|
  |
|
Facilities Master Plan |
|
I. Executive Summary
In Fall 2000, President Mote appointed a Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost and the Vice President for Administrative Affairs, with broad representation from key university groups and the College Park community. The committee was charged with developing a plan that meets Maryland Higher Education Commission and Board of Regents requirements; that defines the principles and lays the foundation for the orderly development and growth of the campus over the next twenty years; and that addresses current campus needs and goals while being sufficiently flexible to respond to future changes. The plan presented in this document lays the foundation for a first-class physical campus that is appropriate for a world-class university. It stresses thoughtful stewardship of the built environment that we have inherited, and it envisions a campus that both teaches and exemplifies concern for the natural environment. The plan supports the mission of the university to provide educational programs of the highest quality; to produce cutting-edge research, scholarship, and performing arts; and to promote connections and partnerships that contribute to the economic and social well-being of the citizenry of Maryland. The 2001-2020 Facilities Master Plan builds on the work of the 1991 Facilities Master Plan and its 1996 update, but it advances a new vision for the development of the campus. Previous plans concerned themselves with the placement of physical facilities but did not consider much beyond the need to address the urgent requirements for space at a large, thriving, and complex university. The university continues to have great demands for space. However, this plan, in contrast to previous ones, puts the siting of buildings and the development of the campus in a wider context. The committee considered ways to preserve our architectural heritage and extend the aesthetic appeal of the grounds and buildings. It looked at problems of balancing appropriate density of buildings with accessibility and attractiveness, and it advocated environmental stewardship. The planning committee established four principles or goals to guide future development: 1) plan the built and natural environment in a way that preserves the beauty of the campus and protects the environment; 2) reduce the number of automobiles on campus and eliminate vehicular congestion to the extent possible while promoting unimpeded movement across the campus; 3) reinforce the campus's role as a good neighbor in the larger community by the careful development of sites on the campus periphery or in outlying areas that link us to the community; and 4) preserve the architectural heritage of the campus and enhance it through open spaces, gathering places, vistas of green lawn and trees, and groupings of buildings that promote a sense of community. These principles will determine how space is used at the university as demands for buildings and facilities increases. This plan reflects and is consistent with the concepts of "Smart Growth," in which the State of Maryland has been a leader. The University of Maryland is a partner in the state's initiative, providing the highest caliber research and educational programs through its National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. This plan provides an assessment of current facilities and projections for the development of campus districts and outlying areas. The plan also includes goals and proposed actions for protecting and enhancing the natural environment and recommends an interconnecting system of shuttles to convey students, faculty, and staff to, from, and around the campus. It calls for a restriction of the number of automobiles on campus and the redirection of regular vehicular traffic from the center of the campus to its periphery. It suggests appropriate development and uses of university properties that reach into other neighborhoods in the larger community. The plan concludes with a list of the projects and activities that will be pursued over the next twenty years and the projected timetable for their completion. Process In the Fall of 2000, the University of Maryland began a comprehensive effort to update the 1991 Facilities Master Plan. The membership list of the committee appointed by President Mote is included in the appendix of this document. The Facilities Master Plan steering committee met weekly during the fall semester, reviewed the current status and proposals for each of the campus districts, and discussed the facilities needs in the context of growing and planned academic programs and research activities. At the conclusion of the semester, committee members identified the major issues to be addressed in a new plan as the context for the siting of projected physical facilities. The three most important issues were environmental stewardship, transportation