Page 1

SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PLAN

February 13, 2013

DRAFT


CONTENTS Acknowledgements & Introduction Goals Planning Goals Campus Concepts Building Concepts Strategic Framework Baseline Data Planning Assumptions Campus Vision New Planning Concepts Implementation 5-Year Campus Concepts 10-Year Campus Concepts 15-Year Campus Concepts Concept Plans and Outline Program Athletics Performing Arts Housing Dining Appendices A - Summary of Board Input B - Student Input C - Student Input on Unit Types D - Classroom Utilization Data

1


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Campus Plan Steering Committee

Tracy Fitzsimmons President of the University Jim Vickers Chair, Board of Trustees Andrew Ferrari Vice Chair, Board of Trustees William F. Brandt, Jr. Secretary, Board of Trustees Bryon L. Grigsby, Senior Vice President & Vice President for Academic Affairs

PlanningStudy FACULTY SENATE Team

STUDENT LIFE & HOUSING

DINING

Brian Lipscomb Biology, Chair of Faculty Senate

Rhonda VanDyke Colby Vice President for Student Life

John Stevens Director of Auxiliary Services

Denise Massie Athletic Training, Faculty Senate

Claressa Morton Vice President for Enrollment Management & Student Success

Peter Labrecque Sodexo General Manager

David Anthony Dean of Admissions

CLASSROOM UTILIZATION

Sheri Hale Physical Therapy, Faculty Senate Patti Kraskopf Nursing, Faculty Senate Byron Jones Conservatory, Faculty Senate

Richard Shickle Vice President for Administration & Finance STAFF COUNCIL Rhonda VanDyke Colby Vice President for Student Life Brian Lipscomb Biology, Chair of Faculty Senate Rick Ours Director of University Television Center, Staff Council

George Hoffman Center for Teaching and Learning, Staff Council Dorrie Greene Human Relations, Staff Council Robin W. Ebersole Public Safety, Staff Council

Spencer King Student Government Association’s Vice President for Undergraduate Affairs

Daryl Myers Maintenance, Staff Council

Gene Fisher Director of Physical Plant

Matt T. Webster Maintenance, Staff Council

Jeff Davis Facilities Project Manager, Physical Plant

Ray Goode Maintenance, Staff Council

Jean Swartz Director of Admissions – Media Recruitment Sue O’Driscoll Director of Residence Life Mary Kate Schiff Area Coordinator Residence Life Cheryl Barlow Executive Assistant to the VP for Student Life Sherri Snyder-Greenaway Housing Coordinator for Residence Life Residence Life Department Office Mike Wagner Residential Facilities Manager

CONSERVATORY

University Campus Planning

Michael Stepniak Dean of Conservatory

Melanie Winter Registrar Scott Cassada Registrar Service Representative

Consultants Planning & Design

VMDO Architects, P.C. 200 East Market Street, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 296-5684 phone (434) 296-4496 fax David Oakland Joe Atkins Frances Lengowski Lauren Thompson

David W. Ganse Architects 136 Creekside Lane # 3 Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 678-1193 phone (540) 678-1298 fax David Ganse

ATHLETICS Gina Hardee Custodial, Staff Council Ken Lambert IC, Staff Council

Doug Zipp Athletic Director Scott Musa Assistant Athletic Director for Athletic Communications

2


INTRODUCTION The Shenandoah campus is more than a campus. It is more than a place. More than its buildings, its landscape, its paths and roads, the Shenandoah campus is the host of the Shenandoah experience. Will students feel welcome and parents feel comforted as they drive to campus for the first time? Will strangers to the University catch a glimpse of what Shenandoah is all about as they drive by on Millwood Avenue and even on I-81? Will students find natural and meaningful opportunities to interact with each other as they simply move through their day? Will the strengths of Shenandoah be enhanced with facilities that match the needs and ambitions of the university? Will the campus function smoothly? And will it gracefully address the palpable needs of traffic and service? The Shenandoah Campus Plan considers each of these questions and more as it provides a new vision for the campus. A vision based on input, developed into concepts, and articulated as a clear plan forward, the Shenandoah Campus Plan is aligned with the University’s goals and planning targets. It has beed developed to guide campus growth, to develop Shenandoah’s strengths, and to project a consistent image through the campus experience. While the Campus Plan addresses Shenandoah’s long-range goals, it also lays out a strategy to improve the Shenandoah campus in strategic five-year increments. The five-year planning strategy identifies modest developments that will create palpable changes immediately. Progress planned at the 10- and 15-year marks build upon these initial steps, ultimately achieving a larger vision for Shenandoah University.

Shenandoah University Property Line Millwood Avenue Closure

Aerial photograph of the existing campus. 3


GOALS The following Planning Goals reflect Shenandoah University’s direction and its ambitions for the future. These goals articulate important shifts identified for the Shenandoah campus - shifts such as strengthening the undergraduate program, improving connections between distinct populations at the University, creating a vital, active campus life, and cultivating a sense of place on campus. Goals for Campus and Building Concepts capture specific ways that the campus environment can support the Planning Goals established for the University. Meanwhile, Planning Assumptions for growth in enrollment and housing provide the targets for new building projects anticipated in the Campus Plan.

4


PLANNING GOALS Planning goals for the Campus Plan capture key priorities for the University in the coming years. Together these goals reflect a desire and commitment to improve the campus identity and student experience. More than simply creating a more “collegiate” appearance, the goals reflect a commitment to improve student programs while creating meaningful connections and campus spaces.

Facilitate and Project a Strengthening Traditional Undergraduate Program Improve the Collegiate Character and Image of the Main Campus Grow in Stature, Recognition, and Selectivity, Moving Forward with Boldness, Optimism, Energy, and Ambition Foster a Vital, Active, 24/7 Campus Life Support Connections between Distinct Campus Groups Embody a Partnership with the Local Community “Better, not Bigger” Cultivate a Sense of Place, Connecting Natural and Cultural Systems in a Uniquely Shenandoah Context “High-energy, Creative, Inviting, Principled”

5


GOALS - Campus Concepts A focus on improving the Shenandoah landscape will mean a commitment to creating memorable moments on campus, facilitating connections between distinct groups, and enhancing the natural systems on campus. Creating space for these improvements will take discipline and commitment, placing a primacy on open space and pedestrian connectivity. Carefully locating parking and vehicular traffic on the perimeter of campus will accommodate needed vehicular access while allowing key campus spaces to flourish.

Create Memorable and Dynamic Campus Spaces Develop a Strong, Recognizable Campus Identity Facilitate Cultural Connections Develop a Variety of Activities in the Landscape Enhance Natural Systems and Outdoor Spaces Develop a New Pedestrian-Centered Campus Culture: - Campus Places Before Parking Spaces - Move Parking to the Perimeter of Campus - Replace lot Parking with Parking Structures to preserve space for buildings and open outdoor spaces

6


GOALS - Campus Concepts

Thornton Creek

Swarthmore

Hudson River Park

Waterworks Park

UVA Dell

UVA Dell

SUNY Albany

Mill Valley, CA

Howard

adjacent to Marra-Desimone Park

Bishan Park

Scranton

UGA

Adlershof Science Park 7


GOALS - Building Concepts Each new building on the Shenandoah campus can make an important contribution to the campus landscape. The goals identified for building concepts reflect a commitment to improve the caliber of building and program on campus while revitalizing the Shenandoah landscape. The building concept goals also reflect a commitment to student development, providing ways to mark students’ progress with graduated opportunities as they move through their college years.

Develop a Caliber of Building that matches the Quality of the Shenandoah Program Design the Program and Spaces to Support Student Development and Acknowledge Milestones in Student Achievement Landscape First - Buildings Reinforce Purposeful Campus Spaces

8


GOALS - Building Concepts As the interior spaces of new buildings on the Shenandoah campus open to the landscape, they can connect with important pathways and outdoor gathering spaces. Windows to key interior spaces showcase activities inside while becoming “lanterns,” creating a sense of movement and vitality in the landscape.

Create a Strong Connection Between Interior and Exterior Gathering Spaces Showcase Key Interior Spaces as “Lanterns” in the Landscape Design New Buildings in Tandem with Campus Landscape Spaces

Averett Student Center

Seiji Ozawa Hall at Tanglewood

Williams College Center for Theater and Dance 9


STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK The Campus Plan is grounded in a series of goals established for the University’s 15-year planning targets. These goals and targets were established through a series of meetings with the Board of Trustees, the Campus Plan Steering Committee, and key stakeholders. Student input, collected through on-line surveys and in-person tabling, provided an important voice in shaping the goals of the Campus Plan.

10


BASELINE DATA - Input from Shenandoah Leadership The Goals, Campus Concepts, and Building Concepts of the Campus

70

Plan are rooted in conceptual thinking that began with the Board of Trustees Winter Retreat in February of 2012. An initial presentation

60

of images of the campus, diagrams of its spaces, and drawings of key campus features served as a launching point for discussion. The Board

50

provided input by responding to these images, and then by participating in a series of interactive exercises. For a complete description of the Board’s input, see Appendix A - Summary of Board Input. The input from the Board, ranked by voting collected at the end of the

40

30

exercises, reflects a strong desire to improve the campus identity, connections, and spaces overall while making improvements to key

20

program elements. Student housing and athletics rose to the top of the list in terms of program improvements.

