add to the overall demand. Between 50-70% of the number
of commuting students may be a good estimate (100 commuting student
would require only 50-70 spaces because they likely don't all park at the
same time and for the same duration).
Parking Supply/Demand Summary
Zone Location
Student/
Visitor
Faculty/
Staff
Unassigned Total
1 South Campus
Zone 1 supply: 0 37 194 231
Zone 1 demand: 134 35 0 169
Zone 1 surplus/deficit: (134) 2 194 62
2 Main Campus
Zone 2 supply: 230 240 10 480
Zone 2 demand: 631 370 0 1,001
Zone 2 surplus/deficit: (401) (130) 10 (521)
3 Athletics Campus
Zone 3 supply: 99 28 373 500
Zone 3 demand: 50 38 0 88
Zone 3 surplus/deficit: 49 (10) 373 412
Totals: (486) (138) 577 (47)
notes:
1. On-street parking not counted toward total supply.
2. Independant living group parking lots not counted toward total supply/demand.
3. Daytime parking only - does not include event parking.
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
Existing Circulation
There are four primary gateways to the IWU
campus today. South of Emerson Street, the
campus is mostly pedestrian oriented,
bounded by Park Street to the east, Empire
Street to the south, and Main Street to the
west.
23
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
CIRCULATION
The Master Plan emphasizes pedestrian circulation as the preferred mode
of movement on campus because it is flexible, requires limited support
infrastructure and has minimal impact on the environment and
landscape. As a principle, the Plan recommends that there be a continuous
pedestrian system that links all campus destinations, parking, and open
spaces together. The desire to maintain a pedestrian-oriented campus does
not imply that vehicular access be eliminated, but rather that well-planned,
integrated vehicular access is necessary to ensure pedestrian
safety.
Aside from the disruption of Emerson Street, the IWU campus flows
continuously from north to south, creating a number of functional and
symbolic gateways at intersections between campus edges and major
streets. The University Avenue gateway, though historic, has been outdated
as a functional gateway as a result of modern traffic patterns in
Bloomington. The new Sesquicentennial Gateway at Empire and Park is
both a functional and symbolic gateway that serves as the primary arrival
point to campus today.
With relatively light volumes of vehicular traffic flow on campus roadways
(excluding Empire and Emerson), much of the pedestrian circulation
moves along the streets adjacent to campus edges. On the campus interior,
the Eckley Quadrangle is well situated to accommodate pedestrian
movement during class changes. The north-south axis between the new
Ames Library and Sheean is a primary organizing element for this space.
The east-west axis implied by University Street is another important
element, but without buildings at either end to provide visual or
functional termini, the diagonal pathway connecting Memorial Center
and Shaw Hall is more heavily trafficked. North of Beecher, pedestrian
movement is less well defined and secondary to automobile circulation.
24
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
EXISTING CONDITIONS REV I EW
Existing Open Space
There are many different types and scales of
open space on campus today. An important
goal of the Master Plan is to improve the
interconnectivity of these spaces without
disrupting the existing landscape hierarchy of
the campus.
25
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
OPEN SPACE
There are many distinct individual open spaces on campus, organized
around a few key spaces that form the spine of the overall open space
framework. The Eckley Quadrangle is bordered by both building and
landscape elements at its edges, forming an outdoor room that is the
signature space for the campus. The Ames Library provides exactly the
opposite – a formal architectural object in the center of an informally
defined space.
Linear parkways are another kind of open space that provide landscaped
entries to the campus along major circulation routes such as Park Street
and Franklin Avenue. These gateways not only provide a first impression
for visitors to the campus, but also define campus boundaries and assist in
wayfinding.
Courtyards, which provide a more intimate setting as opposed to that of a
more public space like the Eckley Quadrangle, are another important
open space element on the Illinois Wesleyan campus. Courtyard spaces
can be found in quadrangles formed by the Harriet F. Rust House and
Dodds, Magill and Dolan Halls, to the north and east of Sheean Library,
and at the Presser Music Building.
