CCC Masterplan

VALERIO DEWALT T R A I N A S S O C I AT E S SEARL AND ASSOC I AT E S A R C H I T E C T S GOODY C LANCY AN D AS S O C I AT E S
Jump to Table of Contents
asterpla
ACK NOWLEDGEMENTS COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO Senior Administration Warrick L. Carter, Ph.D., President Alicia Berg, Vice President of Campus Environment Michael DeSalle, Vice President of Finance and CFO Steven Kapelke, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Annice Kelly, Vice President and General Counsel Mark Kelly, Vice President of Student Affairs Eric Winston, Interim Vice President for Institutional Advancement
Board of Trustees Allen M. Turner, Chairman Andrew Alexander Ellen Stone Belic Gary R. Belz Lerone Bennett Jr. Dr. Warrick L. Carter, Ph.D. William Cellini Jr. Warren K. Chapman, Ph.D. Debra Martin Chase Barry S. Crown Steve Dahl Steve Devick Allan R. Drebin, Ph.D. Richard B. Fizdale John Gehron Sydney Smith Gordon Mary Louise Haddad Alton B. Harris Bill Hood Gary Stephen Hopmayer Don Jackson Tom Kallen Bill Kurtis Marcia Lazar Gloria Lehr Averill Leviton Barry Mayo Renetta McCann Howard Mendelsohn Joe Peyronnin Samuel E. Pfeffer Stephen H. Pugh Madeline Murphy Rabb John P. Rijos Craig Robinson Shelley Rosen Janice Scharre Robert Shaye Victor Skrebneski Lawrence K. Snider David S. Solomon, M.D. Patrick A. Sweeney Nancy Tom Dempsey J. Travis Pamela Turbeville Tony G. Weisman Helena Chapellin Wilson Robert A. Wislow
MASTER PL AN TEAM COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO Alicia Berg, Vice President of Campus Environment Anne Foley, Associate Provost for Administration
ARCHITECTURE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT Valerio Dewalt Train Associates Joe Valerio Randy Mattheis Bill Kissinger Brad Pausha Tom Daly Joanne Graney Andrew Kerr Ana Stojanovic
Searl and Associates Linda Searl
PLANNING Goody Clancy & Associates David Dixon Dennis Swinford
MARKET RESEARCH Real Estate Planning Group Larry Lund
BENCHMARKING AND PROJECT GOALS Persis Rickes Associates, Inc. Persis Rickes
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING Turner Construction Company
WRITERS Christine Mangan Brian OConnor
Columbia Advisory Committee please see inside back cover for a list of committee members
APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 2005 ISSUED March 2006
CO LU M B I A C O L L E G E C H I C A G O M A S T E R P L A N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PROCESS COLUMBIAS SPATIAL NEEDS RETHINKING THE COGNITIVE CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECTS PROJECTING COLUMBIAS IDENTITY FINANCIAL STRATEGY THE NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE
01 05 11 15 21 27 35 41 42
C O L U M B I A C O L L E G E C H I C A G O M A S T E R P L A N
APPENDIX CONTENTS
This document is a summary of the research and recommendations of the Master Plan team. More detailed information and complete research data may be found in the APPENDIX. PAGE
01 02
MASTER PLAN PROCESS CHART COLLEGE STATISTICS
03 SCHOOL STATISTICS COMPARISON 04 KEY INDICATOR TRENDS COMPARISON 04 UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT AND RESIDENCY 05 LEARNING INSTITUTION GROWTH COMPARISON 06 STUDENT ENROLLMENT SUMMARY 07 CREDIT HOUR SUMMARY 09 INTERVIEW SUMMARY AND PARTICIPANTS
12
CAMPUS SURVEYS
13 NEIGHBORHOOD MAPPING 17 COMPARATIVE CAMPUS SIZES 19 COGNITIVE MAPPING 24 BUILDING EVALUATION 25 BUILDING SPATIAL ANALYSIS 41 DEPARTMENTS BY BUILDING 42 CURRENT DEPARTMENT AREAS
48 55
BENCHMARKING REPORT PROJECTIONS
56 PROJECTION FORMULA DESCRIPTION 57 PROJECTED DEPARTMENT AREAS 58 PROJECTED SPATIAL NEEDS
62 85 99
BEST PRACTICES REPORT BRAINSTORMING REPORT STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING OPTIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Columbia College Chicago is currently undergoing an important transformation. Over its one hundred year history it has moved from a small commuter school to a nationally recognized arts and media college. With the adoption of the Columbia 2010 strategic plan in 2004, Columbia became poised to challenge institutions with established reputations and considerably more resources.
01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To achieve its full
potential, Columbia 2010 contends that Columbia should do many things, but one of the most important changes is to transform its campus.
Back to Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Best Practices: Case studies of recently completed campus centers were prepared to shed light on the range of campus centers opening across the country. Neighborhood Mapping: An inventory of the Columbia College Chicago neighborhood was prepared, documenting the existing infrastructure and character of the area. Cognitive Mapping: Hundreds of Columbia College Chicago students participated in a survey that detailed their daily use of the campus and its facilities. Brainstorming: Experts in South Loop real estate, campus planning, development and marketing spent a day discussing the future of Columbia and its plan for growth.
02
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today Columbia occupies twelve buildings of roughly 1.2 million square feet in Chicagos South Loop neighborhood. For the most part, the campus is barely visible, even though roughly 11,000 students move through the area on a daily basis living, learning and experiencing this non-traditional urban campus. As envisioned in this plan, by 2010, Columbias presence in the South Loop will be highly visible and its brand well recognized. This plan is the product of a study that began in late 2004. It details the work itself, lists the findings of our research and offers detailed recommendations for achieving the goals outlined in the Columbia 2010 strategic plan. Those goals describe a physical environment that is cohesive, possesses a sense of place and is made up of flexible and adaptable facilities.
FINDINGS The research and design activities yielded several key findings which form the heart of this report. Highlights of the findings follow. Spatial Needs: Columbia provides significantly less academic and student services space per student than the institutions with which it competes. The shortfall affects teaching as well as non-teaching space. Overall, in order to meet the goals of Columbia 2010, the college needs an additional 427,000 net square feet of space. Suitability of Facilities: Because of Columbias longstanding commitment to renovating older buildings, many of its current facilities, because of their small structural grids, proximity to the El tracks and inadequate building systems, are not suited to the curriculum. The suitability issue is especially acute in the media arts, which require a large scale production facility. Need for a Campus Center: The Colleges current lack of common space hinders its ability to offer an environment that supports collaboration. A Campus Center would provide a common ground for the Columbia community, facilitating interdisciplinary interaction. A centrally located Campus Center would also bridge the north and south nodes of campus activity, making the campus more connected.
RESEARCH PHASE The planning team knew that it needed to form a complete understanding of the current campus before it could begin planning for the future. Research undertaken to develop that understanding included: Stakeholder Interviews: The design team interviewed Trustees, administration, faculty, staff, student and alumni representatives, neighbors and community officials. Campus Survey: Each of Columbias twelve academic buildings was inventoried for physical condition and space allocation. Benchmarking: Columbias facilities were compared with competing and/or comparably sized arts and media institutions around the country.
RECOMMENDATIONS This report offers several specific recommendations at the campus level and at the building level. It also recommends specific projects designed to address Columbias identity in the South Loop. Campus Recommendations: Campus Zones: The campus should be planned to reflect two distinct zones of activity. An academic zone east of the El tracks between Roosevelt and Congress is recommended to consolidate and concentrate student activity and to help focus Columbias identity on Wabash Avenue. A second residential zone should overlap the academic zone, but cover a larger area to allow for flexibility in acquiring residential facilities. Campus Hubs: Four distinct campus hubs are recommended. These hubs Administrative, Studio, Campus Center and Performance will act as focal points within the larger campus, creating concentrations of activities. Remote Facilities: The media production facilities, which require large column-free space, are probably not economically feasible in the academic zone. These should be located near public transit, where affordable property is available. There may be other facilities not yet identified that should also be located away from the South Loop campus. Building Recommendations: Campus Center: A campus center of approximately 225,000 net square feet is recommended for the centrally located College-owned site at 8th and Wabash. As envisioned, the Campus Center would contain a Student Center that would support a variety of activities designed to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration. It would also provide general classrooms and academic space, primarily for the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences but with some facilities for the School of Fine and Performing Arts as well. Media Production Center: In order to maintain its leadership position in Media Arts instruction, Columbia needs a 36,000 net square foot production facility than can support its film, video, television, and interactive media programs. Such a facility requires column-free, high-ceilinged space not available or practical in the academic zone .