10

0

1

2

3

4

5

&

6

1. Create a Strong, Recognizable Campus Identity (62 votes) 2. Improve Student Housing (42 votes) 3. Better Accommodate Athletics (27 votes) 4. Strengthen Campus Connections (20 votes) 5. Enhance Natural Systems & Outdoor Spaces (19 votes) 6. Develop Effective Learning Spaces (12 votes) *Become a University of choice *Strengthen relationship with the Community

11


BASELINE DATA - Student Input Student input was gathered through a variety of means. Tabling at Allen

140

Dining Hall and the Brandt Student Center in May of 2012 provided an opportunity to speak directly with students (for a complete summary

120

of this input, see Appendix C - Summary of Student Input). An online survey allowed students to vote on the priorities identified by the Board

100

at the Winter Retreat, on priorities identified by the housing focus group, and to provide detailed input on student housing.

80

Input from students reflected similar concerns for the quality of the

60

campus overall. However, their priorities were distinct. In the online survey, students agreed that creating a strong, recognizable campus

40

identity is important. However, students identified improving student housing as their highest priority. In talking with students directly, they

20

quickly identified the need for a new concert hall as a top priority, with improvements to student housing falling close behind.

0

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Student Priorities from Online-Survey: A. Create a Strong, Recognizable Campus Identity (63 votes) B. Improve Student Housing (123 votes) C. Better Accommodate Athletics (48 votes) D. Strengthen Campus Connections (65 votes) E. Enhance Natural Systems & Outdoor Spaces (45 votes) F. Develop Effective Learning Spaces (58 votes) G. Strengthen relationship with Winchester (53 votes) Themes that Students Raised Consistently in Conversation: -Need for New Concert Hall -Quality of Campus Housing -Connecting Distinct Student Populations -Financial Stewardship -Campus Lighting, Safety, Parking, and Campus Transportation -Activities During Nights & Weekends -Athletic & Fitness Facilities -Dining Improvements Results from tabling for student input. 12


PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS - Enrollment and Housing Growth A primary goal of the Campus Plan has been to “Facilitate and Project

2500

4000

a Strengthening Traditional Undergraduate Program.” While the University has a robust pool of graduate students, undergraduates form

3500

the core of the student population on the main Winchester campus.

2000 3000

The Campus Plan uses the University’s long-term goal of 2000 to 2200 undergraduate students as the planning target for the University. This modest increase is intended to allow the University to focus on

2500

1500

2000

improving retention and the quality of its program in lieu of managing a swelling student population.

1500

The more ambitious growth accounted for in the Campus Plan is a

1000

1000

significant increase in the percentage of students housed on campus. With a current bed count just over 900 (including the new beds at East

500 500

Campus Housing), the Campus Plan anticipates increasing the bed count to a target of 1200 to 1300 beds. This would allow the University to

0

0

2006

increase the percentage of students (from its five year average of forty-

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006

2000 TO 2200 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

six percent) to sixty percent.

2007 2008 2009 2010 1200 TO 1300 STUDENTS ON-CAMPUS

TOTAL ENROLLMENT

ON-CAMPUS UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT

Projections based on maintaining the current Undergraduate:Graduate student ratio of 53:47

Planning Target represents a 360 – 460 bed increase

2011

Target 60%

700

600

600

500

500

400

76%

400

76%

70%

300

300

63%

200

50%

200

100

100

19% 0

First Years 414 Beds

Sophomores 248 Beds

662 BEDS

Juniors 60 Beds

9% Seniors 42 Beds

102 BEDS

15% 0

First Years 551 Beds

Sophomores 424 Beds

Juniors 249 Beds

325 BEDS

975 BEDS

762 BEDS TOTAL (840 BED CAPACITY + OVERFLOW)

Seniors 64 Beds

1300 BEDS TOTAL

EXISTING TOTAL BEDS

PROJECTED TOTAL BEDS

Current Distribution of On-Campus Students, based on average for 2007-2011

Projected Distribution of On-Campus Students, based on 85% retention and on-campus targets for each class year

13


CAMPUS VISION The Campus Plan has identified strategies for building on the strengths and assets of the Shenandoah campus. These concepts are grounded in the University’s long-term goals and the campus concepts developed with the Shenandoah community. Allegiance to key campus strategies ensures that Shenandoah’s development over time will improve its landscape spaces, increase pedestrian connectivity, and create a more integrated, less fragmented campus experience.

14


CAMPUS VISION - Planning Concepts for Growth

Bird’s eye view of the Shenandoah campus as envisioned in the 15-Year Campus Plan. 15


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Key Landscape Spaces The Campus Plan has identified key landscape spaces to be developed and preserved as Shenandoah University changes over time. This plan builds from the Academic Quad, which currently organizes the core academic and administrative buildings of the existing campus. The East Green and the associated quad spaces extend the structure and orientation established by the Academic Quad eastward. A new bridge across Interstate-81 forges an important pedestrian link, providing a walkable connection between two distinct campus spaces. Implementation of the Campus Plan will focus on developing The Dell - a more naturalized landscape that weaves together the original Shenandoah campus with the more recent and planned buildings to the west. This landscape will bridge across Abrams Creek to a new Arts Quad with a series of landscape spaces and pathways. It will create common ground between distinct programs, creating attractive spaces

Academic Quad

for students to gather and connect. The Dell will form a recognizable campus space that is uniquely “Shenandoah.” A prominent landscape

Arts Quad

East Green

feature visible from Millwood Avenue, The Dell will project an image of a The Dell

thriving, connected, natural, collegiate place to the public. The new campus perimeter will define the boundaries of Shenandoah University as a distinguished collegiate campus with low brick perimeter walls, fencing, plantings, and enhanced entrances. Meanwhile, a densely planted buffer zone will shelter the campus from the noise and visual obstruction of Interstate-81 and Highway 50, Millwood Avenue.

M

illw

I-81

oo

d

Av

en

ue

Athletic Precinct

Green Spaces to Preserve and Enhance Buffer

1”=500’ 16


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Key Pedestrian Pathways A new focus on pedestrian pathways will strengthen connections between the buildings and spaces of the Shenandoah campus. The structure of pathways on the core of the existing campus are strong, and will be enhanced. A new continuous pathway connecting Halprin Harrison Hall to the heart of campus will serve to connect the distinct elements of the campus. Similar to Kenyon College’s “Middle Path”, this pedestrian pathway is intended to provide common ground uniting the Shenandoah campus and its community. Creating a handicap accessible pedestrian bridge over Interstate-81 to the Athletic Precinct will bring that key area of campus into closer proximity to the core of the campus. This bridge will be a critical element in making the Athletics Precinct welcoming to athletes and nonathletes alike.

The Middle Path Pedestrian Walkways

Kenyon Middle Path

Winchester “Green Circle”

1”=500’ 17


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Key Bike Pathways Planning for bike access through the Shenandoah campus requires careful attention to the distinct needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The bicycle pathways recommended in this Campus Plan minimize contact between the three modalities and provide a safe and enjoyable route for cross-campus movement.

Bike lanes are 4’-5’ wide Bike lanes are separate from pedestrian and vehicular traffic wherever possible achieving the goal of easily moving from the east side of campus to the west side of campus. Bike and pedestrian pathways are aligned: -where the Winchester Green Circle, a public pedestrian and bike path, passes through the Shenandoah Campus. - at the main campus path that passes in front of Brandt Student Center, where there is ample space to creat a distinct, separated bike path Bike lanes run adjacent to vehicular roads, where they will be separated from the road by a generous median.

Bikes Only Winchester “Green Circle” (Bike and Pedestrian) University Drive (Bike and Pedestrian) Bike lane adjacent to vehicular roads, separated by a median Bike Racks

1”=500’ 18


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Modifications to Existing Campus Roads Minimizing the impact of vehicular traffic is key to “Improving the Collegiate Character and Image of the Main Campus,” a primary goal of the Campus Plan. The ability to move through campus by car is maintained. However, removing the roads that fragment the campus at critical moments will allow the Shenandoah landscape and pedestrian pathways forge a more integrated campus.

Recommended improvements include: - Removing the roads associated with the Millwood Avenue closure - Creating drive-able pedestrian pathways that: - Serve primarily as pedestrian walks, separated from vehicular roads with removable bollards, and paved with a pedestrianscale material such as brick - Are designed to be capable of supporting vehicles for key moments, such as student move-in, public events requiring special access, and service to buildings - Replace the existing asphalt drive (University Drive) in front of Brandt Student Center to create a more walkable public space - Replace LP Hill Drive behind Wilkins Administrative building to develop a new walkable residential quad - Removing Lowry Drive and Wade Miller Drive to develop “The Dell” as a central campus space - Connecting University Drive with Shockey Drive via a new roadway behind the Brandt Student Center - Integrating the road alignment at East Campus with the new athletics development.

