2016 Comparing Innovation Districts Poster

July 6, 2016
SCUP_poster_banner1 copy
Share

In 1998, the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) held its annual conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Ayers Saint Gross released our first Comparing Campuses poster.

This month, the SCUP Conference is again in Vancouver and we’re releasing our 18th Comparing Campuses poster. It’s fitting that we’ll be in the same city where this project launched, as this year’s edition is a return to the familiar figure-ground diagrams featured on the original poster, albeit with a twist. This year we decided to bring take our attention away from the cores of institutional campuses and focus instead on Innovation Districts.

Innovation Districts, and the economic ecosystems they create, are a platform for universities, research institutions, cities, and the private sector to maximize connections and increase proximity between people, ideas, and investors. In contrast to the isolated suburban research parks of the last century, today’s innovation districts are diverse, mixed-use communities that establish a critical mass of economic, research, and social activity in a dense, walkable area typically adjacent to an anchor institution or downtown.

Our process started with collecting base information and master plans for eleven existing or emerging Innovation Districts throughout the U.S. We ultimately decided on comparing the following aspects of each district:

  • Physical layout (scaled figure-ground)
  • Governance structure
  • Land area
  • Public open space area
  • Research/office space
  • Retail space
  • Housing units
  • Hotel rooms
  • Transit service
  • Distance to anchor institutions & downtown

We compiled the necessary data and information for each district from local government sources, development plans, master plans and reports, and other partner organizations involved with district planning and oversight.

It was a fascinating exercise and successful team effort to put together this poster, and we hope you enjoy exploring it as much as we enjoyed creating it. You can peruse this year’s edition, as well as the entire archive of Comparing Campuses here. It’s exciting to see how these districts are evolving and growing, and to imagine the impact they will keep making on our cities, economy, and collective future.

2015 Comparing Campuses Poster

August 29, 2015
2015_Comparing-Campuses_Poster
Share

Ayers Saint Gross released the first Comparing Campuses poster at the 1998 Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) Conference in Vancouver, BC. It featured black and white figure-ground drawings of 11 campuses depicted at the same scale. Seventeen years and posters later, the collection exceeds 200 campuses.

For the 50th SCUP conference in 2015, we wanted to play up the history of SCUP by incorporating all post-secondary institutions rather than focusing on individual institutional snapshots. While we have historically focused on physical characteristics, we broadened our perspective to look at both physical and statistical data that illustrate the dramatic changes that have occurred over the past 50 years. Where were we in 1965? Where are we going today? Some of these statistics such as enrollment rates are well-known but deserve another look to validate progress. Others such as gender and diversity hint at a shifting societal role of post-secondary education that is evolving.

Our process started with researching a dozen or so metrics that could potentially comprise this year’s poster. Many matrices, charts, and spreadsheets of data later, the metrics we decided to include are (roughly) divided into four overarching categories:

  1. Access – Who is attending? Enrollment, Gender, Diversity boxes along the top row
  2. Typology – Where are students going (both by geography and type of institution)? Geography, Largest Institutions, Scale & Quantity along the middle row
  3. Faculty – Are they part-time or full-time? Faculty box in bottom left corner
  4. Money – What does it all cost? Tuition, Room & Board boxes along the bottom row

In our previous posters with figure grounds and space data, we relied on self-reported data from the colleges and universities. One thing we discovered in our research is that there is no standardization of space data reported at a national level. Per Frank Markley at Paulien & Associates, “the national government stopped collecting GSF for US campuses in 1974.” So unfortunately we could not include any space-related metrics at any standardized national level.

This data was compiled from multiple sources and we applied our own interpretations and graphics. The majority of the data was provided by The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and The Chronicle for Higher Education (as well as the Census). We not only used the published data from NCES and the Chronicle but contacted each agency and had ongoing dialogue and sharing of data. The poster is the result of a collaborative process. Although the poster comprises nine different boxes, everything in the poster is part of an ecosystem that is tied together.

 

2014 Comparing Campuses Poster

January 5, 2015
Poster_detail_LR
Share

Ayers Saint Gross released the first Comparing Campuses poster at the 1998 Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) Conference in Vancouver, BC. It featured black and white figure-ground drawings of 11 campuses at the same scale, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Carnegie Mellon University. Hobart and William Smith Colleges appeared on the poster in 2000. 17 posters later, the collection exceeds 200 campuses.

This year’s poster compares physical campus growth at three institutions between 2000 and 2014.

Across the firm, we’ve had many reasons to reflect this year: we installed a timeline of the firm’s 100-year history as part of recent office renovations, celebrated the retirement of Lex Schwartz after a 45 year tenure with the firm, and marked 10 years of student life innovation with ACUHO-I in our book for this year’s conference in Washington DC.

Insights gained from looking backward offer us a starting point to look toward the future. This year’s research reinforced several themes of our practice:

Technology has transformed our relationship with data.
Early on, the poster provided information that was not readily available. Google Earth, institutional research websites, and open source Geographic Information Systems data have increased access to information about higher education. People have become more savvy consumers of data as they engage with more and more of it daily. Our research efforts today focus on filtering and interpreting the vast resources available to tell important stories.

Every institution has its own story.
Nationwide demographic and economic trends led to growth across higher education in the first decade of the new millennium. Growth manifests differently at each institution. At UNC Chapel Hill, for example, the combination of state-sponsored bond bill funding, generous philanthropy, and pressing needs for new facilities created a rare climate supporting redevelopment that was unique to that place and time.

Going forward, each institution’s specific culture will impact how the emphasis on greater utilization and efficiency continue to play across the industry. Context matters.

Growth is both qualitative and quantitative.
Each of the three institutions experienced quantitative growth, particularly in enrollment. The “People” column reveals that growth in one area does not directly translate to equivalent growth in other areas. Values put parameters on growth. Having more students doesn’t necessitate more parking, especially on urban campuses like Carnegie Mellon’s where land comes at a premium. At Hobart and William Smith Colleges, housing expansion intentionally outpaced enrollment growth to strengthen the residential college environment.

In a world of slowed quantitative growth, the quest for qualitative growth remains compelling.

Campuses change.
From day to day the pace of change can feel slow, but looking backward highlights ongoing transformation. Each entry in the Comparing Campuses collection reflects a specific moment in time. While the drawings showcase the enduring qualities of the campus core, that one new building missing from the drawing hints at its age. If only slightly, the place has changed.

Each project changes campus in some way. What part does it play in a bigger story? Does it reflect our values? How does it move the ball forward?

This year’s effort was a great opportunity to refresh our collection. If your institution is included in our database and you’d like to update your information, send us a note at jwheeler@asg-architects.com.

Click here to read more about our Comparing Campuses poster.