Performance Hub: A critical mass of performance venues, classrooms, workshops and rehearsal space should be developed in a single facility. At this time, the preferred site for this facility is on the College-owned property at 11th and Wabash. The Performance Hub is planned for a later phase of Columbias development so other sites may be considered at that time. Such a facility, which will total approximately 166,000 net square feet, will encourage collaboration and interaction between different performing disciplines and will connect the performance-going public to Columbia.
03
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COLUMBIAS IDENTITY In response to Columbia 2010s call to create a campus with a distinct sense of place with a recognizable street presence, we propose two strategies: A Network of Icons: Through the use of three elements iconic architecture, arcons and supergraphics, Columbia would establish a strong presence in the South Loop. Such elements would create unity among the various buildings without obscuring the rich variety of architecture that characterizes the neighborhood. In so doing, they would strengthen Columbias brand and signal to the community that Columbia is a hotbed of creative activity. Sidewalk Art Installations and Creative Street Furniture: By allowing Columbias creative energy to spill onto the street in the form of storefront installations, public art and street furniture, the College will further project its identity to visitors, passersby and neighboring institutions.
O R I E N TAT I O N M A P
Columbia Campus Properties CTA Green Line CTA Orange Line CTA Brown Line CTA Purple Line CTA Blue Line CTA Red Line Metra Lines
04
ORIENTATION MAP
Chicago River
RANDOLPH STREET
Millennium The Loop Park
MICHIGAN AVENUE
Sears Tower
The Art Institute of Chicago
Buckingham Fountain
Lake Michigan
CONGRESS PARKWAY
ROOSEVELT ROAD Field Museum
Shedd Aquarium Adler Planetarium and Science Museum
Soldier Field Northerly Island
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The Columbia 2010 document is a strategic vision that outlines Columbia College Chicagos aspiration to be the best student-centered arts and media college in the world.
05
INTRODUCTION
This physical Master
Plan focuses on those Columbia 2010 goals that can be achieved through improvements to Columbias physical environment, ultimately resulting in a coherent, student-centered campus with a distinct sense of place.
The plan focuses on student services, academic
spaces, and on the creative community of Columbia College Chicagos physical campus as a whole.
CO LU M B I A 2 0 1 0
T H E S T R AT E G I C P L A N O F C O L U M B I A C O L L E G E C H I C A G O
06
INTRODUCTION
Columbia 2010 sets an exciting new direction for Columbia College Chicago that is anchored in the Colleges historic mission and values. It sets the stage for Columbia to achieve national and international recognition for excellence in arts and media practice, as well as excellence in arts and media education in the context of liberal arts. The plan also reinvigorates the principles of Columbias democratic mission for the new century. To realize these aims, Columbia 2010 denes institutional objectives, establishes a framework by which those objectives will be achieved and posits a set of measurable criteria by which to evaluate success. from the Columbia 2010 Executive Summary
In 2004, Columbia College Chicago completed Columbia 2010, the strategic plan for the growth and development of the College. In it, the Vision 2010 Committee set goals for the College that focus on rigorous student learning outcomes, instructional excellence, service to students and an engaged, diverse campus community with the purpose of being a student-centered college providing the best arts and media education in the world. (Columbia 2010 p.3) This Master Plan proposes changes to the physical environment of Columbia College Chicago that support realizing the strategic goals of Columbia 2010.
CO LU M B I A 2 0 1 0 C A M P U S E N V I R O N M E N T G OA L S
1 2 3 4
Develop a coherent campus layout with a focal axis on Wabash Avenue. Create a distinct sense of place with a recognizable street presence. Develop flexible and adaptable facilities. Work with the City and South Loop community to develop a Wabash Avenue arts/education corridor. Acquire expansion space on and around Wabash Avenue. Add space primarily through adaptive reuse; use new construction selectively. Develop a campus life that enriches learning and builds strong bonds to the college community. Develop facilities that support a campus life that enriches learning through increased inter-disciplinary collaboration. These goals are woven throughout this Master Plan as guidelines for the achievement of the Columbia 2010 vision.
5 6
Undergraduate students Graduate students
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
American Indian/ Alaskan Native 1% % Non-Resident Alien 2% Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 5% 1% % 50 Unknown 5%
American Indian/ 1% Alaskan Native 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 5% Non-Resident Alien
07
INTRODUCTION
Hispanic 10%
7% Unknown
8%
1% 40 Black Non-Hispanic 16%
11% Hispanic
15% Black Non-Hispanic 28% 4% 30 Graduate average age is 30 Part time average is 28 White Non-Hispanic 63% 59% 1% 58% 18 35% Undergraduate average age is 22 22 Full time average is 21 57% White Non-Hispanic
1% AGE
0 (years)
29% male 48% male 52% female 71% female
14% part time 86% full time 46% part time 54% full time
Metro Chicago 38%
Chicago 27%
Midwest 12%
United States 13%
International 2%
GENDER
ENROLLMENT STATUS
PLACE OF ORIGIN (UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY)
ETHNICITY
CO LU M B I A B U I L D I N G I N V E N TO RY
33 E. Congress
08
INTRODUCTION 600 S. Michigan
Owned Buildings 33 E. Congress Academic 600 S. Michigan Academic
Existing Original Gross Building Existing Square Name Year Built Floors Footage 7 166,571 Congress-Wabash 1925-26 No Bank 15 189,120 Harvester Building 1907-08
Historic Status
Architect Alfred S. Alschuler Christian A. Eckstorm, additional work by Holabird & Root
Year Acquired by Columbia 1999 1975
Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District Non-contributing building in the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District No
618 S. Michigan Academic 618 S. Michigan 619 S. Wabash Academic 623 S. Wabash Academic 619 S. Wabash 624 S. Michigan Academic
10
105,000
Arcade Building
original 1913, major renovation 1958 N/A 1895
William C. Zimmerman (original), McClurg Schumacher & McClurg (renovation)
2006
3 10
21,000 196,592
N/A Second Studebaker Building Musical College Building
2003 1983
Potentially eligible for both Solon S. Beman National Register and Chicago Landmark status Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District Christian A. Eckstorm (first 7 stories), Alfred Altschuler (7 story addition)
14
156,909
1908 (first 7 stories), 1922 (7 story addition)
1990
731 S. Plymouth Residence
162,000
Lakeside Press Building
1896-97 Individually listed on National Howard Van Doren and 1902 Register (1976), Contributor Shaw to the South Loop Printing House Chicago Landmark District 1912-13 Eligible for National Register Designation, Contributor to the Historic Michigan Boulevard Chicago Landmark District Eligible for both National Register and Chicago Landmark status Christian A. Eckstorm
1993
623 S. Wabash
1014 S. Michigan Academic
26,348
Sherwood School of Music
1998
72 E. 11th Street Academic 1104 S. Wabash Academic 1306 S. Michigan Academic 1415 S. Wabash Academic
75,778
Chicago Womens Club Ludington Building Paramount Publix Film Exchange N/A
1927-30
Holabird & Root
1981
176,791
1891-92
Individually listed on National Jenny & Mundle Register 1980), Chicago Landmark (1996) Potentially eligible for both Anker S. Graven National Register and Chicago Landmark status No
1999
31,029
1929-30
1999
624 S. Michigan
17,854
N/A
1996
731 S. Plymouth
1014 S. Michigan
72 E. 11th
1104 S. Wabash
1306 S. Michigan
1415 S. Wabash
Academic Building (Owned) Academic Building (Leased) Student Residence (Leased) Student Residence (Owned) Columbia Owned Property Lot CTA Station Metra Station CTA Green Line CTA Orange Line CTA Brown Line CTA Purple Line CTA Blue Line CTA Red Line Metra Lines Media Arts Fine and Performing Arts Graduate and Continuing Studies Liberal Arts and Sciences Student Services Administration
C U R R E N T R E A L E S TAT E H O L D I N G S
building use by percentage
09
INTRODUCTION Congress
24 E. Congress 33 E. Congress
20 45 8 12 15
Dearborn
State
Wabash Wabash Harrison Balbo 8th 9th 11th Roosevelt 13th 14th
Michigan
University Center 600 S. Michigan 619 S. Wabash 618 S. Michigan 624 S. Michigan 623 S. Wabash 731 S. Plymouth 2 E. 8th 754 S. Wabash (Buddy Guy site)
26 20
1 4 49 1 4 45 12 11 8 8 16 16 3 27 49
11th and Wabash (Sculpture Garden) 1006 S. Michigan 1014 S. Michigan