Existing roads to remain

- Providing a limited access road to a new staff and faculty parking

Existing roads to be removed

garage east of Funkhouser Hall.

Proposed new roads Proposed limited-access roads

1”=500’ 19


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Parking The ability to develop several of the key landscape spaces identified in this plan hinges on establishing a new strategy for parking on-campus. Moving the majority of the parking to the perimeter of campus and planning for parking structures will free valuable land. This land can be developed as a lush landscape at the core of the Shenandoah campus, creating important campus spaces and strengthening pedestrian pathways.

36 68

Current Existing Parking Removed Parking: Vickers Communications Parking Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater Parking (Lot I) West of Main Quad Parking (Lot E) West of University Inn Parking (Lot H) West of Henkel (Henk/W) Stage South of Henkel and Allen ( Lots J+G) University Inn Racey (Lot A) Cooley (Lot A) Funkhouser/Gore (Lot A) Parker (Lot A) Wilkins (Lot B) Wilkins/Shingleton (Lot C) Aikens Athletic (Lot F) Maintenance Shentel Stadium Romine Quality Inn Halprin-Harrison Hall Total Removed Parking

273 9

115

53

1976

126

63 214 128 46 16 2 80 123 27 8 42 122 38 20 126 9 56 84 115 55

20

68 36 115 273 110

Total Remaining Parking

602

38

Edwards Residential Village

Residential Quad

214 West Campus Millwood Avenue Landscape Concert Hall 128 63

27 8 16

80

42

122

56 Athletics Precinct

46 123 Health Sciences and University Inn

84

1374

Remaining Parking: Halprin-Harrison Hall History and Tourism Center (HTC) Parking Garage Lot (Lot D) Parking Garage Edwards Residential Village

2

110

Upper Division Housing

Parking to Remain

115

Removed Parking

1�=500’ 20


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Parking In total, the Campus Plan currently anticipates removing 1374 spaces, maintaining 602 parking spaces, and building 1627 new spaces. These new spaces are planned in 4 new parking lots, and 4 new parking structures.

36

68

273

35

115 280 110

150

Remaining Parking: Halprin-Harrison Hall History and Tourism Center (HTC) Parking Garage Lot (Lot D) Parking Garage Edwards Residential Village

68 36 115 273 110

Total Existing Parking To Remain

602

New Parking: Armory Parking Deck Performing Arts Parking Deck East of Health Sciences Parking Deck Practice Field Deck South of Health Sciences Lot Field House / Arena Parking Lot Athletic Fields Lot UD Housing Lot

280 150 335 465 80 85 197 35

Total New Parking

1627

Total Proposed Parking

2229

335 85 80

465

197

Proposed Parking Lot Proposed Parking Deck Existing Parking

1�=500’ 21


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Service Access Access to each building on the Shenandoah campus is intended to provide the necessary service and fire department access while minimizing disruption to important campus spaces and pedestrian pathways. Where access is not available from a vehicular road, driveable walkways are recommended. These pathways serve primarily as pedestrian walks, and can be designed as attractive landscape features while providing the necessary occasional vehicular access. These walkways are especially important in the new residential sections of campus where they tie into vehicular roadways and create a seamless loop for move-in day.

Halprin-Harrison Hall service “Welcome Center” service Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater service Performing Arts Building service Armstrong and Gregory service Library service Health Sciences/Dining/Funkhouser service Housing service Shingleton Hall service Athletics Center service Dotted line of any color (service on drivable walks)

1”=500’ 22


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Campus Event Drop-off Accessibility & Event Drop-off Designing handicap accessibility to each building will be pivotal to ensuring that the Shenandoah campus is welcoming to all its visitors and students. This is especially important at the Performing Arts venues, where elderly patrons make up a majority of performance attendees. Car drop-off and accessible parking spaces at key campus spaces provide a safe space for cars and buses to pull over, providing passenger access along a vehicular path. Connecting to paths that can be designed well within the 1:20 slope recommended for handicap accessibility, these drop-off spots create a safe, comfortable connection for the

115

elderly and mobility-impaired to campus spaces and buildings. 280

As each new building and landscape space is designed, this accessibility should be a primary design feature to ensure that each new Shenandoah feature can be accessed and enjoyed by all. Event Parking Parking is planned for the recommended ratio for campus events (and is

150

well within the local requirements for the overall campus parking). Event

335

parking will support key gatherings with one parking space for every

550

three patrons. The Performing Arts Quad (Simultaneous Events): Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater

650 Seats

Performing Arts Building

650 Seats

Provided Parking

430 Spaces

Chapel

250 Seats

Provided Parking

115 Spaces

Athletics Precinct (Non-Simultaneous Events) Multi-Purpose Arena

3500 Seats

Field House

2500 Seats

Football Stadium

3000 Seats

Provided Parking

1082 Spaces

197

Drive Car Drop-off Walk from parking Accessible Handicap Parking

1�=500’ 23


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Campus Spaces and Pathways Together, the strategies of creating key landscape spaces, connecting the campus with strong pedestrian pathways, and adjusting parking and roads to free campus space creates a more integrated Shenandoah University campus.

P P

P

The Dell

P P

P Existing roads to remain Proposed new roads Proposed limited-access roads The Middle Path Pedestrian Walkways

P

Winchester “Green Circle” Green Spaces to Preserve Buffer

P

Parking

1”=500’ 24


NEW PLANNING CONCEPTS - Campus and City Shuttle Systems Access to the campus shuttle and the city bus system keeps Shenandoah students connected within the campus and to the larger Winchester community. While the location of these will change with the relocation of roadways in the Campus Plan, maintaining a connection to these systems will be important to helping students stay on the move.

“Win Tran” Winchester Transportation stop Existing Campus Shuttle stop to be removed Existing Campus Shuttle stop to remain Proposed Campus Shuttle stop

1”=500’ 25


2008 CAMPUS PLANNING CONCEPTS The 2012 Campus Plan is intended to create a new vision for the Shenandoah Campus. However, recent planning efforts served as a reference point for understanding the developing priorities of the University. As the most recent planning document, the University’s 2008 Master Plan, developed by HKS Architects, guided the design team’s understanding about Shenandoah’s recent priorities for the campus.

E

Building Type (Short Term): A

Admin / Student Services

B

Arts and Sciences

C

Residence Hall

D

Parking

E

Child Care

F

Concert Hall

G

Parking

H

Dance School Addition

I

Maintenance

J

Athletics Center

G F

D H

A A A C

C B

B A

C J

B A

A

I B C

C

C

Building Type (Long Term): A

Academic / Admin

B

Parking Structure

C

Residence Hall

C

1”=500’ 26


2008 CAMPUS PLANNING CONCEPTS Zones of campus activity suggested by the 2008 Master Plan serve as a starting point for understanding the programmatic elements that have been prioritized by Shenandoah University in the recent past.

E G F

D H

A A A C

C B

B A

C J

B A

A

I

HKS Plan Zones:

B C

Business Administration

C

C

Arts Academic

C

Student Life / Student Housing Athletics

1�=500’ 27


PROGRESS FROM 2008 CAMPUS PLANNING CONCEPTS The 2012 Campus Plan recognizes that many of the priorities identified in the 2008 Master Plan remain priorities for Shenandoah University. However, new strategies for organizing these spaces on campus include: - Shifting the new Concert Hall and Arts Quad to the south, taking advantage of land acquired during the Millwood Avenue closure. - Consolidating Athletics on East Campus, creating a central zone for Athletics. This use is more appropriate than housing or academic space

P

Business

because it will: - not be disrupted by the traffic on Highway 11

Student Life

P

- blend easily with the surrounding commercial zoning

Admin

- Consolidating student housing onto the main campus west of

Student Housing

Admin

Admin

Interstate-81, responding to student desire to be in the heart of campus. Arts

Academic

- Distributing administrative spaces throughout the campus.

P Admin

P

P P Athletics

VMDO Plan Zones: Business Administration Arts

P

Academic Student Life / Student Housing Athletics

P

Parking

1�=500’ 28


IMPLEMENTATION While the 2012 Campus Plan creates an ambitious new vision for the Shenandoah University campus, implementing the plan will take time. The following drawings identify incremental stages for developing the Shenandoah campus. Simple initial steps will supplement short-term priorities already identified by the University, while guiding palpable improvements to the campus landscape. Long-term planning reserves larger building projects for the future, allowing the University the time needed to build the capital for implementation.