Building forecourts provide informal gathering spaces at the primary
entry points to significant campus buildings. Broad staircases, porches,
and overhangs provide places for students and faculty to stop and mingle,
creating activity along the edges of larger open spaces. Just as the steps in
front of Sheean have provided a place to sit and talk, eat or study in the
past, the new Ames Library entry will serve as a gathering place on the
campus. The south-facing facade of the renovated Hansen Center will also
attract this type of impromptu activity.
Finally, the playing fields of the Athletics Campus provide a more
functional, rather than symbolic or interpretive, kind of open space.
Because of the functional requirements of athletic fields, they are
appropriately located on the perimeter of the IWU campus to the north.
However, other non-programmed recreational spaces are critical to the
campus environment. Because these are typically more flexible in terms of
their size and landscape treatment, the Eckley Quadrangle or open space
adjacent to the new library have secondary uses as recreation space, where
students have enough room to play informal games of frisbee, soccer, etc.
However, there is currently a need on campus for space that is primarily
dedicated to recreational uses.
26
S PAC E A N D FAC I L I T Y
NEEDS
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
S PAC E AND FAC I L I T Y N E E D S
27
Facilities Replacement
The long-term vision for the IWU campus includes the
replacement of some of its aging buildings to provide
updated spaces for both academic and administrative
functions. The new buildings will also help to enhance
the outdoor spaces on campus.
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
SPACE AND FACILITY NEEDS
The campus Master Plan for Illinois Wesleyan University evaluated near-term strategy for space moves and
improvements as well as a longer-term (twenty-year) vision for the campus. A central element of this planning
effort has been the definition of projects and improvements to be included in both the near-term strategy and
long-term vision. One of the primary assumptions of the Master Plan is that total enrollment at the University
will remain at 2,000 students during the long-term planning horizon. Some growth is anticipated in faculty and
staff populations over this time frame; however, it is unlikely to be at a rate or magnitude of faculty and staff
growth as in the 1990s.
Facilities Replacement
Over time components of buildings require replacement or upgrading. Lighting, heating and cooling systems,
windows, and technology are examples of a few of these types of building systems. Moreover, buildings often
require retrofitting of systems to meet modern code requirements for fire protection and accessibility. When the
cumulative cost of system upgrades is equal to or exceeds the cost of replacement, it is prudent to assess the long-term
value of these buildings.
As part of the planning process, the project team evaluated the condition and cost of upgrade for Sheean Library,
Holmes Hall, Shaw Hall, McPherson Theater, the Conference Center, the old Bookstore and English House. With
the exception of the Conference Center, the team determined that the scope of system renewal and upgrade is
significant enough to justify replacement of these buildings with new facilities that are designed to better serve
the needs of the campus.
Approximately 60,000 gross square feet of occupied space is recommended for removal (this does not account
for unoccupied space in the old Bookstore or Sheean). Note that the section titled "Existing Conditions Review"
found on pages 13 to 26 outlines the present condition, system renewal issues, and building area information for
each of these campus facilities.
Academic and Administrative Space Expansion
The analysis phase of the Master Plan initiated a preliminary space programming effort for general classroom
space and 25 different academic and administrative departments. Through this analysis the project team
identified a combined space need ranging from 72,000 gross square feet to 95,000 gross square feet. The types of
spaces included in this analysis were faculty and administrative offices, classrooms space, the theater, and other
student support facilities.
The project team identified the following priorities:
Classrooms
• Provide a net addition of eleven classrooms to "rightsize" or to match room size to class sizes.
• Add fifteen classrooms to replace those in Shaw Hall.
• Attain an average of 20-25 asf of classroom space per student.
28
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
S PAC E AND FAC I L I T Y N E E D S
Faculty Offices
• Add 26 to 31 new faculty offices to:
- relieve overcrowding in the CLA;
- regain adjunct office space loss when Shaw Hall was converted to
administrative use;
- achieve an 11/1 student/faculty ratio (assumes no increase in the
number of students);
- relocate the English Department.
