East campus, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Material Information

East campus, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado urban design study
Cook, Phillip Helms
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
approximately 100 leaves in various foliations : illustrations, maps (some folded), color photographs, plans (some folded) ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Campus planning -- Colorado -- Boulder ( lcsh )
Buildings ( fast )
Campus planning ( fast )
Colorado -- Boulder ( fast )
Architectural drawings. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Architectural drawings ( fast )


General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Architecture in Urban Design, College of Architecture and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
Phillip Helms Cook.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
16686871 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A73 1986 .C655 ( lcc )

Full Text
ruA-M A>
(<£&£- EXHIBIT 1-4*)
0 100 200 400 600

$i-re. pl-am
0 100 200 400 600

Urban Design Study
M.Arch. Urban Design Thesis University of Colorado Denver Phillip Helms Cook 1986
: - lALi
This project was undertaken to satisfy a Master of Architecture in Urban Design Thesis requirement at the University of Colorado Denver. It represents the next step in the process documented in the Exploratory Report produced by the U.D. 710 Studio during Fall Semester, 1985. I served as an outside advisor to this studio, formulating the Development Strategy included in the Report.
Phillip Helms Cook

University of Colorado, Boulder
Title Page
Table of Contents
Goals and Objectives
Existing Property
Regional Framework
Regional Framework Map
Surrounding Land Uses and Circulation
Site Analysis
Site Analysis Map
Project Design
Overall Program
Land Use/Access/Program Diagram Urban Design Framework Urban Design Framework Plan Illustrative Site Plan Figure Ground Site Plan Public Area Features Study Model Photograph Presentation Model Photograph
Campus Center
Campus Center Framework
Campus Center Framework Map
Campus Center Model Photographs (2)
Individual Facilities
Research Building Prototype Plans
Elevations, Exterior & Interior Module Section, Entry Detail Hotel, Teleconference Center Plans
Memorandum from the Chancellor Selected Technical Articles Exploratory Study

University of Colorado, Boulder
This Thesis deals with the physical and spatial design qualities of the proposed multi-phased, multi-building research facility on the East Campus site in Boulder. The study concentrates on the combination of buildings and open space together, emphasizing the design of the spaces between the buildings. It is concerned with the overall East Campus form and image as well as the individual internal elements, the key physical features of the campus organization (development pattern, landmarks, focal points, important vistas and views). Circulation and parking issues (functional requirements as well as physical and visual attributes) play an important role in the overall structuring of the project. Issues regarding environmental quality (relationships between uses, natural elements, preservation, activity support) are instrumental in forming the visual character of the proposal.
The goals of this Thesis are as follows:
Translate the Exploratory Study into 3-dimensional design. Investigate those 'campus' attributes that would be appropriate for this situation.
Further define the overall master plan framework within
which individual facilities can be developed in phases while maintaining an overall sense of organization and purpose.
Sense of Place Definitive overall character incorporating distinctive individual characteristics, creating idenity.
Sense of Order Hierarchies of spaces, places and ways.
Sense of Harmony A question of fit within the
setting of buildings, spaces, and people, thus providing support for the desired activities.
Sense of Livability comfort, providing amenity, maintaining the key patterns and elements while creating visual interest through both understanding (layers of meaning) and complexity (diversity/variety/contrast).
Design the places, spaces, and ways that knit the
individual building elements into a campus fabric.

University of Colorado, Boulder
University Issues
Create an economic return on an idle asset.
Boost research capability and credential.
Create income and jobs from research grants.
Establish a campus-like character that will compliment the existing campus.
Explore public/private partnerships.
City of Boulder Issues
Tax base vs. services required.
Infrastructure costs and who pays for what.
Applicability of the public review process.
Complimentary land use planning.
Zoning (height, density, traffic, buffering).
Traffic demands vs. capacity.
Neighborhood Issues
Allowable density traffic vs. capacity on nearby roads. Floodplain modification storage capacity maintained.
Visual Character
Scale and bulk relationships to adjacent neighborhoods. Setbacks and landscape buffers.
Building materials color/texture sensitive to local character.
Goals and Objectives.
Integrate the East Campus into the overall Main Campus and William's Village complex.
Create a regional gateway to the East and Main Campus at Colorado Avenue and Foothills Parkway.
Build a system-wide information center at this location. Reinforce Colorado Avenue as a visible linkage from the gateway to the Main Campus.
Interconnect the property with the existing City of Boulder pedestrian and open space framework system.
Continue the Boulder creek regional pathway/parkway through the site.
Create an East Campus/William's Village pathway linkage via the existing open space connection.
Integrate the East Campus with the City of Boulder street and utility systems.
Restrict access to the Foothills Parkway and to
Arapahoe (except the existing Marine Street intersection Create the dominant access to the property from Colorado Avenue to both utilize its existing vehicular capacity and to reinforce its significance.
Provide for future widening of 30th to accomodate increased traffic in later stages of buildout.
Respect the adjacent existing residential neighborhoods.

University of Colorado, Boulder
University Issues
Create an economic return on an idle asset.
Boost research capability and credential.
Create income and jobs from research grants.
Establish a campus-like character that will compliment the existing campus.
Explore public/private partnerships.
City of Boulder Issues
Tax base vs. services required.
Infrastructure costs and who pays for what.
Applicability of the public review process.
Complimentary land use planning.
Zoning (height, density, traffic, buffering).
Traffic demands vs. capacity.
Neighborhood Issues
Allowable density traffic vs. capacity on nearby roads. Floodplain modification storage capacity maintained.
Visual Character
Scale and bulk relationships to adjacent neighborhoods. x Setbacks and landscape buffers.
Building materials color/texture sensitive to local character.
Goals and Objectives.
Integrate the East Campus into the overall Main Campus and William's Village complex.
Create a regional gateway to the East and Main Campus at Colorado Avenue and Foothills Parkway.
Build a system-wide information center at this location. Reinforce Colorado Avenue as a visible linkage from the gateway to the Main Campus.
Interconnect the property with the existing City of Boulder pedestrian and open space framework system.
Continue the Boulder creek regional pathway/parkway through the site.
Create an East Campus/William's Village pathway linkage via the existing open space connection.
Integrate the East Campus with the City of Boulder street and utility systems.
Restrict access to the Foothills Parkway and to
Arapahoe (except the existing Marine Street intersection). Create the dominant access to the property from Colorado Avenue to both utilize its existing vehicular capacity and to reinforce its significance.
Provide for future widening of 30th to accomodate increased traffic in later stages of buildout.
Respect the adjacent existing residential neighborhoods.

lo Airport & Iniymuot Dugurul
vJ-'NNW-t iwin^ .
ge-touw-rwuu^/ fV*wt( VfVtUM
Uban Design Study
MAick Urban thesis UrrAfsityof Colorado IXtmt Hiil lip Helms Cook TJ8h

Uban Design Study
MAich LJrti.n fi'sin Ihi*. LhivefSlycf ( nk .*k) I Xtmt Philip Helms Cook NH6
*7\ittakl p*k L*fc> LW 4- CitulLMiod
SBn rtJn
Le iW

C] nJetKTfcAl,
n Ri*^c-n (***-/c^i 6lfcaitATK>J

University of Colorado, Boulder
The Pouw & Associates site inventory and analysis (1985) was reviewed and evaluated, and is referenced as the basis for the site analysis portion of this study. To avoid duplication, the information in those studies is not presented herein, but does form the foundation for the conclusions found in this study.
Following are some of the more predominant site considerations that will impact the organization of a development scenario:
Maintain the existing Marine Street facilities.
As research activities are relocated in phases to more modern facilities located in the new campus, the existing buildings can be converted to university, system-wide service and administrative uses.
Phase out the existing Colorado Court and Smiley Court housing.
The facilities are aging and approaching substandard condition.
Development of additional residential facilities at William's Village would reinforce the opportunity to create a critical mass (activity support) at that location.
The phase out could come in the later stages of the research campus development.
Maintain/reinforce Boulder Creek as a regional open space amenity.
The primary inventory of existing old growth vegitation is concentrated in this area.
Establish the F.E.M.A. floodway limit as the designated 100 year floodplain area.
Maintain a reasonable proportion of the current floodway in its natural state, clearing and cleaning where appropriate for safety or amenity, but still providing as much as possible an urban haven for this diminishing natural resource.
Develop the remainder of this open space into a regional
and university planned recreational area, including both formal (athletic fields) and informal (unstructured playing fields and nature trails) facilities.
Upgrade Skunk and Bear Creeks from their present natural (unkept) condition, integrating them into the more structured open space of the proposed new campus.
Respond to the exceptional views of the Flatirons to the West.
Retain the existing topographic character of the site.
Maintain the existing contours, including the slight
promentory and ridge features at the south edge of the site which reinforce project definition by providing some sense of enclosure to the site.

ibth St tret
Urban Design St udy
MArch UrEjan Design I hesis UYvcraty of (xJorado I Xtmt Philip Helms Cook 1986
^ITE: AKAUf*?|t/
0 90 wo 300 300
dti* i_n__n
" FfcoJf****
Cobwkj ****

University of Colorado, Boulder
Overall Issues
Phased coordination of infrastructure is to be coordinated with the market absorption.
Land parcels should be subdividable into 3 to 4 acre sites for maximum flexibility.
Retain the ability to aggregate land parcels into two or three larger sites (10-20 acres) for large, multi-phased users.
The key is flexibility. Providing a modular infrastructure system (this plan is based on a 30'x30' overall grid) enhances the project's ability to respond to change.
Land Use
Private Development
Regional freeway frontage sites
High visibility, high identity buildings
Phased development 1/3 of 20 acres every 5 years
Higher density of 1.2:1 = 1,000,000 square feet Activity Facilities The Campus Center
Conference Hotel- 300 rooms, meeting & banquet facilities, located in the "heart of the project".
Tele-Conference Center- immediately adjacent to the hotel yet independent stature.
Athletic Center- athletic and club facilities, closely related to the athletic fields.
Science Library- a central focal point both spiritually and physically.
See the INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES section for additional individual facility requirements.
Locate these 'theme facilities' centrally to accomplish a "Campus Center" concentration, thus contributing to a critical mass of activities and active spaces. Private & Sponsered Research
Private and private/university joint ventured facilities.
Three larger sites (10 acre) for the large multi-phased users with planned expansion programs. These sites should have external as well as internal identity.
Subdividable into 3 acre accessable parcels to retain future multi-development flexibility.
Medium density .625 FAR University Research
Pure research as well as teaching laboratories.
Internal orientation little need for market identity.
Typically 3 to 4 acre sites for maximum flexibility.
Emphasis on pedestrian relationships.
Service Center
Convert to university service/distribution/administration.
Reuse existing facilities, selective infill of new buildings

University of Colorado, Boulder
PROGRAM (con't) page 2
Open Space
Reinforce Boulder Creek both preserve/restore natural areas and provide recreational/athletic facilities.
Campus space provide pedestrian quads and commons with attributes related to the main campus.
Information Center
Provide a system-wide facility reinforcing the regional gateway.
Vehicular Access
Hierarchies of Entries
Formal Main Entry Focus on Colorado Avenue to reinforce its importance as a linkage to the main campus. A formal divided parkway around an entry water feature (an informal lake within a formal enclosure) leading into the hotel porte-cochere and visitor parking. Operational Entries The more functional user (frequent/ returning visitors and staff) and service access. Individual Facility Entries Coordinated to provide common allignment for opposing sites.
Service Center
Provide a new allignment of Marine Street to locate 30th and Marine intersection farther from Arapahoe to create more stacking capacity on 30th.
Campus Center The roadway from the main entry follows the existing topography, thus dropping into the parking level under the hotel, providing access to the covered parking as well as continuing as a street to the intersection with the loop road. This submergence of the roadway is critical to the creation of a pure pedestrian environment for the Campus Center.
Loop Road Provides relatively equal vehicular access to each internal site, thus creating more equal (enhanced) land values and marketing flexibility, while providing access without encroaching into the pedestrian Campus Center.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian Street Alligned with the axial view of the Flatirons, it provides the key pedestrian linkages from building to building and interconnects with the Campus Center quads and plazas. The pedestrian system only crosses the loop road at alternating intersections from the vehicular access points, providing safety and amenity seperation. Building access should be primarily from the pedestrian street to reinforce its importance and to provide activity support. The scale and sequence of spaces along the pedestrian street should support orientation as well as provide visual amenity.