92 8 100
72 E. 11th 1104 S. Wabash 1112 S. Wabash (in negotiations)
85 11 70 15 15
1306 S. Michigan
100
1401 S. Michigan (parking lot) 1415 S. Michigan

64 36
CURRENT CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT

Columbia College Chicago is located in twelve academic buildings that stretch from Congress Parkway to 14th Street in the South Loop. Most buildings are commercial loft construction and many were built prior to 1930. Five of Columbias buildings are within Chicago Landmark Districts and one is an individually designated Chicago Landmark. For more information on the history of Columbias buildings, please see the Appendix. Columbias facilities, primarily owned by the College with some leased, have been acquired over time. The Colleges traditional scarcity of resources resulted in buildings being purchased in response to an immediate need for space. This organic growth, while resolving immediate space shortages, has resulted in a campus without an overall organizational strategy. The classic American university campus bears no resemblance to the roots of the modern university which began in Italy, France and England during the Middle Ages. The University of Paris (now known as the Sorbonne) was founded in 1150 A.D. Because it was a guild of teachers who taught wherever space was available, the university was not a place but a collection of individuals bound together as a universitas or corporation. There was no campus. Even today the buildings of the Sorbonne are embedded in the city of Paris. The student experience was and is remarkably diverse, with the city serving as an important part of the educational experience. Like the Sorbonne, Columbia College Chicago is also rooted in the city. It has had a growing presence in Chicagos historic South Loop neighborhood since the mid-1970s. The South Loops distinct urban quality is well suited to the Columbia College Chicago community. Over the past ten years, the South Loop has undergone significant change. New residential construction and commercial redevelopment have energized the neighborhood street life and increased the market value of neighborhood properties. As the neighborhood evolves, Columbia remains a driving force behind the revitalization of the South Loop. Columbia 2010 expressed the desire to create a coherent, studentcentered campus. To achieve this goal, the Master Plan team recommends establishing a clearly understandable physical campus organization and a strong identity in the neighborhood and city.
10
INTRODUCTION
DePaul University Lincoln Park Campus
Columbia College Chicago
By comparing Columbias campus with those of other Chicago-area institutions, the Master Plan team learned that Columbia is no more spread-out than other area institutions and, in many cases, has a greater student population density. More campus comparisons can be found in the Appendix.
PR OCESS
The Master Plan team is composed of Columbia College Chicago staff working with professionals from the fields of architecture, campus planning, real estate planning, and higher education planning.
11
PROCESS
Over the course of a year, the team has
worked to develop a detailed understanding of Columbias current campus use, the challenges posed by continuing enrollment growth, and the desire to improve the quality of its learning facilities and student experience.
This understanding
is what allows the team to make recommendations that will best help Columbia achieve its Columbia 2010 goals.
MASTER PLAN PROCESS
12
PROCESS
The Master Plan teams recommendations were informed by a variety of data-collecting strategies. The studies were undertaken concurrently. These included: RESEARCH : Stakeholder Interviews The design team interviewed members of the board of trustees, administration, deans, faculty, staff, student and alumni representatives and community leaders and officials about Columbias current performance as an educational institution and individual visions for the future of Columbia. The opinions voiced during these conversations were instrumental in developing a full understanding of the needs of the campus.
More information on these interviews can be found in the Appendix.
RESEARCH : Best Practices Columbia College Chicago has a culture that is defined by its history, its arts and media orientation, and its urban location. As the campus continues to grow, these characteristics distinguish Columbia from most other colleges. The Master Plan team sought out campus buildings at other institutions that provide lessons to be learned. The design team prepared a series of case studies on several recently completed campus center-type facilities. The studies focused on three areas: the building program and the connection between academic and student space, the use of iconic architecture as a communicator of campus identity, and the relationship to the surrounding urban context.
A summary of the Best Practices study can be found on page 25; the full report is available in the Appendix.
RESEARCH : Campus Survey The design team conducted a survey of Columbias current campus buildings to create a data bank. Each of Columbias twelve buildings was surveyed for condition, use, and distribution of space to academic departments and schools. The design team also interviewed the facility managers of each department to assess how well the current facilities are satisfying departmental needs and what improvements are necessary or desired. Please see the
Appendix for a complete record of Campus Survey results.
RESEARCH : Neighborhood Mapping An inventory was taken of the neighborhood in and around the Columbia College Chicago campus. Locations of transportation services, nearby educational institutions, restaurants, stores and shops serving the student population, and historic architecture were collected and mapped. These maps show where community infrastructure needs development. The design team responded to many anecdotes about the challenges of sustaining campus facilities over areas distant from each other by comparing the size and scale of Columbias campus with other campuses in the Chicago region.
The results of these surveys cam be found in the Appendix
RESEARCH : Benchmarking As Columbia develops its national reputation, it is competing more and more with other institutions for students. The benchmarking study compared Columbia College Chicago to similar institutions across the United States. The schools selected for the study are comparably sized or are known competitors in the field of arts and media education. Each school responded to a statistical survey, focusing on the number of students as well as how much and what type of space is provided for the education of students (for teaching and for student services). The survey results establish a reference for Columbia College Chicago to understand what the norm is for similar institutions and how Columbia might be evaluated by a prospective student.
The full Benchmarking report can be found in the Appendix.
RESEARCH : Cognitive Mapping The teams market research consultant conducted a survey that sought to understand the way students use the campus. Specifically, students described their arrival, use of, and departure from campus. The results provided a clear understanding of the movement of Columbias students over the course of an average day, including where they arrive on campus day and at what time, how much time they spend in which buildings and on which activities.
S TA K E H O L D E R I N T E R V I E W S 8 Trustees of the Board 3 deans 6 members of the administration 15 program directors and chairpersons 4 alumni 22 faculty and staff 5 student leaders
RESEARCH : Brainstorming The design team gathered experts in the areas of South Loop real estate, real estate development, campus planning, and marketing for a day-long session to discuss the future of Columbia College Chicago and its plan for growth. The brainstorming discussions came to focus on six primary topics: the educational experience, the Columbia College Chicago community, the financial plan, Columbias outside image, the campus plan, and the South Loop neighborhood. While many of the comments voiced during the brainstorming session affirmed our other research of the campus, some insights were unique, pointing to unexpected ways to realize the Columbia 2010 goals.
To review a summary of all the Brainstorming discussions, please see the Appendix.
13
PROCESS
Columbia College Chicago is unique as an arts college in an urban center with a liberal admissions policy and tuitionbased funding that has never been supplemented by endowments or capital campaigns. There is a strong consensus among deans, faculty, the administration and students that Columbia College needs a center for student activities and college gatherings. Columbia College desires to be a student-centered institution, but currently does not have the resources to fulfill that goal. The student residences on campus have had an important impact on the use of the campus, and the need for more student-oriented facilities. One result of this change is that the retention rates and graduation rates are improving.
DESIGN : Campus Identity Based on research findings and the Columbia 2010 goals, the design team developed recommendations for increasing Columbias presence in the South Loop. These recommendations include consolidating the campus and using various branding techniques to promote Columbias identity.
These recommendations are discussed in depth in the Rethinking the Cognitive Campus and Projecting Columbias Identity sections of this document.
DESIGN : Building Projects Sequence After determining the amount of additional space needed at Columbia, the team created and tested a series of possible solutions to challenges for future growth. These solutions were reviewed with Columbias stakeholders to confirm that all facets of the problems of growing in the South Loop can be resolved. From there, the best solution was further developed and priced for construction.
All strategic programming options can be found in the Appendix.
BEST PRACTICES : CAMPUS CENTERS

DePaul Universitys student center contains the classic functions of a campus student union: a large gathering room, a food court, and offices for student government or clubs. This student center is a clubhouse for students and does not contain academic spaces. The architecture matches surrounding buildings. The new McCormick Tribune Campus Center at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) also has a classic student union program of functions. Faculty dining and alumni/ donor space along with student dining, computer lab facilities, student services and student life offices are all in one place. A traditional student center provides a social hub for the campus. The architecture of the campus center is iconic, and the center has quickly become an emblem that is stimulating to everyone passing by. The center visibly connects the campus by incorporating paths between sides of the campus. The University of Chicagos Graduate School of Business has gathered all of the functions of its premier business school into a single iconic building in the midst of the University of Chicagos Hyde Park campus. The building is uniquely designed among the typical classroom buildings on campus with the intention of creating an intersection between students and faculty. Organized around a central sky-lit space are lecture rooms, seminar rooms, lounge spaces, a sit-down restaurant, student services offices and the pick-up for mail. These provide a variety of spaces in which to meet, for any size or character that is comfortable. The University of Notre Dames Giovanini Commons is a flexible work space within the Mendoza College of Business Administration. Walls and furniture can be easily moved to create different room sizes with power and teledata infrastructure everywhere. The spaces are designed to be flexible allowing users to adapt space to spontaneous needs. The City University of New Yorks Baruch College has recently completed a Vertical Campus - a center that gathers the primary functions of a traditional campus center and academic program spaces as well as student services, student life functions, and administrative offices all into a single vertical building. The Vertical Campus is a center of activity for up to 4,000 students at a given time, placing student amenities at the heart of the campus. The Kimball Center for University Life at New York University (NYU) contains the traditional functions of a student center with emphasis on artsrelated functions including rehearsal and performance space and a large theater. NYUs student services and student life functions are also in the Kimball Center. The centers location adjacent to Washington Square Park gives it a position of significance for the surrounding neighborhood, acting as a hub for exhibiting studio work and performance. Maryland Institute College of Arts Brown Center is a campus center that does not contain student amenities. On the ground floor are a large performance hall and gallery space. The arrangement of the space makes it a hub for creative activity visible to the public at the intended center of campus. The architecture of the building is iconic; creating visibility and a presence for the campus as a whole that it has not had in the past.
14
PROCESS
SPATIAL NEEDS
C O LU M B I A S C U R R E N T L E A R N I N G E N V I R O N M E N T
Columbia College Chicago has always faced pragmatic challenges to providing facilities for teaching its students.
15
SPATIAL NEEDS
Columbia provides less teaching
space and less space for its student community than most of the schools that it competes with for students. A major component of progress toward the Columbia 2010 goals must be made through improvements to the physical spaces of the learning environment.
The learning environment includes traditional classrooms and studio spaces as well as gathering spaces, critique areas and performance venues. In addition, Columbia 2010 sets collaboration between students and between students and faculty as a priority. Physical space must be y. provided for the non-traditional spaces needed to realize this goal.
CAMPUS SURVEY SUMMARY