• Provide space for nine all-University/interdisciplinary programs
(e.g., Study-abroad, International Studies, etc.).
• Relocate Mellon Center and Writing Center.
Administrative / Student Life Support
• Consolidate Information Technology (IT) support facilities;
• Consolidate Multicultural Affairs administration and student
support facilities;
• Provide adequate space to accommodate administrative departments
at present staffing levels.
The chart at right is a summary of projected space required to meet the
University's academic and administrative needs:
New Campus Housing Options
Concepts for new housing are focused on creating an "academical village"
structured around the following broad goals:
• Provide community for juniors, seniors looking to live on or near
the campus.
• Establish a physical form that transitions from residence hall life to
life in a broader adult community.
• Mix faculty residences with student townhouses.
• Encourage students to become more active participants in the
neighborhood and Bloomington communities.
The two most common expectations of upper class students moving away
from residence halls are privacy and community. Creating a balance
between these qualities is the essence of a well-conceived residential
campus living environment.
29
Faculty and Program Space
Department
CLA Displacements 2,400 3,680
English Relocation 3,680 5,120
Program Space 2,880 3,200
Mellon Center / Writing Center 3,960 5,320
New Offices 1,250 3,000
Classroom Space
Department
Shaw Replacement 16,000 16,000
Classroom "rightsizing" 9,300 13,000
Administrative Space (not in Welcome Center)
Department
Associate Provost 820 1,100
Business Office 3,120 4,500
Dean/Associate Dean of Students 2,180 3,250
Financial Aid 3,610 5,410
Greek Affairs 1,140 1,540
Human Resources 1,700 2,170
IT 5,340 7,580
Multicultural Affairs 1,600 1,850
President 1,500 2,160
Provost 1,280 1,870
Public Relations 3,310 4,380
Registrar 2,110 2,960
Residence Life 2,500 3,680
Shared Space 2,000 3,000
Total Space Needs
Total 71,680 94,770
(low range)
in Gross Square Feet
Space Need
(high range)
Space Need
in Gross Square Feet
(low range) (high range)
Space Need
in Gross Square Feet
(low range) (high range)
Space Need
in Gross Square Feet
(low range) (high range)
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
30
Dorm-Style Housing
Apartment-Style Housing
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
S PAC E AND FAC I L I T Y N E E D S
Housing Option 1
This option distributes
new housing evenly
along the southeast
boundaries of the
campus.
Housing Option 3
This option creates a
housing corridor along
Empire Street extending
from Main Street to
McLean Street.
Housing Option 2
This option groups new
housing to the south of
the Ames Library and
along East Street to
improve connections to
campus buildings
located to the south
along Chestnut Street.
Housing Option 4
This option creates a
housing corridor along
McLean Street to create
a buffer zone along the
eastern edge of the
campus.
31
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
The projected housing need is 250 to 300 beds in a combination of
apartment-style units and dorm house units. Both housing types will
offer more independent living arrangements for upper classmen.
Apartment-style units are typically self-contained with a full bathroom,
living room/dining room, and kitchen (see diagrams on opposite page).
Most apartments are designed to accommodate four students. More
economical designs will have six to eight-person occupancies. Maximum
occupancy of an apartment complex for IWU is between 30 and 40 beds.
Complexes larger than this would likely generate greater impact on the
community.
The dorm house units are similar to the theme houses found on the
campus today. The dorm house is typically a three-story house with
double and single bedrooms, group bathrooms, eight to ten students per
floor, a common living room, and kitchen/dining area.
A separate, unrelated initiative for campus housing that may be
undertaken over the next 20 years will be to create more single units in
existing residence halls, reducing the capacity by approximately 75 beds.
The need for a guesthouse has also been discussed during the Master Plan.
