Campus Master Plan

[SFspidur]

FYI, UR has posted several narrated slideshows from one of the recent meetings regarding the campus master plan currently under development. Not much mention of athletics, but a very interesting look at what's being talked about.

Big focus on a third "South Campus" where the apartments are today to equal the prominence of the RC and WC hubs. Renovating some of the apartments, while replacing others with higher-density structures with new options for apartment units with single bedrooms..."options" is the buzzword being thrown around. With UR giving increased prominence to the River Road entrance as part of the agreement regarding the stadium, there seems to be a big push to make that area a new front door for the university. Talk of moving admissions and Continuing Studies to right by River Road entrance.

Another big change is the elimination of cars from the core of RC and WC. Richmond Way would be closed off between about Whitehurst around in front of the library to the Commons. The roads winding through WC past North Court and Keller/Modlin would also be closed down. The plan envisions an inverted "T" spine for car circulation involving the piece connecting Westhampton and River Road entrances essentially along the current route that opened up this past summer, and then a long piece running the length of the eastern side of the campus from Special Programs all the way up to the B-school, smoothing out some of the curves and turns. Spur roads would provide limited access part way down Richmond Way, into the D-Hall area, and into North/South Court area. Existing roads on the interior would become bike/pedestrian pathways, but could be opened up to cars on an occasional basis such as on move-in days.

Cars would be shifted primarily to main parking garages at either end of campus, one on the RC tennis courts and another near where the Special Programs building is.

Slideshows take about an hour to get through, but some interesting stuff.

https://masterplan.richmond.edu/townhall/index.html

 

[RCSGA]

In general I see a lot of good ideas in this Master Plan. While I like the idea of Sarah Burnet being opened up to Stadium / other uses, and Admission is currently way too cramped in that spot, I wonder about shuffling Admission off to the southern fringe of the Campus. I like the idea of Admission being more in the heart of the Campus so that visitors immediately feel like they have entered the grounds of the University. Banishing cars from areas of the campus makes a good deal of sense, as long as there is enough nearby parking, which it looks like there will be. I think the location of the parking deck right close to the north entrance of campus is interesting in that it provides a lot of parking for the Stadium, while leaving X Lot and the Fraternity and old Law Lots available for tailgating. Opening up Boatright to Stern Quad is a very good and needed move, though interestingly, I think the lake becomes a little less the "center" of campus with the road gone and much of the students likely entering the library from the north entrance.
This post was edited on 3/25 4:31 PM by RCSGA

 

[SFspidur]

The idea of moving admissions is that the River Road entrance is really intended to become the "front door" of campus, or at least equal to the trip down Boatwright Drive...the UR signs on the Interstate now route traffic to River Road. So putting admissions right next to that new front door instead of at the other end of campus seems to make sense.

It's hard for us to envision River Road being the/a main entrance to campus given that the apartments seem so much like the "rear end" of campus, but if they pull off this transformation, it'll be a radically different experience for visitors coming in that way.

Not sure how exact the plans shown in the presentation are, but the parking garage on the RC tennis courts seems to come very close to Robins Stadium...so close that it would appear to essentially preclude the university from wrapping the stadium around to create a horseshoe. Although I suppose if you took the track out you might be able to squeeze in something.

It also pays to note that while I mentioned in my first post that there was very little said about athletics (aside from very brief mentions of potential renovations to the Robins Center, the Millhiser Gym revamp, and some minor Pitt Field enhancements), I think that's mainly because there is a separate athletics strategic plan going on that isn't yet completed. The athletics plan folks and the overall master plan folks have of course been interfacing, but I assume any athletics portion will be massaged into the overall plan later.

 

[SFspidur]

I know a lot of people don't have the time or desire to sit through the hour's worth of presentation on UR's site, so I pulled out a couple of slides showing the plan and annotated the one for the "South Campus" that shows the most changes.

Here is the South Campus. You can see that most of the apartments are removed and replaced with higher-density, but still apartment-style housing. These options would include apartments with single rooms instead of the double-room standard in UFA today. Also included in the middle of the housing area is a "living room" building similar to Whitehurst or the Deanery where people could congregate outside of their direct living areas.