The design team documented both the physical condition of the campus and how the existing space is being used. This survey revealed that the current state of Columbias learning environments varies from building to building. Most of Columbias historic buildings are structurally sound and in relatively good condition for their age. While some of Columbias current learning spaces are stateof-the-art, almost half of Columbias buildings need renovation. These range from cosmetic improvements to upgrades to the base building mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems. Although the Master Plan focuses on planning for growth, the current facilities are an important part of Columbias future. There should be an ongoing investment to maintain and upgrade Columbias current facilities. Historic buildings are a unique resource that should be maintained and restored. Many of Columbias buildings have small column grids that are typical of buildings built prior to 1940. Small column bays are difficult to use for classroom, rehearsal or lab space. Although departments have made these teaching spaces in older buildings work for them, some classrooms are cramped or have awkward proportions due to the small column grid; many have obstructive columns within the space. Buildings with small column grids yield less teaching space than buildings with large column grids. Some of Columbias learning environments are uncomfortable or distracting. Their problems include noise interference from passing El trains and inadequate room temperature control. While many of Columbias programs are cutting edge, providing infrastructure to support them is a constant challenge. Infrastructure issues include providing back bone for computer technology and wiring, providing adequate ventilation hoods for science labs and providing theaters with fly space. A detailed summary of these learning environments by building is provided on a chart in the Appendix.
EXISTING USE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE (SF) Academic Departments General Classrooms Student Support Administration Subtotal Circulation/Core (37% of total) TOTAL 447,343 40,197 106,085 68,435 662,060 393,610 1,055,670
16
SPATIAL NEEDS
C O L U M B I A N E E D S M O R E C O M M O N S PA C E
Columbia 2010 lays out a sophisticated goal for teaching creative disciplines that emphasizes collaboration and encourages learning that takes place outside of structured class situations. These types of learning help prepare students f for the real world; providing experiences similar to those that students will have in their professional careers. This experience supports the students production of a body of work . In the past, Columbia has provided space as needed to make classrooms available to deliver credits. Space was added in response to specific departmental class loads and as a result, space for extracurricular education is constantly in short supply. At off-peak times, classrooms are used for extracurricular education, but as demand for classrooms space grows, neither extracurricular nor classroom function is well served. Improved scheduling and tracking of available space will make the most of limited resources. The current lack of dedicated common space hinders opportunities for collaboration and general interdisciplinary interaction. The need for, and benefits of, space for extracurricular activity was cited in interviews with faculty and students and in the expert brainstorming session. Extracurricular spaces include structured venues like performance space and galleries, collaborative fabrication spaces and meeting rooms where students from different disciplines can work together, and casual spaces like student lounges. Spaces would be flexible and adaptable to meet constantly evolving needs.
SUPPORTING A BODY OF WORK A primary goal for improving the quality of students learning experience, universally agreed upon by administrators and school deans, is supporting the production of a body of work. A body of work should evidence a well-rounded curricular and cocurricular education, preparing students to enter the job market after graduation. Columbia 2010 seeks to expand collaborative projects that extend learning beyond classroom teaching but few current facilities support this; students do not have enough opportunities to practice their art, or learn by doing. The types of spaces needed to support the production of a body of work reflect a shift in Columbias profile of a learning environment. Until recently, the Colleges focus was primarily on classroom teaching spaces. This
Planning Principle: Flexible learning spaces
17
SPATIAL NEEDS
Master
Plan
proposes
increased attention to multi-use, multi-disciplinary spaces such as group study rooms, presentation and critique areas, flexible open plan areas and generic raw messy spaces.Multi-disciplinary spaces should be distributed throughout campus, avoiding School, department or individual ownership as much as possible. In addition, the quality of education provided by Columbia would be improved by adding facilities to support student and faculty research, showcase spaces of various sizes and degrees of formality, meeting rooms, community gathering spaces, and space for students to produce work.
1,996
2,433 Graduate and Continuing Studies 38,442 Liberal Arts and Sciences 42,423 Media Arts 48,614 Fine and Performing Arts CREDIT HOUR GROWTH BY SCHOOL, 2005* - 2015 59,260 4,588 51,713 46,860 5,593
5,695
4,672
18
SPATIAL NEEDS
S PAT I A L I M P R O V E M E N T S A N D A D D I T I O N S
In estimating the amount of space Columbia College Chicago needs to add, the Master Plan team has considered two factors: the gradual increase of the number of credit hours provided to support a growing student population and an improvement in the quality of the students learning experience. The quality of students learning experience is supported by facilities that increase the facultys ability to fulfill program goals and spaces faculty that provide for Columbia 2010s goals for collaboration and co-curricular learning. KEEPING PACE WITH THE GROW TH IN STUDENT POPULATION Columbia College Chicagos student population has been steadily rising since the 1960s with over 10,000 students currently enrolled. Columbias liberal admissions policy is an important part of its mission for arts and media education, enabling all qualified applicants to attend. Consistent with Columbia 2010, the student population is conservatively expected to grow at a rate of 2% each year to reach nearly 13,000 students by 2015. From a total of 500 beds in Fall 2003 to over 2,000 just two years later in Fall 2005, Columbias residential population is transforming the College. Columbia anticipates that a steadily increasing number of students will want to live on campus. Currently, Columbias residences are at maximum capacity, serving roughly 20% of the student population. It is estimated that housing demand will begin to exceed the secured supply of beds in 2007 as the student resident population continues to rise. This rise in the student resident population increases the Colleges need for student services facilities as well as the hours those facilities are open. Evening theater performances, guest lecture programs and film screenings have increased on-campus resident student participation along with demand for services provided by the health center and counseling.
Liberal Arts and Sciences 330 271 ENROLLMENT GROWTH BY SCHOOL 2005* - 2015 * 2005 figures are 2004 + 2% growth
762 625
Graduate and Continuing Studies
Fine and Performing Arts
Media Arts
2,039
2,240
2,357
2,456
2,548
2,638
2,727
2,816
2,905
2,993
2005 HOUSING DEMAND number of beds
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
secured available housing
19
SPATIAL NEEDS
KEEPING PACE WITH COMPETING INSTITUTIONS The Master Plan team commissioned a benchmarking study comparing Columbia with similar institutions. The study confirmed that the College needs to expand facilities well beyond its base growth needs to remain competitive with other institutions. Columbia currently provides 105 gross square feet (gsf ) per student, which is substantially lower than the 337 gsf per student average for competing institutions. Most schools with comparable student populations have more space overall as well as more space devoted to student amenities. Schools provide an average of 10.1 square feet per student of student amenities. Columbia currently provides 3.3 square feet per student. A more detailed explanation of this study as well as the associated statistics can be found in the Appendix. Allocating total credit hours provided by Columbia College Chicago to classrooms available, Columbia uses its classrooms 28 hours each week, less than the widely accepted standard of 35 set by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. By optimizing class schedules across schools and departments, the College can find greater resource in its existing classrooms, and limit the resources dedicated to building additional classroom space. Class schedule optimization would primarily affect general classroom usage, making the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) its greatest beneficiary. Although fewer students are enrolled in LAS degree programs than in the School of Fine and Performing Arts and the School of Media Arts , LAS provides classes required by students from all schools, using classrooms that are often shared between schools. The credit hours provided and growth in credit hours provided is similar for all three schools. If class schedules are not optimized, Columbia will need an additional 23,000 square feet of classroom space to meet the demand for class credits.
HOW MUCH SPACE IS NEEDED? The Master Plan team has concluded that, to accommodate growth and increased quality, Columbia should add 427,000 net square feet. Net square feet accounts for the functional learning spaces and does not include area required for circulation and building services.
ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SPACE NEEDED