It is envisioned that a new guest house can be created in conjunction with
development of apartments and dorm houses along the periphery of the
campus. Design concepts have not been developed for the size or
occupancy of the guest house, but such a facility would likely be designed
only to meet the transient housing needs for the University (i.e., visiting
faculty, employment recruits, and other guests).
Section 6, Key Projects, outlines a set of projects and improvements for
accommodating these various space needs to best serve the overall mission
of the University.
32
CAMPUS PLANNING
P R I N C I P L E S
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
CAMPUS PLANNING PRINCIPLES
Existing Campus Centers
Where is the center of the IWU campus?
Answering this question can reveal a lot
about the way we see the campus.
33
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
CAMPUS PLANNING PRINCIPLES
LAND USE AND CAMPUS ORGANIZATION
Locating the "center" of a university campus can be an elusive task. Geometrically, the center is the point that is
equidistant from all campus destinations. Metaphorically, the center is the place that people are compelled to
visit on a daily basis, where they can perform essential duties or simply seek social interaction. Ever since Thomas
Jefferson developed his concept of the "academical village" at the University of Virginia, the American model for
campus planning has identified the library as the symbolic center of academic life. At the same time, a successful
student center can induce a similar gravitational effect on members of the campus community.
At Illinois Wesleyan, the completion of both a new library (the Ames Library) and a student center (Hansen
Center) will have a dynamic impact on the organization of the rest of the campus. The increased emphasis on
north-south movement to and from the Ames Library will increase the visibility of the southern part of the
campus and has precipitated the removal of McPherson Theater as well as the potential for a new entry to the Art
Building. The completion of the Hansen Student Center has created another magnet for activity to the north,
further expanding the perceived boundaries of the campus core. Understanding the impact and opportunities
presented by these projects is therefore important in developing a long-term land use vision for the campus.
The Eckley Quadrangle is the signature open space for the Illinois Wesleyan campus. First-time visitors
immediately understand its significance. For students, faculty and staff, it is the basis for lasting memories of the
campus. Therefore, the Eckley Quadrangle should be viewed as a sacred element to the campus, with the creation
of new open spaces in the future complementary to, rather than in competition with, the existing hierarchy of
space that exists today.
Future open space development on campus should focus on improving gateway opportunities to create a better
interface between the campus and the greater community. Beyond providing signage and markers at key campus
intersections, gateway entrances should provide an entry sequence that establishes a public image for the
University. This may include landscaped boulevards or pathways with paving, plant materials, and site
furnishings that are characteristic of the IWU campus. Highlighting key views into the campus is another
important method integral to improving both image and wayfinding. The overall goal is to establish the campus
as an integral part of the local community.
Open Space
The Eckley Quadrangle is the heart of the Illinois Wesleyan campus. All other open spaces on campus are unique
and of varying scale, establishing an open space system with a clear and legible hierarchy. The role that each of
these spaces plays in defining the campus core should, therefore, not be duplicated or challenged by the creation
of new open space on campus.
Improvements to the Eckley Quadrangle should focus on reinforcing north-south circulation and views. In the
short term, circulation and wayfinding improvements will assist in the integration of the new Ames Library to
34
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
CAMPUS PLANNING PRINCIPLES
Proposed Campus Zones
Developing an overall land use strategy not
only helps to guide the placement of future
buildings, but also gives the campus
neighbors a better understanding about how
the University is planning to grow in the
future.
35
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
the core campus. In the long term, with the removal of McPherson
Theater and the replacement of Sheean Library with a new academic
building, the Eckley Quadrangle will be extended to the south to establish
a strong visual axis between the Ames Library and the New North
Building.
While this corridor is envisioned to become the hallmark space for the
campus, the existing landscape treatment and scale of the rest of the
Eckley Quadrangle is not to be ignored. For instance, the more densely
planted western portion of the lawn, though contiguous, is much different
in character than the more open section to the east – a juxtaposition that
helps makes this space unique to Illinois Wesleyan.