and parking, and development of outlying areas. Consultants with expertise in university planning were sought to provide advice and proposals for dealing with these complex issues. The firm of Ayers/Saint/Gross, a nationally known campus and architecture planning firm, was hired. Ayers/Saint/Gross brought in specialists from Biohabitats, Inc., ecological consultants, and Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, a transportation planning and traffic engineering firm. The consultants met with stakeholders from across campus and the community, analyzed the current state of the campus, and presented a vision of the campus and a series of recommendations to implement that vision. Following many intensive discussions of the consultants' recommendations, the Facilities Master Planning Committee, working with the university Department of Facilities Planning, crafted its vision of the campus for the next twenty years, developed a draft plan, and disseminated it widely among the campus community and to the citizens of College Park. A final plan was submitted to the President's Cabinet and the Board of Regents for consideration. The President and his Cabinet monitored the planning progress and approved the final recommendations. Planning is an ongoing process. Any planning document should be viewed as a snapshot of the institution, capturing a particular moment in time. The plans, principles, and projections must be continuously and systematically reviewed and updated. In the future, the university administration will adjust the plan in response to new issues or programmatic changes. This Facilities Master Plan is flexible and general in its scope. It is not a detailed implementation, operations, logistical or budgetary blueprint for projects. The university will continue to improve and refine the Master Plan as a community-wide effort. As projects are carried out, university planners will be guided by the spirit and vision of this plan with its emphasis on creating a place of natural and architectural beauty, collegiality and community, and utility. In implementing the vision of a modern first-class university campus, planners will be expected to balance a variety of complex systems and their interactions in a manner that takes into consideration special concerns of all members of the university community. (See Section V: Implementation.) The coordinating university agency for the Facilities Master Plan is the Department of Facilities Planning. Timing Time periods for the Facilities Master Plan are as follows:
|
III. Land and Facilities Assessment
A. Description of Existing Facilities and Acreage The University of Maryland is located in the city of College Park, within Prince George's County. The campus is 30 miles west of Annapolis, 25 miles southwest of Baltimore, and 5 miles north of the border to Washington, D.C. The region's concentration of cultural, scientific, research, political, economic, and agricultural activities and facilities offers many unique advantages to the university's academic and research programs. Interstates 495 and 95, located approximately 3 miles north of the campus, provide direct regional access to the College Park community and to the institution via Baltimore Boulevard, a highly developed commercial corridor and a heavily traveled vehicular link between Baltimore and Washington. The main campus is bordered by University Boulevard (Route 193), Campus Drive, Mowatt Lane, Knox Road, and Baltimore Boulevard (Route 1). Main campus also includes a parcel of land east of Route 1, which is primarily developed as student housing and service functions. The university Golf Course is located to the west of University Boulevard. The facilities at the University of Maryland's main campus, which is the primary focus of this Facilities Master Plan, consist of approximately 11 million gross square feet (GSF) in 262 buildings on approximately 1,200 acres. With the inclusion of off-campus facilities, the building inventory totals nearly 12 million GSF in 459 buildings on approximately 4,000 acres. As shown in Table 6, 65 percent of the total inventory is state-supported and approximately 35 percent is auxiliary.
B. Assessment of Physical Condition of Buildings and Infrastructure The advanced age and deteriorating condition of UM facilities are major concerns. Approximately 40 percent of the total gross square footage is over 40 years of age. Insufficient funding for maintenance and facilities renewal has resulted in enormous deferred maintenance needs and an aging, increasingly obsolete physical plant. More than 41 percent of the total inventory is coded as Condition 3 and 4 (requiring either major updating and modernization or major remodeling of the building) as shown in Table 7. It is estimated that an expenditure of more than $500 million would be required to change code 3 and 4 space to code 1 or 2.