(all (all figures in NSF) NSF)
Based on Population Growth
Fine and Performing Arts Liberal Arts and Sciences Media Arts Graduate and Continuing Studies General Classrooms Student Services General Offices Library Student Activities Administration
57,000 7,000 50,000 4,000 2,000* 3,000 18,000 16,000 23,000
TOTAL Based on Quality Growth
180,000
Fine and Performing Arts Liberal Arts and Sciences Media Arts General Classrooms + Meeting Rooms Student Services Library Food Services Student Activities
44,000 22,000 43,000 12,000* 21,000 11,000 75,000
TOTAL Area to be Replaced Purchase of 618 S. Michigan TOTAL * assumes optimized schedule
228,000 95,000 (-) 76,000 427,000
the go forward costs of buying and renovating are more than building new on sites Columbia already owns new buildings are a more efficient use of space and resources using available building stock would compromise the Colleges program needs 20
SPATIAL NEEDS
the College already owns property for two new buildings
RENOVATE OR BUILD NEW Columbia College Chicago has typically added space to its campus by purchasing existing buildings, usually 60 or more years old, and renovating them over time to meet the colleges functional needs. Although Columbia 2010 recommends that space should continue to be added through adaptive reuse, the Master Plan team compared this strategy with new construction and found building new to be less expensive and more effective. As evidenced through surveys of existing buildings and interviews with faculty, the spatial requirements of some current learning environments do not fit well into available building stock. Spaces currently most desired by the schools theater and studio space, large classrooms, and lab space have not been provided in part because they cannot be accommodated in the existing stock of buildings. A plan to use existing buildings would lead to inefficiencies, making it necessary to compensate by purchasing and renovating more buildings than would be required of new construction. An evaluation of recent projects in which buildings were purchased and renovated revealed that purchase-plus-renovation costs are nearly the same as the cost of new construction. The College
Planning Principle: Minimize Capital
currently owns property that is ideal for two needed campus buildings, thus removing the need to raise capital for land purchase for these projects. In the future, Columbias need for space and opportunities available may make adaptive reuse a viable option. At present, however, the Master Plan team believes that the Columbia 2010 goals can be best met through new construction projects.
RETHINKING THE CAMPUS
To better understand the campus as it is today, the team interviewed faculty, students, college staff and neighborhood leaders, conducted an inventory of Columbias buildings, and commissioned a Cognitive Mapping survey.
21
60% 50% 40% 9 10 11 12 30% 20% 10% 0% students CAMPUS ACTIVITY TIMELINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
CLASS WORK DINING / RECREATION STUDY
22
COGNITIVE MAPPING STUDY

In March 2005, a survey was emailed to all Columbia students inviting them to track and report their movements around campus over the course of one week. The survey results sh showed that commuter students arrive at public transportation terminals and parking lots while residential students walk from dormitories to academic buildings. Throughout the day, traffic is concentrated around the 600 blocks of Wabash and Michigan Avenues. Some students travel further south to the specialized facilities around the intersection of Wabash and 11th Street. Most students visit just one or two buildings in a day. In the evening, commuter students return home while resident students study or participate in cultural activities on campus. Interviews revealed that the Columbia College Chicago community is largely separated into departmental areas. For example, photography students are unlikely to cross paths with graphic designers even though the departments are near each other. Routes between classrooms or buildings do not offer opportunities for encounters between students of different disciplines. There are few areas for students to meet and hang out while on campus. Columbia 2010 sets a goal for collaboration between students in different disciplines, but the physical campus does not support this goal.
46% of commuter students arrive at the Harrison El stop 23% of commuter students travel using Metra The top five Columbia building destinations for students are: the (three) 600 block buildings 33 E. Congress University Center of Chicago residence 86% of students visit one or two buildings in a day 47% of student activity from 9 AM to 9 PM is class time outside of class, residents spend more time dining, studying, and hanging out while commuter students spend more time traveling and working
academic buildings residential buildings transit stations Union Station Ogilvie Station
Clar
k Dea rbo rn Stat e a Wab

Co ng
Adams / Wabash Green Line
sh Mic higa n
23
res
Ba 8t 9t 11 13 14 th th Ro os ev th h h
lbo
Ha
rri
so
elt
MOST COMMON CAMPUS DESTINATIONS
IC Metra
Wabash Congress
Roosevelt
Michigan
CAMPUS TRAVEL PATTERNS
CAMPUS ZONES
Jackson
24
As surveys from the cognitive mapping exercise showed, there are currently two disconnected hubs of activity at the north and south ends of campus. Based on these findings, the participants in the brainstorming discussion on Columbias financial and real estate planning encouraged the College to focus its real estate strategy, consolidating its campus facilities from both the south and the west. Consolidation would concentrate student activity over a smaller area, enhancing the vitality of the campus community by intensifying the activity on campus. The campus zone boundaries proposed by the Master Plan team reflect these recommendations. Academic and administrative facilities should be concentrated into a zone east of the El tracks that are mid-block between State and Wabash, south of Congress and north of Roosevelt. Most of Columbia College Chicagos current facilities are within this area. Future growth of academic and administrative functions should be within these boundaries. The zone for residential facilities overlaps the
Planning Principle: Residential Zone
Dearborn
State
Wabash
Michigan
Van Buren
Congress
Harrison
Balbo
Planning Principle: Academic Campus Boundaries
8th
9th
11th
academic zone, but as these facilities are less critical to the active daytime energy of the campus, residential facilities may be located within a larger area. This allows more flexibility to make use of real estate opportunities that arise.
13th Roosevelt
Over time, as Columbia acquires property focused within the recommended zones, the campus will naturally have a more vital campus community and a stronger presence in the South Loop. Some Columbia programs require functions that are incompatible with the South Loop central campus. For example, the spaces required for Media Production are large, column-free, ground-level sound stages with high ceilings. This type of facility, which is limited to one or two stories because it is not financially viable to build above the clear-span sound stages, is not economically practical in a neighborhood with steadily rising property values. For this reason, some facilities, on a case-by-case basis, will be sited at a remote location. The current real estate pattern of acquiring property throughout the South Loop has inadvertently isolated the various academic programs. Under the recommendations of the Master Plan team, the concentration and overlap of the campus zones will bring students from different disciplines together. The conscious juxtaposition of the variety of uses on Columbias campus increases opportunities for encounter, discussion and collaboration outside the classroom, embracing the development of a campus life that enriches learning.
14th 14th
Planning Principle: Remote Facilities
CAMPUS HUBS
Jackson
A second recommendation for the reorganization of Columbias campus is the development of campus hubs. Hubs are facilities that act as focal points within the larger campus, creating concentrations of activity. The Master Plan team envisions four hubs: a Campus Center, a Studio hub, a Performance hub, and an Administrative hub.
Planning Principle: Campus Hubs
Dearborn
State
Wabash
Michigan
Van Buren
Congress
Harrison
Balbo
8th
9th
The hubs grow from existing patterns of use of campus buildings. The current administrative hub should remain at the 600 block of South Michigan. The cognitive mapping study and building surveys showed studio art and liberal arts and sciences programs concentrated around the intersection of Wabash and Harrison. Performance-based programs are concentrated around Wabash and 11th street. Few students travel between these concentrations of activity. The team recommends that studio activities and performance activities continue to be focused at their current locations but that the related creative disciplines are expressed at street level. A proposed Campus Center, Center containing liberal arts and sciences programs, space for studio arts, and new student activity functions, is located between these two academic hubs, central to all activities on campus. The Campus Center will be a destination for the Columbia community, increasing the student traffic along Wabash and providing a vital link between the concentrations of activity at the north and south ends of the campus. The concept of campus hubs grew directly out of the brainstorming session, where participants discussed the need for the campus to have a central focus in addition to smaller, School-based hubs. School-based hubs allow each school to develop and maintain an individual identity within the larger framework of Columbia College Chicago. Although each hub is the nucleus of School-specific activities on campus, no hub is the exclusive domain of any one School. The hubs express the public aspects of each specialty, encouraging participation from students and faculty from all Schools and the neighborhood community.
25
11th
Roosevelt
13th
14th 14
Academic Zone Acceptable Residential Zone Administrative Hub Studio Hub Campus Center Performance Hub
F R O N T YA R D / B A C K YA R D
Columbias campus has two distinct faces. The campus front yard is the more formal and historic Michigan Avenue. The campus back yard is the casual, funky spontaneity of Wabash Avenue. The front yard and back yard each have important messages to communicate about Columbia College Chicago, but each plays a different role. Michigan Avenue and Grant Park are Chicagos front yard; a traditional grand boulevard and the location of many of the citys cultural institutions. The status and reputation of Michigan Avenue makes Columbias front door at 600 South Michigan an impressive welcome for parents, visitors, and prospective students. The front door should be open, welcoming, and also substantial. Grant Park provides open green space for an otherwise hard-surfaced urban college campus. The campus planning experts who participated in the campus brainstorming session stressed the importance of maintaining a connection to the park as a vital resource for students. At the end of each year it is a primary location for the Manifest celebration. The park is a place for students to study, relax, or simply escape the intensity of the rest of the campus throughout the year. In the campus back yard along Wabash , Avenue the focus will be on Columbias sustaining creative community. Focusing Columbias real estate expansion within campus zones would concentrate student activity in a smaller area, making street life more vibrant. With an increase in the student presence on campus, the College needs to become more permeable at street level, making the creative process and works of art visible to passersby. Columbia College Chicago should actively place creative activity in as many storefront windows along Wabash as possible. Galleries, fabrication workshops, active studios, theater or dance rehearsal space or performance art venues are possible functions. Featuring the creative process in a storefront window will facilitate communication between the different disciplines and with the neighborhood population in general.
26
B UILDING PR OJECTS
Jackson
To achieve the Columbia 2010 goals, the
27
BUILDING PROJECTS
Master Plan team proposes three building projects: a campus center, a media production center, and a performance hub.
Completed over the
Congress Van Buren
course of ten years, the renovated 618 South Michigan building and these three projects
Harrison
will add 503,000 net square feet, satisfying the Colleges projected need for additional space to accommodate both growth and quality improvements.
State
Wabash Balbo 8th
Michigan
CAMPUS CENTER Provides academic facilities and student amenities at the crossroads of Columbias campus. 9th 618 S. MICHIGAN Expansion of library and related uses, limited classroom, administrative, and faculty space
11th
MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTER The new home for Columbias film, animation, and postproduction programs in a remote location. Roosevelt PERFORMANCE HUB Centralizes Columbias performance-based disciplines and connects them to the public.
C O L U M B I A S D E V E L O P M E N T : T H R E E M A J O R C O N C E P T S
28
BUILDING PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES The three building projects highlighted in this Master Plan are specific solutions based on specific needs. As Columbia and the South Loop continue to change, the College should remain flexible to real estate opportunities that fall outside these building projects. To guide this development, the Master Plan recommends an overall real estate strategy that grew out of the brainstorming discussions and has been refined throughout the process.
consider selling properties South of Roosevelt continually monitor portfolio to determine which buildings to maintain and which to replace consider acquiring additional properties on campus for future expansion demolish/rebuild most inefficient or unworkable space utilize land Columbia College Chicago currently owns for expansion
NEW BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE

Planning Principle: Environmental Sustainability
Columbia College Chicago is committed to environmental sustainability for all future building projects. Not only are sustainable construction practices better for our planet, environmentally conscious buildings use fewer energy resources and are less expensive to maintain. Although construction costs may be higher, Columbia believes that the long-term benefits outweigh the initial expense.
SPACE MADE AVAILABLE IN EXISTING BUILDINGS The general sequence of Columbias development manages growth by adding new space while renovating and reprogramming existing space. As programs move into the new facilities, vacated spaces in existing buildings will be available for expansion of adjacent functions or the consolidation of programs currently dispersed in different places. 33 E. Congress 600 S. Michigan 623 S. Wabash 624 S. Wabash 1104 S. Wabash TOTAL 41,000 32,000 49,000 36,000 17,000 175,000
all figures in nsf
618 SOUTH MICHIGAN
The 618 South Michigan building is being acquired by Columbia College Chicago. As the home of The Spertus Institute for many years, existing facilities in the building include offices, classrooms, a library, and archives. With Spertus Institutes construction of a new space (scheduled completion early 2008), Columbia College Chicago is acquiring the current 76,000 net square foot, 10 story building adjacent to Columbias library and significant facilities on the 600 South Michigan block. The building will be renovated to fit the Colleges needs and a functional program for the building is currently being developed. Lower floors nearly align with floors of the 624 South Michigan building adjacent to the south providing an opportunity for horizontal expansion of the library. A temporary student center or gallery space is being considered at ground level. The existing elevators were designed with capacity for office functions and limit potential high capacity classroom use at upper levels. The new space will address some of Columbias most immediate needs and will free space in other buildings as functions are relocated giving strained schools space to grow.
29
BUILDING PROJECTS
10
Offices Offices Offices Offices Offices Offices Offices Library
Possible Temporary Student Center / Library Possible Temporary Student Center or Gallery
MICHIGAN AVE
B
Possible Gallery
Mechanical
CAMPUS CENTER
225,000 NSF
Located at Wabash and 8th streets, the Campus Center will bring together student-centered functions on five floors accessed directly from the street. Its central location and student-focused program will make it the symbolic core of the campus, providing a point of convergence for the campus community and an interface between Columbia College Chicago and the public. A newly-constructed building will provide higher quality studio space, theater space and gallery space than has been achievable in older renovated buildings. Since all students take classes in the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS), most of the LAS academic space and general classrooms will be moved to this new building making it an academic hub as well as a crossroads for students.
30
BUILDING PROJECTS
CO LU M B I A S C A M P U S C E N T E R S HOULD: Have an iconic presence. A bold architectural gesture, reflecting the Columbias creative and innovative nature, would announce the Colleges identity to the South Loop and could be the nucleus around which a distinct sense of place for the campus could be created. The Campus Center would be centrally located on campus, so that it is a natural intersection for the college community. New construction would provide space with fewer columns, making the building more adaptable to serve evolving needs. It would also have an integrated technological back bone and effective mechanical systems with flexible capabilities. It should provide places for students to collaborate on interdisciplinary projects, to collaborate with faculty, to present , work to other students and the community, places to eat and to study and to cross paths with students from other departments. The Campus Center will also help meet the needs of the growing student resident population as it increases space for the services most used by these students. As Columbias student population continues to grow, new teaching space will be a constant need. New construction should provide as much capacity to accommodate growth requirements as allowed by zoning. It should provide students with areas to work outside of the classroom on individual or group projects as well as multidisciplinary showcase spaces, performance venues, and storage facilities.
Have flexible spaces.
Be student-centered.
Improve learning environment quality.
Support the production of a body of work.
Campus Commons: Common Room / Meeting Area
Student Organizations Space
Core
Administrative Offices
Floor 4
Rooftop Space
14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
31
BUILDING PROJECTS
Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Expansion Liberal Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts and Sciences Student Center
A 162,000 162,000
Performance Space Below
Collaborative Project Space
a b a
Crit
Core
Group Study / Breakout Rooms and Lounge / Event Space

Floor 3
Student Center Student Center Student Center Mechanical Student Center Multi-disciplinary Performance Space
63,000 63,000
1 Grade
Shared Rehearsal
Core
Cafe / Study Area
The Campus Center should provide new teaching space as well as Student Center functions
Admin. Offices
Floor 2
The Student Center could include a wide range of facilities that would facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and discussion.
Mechanical
Computer Lab
Multi-disciplinary Student Showcase Space
Core Service Study Area
Core Lobby Student Activity Study Area
Cafe/ Study Area
Student Lockers
Bookstore
Bookstore
Floor 1
Lower Level
MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTER

36,000 NSF
32
BUILDING PROJECTS
Columbia College Chicagos Media Production Center (MPC) would enable the Colleges School of Media Arts to offer production studios to support its film, video, television, and interactive media programs. A media production center will significantly improve teaching and learning at Columbia, and better prepare its students for the highly competitive film industry. As a college with a student-centered mission, Columbia must provide its students direct experience in state-ofthe-art production facilities, train them in technologies and processes of the visual media environment, and develop the capacity of its students and graduates to create and produce outstanding film and video works. The MPC physical plant would feature approximately 36,000 square feet of sound stages, production and post-production spaces, editing studios, fabrication shops, a motion-capture studio, and animation labs. The MPC would also feature suitable sound stages for television production and digital-friendly facilities. This includes a green stage, a computer generated imaging environment for digital filmmaking and other digital-based work. Digital studios, one of the most in-demand resources by industry professionals, would be one of only a handful in the Chicago area.
THE MEDIA PRODUCTION CENTER WILL: offer state-of-the-art production studios to support film, video, television and interactive media programs include digital studios only one of a few in the Chicago area position Columbia to respond to rapid change in the media industries help build a diverse workforce invigorate the local film industry
The current location for production does not provide the large-scale spaces needed to help the school succeed. The current two-story facility is in a location that underutilizes valuable real estate. The current site can be leveraged to create significant opportunities remote from Columbias core campus. The media production facility should be accessible by public transit and have ample space for loading, unloading, and parking.
33
BUILDING PROJECTS
Motion Capture Studio Below
Second Sound Stage Below
Main Sound Stage Below
T The concentration of media production disciplines in a flexible, easy-to-use space would keep Columbia at the forefront of Media Arts education.
Class/Lab Core + Circulation Animation Media Lab Lab
Directing Stage
Classroom / Lab
Floor 2
Motion Capture Studio
Second Sound Stage
Main Sound Stage
Storage
Parking
Costumes Core + Circulation
Storage
Fabrication Shop
Office
Loading Dock
Ground Floor
PERFORMANCE HUB
166,000 NSF
34
BUILDING PROJECTS
The Performance Hub would be a focal point for performance disciplines on campus. A critical mass of performance venues, classrooms, workshops and rehearsal space could be collected near 11th Street and Wabash, the current location of many facilities for theater, film and music. This suggested location is based on current facility organization and property availability, but because the Production Hub is planned for a later phase of Columbias development there may be more suitable options open at that time.
Performance disciplines collaborate in the workworld to bring performance productions to reality, so students should learn from similar collaborations in the school learning environment. The Performance Hub would create more opportunity for collaboration. The Performance Hub would be a center where the public will meet and connect with Columbia Colleges productions. Performance disciplines are currently in the central campus, but have limited visibility. This project would be visible and have a strong presence on campus and in the South Loop.
18
Allowable Development Rights

Zoning laws governing building density allow new buildings to transfer unused density from adjacent buildings. A Performance Hub at 11th Street and Wabash could be taller by using rights transferred from adjacent Columbia buildings.
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Grade
Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Dance Theater Fabrication Studio
Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Fine and Performing Arts Performance Theater
A new Performance Hub would encourage collaboration between performance disciplines while increasing the visibility of Columbia productions at street level.
Black Box Theater
Alley
PROJECTING
COLUMBIAS IDENTIT Y
Columbia 2010 calls for the college to create a distinct sense of place with a recognizable street presence.
35
PROJECTING COLUMBIAS IDENTITY
The urban, hands-on texture of
the campus contributes to the students identification with Columbias nontraditional approach to enhancing the identity of its campus community.
Building-scaled super-graphics and presentations of student art are striking expressions of creativity in the South Loop; these are strong first steps toward establishing Columbias identity. Clearer identification of each of Columbias buildings and expressions of the day-to-day vitality of the community will develop this idea further.
O V E R V I E W O F I D E N T I T Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
36
The Master Plan team recommends establishing Columbias distinct sense of place in two ways. First, the College should introduce a network of iconic elements to distinguish the campus as a unique and unified entity. Second, by increasing the creative presence of the Columbia community in storefront windows and open locations in the neighborhood, a recognizable street presence can be developed. Columbias creativity should not be limited to its buildings; it should spill on to the street. The importance of increasing Columbias visibility in the South Loop was part of many topic discussions at the Brainstorming Session. It was considered influential on a range of issues including the Colleges strategy for campus planning, the need to build the campus community, and enhancing Columbias image in the college community, the neighborhood and among prospective students. A comment from the Brainstorming Session was that a funky Wiener Werkstatte streetscape could emerge on Wabash. The comparison to this vibrant Viennese artists movement has become a guide in the development of Columbias identity. The Wiener Werkstatte, an important 20th century art movement, was at once highly interdisciplinary, theoretical and practical. The workshops produced functional objects including furniture, silverware, dishes and plates, rugs, linens clothing and art objects that depended on collaboration between a variety of disciplines. The Workshop artists sought to advance their belief that art and beautiful craftsmanship should be integrated into everyday objects. Artists creative ability was developed by the practice of making these objects learning by doing. Their hope was that the availability of these objects to the public, not just the elite, would uplift the laboring class and be a small step toward social equalization. Columbias energetic, hands-on approach embodies this same spirit.
37
PROJECTING COLUMBIAS IDENTITY PROJECTING COLUMBIAS IDENTITY PROJECTING COLUMBIAS IDENTITY
A NET WORK OF ICONS

A key strategy for creating a unique sense of place is the creation of icons that exemplify Columbias artistic presence in the South Loop. By conveying Columbias creativity and institutional values to both the college community and the neighborhood, the iconic elements would mark the presence of the school. Through repetition, these elements would also link Columbias buildings into a cohesive campus. The Master Plan team proposes three elements: iconic architecture, arcons and supergraphics. Iconic architecture conveys the message of an institution in a direct and powerful way. Many institutions use iconic buildings to communicate their presence and their core values to the community. An iconic building on Columbias campus will express to the neighborhood that Creativity is alive here; it permeates everything we do. A second element for establishing Columbias presence in the South Loop is a repeated architectural feature or arcon that marks the Colleges facilities. Vertical scrolling LED (Light Emitting Diode) arcons featured throughout the campus would unite the new architecture, the existing buildings, and the general campus. The content of the arcons would be programmed at a central location, allowing the College to maintain constant control and also making content change king easier. The movement and change of content change using LEDs fits with the fast pace and creativity of the Colleges campus life. The current billboard-sized exterior installations of student and faculty artwork are an effective promotion of the Colleges creative presence in the neighborhood. This program should be expanded to include more locations, possibly including installations on the faades of non-Columbia buildings. By not limiting the artwork to Collegeowned buildings, Columbia is able to intensify its visible presence within its campus boundaries and engage the neighborhood in the creative life of the College. Together, these three strategies, iconic architecture, arcons, and the expanded presentation of artwork, enhance the presence of Columbia College Chicagos campus through a network of visual connections. These elements are deliberate communications of a Columbia brand.
Vertical LED (Light Emitting Diode) arcons identify a building as part of Columbias campus.
38
A good example is Eero Saarinens TransWorld Airlines (TWA) terminal in New York City. When this international air terminal was built, TWA and international air travel were both new. Saarinens terminal conveys a message of futuristic innovation. The New York terminal immediately became TWAs symbolic heart both metaphorically and as a powerful iconic image.
Proposed art installations on non-Columbia buildings intensify the Colleges presence in the South Loop
sanctioned art interventions under the EL
S I D E WA L K A R T I N S TA L L AT I O N S
Creative presence in the South Loop can also be established by providing areas for student art installations. Students would submit proposals for temporary installations at authorized locations under the El tracks or on the sides of buildings. A speakers corner sidewalk performance venue, in a storefront or out-of-doors, could be open for performances. Currently underway is the Art Escape program, in which Columbia College Chicago held a competition for proposals to use exterior fire escapes as a way of identifying the College. These moments of sidewalk art, sanctioned and yet slightly outside the norm, reinforce the idea that on Columbias campus, art is not limited to the studio or the gallery.
39
the Art Escapes program displays art on fire escapes
sanctioned art interventions on buildings
40
sculptural seating possibilities with painted lamp posts adds Columbias character to the City of Chicagos standard palette
unique EL entrance at the Harrison stop
C R E AT I V E S T R E E T F U R N I T U R E
As the City of Chicago makes plans to improve the Wabash Avenue streetscape in the campus area, Columbias creative community can seek to add non-traditional street furniture to standard municipal installations. Some ideas include introducing sculptural seating options along the sidewalks, painting the standard street accessories a distinctly non-standard color, installing Columbia College Chicago kiosks, or creating a new entry pavilion to the El stop most used by students. Columbia has also proposed a design for the El platform and station interior through the Chicago Transit Authoritys Adopt-A-Station program. Together, these elements help to identify Columbias campus, not just as an area of the South Loop, but as an area defined by creativity.
Harrison Haiku is Columbias CTA Adopt-a-Station Proposal
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
The financial strategy to achieve the master plan is based on building momentum over time to gather money from several sources. Beginning in 2006, we recommend that Columbia College Chicago begin allocating funds and exploring debt capacity. A comprehensive public campaign should be launched for the College that includes funding for new space, scholarships and learning programs. Columbia should continue to seek opportunities to acquire existing properties in the South Loop, and also build a fund for new construction. Naming opportunities should be identified for potential private donors for existing as well as proposed spaces. Federal, state and local government should be solicited for contributions to Columbia College Chicagos growth. As the master plan recommends that the academic campus should be concentrated between Congress Boulevard and Roosevelt Road, Columbia College Chicago should allocate the proceeds from sales of outlying property to fund new building programs.
41
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Tactical Strategic DEBT AND SALE OF PROPERTY Buildings COMPREHENSIVE CAMPAIGN Program
CAPITAL BUDGET
THE NEW
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
42
THE NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE
In recent years dramatic improvements have been made in the campus environment, yet these changes have, for the most part, been tactical shifts executed on a yearly basis to respond to immediate needs. The Master Plan considers the campus strategically, thinking about change in the long term, suggesting a synthesis of initiatives which will differentiate the Columbia College Chicago experience from that of any other institution of higher education. A students choice to study at Columbia College Chicago is inextricably wrapped in a choice to live in and experience the city of Chicago itself. A central premise of this plan and of Columbia 2010, is that the Columbia campus should 2010, continue to celebrate the character of the South Loop and the Colleges broader urban setting. The challenge is to develop a distinctive identity and to offer a distinctive experience within this setting. If a cohesive student experience is the end, then one of the important means to this end is the campus as the student understands it and uses it on a daily basis. The Columbia campus has Grant Park as its front yard a yard, great urban green space. The front door of Columbia College Chicago will remain the historic 600 South Michigan building. Considered the Administrative Hub of the campus, 600 South Michigan is an impressive welcome for prospective students and will provide current students with an array of administrative services on the lower three levels of the building. The Harrison Avenue CTA stop is Columbias back door a place where, for thousands of students, their daily experience begins. The Master Plan enhances the sense that this is a gateway to the campus. Wabash Avenue is the back yard of the campus. With the changes suggested in the plan, Wabash will become the campuss center of gravity, establishing functional and gravity, visual connection from Congress to Roosevelt.
The hub of the activity along Wabash will be the new Campus Center at 8th and Wabash. The Campus Center will provide a critical point of exchange, drawing students from all disciplines. It will be the true center of the campus where an individuals relationship to the whole can be most directly felt. It will be a place of collaboration, encounter and creative interaction. To the north and to the south, Columbia will develop centers for studio and performance activities respectively: the Studio Hub and Performance Hub. These hubs re-think the campus along lines of artistic critical mass of activity whether ones work is shown or is performed. It is this notion of layering a different organizational scheme across the campus that is intended to promote interaction between students (and faculty) of different departments. The Master Plan rejects isolation and embraces collaboration, sharing ideas and abilities, in its approach to providing future facilities. As the College continues to grow, there are three things to keep in mind as essential elements of the student experience. First, the campus is part of the city and not a separate place. The College will become a greater presence in the South Loop, but it will never replace the neighborhood. Second, as the campus becomes more of a home to students and faculty, with places to live, work and experience the city, the sense of belonging to a creative community will be enhanced. Third, the campus will convey the sense that this is both a place to create and a place to present creative work in a collaborative environment.
COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHIC AGO AD VISORY COMMIT TEE