Circulation and Parking
The relatively small land area consumed by the University makes it a very
walkable campus. With only a 10-minute walking distance from one end
of the campus to the other, there is little demand for inter-campus
automobile use. Therefore, circulation and parking improvements should
be focused on identifying important pedestrian corridors and desirable
locations for additional parking to meet future demand.
Pedestrian corridors are much more inviting when animated by buildings,
landscape, people, or any combination of these. To further reinforce
pedestrian orientation, pathways should align with building entries. At
Illinois Wesleyan, north-south movement through the Eckley Quadrangle
has been identified as the primary focus for pedestrian circulation
improvements on campus. Without disrupting the historic landscape and
development patterns of the lawn, access and views to new buildings
should be reinforced with active open spaces and opportunities for
informal interaction among students. This can be accomplished by
providing seating at key pathway intersections, building forecourts that
also serve as impromptu gathering spaces, and using high canopy
landscape materials that reinforce the continuity of open space on
campus. Given the emphasis already placed on Park Street as a primary
entry point to the campus, the Hansen Center will provide a stunning
focal point for visitors to the campus. Complemented by a new theater on
the corner of Park and Beecher and the replacement of both Shaw and
Holmes in the future, Park Street will become an important circulation
spine with an active streetscape with views into the Eckley Quadrangle to
the west. The design of Park Street and the materials used should reflect its
importance as the primary vehicular corridor on campus.
The addition of a new theater at the corner of Beecher and Park Streets
will create additional parking demand in this part of campus. The
topographical conditions to the east of the Hansen Student Center will
allow for a parking deck to be constructed to accommodate the
anticipated demand. Without the need for an internal ramping system, the
cost of this parking deck will be much less than the cost of building a
garage, or that of purchasing land, or losing green space to build an
additional surface lot elsewhere. It is estimated that a deck in this location
would provide additional 220-280 parking spaces.
36
Proposed Parking Deck
Section looking west through proposed parking deck between
Beecher and Emerson Streets. As shown, approximately 200
additional spaces could be added next to the Hansen Center.
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
CAMPUS PLANNING PRINCIPLES
Future Campus Development
The primary development projects identified
in the Master Plan occur mostly on
University-owned land — future acquisitions
are targeted primarily for expansion of
student housing to improve the buffer
between campus and neighborhood uses.
37
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
Future Development Areas
The primary strategy for University expansion is to acquire land just south
of Empire and east of McLean, and the block on the west of East Street
opposite the baseball and soccer fields. These acquisitions are intended not
only to satisfy the needs of the University, but also to create a buffer zone
between higher-intensity campus uses and lower-intensity residential uses
in surrounding neighborhoods. Another desirable acquisition will be the
remaining portions of the block at Empire and Main, which will enhance
the visibility of the campus.
This future growth of the campus is envisioned to include a housing "belt"
around the perimeter of the campus, with the intensity of uses increasing
towards the center of the campus, where the library and classroom
buildings are organized around the Eckley Quadrangle. In between these
two zones along Park Street, a mixed-use zone will provide a variety of
accessory functions, including a new theater and administrative and
student life functions. North of Emerson Street, the Athletics Campus will
expand one block to the west, but will otherwise remain unchanged.
In addition, a new "Green Gateway" is proposed at the corner of Empire
and Main, providing an attractive interface between the campus and
community. The intent is to create a functional recreation space that
increases the visibility of the campus within its surroundings. This low-impact
space will put student life closer to the rest of the community, as
well as help to invite the community into the campus.
38
KEY P ROJECTS
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
KEY P ROJECTS
Proposed Key Projects
39
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
KEY PROJECTS
To meet the programmatic needs and objectives for campus beautification and organization, the University, over
the next 20 years, will need to undertake a number of capital improvement projects. This section summarizes
the key projects that make up the 20 year vision for the campus. The actual phasing, sequencing and relative
priority of these projects are addressed in the implementation section of this document.