The advanced age and deteriorating condition of the campus infrastructure (utilities, roads, parking, landscape, and pedestrian walks) also pose a threat to the fulfillment of the university's mission. Concurrent with the need for new facilities at the university is the need for renovation and renewal of existing infrastructure. Full funding of the facilities renewal program in the annual operating budget is required to reverse current conditions and effect permanent change. Annual facilities renewal funding should be at a level not less than 2 percent of the replacement value of buildings and infrastructure. In January 2002 dollars, achieving this level would require funding of approximately $42 million annually to address all university facilities. Given the research mission and extensive laboratory activity, experts in the facilities renewal field suggest funding should be at as much as 4 percent of the replacement value, which is approximately $84 million for UM. Provision of appropriate and adequate facilities on the University of Maryland, College Park campus is integrally tied to the facilities renewal funding as part of the annual operating budget of the institution. However, rebuilding and maintaining the campus infrastructure cannot be accomplished with operating funding alone. Infrastructure funding must also be provided in the annual capital budget. The university has entered into a 20-year agreement with a vendor to operate, maintain, and renew its steam and high-voltage electric systems. This agreement will allow the university to renew and expand these systems without impacting the state's capital budget. However, all other infrastructure will continue to require support from the university's capital and operating budgets. C. Utilization of Existing Facilities Use of the Maryland Higher Education Commission's (MHEC) definitions for building types provides a useful means of categorizing the inventory, shown in Table 8. Approximately 45 percent of the space at the university is concentrated in 91 academic buildings. Two main libraries, five administrative buildings, 122 auxiliary enterprise facilities, and 239 non-academic buildings comprise the remainder of the space inventory.
D. Assessment of Sufficiency, Functional Adequacy and Externally Mandated Program Standards UM suffers from a lack of sufficient quantity and quality of space, which is a serious obstacle to sustaining the university's scholarly activities. Additionally, the lack of functionally appropriate or suitable space makes the fulfillment of the university's mission at an appropriately high level of quality increasingly difficult. Emphasis on graduate level education, the increased technological requirements of instruction, externally mandated program standards, (e.g., requirements set by Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care), and advances in research technologies all contribute to a growing need for renewal of existing facilities and the infrastructure. Limited capital resources have not resolved the problem of insufficient space and have only had a minimal impact on improving the condition and affecting the functional adequacy of UM facilities. E. Space Analysis The use of Space Planning Guidelines is intended to assist the university and the state in identifying the overall adequacy of types and amount of space. The data represented in Table 9 show the calculated space allowance derived from the application of the Space Planning Guidelines. Space allowances are compared to a static inventory and yield either a space surplus or deficit. The base year (Fall 2000) inventory reflects a total space deficit of approximately 1.2 million net assignable square feet (NASF). All of the major room use categories (classroom, class laboratories, research, office, and study) show deficits. Using a static inventory, the deficits are projected to increase during the 20-year period for all categories. The magnitude of the existing space deficit and the projection of continuing deficits clearly indicate that higher levels of capital expenditure are required from all sources, including university sources.
F. Adequacy of Existing Land and Capacity for Future Development Future development sites have been identified that could accommodate an additional 6.6 million GSF of new construction. Beyond the 20-year planning period, consideration may need to be given to locating certain university functions on campus edges and peripheral properties in order to keep the concentration of student and academic functions as close to the Historic Core as possible. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IV. The Plan to Meet the University's Facilities Needs
Although the population and space projections are for a 20-year planning period, the vision for the physical development of the campus goes well beyond the programmatic 20-year projections (Figure 1). This Master Plan envisions the future campus as a cohesive whole and a place of beauty, an environment that nurtures diversity and that fosters learning and community. In developing the Facilities Master Plan, the steering committee and consultants dealt first with the primary issues that will affect development across the entire campus and in every district. These global issues consist of matching our growth and planning with environmental requirements and projections, developing a comprehensive system for managing vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and fostering land use and buildings that promote community on campus and in the surrounding neighborhoods. The consultants first consolidated and then analyzed the collective vision presented them by the Steering Committee and various stakeholders with whom they met. They then submitted a summary of goals and recommended actions that will help the university achieve its vision. Finally, the committee developed plans for the composition of each district, projecting possible land uses and buildings for the 20-year planning period. The plan provides a narrative and graphic summary of the physical recommendations proposed and a vision of the campus that will guide efforts over the coming decades.