29


EXISTING CAMPUS Winchester-Frederick County Visitor Center

Parking

Halprin-Harrison Hall

ad

Sho

an

tV

all

ey

Ro

Brandt Student Shingleton Center Hall

as Ple

Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater

wr

Smith Library

LP Hil

yD

riv

e

Racey

l Drive

Gregory

Shentel Stadium

Parker

Charles A. Ricketts Press Box

Cooley

Lo

arly

rive

Wilkins Administration

Ruebush Hall

Vickers Communication Center

al E

yD

Goodson Chapel

Armstrong

S ub

cke

Armory

Edwards Residential Village

EJ

Aikens Athletic Center

Henkel

Dri

ve

Allen Funkhouser

Wade Miller Driv

e

Gore

I-81

University Inn

d

oo

illw

M ue

en

Av Romine Living Center

Quality Inn

Existing Building

1�=400’ 30


FIVE-YEAR CAMPUS CONCEPTS The five-year plan for the Shenandoah campus identifies small-scale projects that will take recognizable steps towards key spaces of the Campus Plan. Combined with elements that are already in planning development, fulfilling goals identified in this plan will make a palpable difference on the Shenandoah campus. Expanded Temporary Parking

Landscape Improvements - Implement the new Campus Perimeter Project including a new

Upper Division Housing

Welcome Center

perimeter wall and enhanced campus entry. - Expand parking available at the Armory site to accommodate 80 cars and build a new parking structure east of Funkhouser Hall. This additional parking will allow the first phase of construction at the Dell to begin. - Dell Phase I: Remove the parking lots between Abrams Creek and the

The Dell

Academic Quad to develop a naturalized pedestrian landscape. - Demolish the portions of East Campus Housing that are not in use,

Health Sciences

including the north, west, and potentially south wings. Make modest

Perimeter Improvements

Parking Garage

site improvements to create a welcoming landscape for the students of East Campus Housing.

Building Improvements - Build the new Health Sciences Building south of Henkel Hall. - Build the first stages of the upper division student housing behind Aikens Athletic building, expanding the housing stock available to upper division students, and providing aspirational housing for younger students on campus. - Create a welcome center and administrative building for Admissions, Campus Safety, and other administrative offices on the site of the East Campus Housing

Armory. Planning - Begin the planning for projects identified in the 10-year Campus Concepts

Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed project for next stage of implementation

1�=400’ 31


TEN-YEAR CAMPUS CONCEPTS The ten-year plan for the Shenandoah campus takes significant steps toward achieving the improved traffic patterns and campus spaces for the University. The plan also identifies building projects that will meet critical needs as both the undergraduate population and caliber of programming continues to grow. Maintenance

Expanded Upper Division Housing

Landscape Improvements - Develop drivable paths primarily for pedestrian use at: - University Drive in front of the Brandt Student Center - LP Hill Drive, forming the core of a new residential quad - Build a new road behind the existing parking garage and Brandt Student

First Year Residence Halls

Center. This will allow University Drive in front of the Student Center to be developed into a drivable path. - Develop the land east of Interstate-81 as an Athletic Precinct with a

Performing Arts Building

new outdoor track, athletic fields and event parking, and basic road realignments.

The Dell Expanded Allen Dining Field House/ Indoor Track

Building Improvements - A new field house and indoor track - A new Performing Arts building. An adjacent parking structure, sunk

New Athletic Fields

into the ground and covered by a green roof, would provide spaces critical to the campus, while developing an attractive landscape feature. - Expand the Allen Dining Hall. - Expand first-year housing with new residence halls to the west and north of Parker Hall. - Expand upper division housing offered on the site behind Aikens

Child Care

Athletic building. - Child care on the property adjacent to the residential neighborhoods east of campus. - Maintenance facilities south of Rock Field, along Shockey Drive just to the east of Interstate-81. Planning - Begin the planning for projects identified in the 15-year Campus Concepts

Proposed Building Existing Building Proposed project for next stage of implementation

1�=400’ 32


15-YEAR CAMPUS CONCEPTS The 15-Year Plan anticipates expansion to the spaces and programs

Upper Division Housing

established in the previous phases. Landscape improvements fulfill the broader vision for a pedestrian-oriented campus and improved collegiate spaces. Building projects would expand existing programs to meet increasing enrollment and demand for on-campus housing. Landscape Improvements

Structured Parking

- Dell Phase II: remove Lowry Drive and a portion of Wade Miller Drive to

Renovated Armstrong

expand and enhance The Dell. - Remove University Inn, consolidate parking, and extend the limited-

OBT Expansions

access campus entry to the new parking garage east of Funkhouser Hall. - Cross I-81 with a new pedestrian bridge connecting the new residential

Sophomore Residences

quad to the athletics precinct. This will provide pedestrian access across Interstate-81 and create a prominent, attractive architectural element,

The Dell

announcing Shenandoah University to interstate travelers. - Build structured parking on the Armory site behind the new welcome

Multi-Purpose Arena Pedestrian Bridge

center and administrative building. This new parking would allow the parking at Orstrom Bryant Theater to be developed as a new Performing Arts Quad. - Replace East Campus Housing with a new athletic field.

Limited-Access Entry

Building Improvements - Build new sophomore residence halls at the new East Green. - New upper division housing to the north of the Brandt Student Center. - Expand the new Athletics building to include a multi-purpose arena for basketball performance and events. - Renovateand add to Armstrong Hall to provide new academic spaces. - Possible expansions to Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater.

Athletic Practice Field

Proposed Building Existing Building

1�=400’ 33


CONCEPT PLANS AND OUTLINE PROGRAM Concept Planning and Programs for several key building projects envision how each new project can contribute to the Shenandoah offerings and landscape. These identify a realistic building size and shape, while confirming that the sites selected for each will serve well as homes for each new building. The concepts and spaces will be further refined in design.

34


ATHLETICS & FITNESS - PLANNING GOALS The Campus Planning process included interviews with Doug Zipp and data provided by Scott Musa to understand the programmatic needs, establish the goals, and identify the phasing strategies appropriate to the athletics program at Shenandoah University. Though there is a strong desire to create facilities that bring the entire Shenandoah community together around athletics and fitness, it was recognized that the layout of the campus encourages developing an Athletics precinct on the East Campus. While facilities on East Campus will be usable by the general Shenandoah community, work-out spaces developed on the main campus will also provide opportunities for students to pursue health and activity as part of their daily lives.

Meet ODAC Requirements & Expectations Create a Cohesive Culture of Fitness Improved Facilities for Basketball Performance & Practice (3,000 - 3,500 Seats) Indoor 200 meter Track Athletic Training , Lockers, & Offices Student Fitness Optimize Use of Existing Fields & Facilities Expand Fitness Opportunities for SU Students

35


EAST CAMPUS ATHLETICS FIELD HOUSE / ARENA PROGRAM 2012 Campus Plan 10-year plan: Public / Support Spaces Lobbies, Restrooms Class / Meeting Rooms Fitness / Weights / Training Offices Athletic Locker Rooms Field House (2,500 Seats) 200m Track, Storage Support / Efficiency 15-year Plan: Future Arena 3,500 Seat Venue Support / Efficiency TOTAL:

Shentel Stadium 3,400 SF 6,000 SF 10,000 SF 5,000 SF 25,000 SF Arena 60,000 SF

Fitness

8,500 SF

Field House

45,000 SF

Parking Lot

Practice Field (Parking Below)

9,100 SF 172,000 SF

Turf Field

Parking 10-year

15-year

1”=200’ 36


FIELD HOUSE / ARENA FLOOR PLANS

Concourse Loading Dock Stadium Press Box

Lobby Event Floor (3000-3500 seats)

Open

Concessions

Theater

Training Lockers

Student Meeting Room

Lockers

Admin

Open Lockers

Admin

Fitness

Admin

Field House (2500 seats)

Level-1

Level-2

Level-3

1”=100’ 37


PERFORMING ARTS GOALS The need for new performing arts facilities has been long-identified in Shenandoah University’s campus planning. When talking with students, the need for a new concert hall was frequently raised as a top priority. Planning for the new facility was developed with feedback from Dean Michael Stepniak. Aime Sposato provided background data on the number of participants within the musical performance groups of the Conservatory. The primary goals in developing the new performing arts facility were to create spaces that reflect, support, and expand the excellence in performance currently developed on campus. Designed to be both accessible to the public and integrated into the campus, the design is intended to create meaningful connections within the Conservatory, within Shenandoah University, and with the larger community.

Work, Play, Relax in Collaboration Concert Hall Venue to Match the Caliber of SU Performances - 500 Seats - Symphony Orchestra & Choir Manage Entry Sequences & Movement Patterns for Multiple Building Users Respect Needs of Patrons, Especially the Elderly and Mobility Impaired, with Seamless Access to Parking, Bus Drop-off Engage the Performing Arts Precinct & SU Campus Connections with Landscape Recital Hall with 150 Seats

38


PERFORMING ARTS PROGRAM Public / Support Spaces Lobby, Pre-Function, Support Collaborative Hang-out 500 Seat Venue Performer, Technical Support Offices, Studios, Practice Dance Instruction, Studios Classrooms Music Library Support / Efficiency

7,800 SF 1,600 SF 10,000 SF 7,700 SF 10,000 SF 20,500 SF 4,000 SF 900 SF 18,000 SF

Total SF

80,500 SF

Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater

Welcome Center

Performing Arts Building

1”=200’ 39


CONCERT HALL FLOOR PLANS

Lobby

Teaching Studios

Classrooms

Dance

Offices Rehearsal

Rehearsal Concert Hall (500 seats)

Level-1

Garden Roof

Level-2

Level-3

1”=100’ 40


ACCESS FOR PERFORMING ARTS A turnaround circle allows for bus and car drop-off to both Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater and the new Performing Arts Building. A Drivable path allows for car drop-off during events at Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater. At all other times, the path will be closed to vehicular traffic with bollards. Handicap Parking adjacent to OBT allows for easy access to the building. Parking in the rear of the new Performing Arts Building provides close and covered parking. 430 parking spaces will support patrons attending simultaneous events in OBT and the Performing Arts Building (one space per three patrons).