BUILDING REMOVALS
Sheean, McPherson, Holmes, and Shaw
Building assessment has determined that the reuse, renovation, and possible expansion of these buildings is not
prudent and that they should ultimately be removed. No future development is envisioned on the McPherson
site – this site is a critical open space link between Ames Library and the rest of the campus. A new building is
proposed for the Sheean site (see New North below), but is envisioned to have a smaller footprint than the
present Sheean Library.
Shaw Hall will be maintained as a classroom/office building until a replacement facility is developed on
the Sheean site. The Shaw Hall site will be redeveloped as administrative offices presently housed in
Holmes. The Holmes Hall site will be redeveloped as a mixed academic/administrative building in the
long term.
40
New North
A new classroom building on
the Sheean Library site will
reactivate the campus core.
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
KEY P ROJECTS
41
Eckley Quadrangle
Once a new theater is built to replace the
undersized McPherson Theater, the Eckley
Quadrangle will be opened to the south to
engage the new Ames Library.
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
MAJOR PROJECTS
New Theater
A new theater building (45,000 to 50,000 gross square feet) is proposed to
replace the aging McPherson Theater. The new theater will be sited at the
southeast corner of Beecher Street and Park Street across from the CLA.
In this location the Theater Program will be in the heart of the academic
campus and open many possibilities for interaction with student life
facilities in the Hansen Center. While some limited surface parking (25-30
spaces) will be provided on the east side of the building, the bulk of the
parking needs for the theater will be met in a new multi-level facility on
the Hansen Center parking lot.
New Nor th
Given the central location of the old Sheean Library site, the prudent
planning decision is to use this site for an academic facility that thrives on
maximum pedestrian accessibility. The New North building would be
35,000 to 40,000 gross square feet in size with approximately 65-70
percent for use as general classroom space and the balance used for faculty
offices.
One of the more important qualities of this new building will be its ability
to effectively frame the main quad in a manner similar to the way that
Sheean does today. With the eventual removal of McPherson Theater, this
new building will stand opposite the new Ames Library in a prominent
location in the core of the campus. Therefore, respect for existing
circulation and the open space quality of the campus has been considered
in siting and massing the building.
Administration Building
A new administration building is proposed for a site presently occupied
by Shaw Hall. Shaw will not be needed for classroom space following the
completion of New North (see above). The new facility will have a
capacity of 35,000 to 40,000 gross square feet. This building could
accommodate some or all of the following uses:
• Business Office
• Dean/Associate Dean of Students
• Financial Aid
• Greek Affairs
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Multicultural Affairs
• President's Office
• Provost/Associate Provost
• Public Relations
• Registrar
• Residence Life
Mixed Use Academic / Administration Building
To allow for flexibility in the future, the Master Plan recommends the
future removal of Holmes Hall and replacement with a new building.
Proposed new construction on the Sheean Library site and Shaw Hall site
will accommodate between 63,000 and 98,000 gross square feet depending
on the ultimate design and building configuration. The space needs
projected for the campus exceed 100,000 gross square feet. While it may
be possible to accommodate nearly all of the new program needs on just
the Sheean and Shaw sites, this strategy is not recommended.
Development in excess of 90,000 gross square feet may potentially create
an overly dense building configuration and, more importantly, leave little
opportunity for accommodating space needs that are not accounted for
today.
To provide the desired flexibility, the Master Plan recommends
development of a new building on the Holmes Hall site. This building
could accommodate between 45,000 and 65,000 gross square feet of space.
Ideally, this new building will house a mix of classrooms, academic offices
and administrative support needs.
42
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
KEY P ROJECTS
43
Gateway Lawn
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
44
OTHER IMPORTANT PROJECTS
Relocation of Programs
New buildings bring the domino effect to several areas. For example, a
new theatre requires relocation and rethinking of the Multicultural
Center. For the Center, as well as other offices, future planning efforts
will supplement the overall design of this basic Master Plan.