J V,


Ko.ood ***
P-fc^fcHToW. /offej
kkrje*. A*a
. 3A0tf
?>*f lUvfjMri 4^*. ***>*<-fcqooo *r
lUvWMtf ftA^U. <****-nv.ooose .
iTpttMff KVAfiixJl
^ 3*0*
rf |4mmm 4***. **-
ICOoaD <**-
5swf LUrfKMTf 4 *aftt U*6HUL
ft*Anfc 3oqocO *=-
fhs*rz UbfMs.n lOAJte ito-f <*Z- r*.(L t74 aco sr
tjPot'&JU) fihi&jUJk bta*. w, pwl. tts.aoo M6-
k&er (t*Hk*
r 4* c<>t *, ^ott-L** fSlL |aqar>ff*-
Urban Design Study
MArch Urban Design Thesis Uiiversity of Colorado Denver Phillip Helms Cook 1986
L-MiD \ive>
0 90 wo aoo

University of Colorado, Boulder
Research Campus
Campus Like Character The dominant attribute is typically clusters of buildings framing pedestrian scaled open spaces that are pedestrian only activity zones. These zones are accomplished through the implementation of a perimeter automobile intercept system including loop roads and peripheral parking lots. The creation of a lively and attractive pedestrian environment is supported by the tremendous pedestrian activity between buildings. Individual Access Research facilities require individual vehicular access to each building, thus leading to the concept of a spine type loop road with buildings seperating the automobile side from the pedestrian side.
Activity Support Without much pedestrian activity between research buildings, the creation of a lively pedestrian environment depends on a tighter spatial distribution of facilities (clustering) and the concentration of activity generating facilities (hotel, dining facilities, library, athletic club, and meeting/conference rooms) to achieve a critical mass nucleus or activity center.
The Goal To establish a consistent pattern of development providing an overall sense of organization and order, and to facilitate the creation of a campus environment without sacrificing functional accountability to the vehicular access, service and emergency service levels comparable (competitive) with other research complexes.
Overall Exterior Edge
The allignment of the main axis toward the prominent outcrop of the Flatirons as well as somewhat parallel to the F.E.M.A. floodplain limit along Boulder Creek creates an irregular intersection of the existing orthagonal public street and subdivision grid and the newly created non-orthagonal allignment of the campus masterplan. The resultant sawtooth edge creats a more dynamic, less formal relationship with the surrounding land uses (residential in most cases) which is desired and thus is to be reinforced. The landscape planting, especially along Colorado Avenue, should emphasize this geometry in contrast to the typical linear planting recommended along the South side of the street (and typical of most major linkage planting). This creates a more varied,but still auto scaled, rhythm and thus more interesting spatial sequence.
This sawtooth relationship allows the research buildings to retain their typical form and massing (proportion, height, bulk, scale) without directly confronting the smaller scale structures across the street, with the askew geometry reducing the visual impact, and thus the encroachment, of the individual building facades.

University of Colorado, Boulder
Foothills Parkway Frontage
Development sites are proposed to be a land lease with phased implementation, and leveraged to induce the inclusion of design criteria and desired amenities.
These are developer/user high image buildings. The higher density and building height are appropriate since the concentrated building massing provides more open space, protects view pockets to the Flatirons, add a third dimension (up) to an otherwise horizontal context, thus adding variety and internal building systems logic, and the shadows do not impact adjacent development.
Since some of these buildings penetrate above the treeline, the Boulder 55' height controls, and since they are the most visible public face of the project, they have a civic urban design responsibility for cohesive architectural design character, including building material (masonry), color (a natural earthtone similiar to the main campus), roof treatment (sloped clay tile roofs to screen HVAC as well as to relate to the main campus), all contributing to a stronger East Campus identity both on the skyline and as a visual highlite along the Foothills Parkway. Buildings, parking structures and open space should be coordinated to form a sequence of automobile scaled visual events utilizing contrasting building masses, materials (parking structures), sawtoothed allignments, view pockets into the interior and on to the Flatirons, thus creating a dynamic, interesting experience.
The pair of buildings at the terminus of the pedestrian street axial view are a special focal point both physically and economically. The adjacent buildings should be progressively scaled down to both reinforce this situation as well as provide a transition to the adjacent neighborhood.
Pedestrian Plaza
At the corner of Colorado Avenue and 30th, a major plaza should facilitate a strong pedestrian connection (both symbolic and functional) from the East Campus to the Main Campus. Provide a functional terminus to the Pedestrian Street.
Allow visual continuity from the Pedestrian Street to Colorado Avenue and the Flatirons beyond.
Include a transit (inter-campus shuttle) interface.
Provide reciprocal views into the site, thereby fostering a sense of understanding about what is happening in the interior, and thus encouraging public exploration. Create a pedestrian scaled gateway into the project.

University of Colorado, Boulder
Natural Open Space
The existing natural areas of Boulder Creek represent a regional natural resource and unique component in the Boulder parkway system. While presently in a state of disrepair, the question of future alternatives goes beyond simple preservation. The question is one of choice and balance.
Reinforce the natural character of the creek. The
ecological imperitive is well documented. The academic morality suggests the humanitarian choice. A strong natural statement provides the balance, complimenting the strong urban setting of the Campus Center.
Create a transition zone between Campus and Creek. Design an informal building edge (again the sawtooth edge with its irregular pattern of in and out) to the Creek. Establish new buildings along the North boundary to screen the service center from the Creek.
Create a Boulder Creek focal point. A sense of center
(a pond in contrast to the flowing creek) encourages a unique sense of place. Reinforce this focal point with an open setting (a commons) with broad expanses of unstructured recreational playing fields.
Open space provides an important view corridor into the site from Arapahoe, thus enhancing the individual identity of those internal building sites.
In essence, it is, by and large, a question of livability.
The opportunity to preserve and maintain (restoring where necessary) a quality area of natural value is impossible for most urban areas due to the irreversable impacts of urban development. The university is in the unique position, with the skills and resources (make this part of the infrastructure) to restore and maintain this area. Seldom does their remain a large enough land area, where development activity can be internally transfered to adjacent sites, to have the significant impact presented here.
The Vehicular Street
The overall concept is to loop a vehicular spine through the site, providing relatively equal access to each site, creating an automobile zone that is distinctly seperate from, and in fact instrumental in creating, the Campus Center Pedestrian Streets.
The vehicular street is a sequence of open spaces (automobile courtyards) and tight spaces (individual buildings directly fronting the street) culminating in the Campus Center grand open space The Commons.

University of Colorado, Boulder
The sequence of visual events provides a sense of scale and progression, a rhythm, and adds visual interest to the street space.
The street is a divided parkway concept with ornamental planting in the center median and street trees along each side's right of way. Intersections are denoted by planting beds of annual and perenial flowers and shrubs, and automobile courtyard entries are signified by ornamental planting. Consistent treatment assists the clarity and convenience of access by providing orientation (makes the environment legible) to the vehicle.
A series of alternating vehicular and pedestrian intersections provide clear definition of each realm, and thus safety. Automobile courtyard entries are also coordinated to provide common allignment for opposing sites.
The Pedestrian Street
The overall concept is to create a pedestrian only zone (the new Campus Center) and a Pedestrian Street, alligned to the SW axial view of the Flatirons and parallel to the Vehicular Street, and with buildings forming a strong sense of division between the vehicular and pedestrian realms, and with buildings all clustered to form pedestrian scaled spaces and ways.
A sequence of open spaces (quads, plazas) and tight spaces (linkages, ways) give definition and a sense of rhythm and scale to the Pedestrian Street.
The non-orthagonal orientation provides solar advantages,
allowing sun to reach all spaces sometime during the day. The play of light, with building organization controlled to ensure direct sunlight on key spaces (quads, building entries) while linkages are of lower light values, reinforces the above definition of open and tight spaces.
The central Quads (spatial highlites along the Pedestrian Street) should develop a sense of semi-enclosure with buildings forming a 1 1:2or3 proportion. This is strong enough to establish a sense of place and a sense of node along the pathway, yet allows key views of the Flatirons and sky above the building cornices.
The Pedestrian Street should develop a strong sense of
enclosure with buildings forming a 11:1 proportion on each side, thus limiting views to facades only, and reinforcing the linear connection to the Campus Center.
Given the linear character of the street, facades must play an important role in providing variety and scale, and in pedestrianizing these spaces. A hierarchy of plantings (ornamental signifing entries, shade trees defining subspaces, mall trees softening the street, and evergreens and shrubs providing vatiety) is critical to the success.

Urban Design Study
MArch Urban Design Thesis Uiiversity of Colorado Denver Phillip Helms Cook 1986

I 1 0 BO WO WO 300


____> 1
Urban Design Study
MAich Urban lhi*>
UhMT>Hv of Colorado I Xtmt PMIp Helms Cook *.
luJMAinv/fc ^tr* Rwi fiultt (~0aUO
RTS} 0
a>. Ln_n _________________/

- V.
Urban Design Study
MArch Urban Thesis y of Colorado Denser Phillip Helms Cook W66
^ir* RakJ
nau-AM*. iwm


University of Colorado, Boulder
Campus Center Overall Concept
The overall concept is to concentrate the public activity
buildings (hotel, teleconference center, science library, athletic facility) in the central project area, thus facilitating a critical mass nucleus or activity center.
Cluster the individual buildings that surround the campus center to form a sense of intense urban enclosure, thus allowing the Campus Center buildings to float in this pool of open space that constitutes the center.
Organize the Campus Center buildings to form pedestrian scaled spaces and places.
Provide parking below pedestrian grade (the street and parking can follow the existing topography with a pedestrian level deck built above). This allows the parking to remain integrated with the buildings but more importantly, allows the creation of a Campus Center pedestrian only zone, a critical element in the creation of the campus environment.
Emphasize this central focus to create a "heart of the Campus" activity center, providing the desired support services (dining, sundries, activity services,meeting and conference facilities,lounges, libraries, etc.) at one central, convenient (within 1000 feet of all buildings, a very reasonable walking distance), accessable location.
Give the Campus Center a unified thematic architectural
character. The use of the main campus red clay tile sloping roofs and masonry walls of a natural earthtone color both reinforces the relationship to the main campus as well as establishing a strong enough Campus Center character to allow more flexible (and cost effective) architectural treatment of the surrounding research buildings.
Campus Center Plaza
This plaza is a very active, highly structured hardscape with a very urban character. It is a people meeting, crossing, passing thru on your way to almost everywhere, people watching place. The coffee shop and dining rooms should directly front this space, preferably with their overflow nice weather verandas projecting into the space. The plaza creates a direct linkage from the hotel to the teleconference center. With its raised elevation (above the parking level below) it affords a prime view of the Flatirons. The view thru the teleconference center glass enclosed lobby area to the Boulder Creek focal point is also to be emphasized.
The plaza should be accesorized to encourage people interaction and participation. Site furnishings should emphasize group and individual seating areas, information kiosks, a mini-information center, a campus directory, a small stage & amphitheater for noontime or special events.

University of Colorado, Boulder
Campus Center Open Space
The key open spaces (the forecourts,quads,commons) in the Campus Center should provide a sense of open relief from the purposefully tight Pedestrian Streets leading into these spaces.
The central Quads consist of a formally organized mixture of active and passive spaces. They should have the feel of an outdoor room, encompassing a discrete spatial entity, possessing an intense three dimensional quality.
The quads are primarily structures with planting materials (softscape) instead of paving and walls (hardscape), with the character being one of pathways through a landscape and trees defining the spatial dimensions.
It is important to locate the major pedestrian building
entries directly on these Quads, reinforcing the pedestrian character and the amount of pedestrian activity taking place as well as facilitating user access and orientation.
The surrounding buildings which enclose and define the quads should convey the sense of presence of its more active, more people oriented uses to the Quad facades. This supports the personalization of the spaces as well as providing the means for the quad user to assess the dimensions of the space through the establishment of a hieracrhy of scaled features established both vertically and horizontally.
The Commons is primarily open (both spatially and teritorially), active, unstructured recreational fields. The spatial envelope is defined by the ayhletic facility, the science library, the teleconference center (thus including the loop road space important), and extends across Boulder Creek and is terminated by the proposed new administration building in the Service Center. The Commons functions spatially as a visual foreground for the Boulder Creek focal point (the pond) vista.
The Hotel forecourt spaces (located symetrically on each side of the hotel and centered by the main entry focal point (the pond) and the hotel porte-cochere) are a formal, passive space, important primarily for their visual attributes. The sequence of vehicular entry, from the Colorado Avenue formal main entry gateway, along the divided parkway with its extensive ornamental and seasonal planting, around the natural pond contained within the formal circular roadway, through the forecourt space and either up to the hotel porte-cochere or down into the lower parking level, all combine to create a distinctive, very memorable setting for a special sense of arrival to the East Campus.