Also shown is a large mixed-use complex right at the River Road entrance. While the program for the proposed building isn't set in stone, it was suggested that Continuing Studies could move here, alongside other administrative functions that don't necessarily need to be in the campus core, as well as perhaps some housing. There is also a tower or other feature shown on the other side of the River Road entrance, some sort of landmark that would anchor the long walk up to the main part of campus.

You can also see the main South Campus parking garage. With campus visitors primarily being directed to the River Road entrance now, this is where admissions and a "welcome center" of some sort could go to serve as a home base for visitors.

Other changes include: some sort of modification to the back of the science building to make it more of a front door comparable to the other side than the loading dock it is today, and a repurposing of the Special Programs building for university facilities. You can also see the reconfigured streets with smooth curves and a cul-de-sac by D-Hall cutting off the narrow road access around past Gray Court and North Court to the Westhampton Gate, as well as coming in past Keller Hall and under the Modlin Center.

And here is the rest of campus, showing much more modest changes. The major ones include the parking deck on the RC tennis courts, the expansion on the backside of the library to connect it to Stern Quad, the new residence hall next to South Court, and the sorority cottages across the street from there.

You can also see the reconfigured streets here, with a cul-de-sac on Richmond Way near the library and Weinstein Hall and another by the Commons serving to cut off vehicular access in front of the library and along the lake shore. There is a big emphasis on opening things up for pedestrians and bikes in the heart of campus and pushing cars to the periphery. Input has also favored the centralized parking deck approach, with people preferring the larger groupings that might be a bit further away than having to hunt for spaces from small lot to small lot as we have today. Also emphasis on restoring the RC interface with the lake, as the road/parking area there today is rather unsightly and could do with a more natural look.

Also shown near the top right are a handful of new cottages for faculty housing and a site for on-campus daycare. Sarah Brunet hall could be repurposed if admissions moved to the South Campus, as could portions of the Maryland/Richmond/Puryear complex if administrative functions moved to the periphery.

 

[Anachnoid]

SF, does UR own all the land as shown on the last slide? I am looking at area west of the lake across the road. How about the area behind the old Presidents house where there used to be small faculty cottages?

 

[SFspidur]

Yes, UR owns the land to the west, across College Road. It was parceled out in the '50s and '60s for faculty to build homes, but the university retains ownership of the land. It's the Lakewood Drive and Wood Road area talked about in this article.

As for the old President's House, that's in the upper left, right? Yes, they own that land with some faculty houses on it. The proposal includes building some new cottages (shown in brown) there for faculty. That's Bostwick Lane, also mentioned in the article I linked above.
This post was edited on 3/31 10:30 AM by SFspidur

 

[20Spider08]

My main 2 thoughts are first, I don't know if I like all the "straightening" of the roads. I think the curving, wandering roads are an asset to the University and really help the ambiance of the campus. Second, the Special Programs Building needs to go. I don't know what they were thinking when it was built, but I've thought it was an eyesore since I first saw it. It might be a fine building, but it in no way whatsoever fits in with the rest of the campus and should be leveled.

 

[SFspidur]

My 2 thoughts on your 2 thoughts:

1. The roads still look plenty curvy to me. I think the main difference is reconfiguration of what the "main road" is through campus, which will become a pathway from the River Road entrance up behind the Commons and out past the B-school. What this primarily means is getting rid of a few stop signs for that main road. For example, some of the curviness has already been put in back by the apartments already, right? You used to have stop and make a left turn immediately upon coming in that way, but that's just a curve now, right?

And the intersection behind the science center will be reconfigured so that the through-traffic will be coming in from the apartments on UR Drive and curving to the right onto Westhampton Way rather than having to stop at a T as they do today. That change only makes sense if you dead-end Westhampton Way up by D-Hall into a cul-de-sac...Westhampton Way is no longer the through street there.

Otherwise, I think they're just talking about eliminating that sharp turn back behind the steam plant, smoothing that out to make it make it a gentle curve more than a "straightening".

2. I've mentioned the Special Programs Building before. It's an interesting building, but doesn't fit with the university's architecture. The reason is that it wasn't built by the university...it was constructed by the Virginia Institute for Scientific Research (hence the chemical structure detail along the cornice line) on land leased from the university. It was built back in the early '60s, decades before the apartments or anything else was back there.