The site of the proposed new theatre will necessitate the removal of
several small houses currently used for student housing, Information
Technology offices, as well as the campus Multicultural Center.
Development of the Alumni Lawn and associated work along Main
Street also envisions the eventual removal of the English House. All of
the programs housed in these buildings were part of this plan's original
space and facility needs assessment phase. Square footage allocations to
meet these needs have been included in projected new construction of
student housing and of the three new buildings proposed on the sites of
Sheean, Shaw, and Holmes.
Displaced Information Technology offices will almost certainly be
consolidated with other technology offices scattered among several other
campus buildings and included in the new administration building
located on the Shaw site. Further study will be necessary to determine
which of the proposed new academic buildings might best
accommodate the English Department. Likewise, additional special
consideration will be needed to assess whether the programs included in
the current Multicultural Center would be best served by drawing them
into one of the proposed new academic/administrative buildings or by
locating them in a free-standing house, possibly associated with the
development of the housing corridor to the south and east of campus.
New On-Campus Housing
Improving both the quantity and quality of on-campus housing is one
of the essential elements of the Master Plan. Students today are looking
for living arrangements that allow them more flexibility and sense of
independence, but are also increasingly interested in being close to
campus. This pattern creates the opportunity to provide small-scale
housing (different from larger dormitories of the past) that can act as a
buffer between the University and its residential neighbors both in terms
of activity and architectural scale.
The primary sites for new campus housing are located along the south
and east sides of campus. Proposed buildings are residential in scale
(two to three stories in height with pitched roofs). Six to seven
apartment-style facilities would accommodate 250 to 275 students
while approximately five to six smaller buildings would accommodate
120 to 150 students.
Welcome Center (Conference Center Reuse)
The goal of the Welcome Center is to create a facility that consolidates
a number of related functions under one roof and to encourage
interaction among different campus users. Prospective students,
current students, alumni, and recruiters will all use this building on a
regular basis. The project will accommodate Alumni Affairs,
Development, Admissions, and Career Services. The Welcome Center
will be a natural first stopping point for all first-time visitors,
prospective students, alumni, and other campus visitors. The need for
this project is driven in part by the space constraints in Holmes Hall
but also by the opportunity to improve visitor access to key functions
while keeping these uses in close proximity to the center of the
campus.
Some modest additions will be necessary to accommodate all of the
uses identified for this building. The added value of the addition is
that it can be an efficient solution for providing handicapped
accessibility throughout the building.
Child Care Center
The University intends to explore various alternatives for meeting
child care needs of faculty and staff. If an on-site child care facility is
deemed to be a feasible solution, a logical location appears to be in the
area east of the Shirk Center parking lot along Fell Street. In general,
the project would be a single building sized to accommodate the
projected demand. Important planning considerations will be siting
of the drop-off loop, building and outside play area. Initial planning
recommendations are to site the drop off loop on the west side of the
site (near the existing parking lot). Dedicated parking requirements
for the facility are expected to be small (staff parking with room for a
few visitors). Ultimately, the child care facility should be designed to
blend in with the scale and character of nearby residences.
KEY P ROJECTS
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
Gateway Lawn
One of the important visual gateways for the University is at the corner of
Empire Street and Main Street. Today, the uses on the site provide little
reference to the campus and are ineffective in marking the approach to the
campus. The plan recommends that this site be redeveloped, as an
informal recreation space composed of a low knee wall along its west and
south sides framing an open lawn with high canopy shade trees along the
perimeter. It is imagined that students living in nearby dorms will use this
space for casual recreation. Moreover, the Gateway Lawn with Ames
Library in the background will become one of the signature icons for the
University.
Art Building Expansion
The Ames School of Art is in need of studio space, storage areas and
facilities to support the gallery program. This expansion will ideally be
undertaken in coordination with a renovation/upgrade of the existing
facility.