MArch Urban IXNRn Ihwis UXwrJtvof Goioado IXtmt Pbdkp Helms Cook N66
t=BAH|tkJ oe*-

University of Colorado, Boulder
Overall Concept
The multi-building concept is a system of regular connections (building entries and vertical circulation atriums) and building wings of modular spaces (labs, meeting rooms, offices,etc.) thus permitting an ever changing, growing, evolving pattern of offices, laboratories and classrooms.
The goal is to provide a clear progression of street, project access, parking, facility access, building, pedestrian access, and pedestrian only exterior spaces.
Buildings are organized so that they strongly seperate (define) the vehicular activity areas (a concept of automobile courtyards including access, servicing, and parking) from the pedestrian activity areas (a concept of pedestrian streets including pathways, quads, plazas, commons).
The organization and siting of buildings reflects a desire to more tightly cluster groups of buildings to form more pedestrian scaled exterior spaces, reinforcing the interconnective characteristics of those spaces, resulting in a sense of cohesive fabric or knit.
The concept is to create automobile courtyards, clearly defined, semi-enclosed structured parking, with buildings screening the parking from pedestrian areas.
To reduce the tremendous land use impact of surface parking, an approach has been taken here that relegates the automobile to a carefully defined role, a tool for access. Parking facilities are two level, a lower (half down)level for staff and service use, and an upper (half up) level for visitor and staff use. Any more levels would quickly create a massing and visibility problem, as well as increased problems with safety, security, and user orientation, not to mention the loss in efficiency due to increased ramping requirements.
The parking facility, one level at depressed grade, and the other elevated structure, is also integrated with the research building, further reducing the site coverage dedicated to parking, while providing direct building access from either level of parking, and a high proportion of parking with climate protection.
The structured parking concept requires a highly defined, clearly legible, strong sense of vehicular arrival to overcome the negative attributes inherently associated with this more demanding system. To accomplish this legibility, as well as to add some needed amenity to an otherwise lifeless procedure, an entry esplanade with landscaped median and sides (ornamental and seasonal planting) is introduced.

University of Colorado, Boulder
For the visitor, the trip up the esplanade entry to the upper level culminates in a upper plaza space with views into the pedestrian street. The visitor parking spaces are directly adjacent to the covered entry into the building atrium, internal circulation element.
All servicing of the building is accomplished from the lower on grade level (maximum allowable vehicle weight) which effectively screens the loading dock area as well as provides direct service access to the lower level labs which typically house large scale, heavy equipment with extensive service needs.
Open Space
Even though the Boulder Creek natural open space area of
35 acres would in large part satisfy most PUD requirements, allowing cluster development of more intensity and less open space on the remainder of the site, that is not reason enough for this site due to a responsibility to the citizens of Boulder and the University's position of leadership within the community.
For the net developable site area (the 195 acres gross area less the 35 acres of Boulder Creek) the open space requirement should be that of other comparable high quality master planned office parks. The Urban Land Institute documents a range from 25% to 40%, with the recommended minimum allowable open space set at 30%.
With the large expanse of natural open space found in Boulder Creek, the opportunity to create a higher proportion of active, urban open space in the remainder of the the project is enhanced. The contrast between the natural and the structured enriches a dynamic experience.
The pedestrian plazas that are directly related to the
individual building entries should become direct extensions of the building atrium elements, providing support for the wide range of pedestrian activities that should take place in this very public realm a hub of activity.
Landscape buffering should screen both the lower (depressed) parking level from the vehicular street (Berm and planting between the street and parking) as well as screen the structured deck (trees and shrubs in a landscape strip at the lower level in front of the street face of the upper deck) which also divides up the automobile courtyard into smaller, more visually manageable scale when viewed from the upper floors of the research buildings.

University of Colorado, Boulder
Building Program
The buildings should have a certain simplicity (the demand for flexibility creats a very straight forward design) yet boldness of feature and form is needed to facilitate comprehension. A degree of complexity and subtlety is useful to renew/continue/maintain the interest of the regular viewer.
Flexibility is the dominant attribute. The facility must be responsive to changing functional requirements regarding:
1. Expandability a system or organized pattern of building growth over time.
2. Convertibility changing building uses leading to individual building reconfiguration.
3. Versatility responsiveness to evolutionery shifts in technical proceedures and processes.
4. Interchangeability building system (HVAC, power, lab furniture) modification.
The combined result clearly indicates the need for modular
planning, with modules at each scale (overall master plan, individual building, individual rooms).
The larger equipment labs should be located on ground level due to floor loading requirements. Direct access for servicing is provided from the lower parking level.
The more public uses (reception, meeting and conference, library, lounge) should be located near the atrium, vertical circulation element to focus activity and to create a highlight area in a dominant context of closed laboratories and private spaces.
A more detailed functional program is located in the appendices.
Interior Module
The basis is the standard 20'x30' laboratory space, primarily determined by overlapping systems of use and modular lab furniture systems (see appendices for more detailed info.)
The system is further subdivided into 2'x5' submodules to provide a modular delivery of services (HVAC, fire,gas, exhaust, liquids, power, lighting), integrated with structure and safety.
Laboratory space is located along the building perimeter to
provide natural daylight and safety (hazardous proceedures
and fume hoods are preferred along the perimeter so as
not to impede fire exit (at least two means of exit per lab).
Private offices are located between the lab and the public
corridor to control access/security to the lab. The offices are a retreat for study and paperwork and the provision of more bookshelves and working walls is a higher priority than windows, although often windows are provided in the wall between the office and the lab.

University of Colorado, Boulder
A horizontal service core is located above the bay of offices and the public corridor. The allowable lower ceiling heights in these areas plus their central location provides for excellent efficency and accessability.
Individual storage and artifact rooms are intersperced within the office bay where needed, usually following the same module as the offices to allow the flexibility of interchanging uses. Equipment closets with service and control panels are also located in this zone due to its proximety to the service core as well as its accessibility from the public corridor.
Exterior Module
The concept is to provide both an activity presence and a pedestrian scaled facade along the pedestrian street, while at the same time, allowing a high-tech facade along the vehicular street.
When the pedestrian street wall height effectively contains
the chanel of space, the next step is to provide the means for the viewer to assess the dimensions of the space in terms of height and length. A hierarchy of scaled features are established, both horizontally and vertically, with alternating vision (punched windows) and spandrel panels establishing the dominant rhythm.
The vertical module relates to the interior floor to floor, subdividing this into a 4', 6', 4' rhythm. Horizontally, the 30' structural bay is subdivided into an alternating 4' and 6' rhythm which also accomodates the interior module.
The facades framing the pedestrian street are restricted in their ability to move in and out due to the limitation that places on interior flexibility. I have therefore suggested a secondary pattern of materials along these facades to provide an additional sense of scale and variety.
Very personal scaled detail on the facades (trim, sills, brick pattern and detail, accessories) are even more important here in providing grips or holds upon the street space (fixing it) thus offsetting the overpowering linear thrust of the pedestrian street chanel.
Natural materials should be used along the pedestrian street, with masonry (same family of color as the main campus) the predominant element, lending a natural warmth, scale, detail, reinforcing the pedestrian character.
The automobile courtyards, facing the vehicular street with its higher speed scale, can respond to the need to create a more technological image. The strong sense of enclosure in these courtyards encourages the utilization of a lighter feeling, more reflective material, and the facades can be read more as a whole without the need for scaling elements.

University of Colorado, Boulder
On the facades framing the automobile courtyards, distinctive features should compose a strong indication of entry into the building. Acknowledgement of the atrium element should be legible from each of the parking levels to assist in user orientation as well as security.
The building should appear to float above the parking
structure, creating a feeling of comfortable enclosure rather than encroachment.
Building materials and finishes that front directly on the
parking areas should place special emphasis on durability and cleanliness without sacrificing the sense of quality necessary to offset the usual conotations of parking garage.
Building Components
The atrium element, in addition to focusing activities and providing vertical circulation and thus entries to each of the building wings, should display this hub of activity. The exterior enclosure should be translucent, naturally lighted cheerful space with views out to the entry plaza and pedestrian street. Views into this atrium are also important, lending life to the exterior spaces.
The building wings must be flexible to function independently or in concert with other wings, and the same is true of each floor within a wing. This allows for multi-tenant users as well as providing the ability to segregate research projects within a single user.
Each wing has a seperate elevator and toilet core, directly accessable from the atrium, and has an independent HVAC, electrical, water, gas, and communications system. Fire escape and life safety is also seperately accountable.
Each wing's public corridors can be flexibly located as long as they connect to each end, can be secured on a floor by floor basis, with a typical scheme shown on the plans.
To counteract the usual corridor monotony, the corridors shown have exterior vistas at each end, and have a series of interior space pockets or nodes along each path which attempt to provide variety and to break up the space, creating people places along the way.

uoKltt- ifeyfci-
UPggg. iww.
2>S* Fu*.
UNVI RSI IY of Urban Design Study
MAich Uban fVvBn Ihese. UhMWNty of Gabado I Xtmt r^hAp Helms Cook NBb
0Bn LrLJn

Urban Design Study
MAich Urban D>ypi rheys Diversity of Colorado Denver PHKp Helms Cook 1986
Rjfc**AJL£4l EhJiu>iJi PUiVATtorlV
P&pe^nnAii BL*VAfioKl
Jp 0,0 ij o 0 d 0 0 O'
o o o o q q o q
pK**TfciAW ace-^w eievatiokI


un-n -o
|oUr* ni^twa Mw ->f*W|kg
'M4 T3 su^jh <%y
1WU>X 1 < >. ) pAlKMAMD
*.>mi ^*0 upqn h"vu
(Xivaotcx) P Ufa lAlsn

University of Colorado, Boulder
Overall Concept
The hotel is the central focus of the entire project. As such, it develops a strong architectural theme which is closely related to that of the main campus. The building height and massing projects above the surrounding buildings to reinforce this sense of importance. The more intricate facades, the more elaborate material palette, and the sense of activity presence symbolize the pedestrian character of the Campus Center.
Functional Program
The hotel follows a newly emerging program for conference hotels ( an example would be the Las Colinas Inn and Conference Center outside Dallas) where smaller meeting rooms replace the earlier large convention type facilities.
The general hotel organization remains similiar, with a public reception and services main floor, a meeting and conferemce second level, and the usual recreational,dining, and shopping facilities in active locations.
The proposed facility has 300 rooms total with the opportunity to phase either the side wings (seperately or together) or the tower rooms as the market requires. These two types of rooms are purposefully different, with the lower wing rooms floating out into the quads and plugging into that campus village character, while the tower rooms capture the tremendous views and are more urban in character.
The teleconference center has amphitheater style seating,
subdividable into 200 person modules, and is intended for major presentations. Included are both prefunction areas and breakout areas for group meetings after the presentations.
Parking for both facilities is directly below the buildings, out of view for the reasons listed in an earlier section, but with the advantage of being directly integrated, very convenient, and allowing the seperation of all service functions from any public areas.
The sloped tile roofs establish the theme (and the relationship to the main campus) but they also disguise the bulky, large nonwindowed conference and meeting rooms, bringing these elements down to a more pedestrian scale and mass. The sawtooth shapes and outside balconies convey the strong presence of activity desired. The verandas and the projection of active elements out into the quads and plaza provides support for campus center activities. The natural materials impart a regional flavor and bring a warmth and personalization to the Campus Center environmental character.

R-MA lCvjfcL>

A '*'< U* WWfc-
. Py-**-'
= =^ c=p *r
Urban Design Study
M.Aich Urban Des^'n Thesis UNversity of Colorado Denver PliiKp Helms Cook 1986
SB lti_m


June 4, 1985
TO: President William Baughn ________
FROM: Chancellor Harrison Shull
With the concurrence of Vice Chancellor Tedesco, I recommend that the following resolution be submitted for approval by the Board of Regents on May 16, 1985.
RESOLVED: That the Board of Regents authorize the Boulder Campus to proceed to revise its Master Plan in accordance with the concept of the University Research Campus Illustrative Plan dated April 11, 1985. Provided that any specific business transaction involving the use of the University Research Campus properties will be brought to the Board of Regents for their review and approval.
I. Present Site and Uses:
The site currently has a mix of research, service, housing and a combination of campus and city athletic facilities. It is an ideal location for expansion of campus facilities, especially those which would accommodate: (1) expanding research needs of the
Boulder Campus, (2) structured partnerships with public and private interests.
II. Goals/Objectives and Purpose:
To establish a University Research Campus as an area primarily devoted to research and related activities which would benefit the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the State of Colorado.
301 Regent Administrative Center Campus Box B17 Boulder. Colorado 80309 (303) *192-8908

University Research Campus
JUne 4, 1985
Page 2
To develop the University Research Campus with a campus like character to ensure its being (1) compatible with the existing Bbulder campus and (2) a visible and economic asset to the University, the Region and the State.
To encourage the establishment of research-related partnerships between the University and various entities in the public, private and non-profit sectors and also to provide for, encourage, and stimulate research and other significant initiatives of the University in joint relationships with tenants.
To expand and strengthen the University of Colorado-Boulder research base and its capabilities through direct linkages with public and private interests.
To create new opportunities for faculty, students, and graduates, while enhancing the University's ability to retain and recruit outstanding faculty.
To provide the University of Colorado-Boulder with an ability to utilize its resources for financing and creating a permanent long term fund designed to support and enhance scientific investigation, research, technological advance, and educational opportunities.
To strengthen the economic base of the State.
III. Development Phases and Strategies:
Development of The Research Campus should allow for maximum flexibility to accommodate needs and desires of both the University and potential partners and tenants.
Construction of buildings and facilities should accommodate future growth in order to maximize land use and needs of occupants.