When the VISR left campus, the university took over the building and has used for various programs over the years. While it might be best from an architectural continuity perspective to see it go entirely, at least they're proposing to switch it over to a University Facilities function (which may not even be suited by Collegiate Gothic architecture) from the current public-facing functions of student health, police, and Continuing Studies.

 

[SFspidur]

Just for fun, I put together a little animation alternating between the existing road conditions and the proposed ones. There's a little more straightening in the area behind the power plant than was reflected in the south campus renderings I showed above, but this may just be general concepts...would think the detailed plans are more accurate for this region.

For reference, "high quality streets" are discussed in the presentation and refer to streetscapes where pedestrians are given equal, if not greater status to cars. Really the only existing section of road open to both cars and pedestrians that qualifies is by the new International center where there is a new raised crossing on Richmond Way to emphasize pedestrian presence. Things like wide sidewalks, pedestrian scale streetlights, upscale granite curbs, lack of lane striping all contribute to the concept of "high-quality streets" that view cars as secondary and encourage them to slow down within the campus.

Obviously the University Forum and associated pathways that were converted from road in recent years qualify as high-quality pedestrian ways, but do not see vehicle traffic.

I've also included links to the individual maps (Proposed) if you want to look at them without the animation.

 

[SFspidur]

Kinda surprised there isn't more interest in the master plan...

Anyway, here's another thing I noticed, although it's more of a historical thing than a look at the future. During the introductory portion of the presentation for the new plan, the speaker put up a slide talking about where they were coming from, showing the original Cram plan from 1914 and the 2000 master plan. Interestingly, the picture of the 2000 master plan she showed was slightly different from the one that I got from the university's site nearly ten years ago (obviously reflecting some modifications throughout that planning process), so I thought I'd take a look at those differences.

Obviously the new master plan will supersede the old one, but it's still an interesting look back, and who knows, maybe some of those ideas will come around again in the future.

Here's the master plan I had on file and that I've posted here several times over the years:

You can see in red a number of projects that were envisioned in the short-term (Weinstein Hall, Weinstein Recreation Center, Queally Hall, Boatwright expansion, Gottwald expansion, new dorm by South Court, and an expansion to the alumni center. And in yellow were shown longer-term ideas for projects.

Now, here's the "alternate version" of that 2000 master plan that I saw for the first time as part of the new presentation:

Differences include:

- A different orientation for the parking deck on X-Lot. That deck has been scrapped in the new plan and a new one proposed for on the RC tennis courts.

- This version lacks a proposed building nest to Ryland Hall, although I don't know whether there was ever a specific proposal for what that building might have been. Regardless, it's also gone in the new master plan concept.

- This version also lacks a nondescript building that was shown behind the Chapel and the Wilton Center. Again, no idea what it was thought might go there and it's not in the new plan. Part of the philosophy of the new master plan seems to be that UR has nearly reached the right overall square footage for its needs, with most of the future projects seen as replacing, upgrading or reconfiguring existing facilities. That may explain why a couple of the ideas for new buildings have gone by the wayside...UR may simply not see a need for that much space.

- Parking decks on W-Lot where the sorority cottages are now going to go and behind Lora Robins. They were in the first version of the 200 plan, but I can't tell about the second version. There are nondescript yellow rectangles in those locations (Lora Robins is beside instead of behind), but they're not colored like the other proposed projects. Regardless, it seems like the new plan basically uses the parking deck idea behind Lora Robins and attaches an admissions/welcome center building to it.

- The two versions show different building configuration ideas for the South Campus. These have again been reconfigured for the new plan, but are still interesting to think about. Interestingly, both of the older plans showed the IM fields moving out to River Road, while the new plan keeps two of them in their current location and actually moves the third north, closer to the campus core. That change allows the university to keep more of the (renovated) existing apartments and keeps buildings away from the lake outflow as part of an "ecological" feel for the South Campus area.

 

[RCSGA]

It is interesting how different ideas come and go. What is the thinking about retaining half of the apartments? I would have thought they would require a very large amount of work to really stay current, but I like the smaller scale they bring to the campus. It will really be a huge change for alumni if they are able to realize this South Campus revamp. I do not see anything that points to a location for a Soccer Stadium, but maybe that will be shown in the Athletic Master Plan.