280

Drive

150

Car Drop-off Walk from parking Accessible Handicap Parking

1�=200’ 41


HOUSING Shenandoah University has managed a successful on-campus living program since its first residence hall, Funkhouser Hall, was constructed in 1961. Since then, the University has: - Built out a small quad of residence halls in the heart of the Shenandoah campus (Funkhouser, Racey, Parker, Gore Halls, and Cooley - which is currently used for administrative purposes). - Leased or purchased former hotels, used either in full or in part as residence halls (Edwards Residential Village, University Inn, Romine Living Center, and East Campus Housing). - Renovated space in the Solenberger building in downtown Winchester as apartments for upper division and graduate students. According to student input and an analysis of existing conditions, the original residence halls built on Shenandoah’s campus were built for an economy of space that is currently proving to be inadequate. With the exception of Parker Hall, the original Shenandoah residence halls have little public space, a low floor-to-floor height, corridors that are too narrow, and systems that are out of date. It is recommended that these buildings are replaced over time. Although the former hotels have more generous public spaces, they were not designed for the long-tern durability needed in a residence hall. The Campus Plan recommends a phased approach to replacing these buildings as well. Planning for new student housing involved a series of conversations with the dedicated staff associated with residence life and student life. An initial meeting included Residence Life staff, Admissions, and Enrollment Management & Student Success. Follow-up discussions were held with the Vice President for Student Life and Residence Life staff. Discussions built upon goals established in the first meeting and later responded to concepts for programmatic spaces, unit types, and site strategies for future residence halls. Residence Life staff provided detailed information on historical trends on student housing since 2006, and played pivotal roles in gathering student input. The recommendations for student housing incorporate input collected with Residence Life staff through tabling opportunities, online surveys, input gathered through Facebook, and student focus groups. 42


HOUSING GOALS New Upper-Division Residence Halls & Improve Existing Facilities Maintain Affordability Encourage: Community & Socializing Out-of-classroom Learning Cohesive SU Community Increase Choice, Independence, Leadership Opportunity, & Privacy With Each Year Develop Attractive Outdoor Spaces “High-energy, Creative, Inviting, Principled� Move Toward Junior Requirement JMU Wayland Hall - encourage community and socializing

Bridgewater Housing - create a cohesive SU community

Longwood Cox Hall - encourage out-of-classroom learning

JMU Wayland Hall - develop attractive outdoor spaces 43


HOUSING The percentage of students living on campus over the past five years served as a starting point for planning future housing targets. While seventy-six percent of all First Year students (including transfer students) have lived on-campus in recent years, the percentage of upper division students has dwindled with each consecutive class year. Goals for increased enrollment and retention inherently imply that more students will be living on campus in the coming years. However, the University has also identified housing a higher percentage of each class year as a priority. This means that the University will need to: - Significantly increase the total number of on-campus beds available to students. - Broaden the variety of housing types available on-campus to appeal to upper division students.

700

600

600

500

500

400

76%

400

76%

70%

300

300

63%

200

50%

200

100

100

19% 0

First Years 414 Beds

Sophomores 248 Beds

662 BEDS

Juniors 60 Beds

9% Seniors 42 Beds

102 BEDS

762 BEDS TOTAL (840 BED CAPACITY + OVERFLOW) Current Distribution of On-Campus Students, based on average for 2007-2011

15% 0

First Years 551 Beds

Sophomores 424 Beds

Juniors 249 Beds

Seniors 64 Beds

325 BEDS

975 BEDS 1300 BEDS TOTAL

Projected Distribution of On-Campus Students, based on 85% retention and on-campus targets for each class year

44


HOUSING SITE PLAN New construction will be necessary to achieve the on-campus housing targets identified for the University. The phased approach to building new residence halls takes advantage of existing sites, allowing the housing stock to grow. With the net gain in beds, existing residence halls can be phased out and Parker can be remodeled for first year students.

UD 2 An expansion of upper division housing identified in the 5-year plan, and expanded through the 10- and 15-year plans will provide new suite and apartment space in the heart of campus. This housing is intended to: - Attract upper division students to live on-campus - Provide opportunities for these upper division students to be seen as leaders and models for younger students - Serve as an incentive, an “aspirational model,” for younger students to look forward to as they anticipate their junior and senior

UD 1

years on campus.

GR 1

BuildingSF

#Floors

#ofBeds 2011-12

Funkhouser Gore Parker (Traditional) Racey University Inn Edwards Romine Solenberger (Apartments) East Campus Housing (QI) FY1 (Traditional) FY2 (Traditional) SO1 (Private Bath) SO2 (Private Bath) UD1 Phase I (Apartments) UD1 Phase II (Apts. & Suites) UD2 (Suites) GR1 (Graduate Apartments)

22,356 12,046 29,388 23,366 45,986 55,049 15,963 15,211 81,000 71,000 39,000 64,000 57,000 15,000 30,000 65,000 6,000

2 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 3.5 4 4 3.5 3 3 3 2

94 59 115 123 209 166 49 25

5-Year 94 59 115 123 209 166 49 25 75

35

840

950

10-Year

95 209 166 49 25 75 290 160

15-Year

95

25

12

290 160 225 200 35 75 195 12

1179

1300

35 75

SO1

FY1

FY2

Parker (FY)

SO2

Key Freshman

Sophomore UpperDivision(Junior/Senior) GraduateStudents

1”=200’ 45


HOUSING SITE PLAN GR 1 UD 1

Student input provided a strong voice in identifying both the types of units that would appeal to each class year, and what public spaces would be most important to develop in new residence halls. For a summary of the notes from student focus groups and online surveys, please see Appendix B. Each new residence hall is intended to have common space, providing a place for building residents to gather and relax as a community. Meanwhile new buildings, FY1 and SO2 could have expanded public space, creating more of a community center for the residential precinct.

Public Common Space Provided in each Building: Common Kitchen* Recreation Room* Outdoor Gathering Space* Public Laundry Study Lounges Floor Lounges Technology Hub (requested for upper division and graduate student residence halls) Community Center Space Provided in FY1 and SO2: Common Kitchen* Fitness* Recreation Room* Multi-Media Classroom / Technology Hub Large Group Study Cafe (SO2 only) * Strongest student preference in on-line survey

FY1

SO1

FY2 Parker (FY)

SO2

Common Space Circulation Student Rooms Bathrooms

1�=100’ 46


FIRST YEAR UNIT TYPE - COMMON BATH, TRADITIONAL Doubles, Singles for RAs (not shown) No private kitchen within the bedroom unit

47


SOPHOMORE UNIT TYPE - PRIVATE BATH Doubles, Singles for RAs No private kitchen within the bedroom unit

48


JUNIOR UNIT TYPE - SUITES

Mix of Double and Single Beds Small kitchenette (sink, microwave, small fridge) & living room

49


SENIORS & GRADUATE STUDENTS Singles Full kitchen & living room

50


DINING Dining on the main Shenandoah campus is focused in two central locations - Allen Dining Hall and the Brandt Student Center. While occasional meals are served for events at other campus locations, Allen and Brandt are the places where students, faculty and staff can regularly find their breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Brandt provides a convenient dining and gathering place. It is especially well-utilized by non-residential students. Meanwhile, Allen Dining Hall attracts students, faculty and staff alike, and is a lively place, bringing together a remarkable cross section of the Shenandoah community. Allen and Brandt offer residential and retail dining respectively. They each see significant traffic, serving over 8600 and 5000 meals per week respectively. While Brandt was constructed recently, and is well-equipped to serve a high volume of students, Allen Dining Hall is reportedly at capacity. Furthermore, the building, which was originally constructed in the 1970s, is poorly equipped to keep up with its production and equipment demands. With the growth anticipated at the Shenandoah campus, especially in on-campus living, improving and expanding the residential dining facilities will be critical. Planning for dining improvements involved conversations with John Stevens and Peter Labrecque, who outlined major concerns with the utilities, systems, and amount of space available within the existing Allen Dining Hall. They also provided data on usage rates at the existing dining facilities on the Shenandoah campus. Though they would prefer to see an entirely new residential dining hall on campus, the current location of Allen Dining was seen as a valuable asset - key to bringing together such a remarkable diversity of Shenandoah community members. The renovations and additions proposed to this building are intended to completely gut the existing facility while creating an entirely new dining facility within and beyond its existing walls.