University Research Campus
June 4, 1985
Page 3
IV. Research Campus Use Policy/Criteria for Occupancy:
The Research Campus is intended for development as a high quality, higher density research and technology campus designed to attract research programs and facilities. Under controlled conditions, multi-use
developments, compatible with campus occupants, will be encouraged. Tenants in The Research Campus must
demonstrate a desire for an on-going relationship with CU-Boulder and the University in areas or activities to include:
The conduct of activities which are classified as basic and applied research.
The conduct of activities which are classified as primarily product development.
The conduct of administrative functions related to any of the above.
The conduct of education and training activities.
Activities having a primary educational orientation or requiring substantial interaction with the University in the form of agreements or contracts for University services or resources.
Service activities to include business and employee services which are related primarily to research, development, and technology transfer which would benefit the University and the State.
The controlled conduct of light manufacturing compatible with research-related activities outlined above.
V. Campus Policy Committee:
The existing Boulder Campus Research Building System Board (Chancellor Shull, Chair and Vice Chancellors Lipetz, Howe, Ekstrand and Tedesco) will administer the program.

University Research Campus
June 4, 1J85
Page 4
VI. Campus Design and Physical Appearance:
The general character of the Research Campus shall be campus-like with emphasis on the natural characteristics of the site. A density of development should occur maximizing utilization of the limited acreage (200 acres) and yet allowing for adequate open space, accommodation of natural features and other significant landscape characteristics.
Design plans for facilities shall be reviewed by the University Design Review Board.
Lands within the University Research Campus shall be for the sole use of the occupant, user, owner, lessee or tenant. No tract of land different from that originally granted may be sold, leased or otherwise transferred by the occupant unless the transaction is approved by the Board of Regents.
VII. Financial Goals:
It is planned that development and management costs will be financed from a return on the investment expected to be earned from the University Research Campus.
Sources of funding to finance the Research Campus could include the following:
Existing Research Building System authorization or a new or other appropriate bonding authority.
Revenues received from a non-university developer on lease of land and sale or lease of buildings.

University Research Campus
June 4, 1985
Page 5
Sharing in percentage of revenues provided by venture capital firms which may assist in startup financing.
Equity positions in companies in lieu of seed money.
Obtaining royalties on products developed at the Research Campus.
VIII.Management and Marketing
The Vice Chancellor for Administration, through the Business and Government Relations Office, Boulder, will be responsible for managing the University Research Campus program.
Respectfully Submitted,
Harrison Shull Chancellor

(and other high-tech types)
Laboratories merit study not only because they represent a fast-growing market for architectural services, but because designing them forces architects and engineers to confront tough issuesones faced by designers of all building types:
How can buildingsinherently static keep up with an increasingly fastchanging society?
What happens to architecture when technological requirements must be considered first and foremost?
What, in the end, is a building anywaya network of spaces or a network of services and capabilities?
An analysis of design-objectives for todays laboratories and their relationship to more fundamental, architectonic questions begins on page 20. Calculations and details, from the desk of a firm specializing in laboratory design, follow on page 24. Finally, a presentation of a research study jointly funded by an A/E firm and a furniture manufacturer asks the deepest question of all: What are the limits of the relationship between a building and its occupancy? That story starts on page 30.
Summer iws 19

Testing Ground
by Mitchell B. Rouda
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES ARE EXPENSIVE, DEMANDING and fickle buildings. The activities they house and the spaces they require change often and unpredictably. These buildings demand intense mechanical and electrical supportrequirements that are at times unprecedented and may, themselves, change. And to meet the needs of creative yet sometimes dangerous experimentation, laboratories call for an environment that is both rigidly defined and adaptable.
Altogether, labs challenge architects to balance a wide range of conflicting and immutable design objectives. Perhaps because of this, they serve as a testing ground for many architectural advancesin such areas as energy conservation, utility distribution, environmental control, interpersonal communication and design standards. Laboratories compel architects to explore building flexibility, in terms of both space and systems. And as the productive life of a building grows shorter, labs force architects to wonder just how long a building should last.
Getting started
One of the most difficult parts of the laboratory design process is knowing where to start. Spaces and adjacencies need defining, of course. But in laboratories there are many disparate adjacency requirements. Materials move in one direction; samples, test data and personnel move in others. Waste materials travel independently. Flows of information between people and between equipment are an added complexity.
Compromising any of these flows may threaten the usefulness, safety or efficiency of the building. Nevertheless, because each flow depends on activities that are, by the very definition of experimentation, unknown, few can be established with confidence during the design phase. The search for a laboratory concept hinges, therefore, on the creation of a universal environment that can be adapted later to suit any eventuality.
Often, the most reasonable starting point for developing a building concept is the service delivery systema most unlikely place for architectural explorations to begin. Indeed, laboratory designers refer to the few prototypical models upon which most research facilities are based in terms of these service distribution networks.
Laboratory prototypes
The first laboratorieswhere Eastman, Edison and Bell made history
This article is based on a body of knowledge collected by several leaders in the field of laboratory design. The contributions of Fernand Dahan, AlA; Jerrold Koenigsburg; Martin D. Raab, FAIA, and Stanley Stark. AlA. are particularly appreciated.
20 Summer ms Architectural Technol(x;y
were merely large rooms in loft-type buildings. Furniture and measuring devices, not arrangements of space, defined the laboratory. Even as industry's investment in research grew and activities became more organized, little need was perceived for a unique building type.
In the '40s and '50s, when hundreds of industrial companies launched vast in-house research programs, patterns began to emerge. One of the most important of these was modular construction. It presented the first somewhat effective tool for making buildings flexible. The series of small workrooms that resulted from modular design also gave each scientist a kingdom, and that helped attract talent to industry from academia.
Laboratory modules became the building block for research facilities of all kinds. Designers focused less on ways to organize space and more on perfecting this fully-equipped, self-contained cell. The theory was that if a module contained all necessary mechanical, electrical and structural systems, then design" would entail only calculating the number of modules required and stringing them together with administrative and amenity spaces.
The laboratory module represented the smallest unit of working space that could economically contain a complete set of laboratory facilities and services. Its dimensions defined intervals for subdividing floors. The width of a typical module ranged from 6 to 12 feet. Lengths varied from 16 to 30 feet. Movable partitions, of metal or gypboard, could define single-module rooms or wider, multimodule areas.
Servicing these first-generation laboratories was equally standardized. Modules were strung along a double-loaded corridor. Repetitive service shafts lined this circulation path, one to a module, supplying services to all rooms in the building regardless of where partitions were placed (see Figure 1).
Figure i
1 Laboratory
2 Office
3 Fume Hoods
4. Toilet
5. Utility Shaft
6 Equipment Closets
A double-loaded corridor of laboratory modules characterized the typical "first-generation" laboratory plan. Shafts lined the circulation path delwenng services to all points in the building. Offices and communal arras were typically located in another wing.
illustrations by Stanley Start

In the 1960s, several changes in research methods caused designers to rethink many principles of the lab module concept. Emphasis on test reproducibility made documenting results and charting the experimental process as important as the discovery. This led, in turn, to a need for more desk space and more rigid ways of organizing lab areas. A series of regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency in the late 1970s, known collectively as the GLPs (good laboratory practices) amplified the need, in many industries, for a one-room-after-the-other" experimental path. Coupled with this was increased use of electronic testing equipment. Walk into virtually any unrenovated 1950s laboratory and these research changes are apparent: expensive bench space cluttered with papers, logs, reference materials and machinery.
Fortunately, these changes paralleled a surge in capital R&D spending by industry, a surge that has yet to peak. This second generation" building boom afforded architects and laboratory planners an opportunity to reconsider laboratory design.
Though not the first laboratories to exhibit second-generation char-
Figure 2
Kahn placed the service shafts for the Richards Medical Research Laboratory on the perimeter KEy of the buildingallowing more flexibility for
1 Laboratory internal change. But because each shaft
2 Animal Room serviced larger work areas, maintenance was
3 Air Shaft more disruptive.
acteristics, two laboratories designed by Louis Kahn are among the most famous. They also show that architects known for design can also pioneer significant technological advances.
Kahns Richards Medical Research Laboratory, opened at the University of Pennsylvanias Philadelphia campus in 1961, still distributed services vertically, but consolidated them into larger shafts (Figure 2). Instead of serving single laboratory modules, each shaft supplied a group of laboratories clustered around the service towers. Essentially, this increased the size of the planning module.
Of even greater importance, Kahn pulled these shafts away from the core of the building. His motivation was largely visual, but its by-product was easier rearrangement of internal spaces.
In his design for the Jonas E. Salk Institute, built in La Jolla, California, four years after the Richards lab, Kahn turned the service network, which he called servant space, horizontally, sandwiching it between floors. Piped services, air supplies and exhausts were run in these full-height interstitial floors (Figures 3a, 3b and 3c).
Using a truss system that spanned long spaces without intermittent supports, the Salk Institute's design permitted a whole new level of flexibility. Spaces could be made both longer and wider and service systems could be completely rearranged without disrupting laboratory work areas.
The service floor eliminated the need for placing shafts in every laboratory module, a redundancy necessary in earlier labs to cover unforeseen partitioning. With the interstitial scheme, only services needed at initial occupancy were supplied. Additional services could be added later, as required.
Todays patterns
Distributing lab services horizontally instead of vertically (whether in a full-height interstitial space or a thicker floor/ceiling sandwich) was a turning point. This idea, and variations of it, have become guiding principles for many systems now being constructed.
Some modem laboratories follow more traditional service patterns, either because of cost constraints or because less flexibility is necessary. Nevertheless, horizontal distribution above or below the laboratory work area, even if only to channel services from a central shaft into the module, continues to gain popularity.
To reduce the higher first-cost of interstitial floors, some laboratory planners have developed hybrid solutions. Others build off another modelitself a form of horizontal distribution system called the service corridor" scheme (Figure 4).
The economic significance of analyzing these models can be great. Mechanical costs can make up nearly half the construction cost of a facility, which prices out at $200 to $300 per square foot.
Operating expenses in a laboratory are equally high, particularly energy costs. Consumption is typically six or seven times that for a conventional office building. This is because labs are constantly broomed clean with a steady flow of air from other areas such as corridors. The air moves to the laboratory room and out through fume hoods. Air changes are frequent, and to prevent contamination, recirculation may be forbidden. In addition, to avoid backflows, air velocities across the face of the fume hoods must be maintained at high levels.
Architectural Technology Summer 1985 21

Shaping the indeterminate lab
Some new systems have been developed to reduce energy costs. Auxiliary air systems maintain the high velocity of air across the hood's face by delivering the make-up air right to the hood. This reduces the total volume of air that must be conditioned. Variable-air-volume controls increase the flow of air through the laboratory only when hoods are switched on.
Other changes
Regardless of service systems and distribution patterns, other aspects of laboratory planning are being questioned. One is room size and shapeparticularly in industries that do not require sealed
Figure 3a
3 1 3
5 r_-iLi[2ir ilj i 5
3 1 3
m n!2iriL_i lj
. f


Figure 3b
,...jra ra__g3 ga ra
I I -n J-1-1-1---1-1-i-r---1-, t -
Figure 3c

FV7 r
i3 63 63 63 6i
1 Laboratories
2 Mechanical Floor Interstitial Space
3 Open Loggia
4 Ottices
5 Corridor
6 Studies
7 Stairs Utility Rooms
8 Open Court
9 Bridge
At the Salk Institute, Kahn employed an interstitial scheme to distribute mechanical services and accommodate structure (section, Figure 3a). Research!office floors (plan, Figure 3b) alternated with mechanical equipment floors (plan, Figure 3c).
partitions for isolation. In many food laboratories and medical testing centers, large open rooms, with work spaces defined by furniture alone, have become more common.
Advantages are that large rooms encourage more communication between scientists, promoting teamwork. Like r>|>en office plans, open labs permit easy reconfiguration of work stations. Furniture systems, often constructed with electrical and piping raceways included, can be moved easily and serviced quickly. Placing as much service as possible in the domain of furniture t an also simplify maintenance. To laboratory directors, who know that many sophisticated laboratories require a level of maintenance practically impossible to procure, this is significant.
Even air handling can sometimes be provided in movable, snap-together components. This concept is demonstrated by the Brady System (developed for electronics clean rooms, where air-circulation requirements are most intense). As authors Steven Parshall, AIA, and Robert Knight point out in their article beginning on page 30, the speed with which such a system can lie installednot to
mention the increase in flexibility and capital-cost recoverability_
can alone justify this approach.
Perhaps the greatest proof of the trend towards flexibility within the laboratory module is the increasing availability of flexible labora-
22 Summer i98s Architectural Technology