 

[SFspidur]

Yeah, I think if you want another stadium on campus for soccer (and maybe track/field), it would probably have to go where some of those apartments are. The upside is that the 2000 master plan basically showed a flip-flop of the apartments and the IM fields, but the new plan shows both high-density apartments and the IM fields occupying the same area. That does leave more space in the original UFAs that could be repurposed without losing too many beds.

The UFAs serve a nice role, but they're really pretty crappy. I'm curious to see whether they can actually rehab some of the ones that are there sufficiently or if they'll be better off just scrapping all of them and starting over with the high-density stuff combined with a few lower-density ones.

 

[RCSGA]

I would think that the location of the old Football Practice Fields might be where you would put a nice 2K seat soccer stadium / track. The team practices almost exclusively at Robins Stadium now don't they?

 

[SFspidur]

That's true...I don't know what the football practice fields are used for these days. If the team is in Robins Stadium full-time, then yes, it's a perfect place for a soccer facility.

 

[iSpider]

Thanks for all your work, SF. I find it very enjoyable to read and view.

Do you know the size of the unused lot (land) northwest of the lake (adjacent to and south of the frat houses) and its intended use? I seem to recall during the stadium discussions that it was being held for future parking space, if needed. I think Jim Miller said that.
If so, could we build a parking deck there and free up the lot between RC and Pitt Field (or part of it) for use as athletic fields?
A soccer stadium/track field?

 

[SFspidur]

I don't know the details on the parcel, but yes, it has been proposed in the past for a new parking lot. That may have gone by the wayside, however, with the new idea for the garage on the RC tennis courts.

I can't remember exactly what that land looks like, but I feel like it might be a bit rugged and have the inflow for the lake coming through it. Obviously they wanted to put a parking lot on it so they had some plans for dealing with any terrain issues, but I don't know how they'd affect a more substantial structure like a garage.

That spot also backs up to the neighborhood, so they might get some objections to a major parking garage there, as opposed to a parking lot that might only get used on game days.

Certainly building a new athletic facility (whether it be a soccer field or *cough, cough* a new pool) on X-Lot would be appealing from a proximity standpoint (both to the general campus and to other athletic facilities). Not sure how you'd deal with providing parking access to the Weinsten Center though. Because of course when you're going to exercise, you need to be able to park just a few steps from the door.

 

[Spiders05]

Took the dogs over to campus on Saturday to enjoy the weather. I had never been down the road/path by CCV, so I wanted to check out the potential area of "South Campus." There seems to be a lot of potential, based on my untrained eye, and felt like I got a better sense of what they're looking to do. It surprised me how much of a dropoff there was from the IM fields/apartments to the stream and immediate area. I'm a bigger proponent of the changes now.

 

[Spiders10]

I noticed that there was supposed to have been a final presentation on June 1st, based on the timeline. Are there any updates, or anything to report? The board is voting on the final plan this fall, correct?

 

[97Spider]

The departure of John H. might delay some of this process.

 

[BoatWrong05]

Has anything happened on this?

 

[SFspidur]

I haven't heard anything recently...I just sent an email to try to get some more information.

Jim Miller also told me nearly a month ago that the athletic strategic plan was in the process of being finalized and would be posted on their site "very soon". Unless I've missed it, it doesn't seem to be up yet. So hopefully that's coming too.

 

[SFspidur]

Apparently things are still on track, with the overall plan essentially done and the implementation steps and sequencing being worked on this summer. The final plan will be presented to the trustees this fall, and I assume that's when we'll next see a public document.

 

[ur2K]

Originally posted by SFspidur:
I haven't heard anything recently...I just sent an email to try to get some more information.

Jim Miller also told me nearly a month ago that the athletic strategic plan was in the process of being finalized and would be posted on their site "very soon". Unless I've missed it, it doesn't seem to be up yet. So hopefully that's coming too.

Is the previous athletic strategic plan (or I guess current if the new one hasn't been released) available on the website?

 

[SFspidur]

I don't think so. There's a link on the athletic site "Quick Facts" page, but it's dead. May have died when UR did its website redesign a few years ago.