Th e Adv i s o r y Co m mi t te e, fo r m e d i n t h e i n i t i al stages of the pla n n i n g p ro ce s s, wa s o p e n to a nyo n e i nte rested in lear ning ab o u t a n d p a r t i c i p at i n g i n Co l u m b i as M a s ter Plan. The Adv i s o r y Co m m i t te e h e l d fo u r m e e t i n g s w h i ch were op en to the e nt i re Co l u m b i a Co l l e g e Ch i c a g o co m m unit y.
Board of Trustees Bob Wislow, Chairman of the Campus Environment Committee Allen Turner, Chairman Bill Hood, past Chairman Madeline Raab Rick Fizdale Steve Devick Deans Jo Cates, Associate Vice President for Academic Research and Dean of Library Doreen Bartoni, Media Arts Cheryl Johnson-Odim, Liberal Arts and Sciences Leonard Leher, Fine and Performing Arts Keith Cleveland, Graduate School Administration Mark Kelly, Vice President of Student Affairs Steven Kapelke, Provost / Vice President for Academic Affairs Sam J. Ross, Vice President for Institutional Advancement Michael DeSalle, Vice President of Finance and CFO Paul Chiaravalle, Chief of Staff Chairs Bob Thall, Photography Dick Dunscumb, Music Bruce Sheridan, Film Margaret Sullivan, Marketing Communication Lynn Pena, ASL Lisa Brock, Liberal Education Dennis Rich, Arts Entertainment and Media Management Sheldon Patinkin, Theater Faculty Joe Roberts, Arts Entertainment and Media Management Dominique Cheene, Audio Arts Jeff Schiff, English Jeanine Mellinger, Television Curtis Lawrence, Journalism Lenore Hervey, Dance Movement Therapy
Facility Managers Mary Badger, Theater Kevin Cassidy, Art & Design Shannon Epplett, Dance Jeff Wade, Science Institute College Council Representatives Shanita Akintonde Marcelo Caplan Staff Kari Sommers, Alumni Relations Carol Ann Brown, Student Affairs Stephanie Conaway, Museum of Contemporary Photography Lona Livingston, Institutional Advancement Nick Rabkin, Center for Arts Policy Mary Oakes, Director of Residential Life Greg Narlo, Finance Gigi Posejpal, International Student Affairs Students / Alumni Michael Gallo, student Mark Anderson, student Jason Taylor, student Sana Mahmood, student Vanessa Torres, student Lauren McLain, student Bill Cellini, alumnus & trustee Michael Orlove, alumnus Arman Ravazi, alumnus Marci Hughes, alumnus City and Neighborhood Groups Alderman Haithcock Bob McKenna, Chicago Department of Planning and Development Leslie Gryce Sturino, Historic Printers Row Neighbors Bob ONeill, Grant Park Advisory Council Ty Tabing, Chicago Loop Alliance Louis DAngelo, Chicago Loop Alliance Bonnie Sanchez-Carlson, Near South Planning Board Jeff Key, Greater South Loop Neighbors Tom Fuechtman, DePaul University Howard Sulkin, Spertus Institute for Jewish Studies
FRONT AND BACK COVER PHOTOS BY MICHELE LITVIN

CCC Masterplan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CCC Masterplan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

VALERIO DEWALT T R A I N A S S O C I AT E S SEARL AND ASSOC I AT E S A R C H I T E C T S GOODY C LANCY AN D AS S O C I AT E S

Jump to Table of Contents

Searl and Associates Linda Searl

PLANNING Goody Clancy & Associates David Dixon Dennis Swinford

MARKET RESEARCH Real Estate Planning Group Larry Lund

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING Turner Construction Company

WRITERS Christine Mangan Brian OConnor

APPROVED BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 2005 ISSUED March 2006

MASTER PLAN PROCESS CHART COLLEGE STATISTICS

BENCHMARKING REPORT PROJECTIONS

56 PROJECTION FORMULA DESCRIPTION 57 PROJECTED DEPARTMENT AREAS 58 PROJECTED SPATIAL NEEDS

BEST PRACTICES REPORT BRAINSTORMING REPORT STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING OPTIONS

To achieve its full

Back to Table of Contents

Millennium The Loop Park

The Art Institute of Chicago

ROOSEVELT ROAD Field Museum

Shedd Aquarium Adler Planetarium and Science Museum

Soldier Field Northerly Island

This physical Master

Back to Table of Contents

Undergraduate students Graduate students

American Indian/ Alaskan Native 1% % Non-Resident Alien 2% Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 5% 1% % 50 Unknown 5%

American Indian/ 1% Alaskan Native 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 5% Non-Resident Alien

1% 40 Black Non-Hispanic 16%

29% male 48% male 52% female 71% female

Metro Chicago 38%

United States 13%

PLACE OF ORIGIN (UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY)

Owned Buildings 33 E. Congress Academic 600 S. Michigan Academic

Year Acquired by Columbia 1999 1975

original 1913, major renovation 1958 N/A 1895

William C. Zimmerman (original), McClurg Schumacher & McClurg (renovation)

N/A Second Studebaker Building Musical College Building

1908 (first 7 stories), 1922 (7 story addition)

731 S. Plymouth Residence

Lakeside Press Building

1014 S. Michigan Academic

Sherwood School of Music

Holabird & Root

building use by percentage

11th and Wabash (Sculpture Garden) 1006 S. Michigan 1014 S. Michigan

72 E. 11th 1104 S. Wabash 1112 S. Wabash (in negotiations)

1401 S. Michigan (parking lot) 1415 S. Michigan

CURRENT CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT

DePaul University Lincoln Park Campus

Columbia College Chicago

Over the course of a year, the team has

Back to Table of Contents

MASTER PLAN PROCESS

BEST PRACTICES : CAMPUS CENTERS

Columbia provides less teaching

Back to Table of Contents

CAMPUS SURVEY SUMMARY

Graduate and Continuing Studies

Fine and Performing Arts

2005 HOUSING DEMAND number of beds

secured available housing

ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SPACE NEEDED

Based on Population Growth

57,000 7,000 50,000 4,000 2,000* 3,000 18,000 16,000 23,000

TOTAL Based on Quality Growth