tory furniture components, most including service support networks. Virtually every major manufacturer of laboratory casework now offers a line of flexible components.
Oddly, the net result of many of these changes is a contemporary lab design model not unlike the labs constructed more than a half century ago. large rooms with shaft-free floor areas, often called "open fields, recall the earliest loft spaces used by scientists. And using furniture and equipment rather than structural or mechanical systems to define a laboratory also recalls the older models (Figure 5).
More big questions
Though todays laboratory designers still focus much of their exploration on building systems that respond to heavy service demands and flexibility, two additional challenges have emerged in recent years to complicate laboratory design further. These new areas of concern raise still more questions that point to lessons for other building types.
The first of these challenges concerns an area always considered part of the architects purviewthe habitability of the environment.
Laboratories can present a hostile face; the rigors of the environment are matched by rigorous management control that often can make a lab a confining place to work in. Because of the processes and materials researchers work with, laboratories can indeed be hazardous places, or at least they might be if strict working procedures were not followed and if the building were made of softer materials or surfaces. Yet at the same time, it is in laboratories that we expect our societys greatest minds to perform their greatest work, and it becomes an architects responsibility to contribute to these talented workers motivation.
Clients want their laboratories to represent their companys vision of the future and at the same time portray a non-threatening image to neighbors.
The second challenge is a tougher one, if only because it lies outside the architects traditional role. It involves the relationship between building projects and larger corporate objectives.
The design of laboratories presents a company with some tough questions about its future, and the answers are not always available. Architects recount innumerable stories of projects put on hold after more than a year of programming and design. It seems the process of designing a laboratory raises more soul-searching than is usual for other building projects, and tough strategic decisions must often be made before proceeding.
There are always ways an architect can help in a company's strategic planning process, and one such method is described in a paper mentioned in the reading list on page 33. But regardless of whether or not architects dive into this "preprogramming" phase, all would do well to be wary of research projects undertaken for companies that lack a clear vision of their own futures. Those companies will have to face up to that lack of knowledge sooner or later hut not on the architects time.
Lessons Learned
How an architect is to grapple with a task as difficult as designing
industrial research facilities remains debatable. Some architects begin with space assumptions, others start with air-handling requirements. All will tell you the first point of departure is a long-term research management plan, but most report that, despite its importance, a plan is rarely available.
What seems most critical is that, no matter the starting point, somewhere along the course of the design process, thousands of issues must be explored from countless angles. Solutions that work well to the engineer may not meet the scrutiny of the industrial hygienist. Patterns that work well for laboratory administrators may fail to meet regulatory requirements. Solving all of these balances may throw energy consumption so far out of whack that the whole process will have to be started again.
If there is a lesson in all this, it involves the way experts in many fields can contribute to a programming process and then together develop a workable solution. No other building type offers such a strong case for an integrated design process, an argument not lost on the many architecture and engineering firms that are steadily increasing their share of the lab-design market.
That a buildings design may be rooted so heavily in the dictates of the engineer, the government, the corporate boardroom, the medical profession, the market and still other (sometimes unknown) forces is one of those big ideas few can afford to ignore.
Architectural Technology Summer i95 23

From Program to Design
by Stanley Stark, AIA
Laboratories are extremely comelex buildings that must respond to many constituenciesscientists, research administrators, managers, safety officers, engineers, the neighboring public and others. Often, agendas conflict.
At the same time, laboratories must adapt to unpredictable research directions and the physical requirements they may impose. A consensus on these directions is seldom reached. Accommodating change, whether technological or organizational, is therefore always a fundamental design requirement.
Lab design is where "push comes to shove has real meaning.
Goal setting drives programming. Programming drives design.
Design synthesizes all of the requirementsspace, service distribution and flexibilityand emerges with a lab unit and the patterns it generates. The issues of proximity, work flow, circulation and flexibility generate their own patterns which push back.
Nevertheless, the process must start with the fundamental charter of any R&D facility: supporting a research process while protecting the researcher and the environment.
The sketches on the following pages illustrate some of the factors that must be considered to get from program to concept (building size and space standards, office/lab relationships, utility distribution patterns and flexibility types) and from concept to design (lab layout, service delivery, safety, furniture and fume hoods).
Although not illustrated directly, the most poignant argument for responsible design concerns the need to reconcile habitability with the standardized, rigid R&D environment compelled by safety regulations and process control. The mandate to make R&D facilities amenable to the users and supportive of staff communications (vital to big team science) is overwhelming. Howfor examplecan corridors, daylight and support spaces be marshalled to create an attractive and productive workplace?
If it is the human assets that produce results, it is the supportive environment that sustains the effort and the interchange.
Stanley Stark, AIA, is an associate with Haines Lundberg Wachler, a New York City-based architecture, engineering and planning firm that specializes in the design of research facilities.
24 Summer hws Architectural Technology
Agendas and assumptions
Programming for a laboratory begins with a rigorous exploration of long-term research agendas. Then, a series of operational assumptions must be made. Three of the most critical are highlighted here: space standards, office/laboratory relationships and flexibility. Each may, in different cases, be a starting point for developing schematics.
This algorithm converts the figures shown below (based on laboratory work space to total building projections): first, the net area per person is multiplied by the projected number of staff. This figure, together with the space required for scientific support functions (related to
the specific research programs) and administrative support functions (related to the other structures and activities on the site) yields the net building area. Multiplying this by a "gross factor" of 1.6-1.8yields a gross building area" assumption.
(Predictable research functions)
Research Technicians Activity (Labs Only) Technicians & Scientists (Lab + Office) Total Lab Area Including Direct Scientific Support
Discovery 190 180 370
and Analytic 200 175 345
Pharma. Formulation & Development Labs only 175 150 340
Including Piloting 550-650
Chemical 220 180
Electronics and
Telecom. 200
illustrations courtesy Homes Lundberg WoeUer

Most laboratories employ variations of these three lab/office relationships. The scheme at left offers the advantages of daylight, close proximity to lab space and storage. But these offices may disrupt future changes, can be costly (with lab-type space used for less significant functions) and do not permit independent access to offices.
This arrangement still permits direct accessibility from lab to office, andby permanently dedicating a strip between corridor and lab roomswon't affect building expansion or reconfiguration. The offices have semi-independent access but lack windows (although the partition between office and lab could be glased).
Locating offices across a corridor from the laboratory allows both spaces to have access to daylight, but tends to elongate the building and decreases flexibility. This arrangement provides independent access to the office, but sacrifices the direct relationship to lab space.
eeauKrtMt? containment
5UITI: surrt
Lab designers think of flexibility in four ways: expandability (building growth), convertibility (building reconfiguration), versatility (change within the room) and interchangeability
(furniture system modification). The lab wing m the drawings above permits different occupancies, illustrating three of the four types of flexibility.
Architectural Technology Summer i9ss 25

.JIT The laboratory unit
Although R&D activities typically require many diverse spaces, the typical laboratory unit represents a basic, repetitive space common to most research buildings. It greatly affects the development of building structure and servicing modules. Typically, laboratory unit layouts develop as a function of:
Process functions
Office/laboratory relationships
Circulation patterns
Attitude to daylight access
Typical laboratory furniture and equipment
The laboratory layout shown on this and subsequent panes represents only one o f many possible layouts. It illustrates the relationship between overlapping systems of use. furniture. service, structure and safety.
The length is governed by the size of the fume hoods. 16 feet of benching, a technicians desk and cross-circulation.
The width represents an effective center-to-ccntcr dimension for laboratory bench service strips.
The reflected ceiling plan illustrates how the laboratory ceiling relates to the laboratory layout plan.
This plan illustrates how the dimensional grids are broken
down to deliver services to each laboratory in an integrated pattern. It also shows the relationships between furniture, lighting, sprinklers and supply and exhaust registers for 11 VAC.
26 Summer i95 Architectural Technology

The relationship between the floor framing structure and lab furniture establishes the position for floor slots used to deliver piped services.
Benches and service strips
run parallel to structural ribs to gain maximum clear area for floor openings. Service strips are centered between structural nbs to limit interference with the structure.
Services in a laboratory unit are delivered to the bench via pipes housed in service strips. Pipes may come down from the ceiling or up through the floor.
Safety considerations within the lab unit are indicated by stars: I) the placement of fume hoods (Fill away from egress and circulation patterns: 2) maintaining a ft-foot aisle width, which eases passage without inviting in-aisle storage: 31 vented sol-
vent storage cabinets (VSC) for storage of ftammables: 4) two means of egress: 5) an eyewash Architectural Technology Summer i985 27

Laboratory furniture
All the changes made to building configurations and lab unit layouts over the life cycle of a research facility ultimately translate to work station changes at the bench. The bench also culminates the long chain of service delivery and represents a critical component of environmental control efforts.
The result is a series of conflicting requirements for durability, stability, surface strength and versatility. Choosing a laboratory furniture system requires evaluation of each of these goals, and also consideration of product availability and compatibility with other types of furniture that may be present in the building.
Conventional lab furniture, often called casework, offers stability, durability and various storage configurations and surface types. However, it is usually not movable. Shown:
Bench by Duralab Equipment Company.
tACKfrOUU? -

,e "Flexible" laboratory furniture can be easily reconfigured. Storage components can be separated in varying ways from the bench top and the structural supports of the service strip. Some brands offer more stability and fewer seams than others. Shown: Multiflex by Hamilton Industries.
These hybrid systems pair a fixed service strip with assorted
are inevitable, and the unit must remain stationary, but
conventional tables and storage components can be easily inler-
units on locking casters. Seams changed.
28 Summer ms Architectural Technol J

Fume hoods
Fume hoods are ventilated work cabinets where researchers experiment with substances that could prove toxic. A laminar (low of air washes across the face of the hood to an exhaust vent inside protecting researchers from fumes. But the amount of air required (see chart) and the frequent requirement that none be recirculated poses a number of design challenges.
If the air required to maintain velocities across the hood (make-up air) is supplied through the buildings HVAC system, it all must be conditioned, increasing energy costs. Auxiliary air (unconditioned air supplied near hoods) can be effective, but can create drafts that disturb the researcher and cause turbulence that can compromise oneway air flow. Turbulence must also be considered in the placement and use of all fume hoods.
txUAllST PUCT COUAIC ppirriat or rixrUM
uckti^ rixnJut n- PASS CAJLL6 winet few uwr
woHjzontal uPiHe
iMsiee or ttoop
CoilM T&f.T r rov/ipe Her* piltw i Hcusims few. aacvxgtive r.n. onL-r
4 ~4~]
r\ / ** n
Lr -r-z-j.
r , -I r- uifj rC^WPCAffM
o ''^en.veM V. 1 sirwAft

DiirtEx oun-er
cur SHIC
cur siMk.
vurr ripe, ft*. VEWpLArK fuse CAOMCTS
Limiting the face opening of the hood is one way to maintain high face velocity without greatly increasing the amount of air that must be supplied to the lab room.
- eXHAUe4 ceWMEcrioM
NF PA-56
Scientific Apparatus
ASHRAE Handbook
Face Velocity Must be Sufficient to Prevent Escape of Contaminants
100 FPM average
100 FPM average
100 FPM average
Akchitectukai. Technology Summer tans 29

Following an extensive planning study, the Government of Canada approved the creation of the Industrial Material Research Institute (IMRI) in 1978. Public Works Canada was charged to administer the construction of a laboratory building in Boucherville, a suburb of Montreal which is not far from other research centers in the area. The new Institute, a division of the National Research Council of Canada, was to serve the needs of the Canadian industry in research 4 development in the technology of industrial 4 engineering materials, and work hand in hand with industry and other research institutes both in private 4 public sectors, as well as with universities.
Public Works Canada proceeded according to its "Project Delivery System", first going ahead with a study to choose an appropriate site, then establish the architectural program. IMRI cooperated with the programming consultants to establish the main requirements which were based on several hypotheses as well as the practice 4 the experience of other research centers.
An interdepartmental working relationship was established between National Research Council Canada, Public Works Canada 4 Supply 4 Services Canada: a Steering Committee and a Project Management Team were formed. Architects, engineers 4 several specialized consultants were hired and started work in February 1980. Almost three and a half years later, IMRI will be occupying its new building. Meanwhile the Institute has been organized, staffed, equipped and started operations in temporary facilities (in an old postal storage building in Montreal).
The architectural design
The program called for a 12 000 m facility with five distinct
1. Administrative areas,
2. Auxiliary areas,
3. Laboratory areas,
4. Pilot scale laboratory areas and
5. Common services.