2001 Facilities Master Plan: Planning Principles
A. Global Issues: Environmental Stewardship, Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation, and Land Use
Goal: Preserve and reinforce regional ecological connections. Recommended Actions: Goal: Restore the natural hydrologic cycle. Recommended Actions: Goal: Foster ecological stewardship. Recommended Actions: Goal: Explore and implement historic preservation measures. Recommended Actions: Goal: Maximize use of alternatives to driving to campus alone. Recommended Actions: Goal: Create a more pedestrian-friendly central campus and significantly reduce number of automobiles. Recommended Actions: Goal: Minimize new parking on campus. Recommended Actions: Goal: Preserve and develop land in the best interest of the environment, the university community, and the citizens of the region. Recommended Actions: Goal: Recognize and carefully assess the intrinsic natural value, the pedagogical value, and the commercial economic value of university land. Recommended Actions: B. Campus Development Plan The Facilities Master Plan (Figure 1) provides a graphic summary of recommendations proposed during the 20-year planning period. This illustration captures the vision and incorporates the principles that are intended to guide facilities planning at the University of Maryland. It shows greenways linking pedestrian corridors within and between districts. It gives possible building sites within the districts and indicates proposed transportation changes and links. As with any planning document that covers such an extended period, the vision it presents is the goal toward which we will strive, understanding that unexpected opportunities, significant changes in a variety of circumstances, or other factors can effect changes in specific recommendations. The overall principles and goals on which this plan is founded, however, will not change. Additional graphics are included to give a better understanding of the various infrastructures and systems that inform the final vision. Environmental preservation and enhancement form one of the underlying grids, or major infrastructures, of the final plan. Figures 2 and 3 show the environmental plans for the entire campus. Figure 2 projects the connecting corridors the plan envisions, and Figure 3 shows the protected forest areas and stream and wetlands restoration areas. A second major infrastructure comprises the transportation recommendations designed to accommodate more efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement and to relieve congestion. Figure 4 shows the existing commuter shuttle routes. Figure 5 shows the proposed shuttle system that would reach out into the region beyond the campus and would also connect to I-95 and a parking garage at the 495 interchange with I-95. (Not all commuter shuttle routes are shown graphically.) Figure 6 presents a graphic of the proposed internal shuttle loop system. These three graphics illustrate the integrated transportation system envisioned for the campus. When the internal shuttle and connecting commuter shuttle systems are fully implemented, vehicular access will be restricted on the following campus roads: Campus Drive, Field House Drive, Valley Drive, Preinkert Drive. These roadways will be closed to general, daily traffic and configured to support the campus shuttle and pedestrian and bicycle use. Finally, the plan considers land use of properties adjacent to the campus, such as that east of Route 1. Figure 7 indicates the land uses for adjacent, peripheral, and outlying areas. At the conclusion of this chapter, a list is included of projects currently underway, projects planned for future planning periods. Detailed graphics indicate sites of current construction projects and sites designated for projected construction in accordance with the environmental principles and aesthetic goals of this plan. C. District Development Plans The campus comprises eight districts on the main campus (Figure 8), plus outlying university-owned properties. The size of each district is defined by an approximately five to seven minute walk radius. Various campus districts have developed over time, from natural woodland and meadows, to agrarian fields, to romantic and classical campus compositions, to more "urban" areas, resulting in the general orthogonal street grid and the high?density buildings found in some areas. Such features continue to characterize many of the districts. Depending on the period of its development, each district has unique physiographic and cultural characteristics evidenced in its natural features, open spaces, buildings, and their uses. The plans for each district have been designed to embrace the most positive characteristics of the campus and to extend them forward into the future. Districts:
Historic Core The University of Maryland campus, formerly the Maryland Agricultural College, began on a hilltop now known as Morrill Hall Quadrangle, named after the oldest remaining college building (Morrill Hall, completed in 1898). As was customary of many public colleges founded during that period, the environs of the initially modest campus were planned and developed over time, into the early twentieth century. The development generally followed the American Romantic Style of landscape architecture and was characterized by the tradition of English landscape gardening; i.e., "picturesque/naturalistic" scenery. The campus experienced its most notable period of expansion from 1935 to 1954, during which the specific Neo-Georgian style of architecture was established, and the landscape of McKeldin Mall was created as the heart of campus. Designed in the Neo-Classical Beaux Arts landscape tradition, this existing physical order and orientation of the mall is essential to the University of Maryland to help maintain an overall identity, hierarchy, and sense of place within such a large institution. The physical order of the traditional campus is, therefore, the point of departure for all future planning and design of new development in this district. The physical plan for the Historic Core projects capital improvements that maintain its character (Figure 9).