As I recall, the current athletic strategic plan came out in the fall of 2000.

http://www.richmondspiders.com/school-bio/rich-school-bio.html

 

[Spiders05]

Found the '06 AASC report which mentions the strategic plan in places. Some interesting info on here. Looks like in '06, we only had 59 scholarships for football, not 63. Wonder if that's been maxed out yet?
This post was edited on 7/13 12:08 PM by Spiders05

AASC Report

 

[RCSGA]

Final Master Plan released.

Master Plan PDF

 

[RCSGA]

Final Master Plan

Rendering of South Campus

South Campus could be stunning, and could really add to the beauty that is the University of Richmond Campus.

 

[SpiderFan]

Are these proposed new buildings all academic? Are there additional dorms? Does this mean the undergraduate enrollment is going up?

 

[RCSGA]

The ones up close in the rendering are dorms / apartments, as they would be tearing down half of the current UFA's. In the distance are Academic / Administrative / Admissions buildings.

 

[WebSpinner]

this is something that has been thought of since i was serving on the alum board during the fly the coop era. think it is super and SF, you are right, kind of difficult to visualize what can be done but if done right, and we usually do, could be spectacular and a great enhancement overall. thanks for posting

 

[Anachnoid]

All the trees shading the entrance through WC gate are gone. Just pavement and dirt. Sad.

 

[WebSpinner]

we are lame in the save the trees category.

 

[SFspidur]

Oh, wow...thanks for the heads-up, RCSGA. The South Campus rendering is really stunning.

Going to take me awhile to sift through this one.

 

[SFspidur]

So aside from the Millhiser renovation and a couple of rounds of unspecified Robins Center upgrades presumably to keep it competitive over the long-term, varsity athletics is essentially ignored in the master plan. Very disappointing.

No Pitt Field upgrades mentioned, no separate soccer/track complex, no new pool, no indoor tennis facility, no multipurpose indoor athletic training facility...all things that have been on my wish list for years. The master plan certainly isn't set in stone, and money talks if someone opens the checkbook, but pretty disappointing to see that nothing's really on the drawing board at this time.

 

[Spiders05]

Yes, it was very light in athletic facilities, especially with Jim on the committee.

It was interesting to note that the RC was featured in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 implementations.

Lastly, it seemed as though this edition was fairly light in specifics as far as costs. There are a LOT of newly proposed buildings. It'll be interesting to see what our next capital campaign targets as its goal.

 

[RCSGA]

I would guess our campaign is looking for say $250M

 

[Spiders05]

Originally posted by RCSGA:
I would guess our campaign is looking for say $250M

That seems awfully low considering the proposed items. Couple the facility needs with desired increases in scholarships and programming (such as providing stipends to all undergrads with internships), and it adds up quickly.

Our last campaign started out with a higher number, but was then reduced when it was evident that Cooper couldn't get us there.

 

[SFspidur]

The campaign has been in quiet mode for several years now, and undoubtedly includes the many millions raised for most of the projects completed in the last couple of years.

I haven't heard a number, but I'd think in the range of $400 million.

 

[RCSGA]

"The University’s Transforming Bright Minds campaign exceeded its goal of raising $200 million in December 2006?one and a half years ahead of schedule.

Though originally scheduled for completion in June 2008, the campaign closed a full year early on June 30, 2007 with a total of $212,387,612 raised from close to 30,000 students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents, foundations, corporations and friends of the University?including 55 donors of $1 million or more."

Considering that we only raised $212 million just 4 years ago in much better financial times, I would think we would not be too aggressive in setting a goal.

 

[SFspidur]

05, I don't remember them scaling back the goal, unless they did it before they went public. As I recall the goal was $200 million right from the initial public announcement. What may have been tweaked was the timeline for ending the campaign. I think it was originally supposed to wrap up in 2007, but they pushed it out to 2008. But they passed the goal by the end of 2006 and ended it in June 2007 anyway.

RCSGA, I think we have to be bold, even if the timeframe is a little longer. We've got a lot more goodwill with Ayers around, and we've already opened $70 million worth of buildings in just the last year or two, all of which I'm sure counted toward the campaign. And Lora Robins left over $10 million in her will for the endowment...it all adds up fast, and I'm sure we'll hit the public phase with a substantial portion already raised as always.