- 2 -
The architect came up with a simple and straightforward design where a central mall acts as a spine and ties together the different areas. Thus, a triangular 2-storey volume houses the administration offices on the first floor, and the main conference hall (200 seats, divisible into 5 rooms) on the ground floor, and with its form 4 large glazed facade, helps to signal the building 4 the main entrance. An opposing truncated triangle, with a central position, has the library on the ground floor, the management offices and space for the possible extension of the library on the first floor. Laboratories are located in two interconnected identical 2-storey wings, while the pilot scale laboratories are grouped in a big 24 x 99 x 10 m volume along the mall. Workshops, storage areas, receiving and shipping facilities as well as a cafeteria (72 places) and an emergency clinic are in a separate wing at 45 with the mall, on the opposite side of the large scale labs.
The laboratories are based on a module of 3,2 x 7,5 m (axis to axis). There are 96 such modules in groups of 12 (back to back), and laboratories can be formed by any combination of those 12 modules. Concrete block walls can be easily added or knocked down as required. On opposite sides of the labs, across the corridors are the researchers' offices, conference rooms, etc (116 units).
Technical shafts on the corridor side of the labs bring up the plumbing services which then can be extended in the labs as required. Electrical services are provided in busbars alongside the walls and at the ceiling.
A modular and completely inter-changeable and removable furniture has been chosen.
When fully staffed, the Institute will be able to accomodate 210 people (165 employed by IMRI and 45 visiting scientists and guest workers), with the following categories:

- 3 -
Administration and Services Library
Researchers and Professional Associates Technicians
Both laboratory wings as well as all other areas can be extended to double the size of the Institute in the future.
The land is located along the Montreal-Quebec City highway, where the building is very visible. Enough parking space is provided for employees (160) and visitors (AO), and there is ample ground for open-air testings and storage, if need be. A summary of spaces is included.
Other aspects
- Structural:
The design load on the lab slabs is more than 5 kN/m (100
lbs/sq.ft) for the first floor, and is 25 kN/m2 (500 lbs/sq.ft) for the ground floor, with a concentrated load of 3 600 kg (8 000 lbs) on a 1 x 1 m area. In the large scale labs the colomn span is 9 m in one direction and 9 + 15 in the other. In these latter spans there is a 10 t (metric) crane in the 15 m span, and the possibility to build a mezzanine in the 9 m span.
- Mechanical:
Energy conservation has been a very important consideration in this project. With extensive glazing on the south side, with
heat-recuperation systems and with a careful study of all mechanical systems, the end result is a very energy-efficient building which will require little heating, if any, even on the coldest days.
There are several ventilating systems in the labs. The first one, the general heating and air-conditioning system is based on individual heat pumps for each lab or lab module. This ensures

- 4 -
complete flexibility of usage. Then there is the negative pressure system, to prevent fumes and odours getting outside the labs. Individual fans are provided for fumes hoods which are of the add-air type. Finally, an emergency evacuation system can clean the air in a matter of minutes. Two labs have controlled atmosphere (ASTM Standards ANSI/ASTM E 171-63r 1972). Similarly, the large scale labs have a number of systems to cope with the different requirements.
As for the plumbing, hot and cold water, cooling water, nitrogen, natural gaz and compressed air are distributed throughout the laboratories.
- Electrical;
The building can satisfy a demand of 2400 kW (eventually 3500 kW), 120/208 and 600 voltages are standard.
- Telecommunications & controls:
The Institute is provided or can be provided with regular telephone, intercom, data lines as well as controls for mechanical services, alarmed doors, detection of malfunctions in the testings, heat and fume detection, etc.
- Cost:
See attached table.
Our addresses:
Industrial Materials Research Institute National Research Council of Canada
in temporary facilities:
750, rue Bel-Air, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4C 2K3 Tel: (514) 935-8513
and after October 1983
75, Boul. de Mortagne, Boucherville, Quebec, Canada J4B 5K5 Tel: (514) 641-2280

1. Administrative Areas 321
Management 102
Administration 199
Services 20
2. Auxiliary Areas 933
Salle de conference 192
Library 546
Cafeteria 165
Services 30
3. Laboratory Areas 3 528
Laboratories (93 modules) 2 033
Storage rooms 275 -
Offices 4 conference rooms 1 079
(116 modules)
Services 82
4. Large Scale Laboratory Areas 3 125
Large Scale Laboratories 2 347
Workshop 303
Stores 475
5. Common Services 346
Garage 4 reception 217
Emergency Clinic 72
Services 57
Connected Areas (circulation, mech., elect., etc.) 3 741
Net Area/Gross Area Ratio 69/100
Total Land 140 000 m2
Area of Building on Ground Floor 8 652
AREA of Building on 1st Floor 3 432
Ratio of Built Land/Total Land

(as of February 1st, 1983
Contract #1 Excavations <£ foundations 283 518
2 Structure 1 916 273
3 General 12 582 909
4 Lanscaping 1 108 000
Total $
Cost With Equipment
per square meter $ 2 057
per square foot $ 191
Cost Without Equipment
per square meter $ 1 557
per square foot $ 145
1 817 044 566 500
15,890 700 400 756
6 000 000
24 675 000

Flexibility of Laboratory Space
1 1 x(l9,2x14,8)m
2. 12x( 3,0x 7,3)01
a 6 x( 6,2 x 7,3) m
4. 1x( 6,2 xl4,8)m 2x(12,6 x 7,3 )m
5. 1X( 3,0 x 7,3)m 1X( 9,4 x 7,3) m 1x( 6,2x14,8)m 2x( 6,2 x 7,3)m
12 x( 3,0 x 7,3)m

2x( 6,2 x 7,3)m 1x( 3,0 x 7,3 )m
1x( 9,4 x 7,3) m

1x( 6,2 x14,8)m
Industrial Materials
Research institute
National Research Council
September 1982 V.A.A.

Relationship of different areas Site and Building
Exterior nil Interior areas
6.5.3 6.5.2 6.5.1 6.4.2 6.4.1 CO <£> eg CD T CD
Main Entrance D B A D D D D D
1.1 Management D C B D C D D D
1.2 Administration D C B D C D D D
1.3 Services D C B D C D D 0
2.1 Conference rooms D C B D B D D D
2.2 Library D C C C B D D D
2.3 Cafeteria D c C B A D D D
2.4 Services D c C B B D 0 D
3.1 Laboratories C c c C C C Bc Bc
3.2 Stores C c c C C C Bc Bc
3.3 Offices C c c C C C Bc Bc
3.4 Services C c c C C C C C
4.1 Large Scale Labs C D D D D C A A
4.2 Workshops C D D D D C B B
4.3 Main Stores C D D D D C B B
5.1 Receiving and Garage B D D D D B B B
5.2 Emergency Clinic B C C C C D D D
5.3 Services C C C C C B B B
6.1 Outdoor Test Areas C C D D D B A n
6.2 Outdoor Storage c C D D D B
6.3 Building Services B B D D D
6.4.1 Terrace D C C B
6.4.2 Recreation Areas D c C
6.5.1 Visitors Parking D A
6.5.2 Staff Parking D
6.5.3 Service Parking
CO CV| T-' oo cst to 01 IS co eg co oj -
Kiioine^voricoripipicilpir *- ^
D C D D D D c B D B B B B A A A B
C C C C C D c Bc c Bc D A C B B B
C C B C C D c Bc C c D C C C B
C C C C C D c C c c C C C C
D D D D D D c C D c B B B
D D D D D D c C D c B B
C C B C C C c C c c B
C C C C C C c C c c
Bc Bc C CB CB Bc B A Ab
Bc Bc B B c C C C
C C C C c CB B
B B B A A A : Contiguity, direct access required
B B B A C : Proximity not necessary
B B B D : Separation required

October 1979 V.A.A.
Industrial Materials Research Institute
National Research Council

General Function Diagram
Site and Building
Industrial Materials
Research Institute
NOTE: These relationships do not reflect the geographic location of the site, nor the dimensions and the arrangement of the different elements.
National Research Council
Canada October 1979 V.A.A.

General Function Diagram
arrangement of the different elements.
Industrial Materials National Research Council
Research Institute Canada
October 1979 V.A.A.

General Function Diagram
Management/Administration circulation
Industrial Materials National Research Council
Research Institute Canada
October 1979 V.A.A.

General Function Diagram
Researchers circulation
Industrial Materials National Research Council
Research Institute Canada
October 1979 V.A.A.

General Function Diagram
Technicians circulation
NOTE: These relationships do not reflect the geographic location of the site, nor the dimensions and the
Heavy circulation Medium circulation Light circulation

8 m i *
4.1 t.i
arrangement of the different elements.
Industrial Materials National Research Council
Research Institute Canada
October 1979 V.A.A.

General Function Diagram
Service circulation
Industrial Materials National Research Council
Research Institute Canada
October 1979 V.A.A.

General Function Diagram
Visitors circulation
arrangement ot the different elements.
Industrial Materials National ResearfT Council
Research Institute Canada October 1979 V.A.A.


University Research Campus Boulder, Colorado
Urban Des 1 cgn Studies :
Karle Seydel, Project Coordinator Mark r_,oet>
Paul S s nmi ncg Yeh He sham Tswfilc
Victor Yang ChiaCheng
Dovelopment Strategy:
Phillip Helms Coo hr Architect Partner, Danie1 Crow Interests
Frojeot Fs.olllts.tor:
Coinn M Frosser, A. 1 A. Frofessor
Will i sm E WenJc AS E A Esncdsos]p>e Arolriteot

1. INTRODUCTION: The Research Campus Context
National Trends of University-Affiliated Research Campus Developments...............................
Regional Attributes and Market Attraction for University Research Parks.........................
University of Colorado's Competitive Advantage...
Research Campus Goals, Objectives and Purposes...
Interdisciplinary Research Campus Design Studio-Purpose and Approach..............................
University Facilities and The Research Campus........
Introduction Facility Linkages Regional Access Adjacent Land Use
Planning and Architectural Considerations............
Views and Visual Characteristics Existing Facilities
Engineering Considerations...........................
Floodplains/Floodways Floodway Modification Natural Features
Geotechnical Considerations..........................
Transportation and Access Considerations.............
Road Capacities and Site Access
Anticipated Circulation and Access Improvements Bikeways
Boulder's Alternative Transportation Consciousness
University Development Program Concerns Land Use
Campus Design and Physical Appearance Development Phases and Strategies Transportation and Access

Buildable Area Site Suitabilities..................
Site Planning Module.................................
Building Orientation.................................
Density of Development/Building to Land Ratios.......
Land Use and Architectural Considerations............
Research Facilities Incubators
Conference Center/Support Facilities and Amenities
Subdivision of Lands and Absorption Rates............
Architectural Modules................................
Plan A:
Design Framework.....................................
Land Use Concept.....................................
Subdivision of Lands and Flexibility
Illustrative Site Plan...............................
Campus Center Concept Density of Development Building Heights Phasing
Campus Center Research Building Prototype Plan B:
Design Framework.....................................
Land Use Concept.....................................
Illustrative Site Plan...............................
Research Building Prototype Housing System Prototype
A. Existing Facility Inventory Summary
B. Floodway Modifications
C. Site Suitabilities

1. None
2. Ranking of Regional Attributes Sought After by High-Technology Companies
3. University Attributes Sought After by High-Technology Companies
4. Site Location Boulder Valley Area
5. Planning Process
6. Research Campus Vicinity Map
7. Site Analysis
3. Existing Floodway Limits
9. Traffic Volume and Circulation
10. Buildable Area
Site Plan A:
11. Design Frameword
12. Land Use Concept
13. Illustrative Site Plan
14. Land Use Density Analysis
15. Building Heights
16. Phasing
17. Phasing Impact on Existing Facilities
18. Research Building Prototype Site Plan B:
19. Design Framework
20. Land Use Concept
21. Illustrative Site Plan
22. Research Building Prototype
23. Housing Prototype


Background Research Campus Development Context
National Trends for University Affiliated Research Campus
There are currently 24 university-related research centers under development, 16 in predevelopment, five in planning stages and two completed of the total of 47. Three-fourths of these have been initiated since 1980. Public and private research complexes in the U.S. now number over 150, while in 1980 there were half this number.
The research campus/park phenomenon that is sweeping the nation's universities is a reflection of long-term shifts in the industrial structure, demographic trends and changes in the government's role in the economy regarding the funding of education, research and development. The prevailing societal changes influencing university operations can be summarized as follows:
A. The American economy's growing dependence on international
The response to foreign competition has been to emphasize more strongly the development of new processes, products and technologies.
Industry is turning to universities for assistance in basic research and the development of technology.
Government is increasingly considering universities as the vehicle for community economic assistance by way of "technology transfers."
B. High growth rate for jobs in the service and high tech
The baby boom surge in labor supply is over. Thus, labor intensive technologies must be replaced with capital intensive technologies of production.
The American economy is becoming more dependent on research and technological innovation for economic growth, reinforcing the need for industrial ties with academe.
C. Declining student enrollments and funding for education.
Universities are in che position to sell their ideas
to industry in return for cash to support basic research and education which enables them to remain competitive nationally with other universities.
D. The changing circumstances in the funding of research.
Uncertainty over the future of federal support for basic research.

The threat of growing obsolescence of facilities and equipment is causing universities to explore alternative sources of finances.
Increasingly, states are acting as a catalyst to closer university industry ties by providing "centers of excellence," incubator facilities and seed money for entrepreneurial companies starting up from university research activities.
E. Public policy encouraging ties between business and academe.
A national tax policy to stimulate rapid expansion of
R and D partnerships amoung industries and universities.
Antitrust laws applicable to research ventures modified to encourage joint research ventures.
A move to uniform patent policies. (Specifically, universities now can retain patent rights on products and processes developed from federally-funded research.)
Potential sales of development rights produce powerful incentive for universities to seek closer ties with industry.
The adoption of more generous tax write-offs of equipment grants to unversities.
Similarily, the shift in structural, demographic and public policy of the American economy has caused American businesses to focus greater emphasis on technological innovation. In both instances, this is a durable, long-term trend. Thus, industry is willing and eager to improve relations with those universities that can provide immediate basic research at very competitive costs. Unless unforeseen factors emerge to reverse this pattern, expansion of the university research campus/park phenomenon can be expected to continue in the decade ahead.