51


DINING - PLANNING GOALS Anticipate Growth in Dining Needs Maintain Dining as a Primary Center for the SU Community Address Systems and Service Concerns Construct Additions and Renovations in Phases, Maintaining the Ability to Continue Operations During Construction

52


DINING SITE PLAN The number of meals served at peak hour on a typical day provided a critical data point in projecting the number of seats that will be needed to fulfill Shenandoah’s future dining needs. Currently, Allen and Brandt combined serve approximately 534 meals at peak hour. An additional 120 meals are served at peak hour at the Health Professions Building (off-campus at the Winchester Medical Center Campus). Combined, Shenandoah University serves a total of 654 meals at peak hour daily. The number of meals served at peak hour on campus is expected to increase due to anticipated increases in: - The general student population from 1800 to 2200 (maximum) - The amount of housing provided on campus, from 840 beds to 1300 beds (maximum) - The number of students on campus during the day (when the Nursing and Respiratory Care programs move to a new Health Sciences Building on campus). With these changes, the number of meals served at peak hour is

Dining

expected to jump from 654 to over 990. Because of its location and cafeteria-style serving, and need for building systems and equipment upgrades, Allen Dining is identified for a wholesale renovation and significant addition.

Total Dining Seats Needed On Campus Existing Seats at Brandt Total Seats Needed at Allen

625 -145 480

Proposed # Seats at Expanded Allen Additional Seating at Clement Dining Room

480 55

Health Sciences Building

1”=100’ 53


DINING - PHASING EXISTING DINING

PROPOSED DINING

Dining + Serving

Serving

Existing SF: Seating Serving Dish / Kitchen Total SF

6,300 SF 1,300 SF 3,200 SF 10,800 SF

Proposed SF: Seating (floor 1) Seating (mezzanine) Serving Dish / Kitchen Total SF

6,000 SF 6,500 SF 5,200 SF 5,300 SF 23,000 SF

Dining Terrace

Dining

Dining + Serving

Serving RR

Kitchen

Kitchen Offices

1”=50’ 54


APPENDICES A - Summary of Board Input B - Student Input C - Student Input on Unit Types D - Classroom Utilization Data

55


APPENDIX A - Summary of Board Input BOARD OF TRUSTEES WINTER RETREAT 2012 Friday, February 24 Museum of the Shenandoah Valley, 901 Amherst Street, Winchester, Virginia VMDO Architects participated in the last two and a half hours of the Shenandoah University Board of Trustees Winter Retreat. The session served as a kick-off to the Shenandoah University Campus Plan that VMDO Architects was recently selected to perform for the university. The workshop consisted of two exercises intended to spur conversation and ideas about the Shenandoah campus while establishing initial directions, priorities, and goals for the planning work ahead.

SUMMARY OF THE HEADLINES EXERCISE This icebreaker exercise was used to warm up smaller groups of participants, asking them to imagine a future for Shenandoah – and begin to shape news-worthy developments for the campus. We asked each table for the headline they hope to see published when the study is complete. What does the headline say and where would it be published? This exercise helped to identify success indicators, the reach (institutional, local, national) of the study and most importantly helped to get the people working and thinking together. We feel that the headlines written and publications reflect the following ambitions: Advance the University and Achieve Recognition for Regional, and Even National, Excellence • “Shenandoah is a top 5 university of choice in the state of Virginia” Washington Post, New York Times, IIE.org (Institute of International Education) • “Shenandoah becomes number 1 private university in Virginia” Change Magazine • “Master Plan paves the way for bright future of Shenandoah students” Winchester Star, Alamo Draft house, The Virginia Advocate, CNN and ABC nightly news

After the discussion, participants voted as individuals on what ideas they felt were most pressing, or important to be addressed in a Campus Plan. Each participant was given 3 stickers – one green sticker, (worth 3 votes), one yellow sticker (worth 2 votes), and one red sticker (worth 1 vote). They used these stickers to designate their top three priorities in order of most importance. Below, we have compiled the results of this exercise as a condensed set of concepts. These concepts, distilled from the comments that received votes or came up multiple times in the conversation, are intended to capture principles that will guide the Campus Planning effort, shape our goals and focus our priorities. The numbers listed in parenthesis represented the number of votes given to each concept or idea. The phrases that are underlined and in bold came up multiple times in the initial discussion. We have also captured the conversation with a comprehensive appendix which documents the complete conversation and exercise.

KEY CONCEPTS – from Keep / Toss / Create Create a Strong, Recognizable Campus Identity (62 total) Strengthen the identity, image, and character of the Shenandoah University campus with a consistent architectural aesthetic responsive to the past and emblematic of a bright future. -

Create a Consistent, attractive aesthetic, a Harmonious architecture – on building updates, new buildings (20)

-

Reflect the History of the Shenandoah University / Create a “Sense of Age” (especially at the Quad), Look to Dayton campus, but also look forward (not necessarily traditional), build on history, but with eyes to the future – perhaps with a “Jefferson Fellows” look (9)

Strengthen and Perhaps Repair the Relationship with the Community and Local Government • “Ah hah we get it”- Winchester Star • “Winchester is voted one of the most livable cities thanks to the presence of Shenandoah University” - US News, World Report

-

Swap Land with Bob Evans / Remove the Bob Evans Sign (25)

-

Stamp / Print an image or logo through the roads and walks, like the Memphis Tiger Paws (5)

SUMMARY OF THE KEEP / TOSS / CREATE EXERCISE Participants were asked to evaluate the existing Shenandoah University campus and discuss what about the campus they would like to preserve for the future, or “keep;” what would be best removed and transformed, or “toss;” and what they would like to see developed, or “create.” The discussion was a dynamic conversation, engaging comments across the room from Board members, students, administration, faculty, and staff.

-

Replace or repurpose the Cafeteria, Dining Hall (3)

-

Preserve some historic element of the Armory building (memorial, bricks, façade) – don’t just tear it down (0)

-

Create a Compelling Entrance; Entry Gates (0)

Develop and Enhance the Quality of the Campus, Tying into the Beauty of the Shenandoah • “Oh Shenandoah” - Architectural Digest • “Shenandoah is a campus of excellence” - US News Report, DC and Baltimore News

56


APPENDIX A - Summary of Board Input (cont.) Student Housing (42 Total)

-

Create places for students to eat throughout campus, Dispersed dining options (0)

-

Create connections between campuses (Armory / Halprin-Harrison and the rest of campus) (0)

Improve the quality of the buildings and the options available in on-campus residence halls, attracting

students to stay on campus and nurture a sense of community. -

Develop more living quarters on campus, perhaps a new “Get-to-live-there” Upper Class residence hall that attracts upper class students to remain on campus and creates aspirational models on campus for younger students (26)

-

Keep Affordable Student Housing on campus (2)

-

Re-design the look and image (interior and exterior) of the dorms – they look like they could be anywhere (14)

-

Encourage a sense of community in the residence halls (0)

-

Out-of-classroom learning and socializing in the residence hall (0)

Athletics (27 Total) Build a new Athletic Center that accommodates a variety of activities while creating a welcoming home for an energetic, engaged Shenandoah community: -

-

Enhance Natural Systems and Outdoor Spaces (19 total) Develop natural and cultural systems to interact cohesively, enhancing the natural character of the campus, and supporting the university with safe, functional, beautiful campus spaces. -

Connect with Nature, Enhance Connections with Nature, building on the Shenandoah theme of being “Under the Stars”; connect Abrams Creek to the Chesapeake Bay (water also connects the campus back to its Dayton roots); Connect indoor & outdoor spaces (3)

-

Keep the Red Bridges (4)

-

Preserve the Trees that reflect all seasons (1)

-

Minimize Impervious Areas / Asphault (0)

-

Repair the flooding on University Drive near the Business School (2)

-

Develop an efficient, safe, and beautiful campus landscape lighting scheme (9)

-

Maintain the Special safe, natural character of the campus (0)

Provide an Athletic Center that feels like home for all students (12) Create Workout space for all students (could connect with and be open to larger community) (11) Provide Dance studio space (3) and Athletic / Intramural space (especially after the Armory is removed) (1)

Strengthen Campus Connections (20 Total) Create a dynamic, active, pedestrian-oriented campus with strong internal connections and compelling centers of activity that bring together the diverse Shenandoah population. -

Create - Pedestrian, walking campus with thoughtful campus circulation (17)

-

Keep the connections between Students and Leadership (ex: when the Board meets at the dining hall) (2)

-

Bridge the existing separation between student populations – especially between Athletics and the Conservatory (1)

-

Create - Attractions (activities) and spaces that attract students to spend the weekend at Shenandoah – Places where students feel at home (0)

Develop Effective Learning Spaces (12 total) Create indoor and outdoor learning spaces that encourage both personal reflection and collective collaboration. -

Preserve quiet study spaces, especially in the library (6)

-

Create places and walks for reflection; quiet gardens, contemplative spaces (6)

-

Develop outdoor classroom space, casual learning space, places for outdoor performance and music (0)

-

Educate outside of silos / Encourage Collaborative Learning, blend library, academic & dining space; Create Collaborative learning space in library (0)

-

Strengthen campus technical infrastructure (0)

57


APPENDIX A - Summary of Board Input (cont.) Strengthen the Relationship with the City of Winchester – (0 Total) Use the planning efforts of the Campus Plan to strengthen relationships and repair past conflicts, imagining a Shenandoah future that enhances the health and vitality of the greater Winchester community. -

Create a stronger relationship with the city, economic connection with local business, and sense of campus as part of the city (0)

-

Create - Child Care Center – integrated into the campus physically and programmatically (0)

58


APPENDIX B - Summary of Student Input TABLING FOR STUDENT INPUT Tuesday May 1, 2012 Allen Dining Hall (12-2 pm) and Brandt Student Center (6-8:30 pm) VMDO Architects set up tabling hours to gather input from the Shenandoah student community. Students were encouraged to stop by and share their thoughts on the campus, vote on priorities, and participate in an on-going web based survey. Comments from students are shared below.