Southwest District This district is bounded by the Historic Core to the north, Mowatt Lane to the west, and privately owned properties to the west and south. This district is part of the watershed into Guilford Run. This district shares boundaries with the Route 1 Sector Plan and includes the Buddington property. The Southwest District Plan calls for priority capital improvements and potential public-private venture; i.e., existing building renovations and new infill development focused on the creation of well-defined open spaces between buildings that will create stronger links to the core of the campus (Figure 10).
West District The West District is bounded by University Boulevard to the west, Campus Drive to the south, and Stadium Drive and the predominantly high-rise residential community to the north. To the east it merges into the parking lots and buildings that surround the southwestern side of the Historic Core. Historically a back door and rear yard of the campus containing athletic fields and large parking areas, this district is increasingly a new front door to the campus. It is the historic and present location of the President's residence, which is situated on one of the highest points on the campus with vistas to the north and the south. The significant landscape open space in the district is the President's lawn and the areas and vistas associated with the President's house. The district also contains many of the campus's iconic assembly buildings and spaces including Byrd Stadium, Cole Student Activities Building, the new Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, and Ludwig Field. Additionally, the Inn and Conference Center, while not technically part of the campus, has a strong visual and functional connection to the campus and is part of this iconic group of buildings and spaces. The campus planning and architectural development of the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center and the Stadium Drive Parking Garage have transformed Stadium Drive into a new front door and gateway to the campus. Several access points to campus are also located along Campus Drive. The stream of Guilford Run has its origins along the southeast edge of the President's lawn. The long-range vision for this district and "western gateway" to the campus calls for its transformation from one dominated by acres of asphalt parking lots for thousands of cars to an ordered, mixed-use district with strong and clear connections to the adjacent campus districts. This vision also includes long-range consideration of possible property acquisitions to the south of Campus Drive and connections to the Buddington property and consideration of future transit and auto access. The ordering concepts for the district are as follows: 1) a north-south vehicular and pedestrian axis and series of spaces and malls aligned with Lot 1 Road; 2) an east-west axis and mall between Tawes and the Inn and Conference Center; 3) the President's lawn as the significant campus space in this district and western section of the campus; 4) the development of Guilford Run headwaters as an aesthetic and ecological amenity (Figure 11).
Northwest District This district is bounded by the Stadium Drive gateway and University Boulevard to the west, Field House Drive to the south, and Campus Creek to the north. Located on a ridge, this district offers framed views of exemplary buildings such as Anne Arundel Hall and the spire of Memorial Chapel to the Southeast and natural woodland to the Northwest. The architecture of this district is extremely diverse in both character and scale. Open spaces in this district are predominantly playing fields, large paved parking lots, and the spaces between the buildings of each residential quadrangle, which need enhancement and better landscaping. Currently, the stadium and playing fields cut off the Northwest District from the campus because students are forced to walk around these large fenced in areas. The Facilities Master Plan proposes the following general strategies for the Northwest District (Figure 12):
North District This district is bounded by two important biohabitats and corridors unique to the campus: Paint Branch and Campus Creek, part of the Chesapeake Bay Water Shed. The majority of the eastern portion of this district lies within the 100-year flood plain of Paint Branch and Campus Creek and contains some jurisdictional wetlands. The image and architecture of this district, once characterized by agricultural pastures and maintenance outbuildings, is now dominated by the Comcast Center, playing fields, and surface parking areas, as well as a few buildings such as the Research Greenhouses and the Chesapeake Building. The Facilities Master Plan calls for the continuation of current development patterns in this district (Figure 13):