Regional Attributes and Market Attraction for University
Research Parks
A 1982 survey based upon 612 responses from companies, selected for their committment to research and development and product development through improved technology, identified the characteristics of communities that attract technology intensive industries (see figure 2). The respondents reported that the quality of the region's labor force, its overall tax and regulatory environment and the proximity to a quality university were among the most important attributes of the regions where they chose to locate and where they plan to construct new facilities.
In the JEC survey, about 74% of the high tech companies considered proximity to a university system in choosing a location Proximity to a university ranked fourth, behind the availability of labor, the cost of labor and taxes. Nearly 60% of the respondents listed proximity to a university system as "significant" or "very significant" in choosing sites. Thus, the hypothesis that the university/high tech industries connection is very important is borne out by the JEC survey.
Subsequent studies have extended and reinforced that conclusion The Fantus Company, a Chicago-based consulting firm specializing in plant location, examined companies just starting and companies in early development. According to these studies, the importance of a technically trained labor force and a strong university system appear to be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the emergence of high tech complexes. Other important attributes of a community are:
Good, moderately priced housing within an acceptable commuting distance.
High quality elementary and secondary schools.
Reasonable standards and costs of living.
A wide range of cultural and recreational activities.
An area attractive to university graduates and other scientific and technical personnel.
High technology firms also consider the overall business environment and the specific support for scientific, research and high technology production. They tend to emphasize several business related factors:
The flexibility to expand in and near the park at a competitive cost.

Ranking of Regional Attributes Attractive to High- Technology Companies
Rank Attribute Significant or Very Significant
1 Labor Skills/Availability 89.3%
2 Labor Costs 72.2
3 Tax Climate within Region 67.2
4 Academic Institutions 58.7
5 Cost of Living 58.5
6 Transportation 58.4
7 Access to Markets 58.1
8 Regional Regulatory Practices 49.0
9 Energy Costs/Availability 41.4
10 Cultural Amenities 36.8
11 Climate 35.8
12 Access to Raw Material 27.6
Source: Robert Premus, Location of High-Technology Firms and Regional Economic Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 1982).

University Attributes Sought After by High-Technology Companies1
Rank University Attributes Important or Somewhat Important
1 College Graduates 95.9%
2 Degree Programs for
Employees 92.1
3 Access to Libraries and
Information Systems 85.5
4 Cultural Activites 69.0
5 Faculty Consultants 66.7
6 Faculty Research Activity 57.8
7 Access to Laboratories 52.3
8 Part-time Teaching Oppor-
tunities for Employees 22.3
'Includes only the 512 companies that indicated physical proximity to a university system affected their choice of location.
Source: Robert Premus, Location of High-Technology Firms and Regional Economic Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1982).

Pleasant surroundings and the absence of incompatible land uses on or near the site.
The availability of starter and/or incubator facilites, either in the community or in the park.
The existence of a nucleus or expanding pool of high technology industries and services.
A favorable business climate in terms of public incentives to incoming industry, the costs of operating a business and the state of labor/management relations.
Design standards and review proceedures.
Preeminent though is public/private policy. The cooperation among federal, state, local and private institutions is essential in creating the allied incentives necessary for a successful research center.
The present university-wide system supports a number of programs that are potentially beneficial to high tech companies.
The JEC survey bears out the thesis that high technology companies are drawn to a university environment offering academic, research and cultural amenities (see figure 3). Yet realization of the importance of these attractions depends upon how well university resources are established and promoted.
The high tech firms responding ranked cultural amenities, available as the result of the presence of a major university system, just below a university's academic attributes. Interestingly, the firms rated the university's cultural activities above the community's cultural amenities as a factor affecting choice of location (see figure 3}).
The most unique finding is the comparatively low ratings given to a university's research attributes. Faculty consultants, faculty research and publications and access to laboratories were rated as "important" or "somewhat important" by 67%, 58% and 52% of the respondents, respectively. While these ratings are high enough to suggest that they are important, they are nevertheless considerably below the ratings given a university's academic and cultural amenities. This finding has important implications for public policy. First, it suggests that the academic mission of the university has an important role in a state's or region's successful economic development strategy. Secondly, is stands as a warning to those states and regions that are attempting to expand universities' research capabilities at the expense of academic and cultural activities. Although a good academic environment is also a good research environment, over emphasizing

research activities at the expense of other university functions may actually detract from the region's appeal as a location for high tech industries. Thirdly, the finding suggests that revenue accruing to the university from corporate ties should be a source of revenue to support the university's academic and cultural activities, as well as supporting the research that gives rise to the corporate revenues. The central point is that the business community values universities primarily for the quality education programs they provide and for the students they generate.

University of Colorado's Research Campus A Competitive Advantage in the Boulder Valley
With few exceptions, the University of Colorado and Boulder Valley combine to provide nearly all the qualities described as regional/community and academic attributes in the prior section of this report. A listing of some of the outstanding industry and research facilities having already located in the environs of Boulder provides an indication of the University's influence and Boulder's attraction (see Exhibit 4 for location):
1) BALL Corporation-Aerospace Research Division
2) Syntax Chemical Research
3) NBI
4) IBM
5) Valleylab, Inc.
6) BEECH AIRCRAFT Corporation
7) National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
8) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
9) Rockwell International
10) Storage Technology Corporation
11) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Only two of the top 20 companies/employers in the Boulder area
are not involved in some form of high technology industry.
Although Boulder is home to diverse industry, those particularily strong m the vicinity are computer, space related, electronic, biomedical and manufacturing industries. The University's research strengths are complementary: pharmaceuticals, high tech computers, agri-genetics, space technology, robotics, molecular, cellular and developmental biology and electrical and computer engineering.
The labor force is young, well educated and well paid. Ninety seven point seven percent have a high school education or better, 20% have five or more years of higher education. The talent pool at large, high tech companies is rich enough to spin-off creative individuals to form new companies.
The University is the major research university in the Rocky Mountain Region and has significant government as well as private industry-sponsored research. Considered a "public ivy" university, it ranks m the top 28 research universities in the nation 17th

among public universities in grants and contracts. The University ranks 19th in federal research funding; 11th among public universities.
Cultural activities and recreational amenities abound at University, metropolitan and city facilities and in their programs. The mountain backdrop to the city and the attention in planning to human scale concerns provide the city with an image of a quality environment in an attractive setting that includes year round recreation. The tax environment in Colorado is comparatively favorable to industry. Seven venture capital firms are located in the Valley to financially encourage research manufacturing and incubating industry.
Elementary and secondary school students continually have higher schores on national scholastic exams, attesting to the quality of Public Schools. Several private alternative schools also exist in the Valley for educational options suited to Boulder's diverse population.
The research campus/park site (see Exhibit 4) is located in the geographic center of the Boulder Valley. Regionally, Denver itself and Stapleton International Airport with over 20 carriers is within a 45 minute direct drive via freeways. Within 10 or 20 minutes respectively are Boulder and Jeffco Airports which provides executive aircraft facilities.
The property is bordered by residential, regional commercial and industrial land uses. Sufficient industrially zoned lands are available in the Boulder Valley (see Exhibit 4) for expansion of research and manufacturing facilities unable to be accomodated on or restricted from the research campus. The central location of the site provides diverse housing opportunities available within a short walking or commuting distance.
While more specific criteria of the Research Campus/Park will be discussed in a latter section of this report, and the above descriptions of the university's and Boulder's attributes are broadly stated, the previous discussion should provide sufficient indication that numerous factors inducive to such a high tech research facility location are in place.

Researcn Campus Development Goals, Objectives and Purposes
The University has long been recognized for the value of its research expertise as well as for its close associations with business and industry. Since WWII, it has been fortunate to expand its research activities and attract new facilities to the Boulder Valley. In 1963 the University jointly produced a report with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce which analyzed the "Development of An Industrial Research Park for the Boulder Area," in which it was recommended that the East Campus property be identified for use as a research park. Since then several sponsored research labs have been built in the Marine Street Research Park and integrated into the developing University and city high tech facilities.
Faced with increasing uncertainty over the future of federal support for basic research and in consideration of other national trends mentioned earlier, the University of Colorado has taken a closer look at its land assets and academic goals. In particular, attention has been given to the status of its research needs and the potential for continued Research Campus development.
In 1984 the University contracted with the architectural and planning firm of Pouw Associates to examine the suitability of the Research Campus site for future program development. This process led to the determination that the site was an ideal location for expansion of campus R and D operations. An "Illustrative Site Development Plan" was then prepared and presented to the University in May, 1985. Soon after this date the University articulated the following goals/objectives and purposes as a framework for planning the Research Campus:
To establish a University Research Campus as an area primarily devoted to research and related activities which would benefit the University of Colorado at Boulder and the State of Colorado.
To develop the University Research facilities within a campus-like character to ensure its being; 1) compatible and complementary with the existing Boulder campus and 2) a visible and economic asset to the University, the city, the region and the state.
To encourage the establishment of research-related partnerships between the University and various entities in the public, private and non-profit sectors and also to provide for, encourage and stimulate research and other significant initiatives of the University in joint relationships with tenants.

To expand and strengthen the University of Colorado,
Boulder research base and its capabilities through direct linkages with public and private interests.
To create new opportunities for faculty, students and graduates, while enhancing the University's ability to retain and recruit outstanding faculty.
To provide the University of Colorado, Boulder with an ability to utilize its resources for financing and creating a permanent long term fund designed to support
and enhance scientific investigation, research, technological advance and educational opportunities.
Currently the University is seeking a consultant to aid in the development of financial and marketing strategies for the Research Campus. The preparation of documents from such a study will be of great value in bringing Research Campus planning closer to the final design stage.

Interdisciplinary Research Campus Design Studio Purpose and
During the fall of 1985, six graduate students undertook an interdisciplinary design studio project at the University of Colorado, Denver. Their Professor was John M. Prosser of the College of Design and Planning. This report reflects the nature and scope of the project studied by planning, architecture and urban design students.
The intent of this studio project was to examine site factors, define development program requirements and articulate alternative design schemes for the University Research Campus. This report is to provide a source of information that justifies preliminary alternative plans which are workable within a hypothetical development economic strategy that will assist the University in more specific future campus planning efforts.
As described below and as illustrated in Figure 5, the project was completed in five phases:
Research Campus Development: This phase involved a survey and summary of literature available on the marketing of other communities or facilities that have attracted high tech industries, the City of Boulder market attributes and University Research Campus history.
Site Inventory and Analysis: This phase involved a review and summary of existing site data, field investigations and an analysis of current conditions to identify constraints and opportunities for development on the Research Campus.
Site Development Program: Based on data from the previous phases and additional research into architectural and plan programming concerns, a site development program framework was established for Alternative Illustrative Plans.
Alternative Site Development Plans: Utilizing findings from prior stages, a series of design criteria and concepts are translated into two alternative plans for Research Campus development.
Development Strategy: A hypothetical model for financing the campus Research Park is proposed for the lower density alternative scheme.


Site Inventory and

Si-te Inventory and Analysis Introduction
The site inventory and analysis summarizes the man-made and environmental factors that effect the location, intensity and type of development planned for the Research Campus. It addresses the salient elements of the Pouw Associates' Site Inventory and Analysis Phase One Summary Report, August 1984, and this report should be referred to for more detailed and technical background on engineering, geotechnical and transportation concerns. The combined analysis identifies constraints and opportunities of the site elements and their implications for planning and development of the Research Campus.

University Facilities and the Research Campus Context
Facility Linkages
As illustrated in Figure 6, the proposed Research Campus completes a triangle of University facilities: Williams Village, Main Campus and the Research Campus. These facilities are conveniently located within one-half mile of each other.
With Main Campus land area for new development becoming scarce and the raw land at Williams Village restricted to residential uses, the Research Campus provides an ideal opportunity for expansion and relocation of University facilities.
The short distances between facilities are linked by clear routes. Colorado Avenue serves as the primary gateway to and between the Research and Main Campuses. The University's strongest research endeavors are housed in buildings that line and/or anchor the western end of the Colorado Avenue connection (see Figure 6). This increases the potential for strong visual and functional ties between the Main Campus and the Research Campus and provides an opportunity for continuity of University uses along Colorado Avenue.
Thirtieth Street provides a main tie between the Williams Village Complex and the Research Campus. Thirty fifth Street could also serve this function as development occurs at Williams Village and on the Research Campus, but would likely generate resistance from the single family residential neighborhood if it were proposed for anything but pedestrian and/or bicycle path uses. Subsequently, this potential linkage should be deemphasized.
A great opportunity exists to reinforce the relationship among the three University facilities by the natural channels of Boulder, Bear and Skunk Creeks. These greenways could physically tie University facilities with attractive pedestrian and bicycle routes along these corridors.
Regional Access
The Research Campus, centrally located in Boulder, is conveniently located along the city's primary north-south freeway, the Foothills Highway. Arapahoe is adjacent to the property on the north and serves as the primary east-west arterial for the city.

