STRATEGY 1
A Sustainable and Accessible Campus Footprint
Campus Comparison
PHILLIPS ACADEMY 1,140 STUDENTS
PHILLIPS EXETER ACADEMY 1,060 STUDENTS
The Campus Master Plan is based on a holistic consideration of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Sustainability is not a stand-alone strategy or discipline but is embedded in every aspect of the plan. Within that context, one of the most significant ways that the Campus Master Plan can influence all dimensions of sustainability is by addressing the size and geographic spread of the campus footprint. As the Phillips Academy campus has developed, many properties and structures have been acquired to meet programmatic and strategic needs. In many ways, the institution has benefited from the spirit of adaptation that is inherent in this strategy. It provided a tremendous diversity in the residential and landscape program, and resulted in a campus that is largely open to its surround-
38
PHILLIPS ACADEMY CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
CHOATE ROSEMARY HALL 865 STUDENTS
ings and is a seamless part of the Andover townscape. However, continual acquisition and adaptation also led to a campus that tends towards sprawl, with a number of structures and parcels that are poorly connected to central campus and an aging building stock that has become increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. Similarly, understanding the effort required to maintain the manicured areas of campus suggests a long-term landscape strategy aimed at allowing certain areas to be returned to natural states. As shown in the campus comparison of peer institutions, with a comparable number of students, the Phillips Academy campus is significantly more sprawling than its peers. The current footprint of the campus is unsustainable.
AMHERST COLLEGE 1,785 STUDENTS
With over 700 acres of land, most of which are beyond the core campus, polices about land holdings and the building stock should seek to right-size the campus to the appropriate footprint. Challenges that the Campus Master Plan addresses are: the aging building stock (40% of the campus’s buildings were built over 100 years ago); a diverse range of student housing types are difficult to manage, include outdated facilities and are located across a geographic spread that feels disconnected and lacking a sense of community cohesion, and are not always suited to faculty in residence; and faculty housing that is not aligned to faculty and family needs, is beyond walking distance to campus, and offer utilities not paid for by the occupants creating little incentive for energy efficiency.