Northeast District This district is bounded by Campus Creek to the north, Paint Branch to the east, Regents Drive to the west and the farm beyond Regents Drive, and Campus Drive to the south. Campus Drive, Azalea Lane/Paint Branch Drive, and Regents Drive are all major vehicular access routes to and through the campus. The engineering building, mathematics building and physics building combined form a "face" for this district onto Campus Drive and overlooking the engineering fields. Other than this "face" and the North Gate entrance, the district has no other positive visual features or organizational attributes, despite the presence of Campus Creek and Paint Branch. While retaining a vestige of the historical roots of the campus in the small farm complex in the northwest corner, this district has otherwise developed as one of the most dense and "urban" areas on campus. The street structure forms a small, if imperfect, grid filled with utilitarian buildings and parking lots. Landscaping only edges the buildings. There are no unifying open spaces or pedestrian ways. Most of the architecture within the district lacks grandeur, unity, and continuity with the Historic Core and other symbolic traditions of the campus. The vision for this district is to create a much stronger and positive district identity by restoring Campus Creek and Paint Branch along the north and east edges of this district, reinforcing the urban character of the interior of the district with infill buildings, enhancing the landscape and creating gathering plazas and major north-south pedestrian walkways. Pedestrian bridges will link the district with the Route 1 area and the housing to the east of Route 1, creating a gateway experience from Campus Drive into the district. The campus began as an agricultural college, and much of the original land was devoted to farm research. The vestige of farmland in this district will be preserved as part of the university heritage. It will also support current agriculture programs and the university mission of diversity in experience and education. Recommendations in the plan for this district focus on creating a stronger sense of community and definition (Figure 14):
East Campus This campus district is bounded by Route 1 to the west, Paint Branch Parkway to the north, and the City of College Park to the south. The image and identity of this area of campus are visually connected to the Historic Core via Memorial Chapel, North and South Gates and the associated lawns, Chapel Lawn and the recreational fields south of Martin Hall. Fraternity Row defines a major campus open space within this district that visually links across Route 1 to Chapel Lawn and Memorial Chapel. The predominant land uses in this district include the Central Heating Plant and other campus service units and facilities, Fraternity Row, and other student residential clusters. This area of campus falls within the College Park U.S. Route 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment, conducted by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). The university Strategic Plan calls for this district to be redeveloped as an "East Campus College Town Commons." This area will be a mixed-use college town environment that includes retail, office, and residential uses and a hotel and conference center. A street and pedestrian pattern will strongly link to the campus and to Old Town College Park, and a town square will act as a focus and visual link across Route 1 to the Engineering Fields. Development plans call for the relocation of campus service units to make this area available for development to be achieved largely through public-private sponsorship (Figure 15). Golf Course District The Golf Course is located to the west of the campus proper. It is bounded by University Boulevard to the east, Adelphi Road to the southwest, the National Archives building and grounds to the northwest and Metzerott Road and single family residential development to the north. The Golf Course is a major asset for the university. The course and its woodlands are the upland areas of the Campus Creek watershed and, thus, part of the watershed and wildlife corridor of Campus Creek and Paint Branch. Designed as a romantic or English picturesque landscape with rolling hills, specimen trees, and ponds, the Golf Course and new clubhouse are important campus and community amenities as a natural area, an open space, and a recreation area. The Facilities Master Plan retains the essential quality of this district (Figure 16):
Outlying Properties and Development Areas Development in the various outlying university properties exists as either contiguous campus edges or disconnected physically from the campus. Additionally, the university will continue to explore the potential of public-private partnerships to help catalyze appropriate local economic and physical development and strengthen relationships with existing businesses and institutions. These properties or areas may be characterized as follows (Figure 17):
Transit Development District The university currently owns property in the TDOZ and was a member of the group required by legal planning process to work with M-NCPPC to develop a plan for this area. In October 1997 a Transit District Development Plan (TDDP) was approved by Prince George's County for the area previously proposed as a Transit District Overlay Zone. The university continues to explore the public-private development opportunities consistent with both the university's mission and the provisions and zoning restrictions of the TDDP. |
|
V. Implementation