Students are uncomfortable with the need to balance the desire for fresh air with the need to keep their doors shut to potential intruders. Safety: Road Crossing. Students are also concerned about crossing the busy Millwood Avenue to get to the building. One student reported driving from Edwards to campus, just to avoid the dangerous crossing. Fixtures and onishes are worn, lighting is very poor.

COMMON THEMES FROM STUDENTS

The building needs a student gathering place.

QUALITY OF ON-CAMPUS HOUSING. When asked about the campus, student housing immediately came up for most students. Quality and variety were big concerns. There is a desire to live on campus - both for convenience and for the sense of community. However, students would like to see better quality in their living environments and more diversity in room types. Concern about the quality of the interior of the residence halls came up consistently with students. Students reported a desire for improving the bedrooms and bathrooms especially, and a concern to improve existing residence halls before building new.

Students would like to see it replaced with a residence hall on-campus.

The most frequent space request was for kitchen space. While some students prefer their own kitchens in apartment-style living, many would be satisoed sharing a public kitchen with their residence hall. Several students also noted a need for study space within the residence hall.

While some students enjoyed the courtyard, others were concerned that it is dirty, dim and olled with cigarette butts

With the exception of University Inn, which enjoys a wide popularity with students, living in former hotels was not popular with students. Much of this had to do with the siting of Romine and Edwards, which feels more connected to the Winchester road networks than it does to the main campus. One student said that living a former hotel felt like living in “a creepy shack on the edge of town� (speciocally referring to Edwards). In fact, one student said that he could not answer questions about on-campus housing, because he had not lived on campus during his time at Shenandoah. As it turns out, the student had lived in University Inn and Edwards Residential Village. Living Off-Campus. Students who live off-campus reported two main reasons for making that choice: cost and kitchen access. Students widely reported that it was much cheaper to live offcampus. While it is possible that students did not calculate the entire cost of living off-campus (including utilities, transportation, and meals), one student reported that living off-campus was saving her $6,000 per year. Edwards Residential Village received the most commentary. Student concerns included: Safety: Vulnerability to Intrusion. Students felt vulnerable because their rooms open directly onto breezeways and sidewalks accessible to the public. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the bedrooms do not have operable windows.

Students would like to hang out in corridors, and this is difocult in the breezeways and sidewalks Students would like to have operable windows and better ventilation

Funkhouser feels run-down to students. According to students, the rooms are small, the bathrooms are unattractive, and the valence system does not keep the rooms hot or cold enough. Romine - Upperclass students living at Romine do not like being far away from campus. They felt like they were missing out on campus activities. However, they noted that if a robust population of students were living in the area, that would create a strong sense of community and would make a big difference. However, they did note a need for a more reliable shuttle or easy way to get back to the main campus. Recent Improvements. Students appreciate the recent improvements at Racey, Funkhouser and Gore, and want to see more improvements to existing residence halls. Handicap Accessibility. One student noted that when he was on crutches, it was very difocult to maneuver through his residence hall, especially because his room was on an upper poor and his building did not have an elevator. Managing laundry was particularly difocult given that it was in the basement of his residence hall. Though this student lived in Racey, this difoculty would be the case in most of the residence halls, given that University Inn is the only residence hall with an elevator. Possible Housing at Quality Inn. Students were excited about the idea of living at the Quality Inn. They felt it was well-lit, kept up, and had large bedrooms. Without prompting, they reported excitement about plans they had heard for developing apartment units, a swimming pool, and having access to a kitchen.

59


APPENDIX B - Summary of Student Input (cont.) Upperclass Housing On Campus. Students shared a variety of opinions about living on-campus during their upperclass years. While many students reported a desire to live on-campus as upperclass students , others felt an equally strong desire for the independence, space, amenities, and perceived cost savings afforded by living offcampus. Among this second group of students, cost and kitchens were their main concern. There were many among this group who reported that they would be satisoed if the housing were affordable and included kitchens (apartment-style living). Students had a strong reaction against the idea of a Junior on-campus requirement (one of the Campus Housing Goals suggested in the 3/30/12 Housing Focus Group), reporting that they would prefer to be recruited to live on-campus than required to do so. While some reported that a strong desire for private kitchens and the amenities of apartment living, others said that they would live in a single or double with private bath if they could be close to classes and activities. Many students were excited about the idea of bringing upperclass students to the main campus.

ACTIVITIES & OPPORTUNITIES DURING NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS. The campus feels rather empty during the weekends when many students travel home to be with family. Having late-night hangout venues would be an attractive amenity. Students pointed out that solving this problem would help to make the on-campus living a more attractive option for upperclass students. BASEBALL PRACTICE FIELDS. Student athletes report frustration with losing practice opportunity to local high school teams. They would love to see baseball oelds on campus where the oeld could be maintained and treated with more care than high school students and public park participants give the facilities that they currently use. WEIGHT ROOM. Several athletes mentioned a need for a bigger weight room. Currently, team lifts are very difocult, as all members of an entire team cannot lift together. DINING. Allen Dining Hall gets crowded, especially during Open House and other special events. Some students mentioned a desire for more healthy eating options. The interior feels a little dry and could be more inviting.

CONSERVATORY. Concert Hall. Conservatory students were consistent in their strong desire for a new or improved concert hall. Problems with Armstrong Hall include a leaky roof, poor acoustics, poor lighting, need for more seating, lockers, instrument storage, and better sound attenuation for practice rooms. Several students were concerned that the concert hall should feel like a professional performance environment that repected the prestige of the Conservatory. One student said it would be helpful to have a mid-sized performance space (between the size of the Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater and the black box theater). Connection to Campus. Some students in the Conservatory reported that it feels like the Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater and Ruebush Hall are fragmented from the rest of campus. Building more collegiate campus spaces and buildings to embrace OBT would help improve the sense of connection. RENOVATION. Many students expressed an interest in improving existing buildings rather than constructing new. There was a genuine concern for stewardship of onancial resources, and preserving the intimate quality of the campus. CAMPUS LIGHTING AND SAFETY. Students reported a need to improve campus lighting. The road between the main campus and east campus was a particular concern. CAMPUS SHUTTLE & TRANSPORTATION. Students living at Romine reported that a more predictable campus shuttle would be helpful. At the moment, it is difocult to plan trips to the main campus because students do not know when the shuttle will be coming. Transportation is especially difocult at night and on weekends when fewer students with cars are available to share rides. Students (especially international students) also expressed a desire for transportation to Downtown areas and shopping centers. One international student reported that they were so frustrated with the difoculty of getting to campus that he rented an apartment near the Sheetz gas station, even though his student fees for the room at Romine had already been paid.

ON-CAMPUS POOL. Several students brought up an interest in having a swimming pool on campus. They appreciate being able to access the pool at Jim Barnett Park. But the distance can be far, and swimmers (especially international students) would prefer to have a pool within walking distance. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN DISTINCT POPULATIONS. Some students mentioned divides between athletes and non-athletes, while others mentioned divides between disciplines (Arts & Sciences / Health Sciences / Conservatory). Those who noted a divide between student populations articulated a desire to bring the campus community together as a cohesive whole. It was noted that bringing the Health Sciences onto the main campus would be a step in the right direction. Students noted a desire to bring the undergraduate programs that are located throughout Winchester back to the main campus. PARKING. Students on the Shenandoah campus are very mobile. They noted a desire to maintain adequate parking as the campus develops. Edwards Residential Village was the only area that was reported to be under-served by parking. CAMPUS LANDSCAPE. Requests for a clear main entrance, improved landscape spaces (for hanging out and activities), and a consistent architecture repect a desire for a more collegiate campus environment. One student exclaimed that what she most wanted was “Columns! Like a real, live college!� CONNECTING WITH THE WINCHESTER COMMUNITY. While the issue of connecting with the Winchester community did not come up frequently, one student pointed out that if Shenandoah developed a stronger relationship with the community, then it would enjoy more support for its activities and students. ARMORY SITE. One student noted the importance of the Armory to the Winchester community. He pointed out that the Armory was the last place that many families saw their loved ones, and that the site deserved to be treated with respect.