Parking Solution
The analysis phase of the planning process documented the parking
conditions on the campus and found that there is a sufficient supply for
most daily activities, and a reasonable supply for campus events, but that
the addition of any new program to the campus will require additional
parking located near the campus core. To address the distribution
concerns as well as supplement parking supply for campus events, the
Master Plan recommends siting a parking deck on the Hansen Center
parking lot. The topography of the site allows for construction of a
parking structure with no internal ramping system, which both reduces
construction cost and allows for greater capacity.
45
PHASING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION
46
Building Replacement Diagram
The master planning process identified
several buildings that should be replaced in
lieu of extensive renovation projects in order
to strengthen the fabric of the campus.
• OCTO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
I L L I N O I S WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY • CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Critical to the success of the Master Plan is the development of a logical set of steps for implementation. The
phasing strategy outlined below is designed to provide flexibility for sequencing of projects but also to identify a
critical path for projects that hinge on a sequence of actions. In general, projects fall into one of two phasing
categories: "independent improvements" and "sequenced improvements."
"Independent improvements" are projects that can proceed independent of other capital improvements or
acquisitions. For example, removal of the old Bookstore is a project that is not tied to any other projects and can
be undertaken over the next year or sometime further in the future. "Sequenced improvements" are groups of
projects in which the timing will be influenced by a series of other larger capital improvements and acquisitions.
For example, before McPherson Theater can be removed, the University will need to complete construction of a
new theater.
SEQUENCED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Core Campus Expansion (New North, Shaw replacement, Holmes replacement)
Step 1. Removal of Sheean Library.
Step 2. Construction of New North.
Step 3. Removal of Shaw Hall.
Step 4. Construction of new administration building on Shaw Hall site.
Step 5. Removal of Holmes Hall.
Step 6. Development of a mixed-use academic/administration building on the Holmes Hall site.
Theater Replacement
Step 1. Construction of expanded parking adjacent to the Hansen Center site.
Step 2. Acquisition of property.
Step 3. Construction of new theater.
Step 4. Removal of McPherson.
Step 5. Improvements to landscaping at the south end of Eckley Quad.
47
• O C TO B E R 2 0 0 2 •
PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Conference Center Acquisition / Upgrade / Addition
Step 1. Acquisition, upgrade, and addition to the Conference Center for
new Welcome Center accommodating Admissions,
Development, Alumni and Career Services (4,000 gsf addition).
Step 2. Temporary use of space freed up in Holmes by moving into the
Welcome Center for uses remaining in Holmes or for Residence
Life offices located in Shaw.
Step 3. Retrofitting of space freed up in Buck Hall (presently occupied
by Development) for academic office space for MCLL and
Hispanic Studies.
Step 4. Use of space freed up in Gulick by either Student Media or
Security.
INDEPENDENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1. Removal of old Bookstore and creation of landscaped courtyard.
2. Development of child care center along Fell Avenue.
3. Construction of new student housing along the south and east sides
of the campus.
4. Addition to and renovation of Ames School of Art (may be
influenced by the timing of McPherson removal).
5. Expansion of parking on the Hansen Center parking lot may require
temporary relocation of existing parking spaces.
6. Creation of the Gateway Lawn at the corner of Empire and Main
Streets.
48
SubjectBlueprints
Landscape architecture drawings
Universities & colleges
CreatorS hepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott
PublisherThe Ames Library, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington Illinois, 61701.
Date.Original2002-10-01
Date.Digital2002-10-01
Format.Digital.pdf
Type.DigitalText
Record Group18-4/10 : Campus-Wide Projects
Languageeng
RightsIllinois Wesleyan University retains the rights to this material. Permission to reproduce these images must be granted by IWU. Contact archives@titan.iwu.edu or 309-556-1535 for more information
Collection NameIWU Historical Collections (Illinois Wesleyan University)
add to favorites : reference url back to results : previous : next