The 11 principles listed at the beginning of Section IV are statements of the priorities that will guide planners. In the implementation of the plans for an enhanced environment and significantly improved traffic and pedestrian flow, for example, concerns for security of people and property will be a priority, as stated in the eleventh principle. Planners will be asked to design safety features into parking garages and shuttle connection points, to maintain well-lighted open spaces in areas with forest covering, and to provide secure facilities for bicycle storage. In addition, as new shuttle service arrangements, parking, and vehicular traffic patterns are instituted, every effort will be made to accommodate the needs of those with disabilities and to address concerns of the large numbers of commuting students. Traffic designers will also be asked to include flexibility in the system of restricted roads necessary to respond to exceptional needs of faculty, staff, students, or guests to access particular campus areas, for example, to attend special events at the Memorial Chapel, athletic arenas, or Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center. The outlines of this Master Plan allow the university to take advantage of special opportunities off campus. Specifically, the plan provides flexibility for interaction with a Purple Line in the Washington area metro system, which would offer a welcome new means for transportation to the campus. Though specific metro stop sites have not yet been designated, it is assumed that at least one Purple Line station will be located on or adjacent to campus, with the exact siting dependent on the final route of the Purple Line. The university intends to advocate for a metro system that offers maximum access to the campus. While allowing for flexibility to respond to a variety of opportunities, the plan also sets standards to guide future development. The principles stated in the plan will provide a valuable guide to any development that might occur if, as an example, the 2012 Olympics are held in the Baltimore-Washington region. If the Olympics are held in this region, the campus would be a primary location for events. Acting in accordance with this plan, the university's goal would be to arrange special accommodations for participants and visitors with attention to the guidelines set forth in this plan, protecting to the extent possible the environmental qualities and architectural unity envisioned in this document. Implementation of specific projects occurs under the oversight of the Office of Facilities Management. A hallmark of this planning process has been consultation with a wide range of constituencies, and the Master Plan Steering Committee has sought input and advice throughout the planning procedure. As development of each district goes forward, and specific projects are implemented, campus planners will continue this process of consultation and discuss issues with all concerned stakeholders-- faculty, staff, students, and local officials. In areas in which university faculty members and staff have special expertise, their advice and insight will be especially welcomed. To achieve the environmental vision set forth in the plan, for example, much collective and continued work needs to be done by the entire campus community in research, education, planning, and implementation. It is expected that the Facilities Management staff will work collaboratively with appropriate academic units and departments, outside consultants, and the university leadership in setting and reaching specific goals. The university will also continue to seek support from local communities, county and state legislators, friends, and donors. Environmental stewardship and effective management of vehicle and pedestrian movement, as presented in this plan, constitute major new emphases for the campus. Careful oversight and implementation of environmental and traffic control projects are essential to fulfilling the vision of the plan. The plan for implementation of capital projects below will guide the siting and timing of future development of buildings on the campus. Recommended capital improvements have been assigned to one of three planning periods based on the institution's most critical needs and assumptions concerning funding availability. An appropriate balance between building, infrastructure, and landscape improvements is proposed. The infrastructure and landscape improvements recommended in each planning period are necessary to support the proposed additional building square footage. Infrastructure projects include utilities, satellite central utility buildings, roads, and transit systems. Landscape projects include ecological restoration, open space enhancements, new open spaces, reforestation and tree planting, and hydrology/storm water management projects. The cost figures are estimates in 2002 dollars. Infrastructure upgrades to be funded via the Energy Performance Contract are not included, as many specific scopes, costs, and locations have not been finalized. Most of these infrastructure upgrades are expected to be completed within the 2001-2005 Planning Period. Summary of All Planning Periods The total square footages and costs for new facilities, building renewals, building demolitions, infrastructure, and landscape improvements for all planning periods are reflected in Table 10. In total, we expect to add approximately 9.1 million GSF of new space and renew 3.3 million GSF of existing space. To meet program requirements, approximately 0.7 million GSF of existing space will be demolished. The total cost for all facilities and related infrastructure and landscape improvements is estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion.
| ||||||||||||