60


APPENDIX B - Summary of Student Input (cont.) STUDENT VOTING

New upperclass residence hall (9 total)

Students were asked to vote on campus priorities identioed in previous planning meetings. Students added several priorities to the list (shown with gold hi-lighting).

Develop attractive outdoor spaces (8 total) Encourage out-of-classroom learning and socializing (5 total)

CAMPUS PLANNING GOALS - Votes New concert hall to replace Armstrong (27 total)

Increase choice, independence, leadership opportunity, and privacy with each successive year at Shenandoah (2 total)

Improve Student Housing - quality of buildings and on-campus options (20 total)

Encourage community in the halls (1 total)

Better campus programming space / facilities for student clubs and organizations and for general student involvement in activities and lounge space (11 total)

Encourage a cohesive Shenandoah community (1 total)

New Athletic Center with a variety of activities for the whole SU community (11 total)

Require Juniors to live on-campus (0 total)

Create a strong, recognizable campus identity (9 total) Develop effective learning spaces (9 total) Enhance natural systems and outdoor spaces (8 total) Employee break-room in Wilkins Administrative building (6 staff votes) Strengthen relationship with the City of Winchester (5 total) Bus system (4 total) Strengthen campus connections with strong centers of activity and strong internal connections (3 total) Handicap Accessibility (3 total) Better Gym (2 total)

STUDENT HOUSING GOALS - Votes Improve existing residence halls (22 total) Maintain affordability of on-campus options (16 total) “High energy, creative, inviting, principled� encouraged with the design of spaces (11 total)

61


APPENDIX B - Summary of Student Input (cont.) Online surveys issued to students in May of 2012 focused on input regarding on-campus housing. Distinct surveys were issued to residents and non-residents. Hi-lights from the responses collected from 143 residents and 28 non-residents are provided in the pages that follow.

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0 Racey Hall

Funkhouser Hall

Gore Hall

Parker Hall

University Inn

Most Preferred Residence Hall (Residents Only)

Edwards Residential Village

Romine Living Solenberger Hall Center

Don't Know

Racey Hall

Funkhouser Hall

Gore Hall

Parker Hall

University Inn

Edwards Residential Village

Romine Living Center

Solenberger Hall

Don't Know

Least Preferred Residence Hall (Residents Only) 62


APPENDIX B - Summary of Student Input (cont.)

30

140

25

120

100 20

80 15

60

10

40

5

20

0

0 Private Bathroom

Cable TV

Wireless Internet

Most Important Features in a New Residence Hall to Attract Students to Campus (Non-Residents Only)

Private Laundry

Private Kitchen

Recreation Lounge

TV / Gaming Public Kitchen Large Group Lounge Study Room

Small Study Room

Fitness / Music Practice Classroom / Exercise Room Rooms Presentation Room

Computer / Study Lab

Project Workroom

Outdoor Gathering / Hangout Space

Student Preferences for Spaces in a New Residence Hall (Residents and Non-Residents) 63


APPENDIX B - Summary of Student Input (cont.)

900%

120

800%

100 700%

Typical: 59-87% 80

600%

Bathroom Electrical Outlets Lighting

500%

Noise

60

Indoor Air Quality

400%

Thermal Comfort Finishes Available Space

300%

40

200%

20 100%

0 0%

Funk.

Racey

Gore

Parker

ERV

Romine

Satisfaction with Elements of Existing Residence Halls (Residents Only)

UI

100% Comparison

NEW UPPER CLASS RESIDENCE HALL

IMPROVE EXISTING

AFFORDABILITY COMMUNITY IN THE HALLS

LEARNING & SOCIALIZING

COHESIVE SU GROWTH COMMUNITY WITHIN THE SU SYSTEM

OUTDOOR SPACES

SU JUNIOR PERSONALITY REQUIREMENT

Goals for Student Housing (Residents and Non-Residents) 64


APPENDIX C - Student Input on Unit Types In the fall of 2012, Residence Life Staff held a series of discussions with students on

BUILDING SPACES – Top four preferences for Halls and for the Building Overall

their preferences for the type of housing appropriate to each class year (Freshman,

Freshmen

Sophomore, Junior and Senior). A summary of survey responses collected at that

- Hall Preferences: Study, TV Lounge, Kitchen (8:6:5)

meeting is provided below. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of survey

- Building Preferences: Recreation Lounge, Large Group Study, Small Study, Outdoor Space (8:7:6:5)

responses that were positive, neutral, and negative (positive : neutral : negative). Sophomores PREFERENCES FOR ROOM TYPES

- Hall Preferences: TV Lounge, Study, Kitchen (8:6:6)

Freshmen & Sophomores

- Building Preferences: Small Study, Recreation Lounge, Large Group Study, Kitchen (8:7:7:6)

- High contact with neighbors - Freshmen prefer common bath, Sophomores prefer private bath

Juniors

- Value building and floor space above bedroom space

- Hall Preferences: TV Lounge, Kitchen, Study (8:6:4)

- Prefer Doubles to Triples and Singles (5:3:2)

- Building Preferences: Small Study, Kitchen, Large Group Study, Recreation Lounge (8:8:7:7)

Juniors

Seniors

- Private Bath

- Hall Preferences: TV Lounge, Kitchen, Study (7:6:5)

- Still like high contact with neighbors

- Building Preferences: Kitchen, Small Study, Technology Hub, Large Group Study (8:8:8:8)

- Value building space, then bedroom space - Prefer Singles and Doubles equally, not Triples (4:4:1)

Graduate Students - Hall Preferences: TV Lounge, Kitchen, Study (7:5:4)

Seniors

- Building Preferences: Small Study, Kitchen, Large Group Study, Technology Hub (8:8:8:7)

- Private Bath - Still like high contact with neighbors - Value Bedroom Space, then building space - Prefer Singles to Doubles and Triples (5:3:1) Graduate Students - Same Preferences as Seniors - Prefer Singles to Doubles and Triples (4:2:0)

65


100%

APPENDIX D - Classroom Utilization

90%

34%

80%

45%

70%

As Shenandoah University looks towards its needs for classroom space,

60%

an inventory of current classroom utilization can help plan for spaces

50%

that are in high demand on campus. As part of the Campus Plan, VMDO

40%

Architects gathered data from the Shenandoah Registrar indicating what

HIGH NORMAL LOW

30%

classrooms are experiencing high, medium, and low usage rates (as defined by the Office of the Registrar). Scott Cassada of the Registrar’s office used the Datatel scheduling system to develop these reports. Though we collected data on usage between 8am and 5pm, our analysis

20%

10%

0%

of usage rates for the hours between 9am and 2pm identify which classrooms are at highest demand during peak hours.

usage rates: 8am-5pm usage rates: 9am-2pm Classroom Usage Rates (full-day versus partial-day usage) 30

18

16

25

Initial results indicate that: - Forty-five percent of all Shenandoah classrooms are in high demand during peak hours - Over forty percent of the classrooms in Henkel Hall (78%), Halprin

14

20 12

HIGH

10 HIGH

Harrison Hall (64%), and Ruebush Hall (41%) are experiencing high utilization rates during peak hours. - Lecture Halls are getting the highest usage, with 67% of all lecture Halls in high use during peak hours. Classrooms are also in high demand, with 65% of these spaces seeing high use during peak hours. Definition of Usage Rates by the Office of the Registrar*: High Usage: Low Usage:

0-14% Capacity

*Note: The Datatel reporting system calculates a normal 50-minute class as occupuying a space at 75% capacity (because it calculates in 15-minute increments and accounts for the portion of the hour that the class is not in session).

NORMAL

NORMAL

8

LOW

LOW

10

6

4

5 2

0

0 AIKENS

ARMSTRONG COOLEYHALL DAVISHALL

GOODSON CHAPEL

GREGORY HENKELHALL HALL

HHH

RUEBUSH SHINGLETON

CLASSROOM

Classroom Usage Rates (By Building 8am-5pm)

61-75% Capacity

Normal Usage: 15-60% Capacity

15

LECTURE

SEMINAR

LAB

SPECIALTY

Classroom Usage Rates (By Room Type 8am-5pm) 30

18

16

25

14

20 12

10

HIGH HIGH

15

NORMAL

NORMAL

8

LOW

LOW

10

6

4

5 2

0

0 AIKENS

ARMSTRONG COOLEYHALL DAVISHALL

GOODSON CHAPEL

GREGORY HENKELHALL HALL

Classroom Usage Rates (By Building 9am-2pm)

HHH

RUEBUSH

SHINGLETON

CLASSROOM

LECTURE

SEMINAR

LAB

SPECIALTY

Classroom Usage Rates (By Room Type 9am-2pm)

66

Shenandoah Master Plan