Adjacent Land Use
The Research Campus is typical of long held University lands across the country in that the community in which they lie has expanded around them. In this instance, the surrounding land use developments and the properties between University facilities are predominantly medium and high density residential (see Exhibit 5).
Adjacent to the Research Campus on the south and to the western end of Colorado Avenue is a high density condominium complex approximately 35' in height. On the eastern end are heavier density residential apartments. Betwen these areas is vacant land proposed for medium density residential development.
To the west of the site across 30th Street, the Research Campus is bounded by Scott Carpenter Park to the north of Boulder Creek and a multi-family residential development to the south.
At the far southern end of 30th, older single-family homes used for private student housing is located on a bluff above 30th Street.
The eastern edge of the property across the Foothills Highway is open space. Medium density residential development lies beyond this significant broad open space frontage, and a series of mature trees acts as a strong visual separation between uses.
Across the northern edge of the Research Campus, along Arapahoe Road, is a mix of extensive, light industrial and commercial uses. The area is the southwest corner of Boulder's largest district zoned for industrial use an important and appropriate neighborhood for the Research Campus (see Figure 4). The "backdoors of commercial uses adjacent to the existing Marine Street facilities should, in large part, be screened from campus view, creating a hard edge at this property line.
In general, the existing surrounding land uses set a precedent of intensive activity. However, the visual impact of these lands on the campus is mostly positive. Future campus development would have few limitations, though proposed activites should be harmonious with the perimeter conditions.

Planning and Architectural Considerations Topography ( see Figure 7)
The topography of the site consists of rolling plains and broad drainages. Ground surface slopes gently to moderately with grades of between 1% and 10%. Steeper slopes occur adjacent to Boulder Creek and in the northwest portion of the site. Two waterways bisect the site; Boulder Creek in the northwest portion and Skunk Creek in the southeast portion of the site. Boulder Creek presents a severe obstacle to tying the existing research facilities along Marine Street to new research facilities on the south of the creek. This constraint should figuratively be "bridged," if not literally, in campus planning.
The site falls from a high elevation of 5,284' in the southwest corner of the property to a low elevation of 5,240' in the northeast corner. Along this axis are clear and direct views of the Flatirons. The Colorado Avenue frontage has most of the high elevations which then gently roll down to the creeks. This feature provides an excellent opportunity for a strong entry into the campus.
The Boulder Creek corridor has a well developed mixture of mature canopy and young understory trees. This vegetation is of value because of its massive appearance. Vegetation in the Marine Street Center and Smiley Court is mature, of value and should be retained wherever possible. In addition, several cottonwoods and willows dot the site and should also be similarily protected.
Views/Visual Characteristics (see Figure 7)
The site offers many outstanding long views to the Flatirons and the snow-capped Continental Divide. The Flatiron views are generally in the northeast to southwest directions. Divide views are generally from the southern and eastern sides of the site. These views represent a major site asset and should be incorporated into site planning and design of Research Campus facilities.
Views into the site are equally outstanding along the Foothills Highway, the eastern end of Colorado Avenue and the eastern end of Arapahoe (which also has superior views of

Boulder Creek). Tenants will have high exposure from these adjacent streets.
Shortrange views of Boulder Creek are also prevalent on the site and should be capitalized on in the planning and building orientations for the property.
Existing Facilities (see Figure 7)
Approximately 40% of the Research Campus site has already been developed with a mix of research, housing, University maintenance, service, athletic and other facilities. The presence of these facilities present a serious constraint to the overall design and development of this site for the following reasons:
They are not architecturally related, individually or in complexes. Subsequently, it is difficult to achieve a design consistancy based on existing construction. Urban planning cohesion must therefore rely on the site,natural features and new structures if present buildings are to stay.
Many buildings are relatively new and represent substantial investment of public funds; therefore, they can adaptively be reused.
Athletic facilities divide the site and are located in areas better suited to other land uses.
The Housing Service Center presents a particular problem due to its prominent location and very visual image at the central gateway to the campus.
To better assess the value of these structures, Pouw Associates conducted a survey of the existing research campus facilities (see Appendix A). Their interviews with facilities management and University administrators and evaluations provided guidance for the programming and phasing of site development.

Engineering Consideration Floodplains/Floodways
The Research Campus is affected by three separate floodplain/ floodway areas. These are associated with Boulder Creek, Skunk Creek and Bear Creek. While Skunk and Bear Creeks do pose problems for development on the site, these are relatively minor and can be mitigated fairly inexpensively. The real flood hazard on the Research Campus is that related to Boulder Creek.
Three administrative agencies are concerned with designating floodplains/ways and regulating development therein; FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), UD&FCD (Urban Drainage and Flood Control District) and the City of Boulder. Each of these organizations has identified 100-year floodway boundaries for Boulder Creek on the Research Campus. These boundaries are of particular concern since the most restrictive land use and zoning regulations, regardless of agency, are associated with the area within these boundaries. Exhibit 8 graphically illustrates that the criteria used by each agency in making these determinations varies considerably. FEMA's floodway definition is the most general, Boulder's the most specific.
The most restrictive floodway boundary belongs to the City of Boulder's floodway boundary, the least restrictive belongs to FEMA. The City of Boulder regulates floodplains and floodways within the City and has authority to supersede the rulings of FEMA and UD&FCD.
"The various definitions are based on both engineering and political input. As such, there is no absolute 'engineered' definition. Determination of which criteria and resulting boundary is most appropriate for the Research Campus site is best left to discussion between the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado." (See Pouw Phase I Summary Report.) Floodway Modifications
The significant constraint to development posed by the floodplain area prompted Pouw Associates and their consultants to propose five engineering alternatives for reducing flood hazards and increasing usable land on the campus (see Appendix B). Of these options the third (A,C and D) provides the best compromise to apply to the planned development. It offers the

| OO VrAT.
^ityrf ecjjLpe*^
--- f lTCT^A/A-y t-UMlT'
0 too IOO 400 oo
T U5|L I*tU5 *&

University and Research Campus the greatest land area for the least cost.
Alternative 3 (A,C and D) requires that the following improvements will likely need to be implemented to reclaim approximately 81 acres of University lands from the floodplain area.
Minor channelization of Boulder Creek excavation along the creek would be required as well as filling and grading within the flood limits.
Localized drainage improvements, fill placement and flood proofing floodwalls, local site grading and drainage system construction.
Skunk and Bear Creek grass line channels, minor site modifications of berming and drainage improvements.
Natural Features
Both Boulder and Skunk Creeks are amenities as well as potential liabilities. Treatment of these waterways in planning and development of the Research Campus should enhance or compliment their fragile qualities. Boulder Creek especially has certain features that make its environs unique, including islands and an oxbow. These features should be retained and Creek bank restoration should occur as necessary.
Three marshes on the site may present opportunities for wetlands development. The site has two prominent high points (see Figure 7) from which there are excellent short and long range views. These points and particular view corridors should be carefully maintained as a major amenity to the campus development.

Geotechnical Considerations Groundwater
Due to a high water table across the great majority of the site, below grade construction is not recommended. Lower level construction may be considered along the south central portion of the site in areas which are filled above the flood plain level.
Foundations See Pouw Report.

Transportation and Access Considerations Road Capacities and Site Access
Based on the Pouw Study, current road capacities and usage are illustrated in Figure 9, and are as follows (in thousands of vehicles per day):
estimated 24-hour average % of total
carrying capacity daily traffic capacity
SH 157
(Foothills 55 20.1 36%
Highway) Colorado 30 3.6 @ 47th 12%
Avenue 4.9 @ 30th 16%
30th Street 25 18.8 75%
Arapahoe Avenue 40 26.1 65%
The above chart shows the daily traffic volume of 30th Street and Arapahoe Avenue reaching their saturation. It is likely these roads are, or soon will be, at their carrying capacities. While minor access improvements may occur in the initial pnase of Research Campus construction, the avoidance of additional traffic loading on these two arteries would be advisable.
Foothills Highway and Colorado Avenue both have sufficient capacity to accept 25,000 plus vehicle trips per day in the vicinity of the Research Campus. However, connections from the property to Foothills Highway are not allowed to the site. Therefore, Colorado Avenue must provide vehicular access to the main area of the Research Campus site.
Anticipated Circulation and Access Improvements
Future scheduled improvements that are anticipated to occur along Foothills Highway include a diamond interchange at the Arapahoe Avenue intersection and the completion of the Foothills Highway from Pearl Street to the Longmont Diagonal. It is anticipated that Foothills Highway will become the main north-south expressway through the city upon completion of its link to the diagonal. Traffic signals at 38th and Colorado and Foothills Highway and Colorado are also planned in the near future.


Existing and proposed bikeways are also shown in Figure 9. The proposed bikeway network will greatly enhance the present bikeway system and provide a desirable transportation alternative to the private auto for travel to and within the Research Campus and between other University facilities. Boulder's "Alternative Transportation Consciousness"
The 1980 census reports Boulder's home-to-work and school trips as the following:
54% drive alone 16% carpool 10% transit
14% walk - 30%
6% bicycle^
While these figures include students, they provide substantive proof of Boulder's "alternative transportation consciousness," and should be favorably accomodated and encouraged in the planning and development of Research Campus transportation, access and parking facilities.

Site Development Program

Site Development Program and Criteria Introduction
Together with the considerations cited in site analysis and the geographic attributes found in the introductory section of this report, the site development program and criteria addressed in this section provide the fundamental planning and design principles upon which each alternative plan is based.
This section presents information based upon research into campus planning, architectural programming, technology, parks, comparable university-affiliated research parks, University of Colorado facility concerns and needs and other pertinent land use planning and design criteria.
Unless otherwise noted, information on comparable university-affiliated research parks is derived from "Excerpts From a Comparative Study of University-Affiliated Research Parks" by Ohio State University, June 13, 1984 as published in Research Parks and Other Ventures The University/Real Estate Connection by the Urban Land Institute, 1985.

University Development Program Concerns
In a prior planning effort, Pouw and Associates and the Campus Development Committee held a series of work sessions to evaluate future development needs. The following summarizes the needs, activities and concerns addressed in these work sessions and in related administrative proposals:
Land Use
The Research Campus is intended for development as a high quality, higher density research and technology campus designed to attract research programs and facilities. Under controlled conditions, multi-use developments compatible with campus occupants will be encouraged!
Under this umbrella of land use intent, the following
spectrum of campus uses and activites were identified as having
strong future potential on the site.
Research facilities for basic and applied research/product development activities:
Private sector research facilities/joint venture activities outside private sector is the major source of future activity and funding.
Sponsored research laboratories and offices (institutes, labs, centers, etc.).
Contract research facilities.
Academic research related to instruction.
Education and Training Facilities:
Related to research activities and uses.
Service Facilities:
Business and employee services related primarily to research, development and technology transfer.
University Service Center Complex:
Consolidated transportation, distribution and services for all Boulder University facilities/campuses.
Administrative Offices:
Related to research and service activities and uses.
Recreation Facilities:
Club level relation facilities.
Informal athletic fields.
Conference Center/Hotel:
Related to research activities and campus wide community needs.
Existing Facilities:
Assume over the next decade only the existing research buildings and the Smiley Court housing will remain intact.

Campus Design and Physical Appearance
The goal is to develop the University Research Campus with a campus like character to ensure its being; 1) compatible with the existing Boulder Campus and, 2) a visible and economic asset to the University, city, region and the state.
The general character of the Research Campus will be campus like with emphasis on the natural characteristics of the site. A density of development should occur maximizing utilization of the limited acreage (200 acres) and yet allowing for adequate open space, accommodation of natural features and other significant landscape characteristics.
Development Phases and Strategies
Development of the Research Campus should allow for maximum flexibility to accommodate needs and desires of both the University and potential partners and tenants.
Construction of buildings and facilities should accommodate future growth in order to maximize land use and needs of occupants.
Stage the infrastructure to coincide with market demand.
The phased construction of expensive roads, utilities and other major improvements to correspond with the demand for improved sites ready for construction of research facilities is crucial to success.
Transportation and Access
Minimize direct vehicular circulation through the site.
Assume that the 47th and Colorado location will become the gateway to the Research and Main Campuses.
Minimize automobile circulation across Boulder Creek, except as an option if needed at a later phase. Plan for a pedestrian/bicycle access along and across Boulder Creek for internal and regional convenience.
Plan an attractive and compelling link between the Research and Main Campuses along Colorado Avenue.
These program elements were instrumental in defining the scope of
the development program for the Research Campus.

Buildable Area Site Suitabilities
Figure 10 illustrates the 155 acre area of the Research Campus considered to be buildable with only slight and/or moderate limitations as determined by Pouw Associates in their analysis of Site Suitability (Appendix C). This analysis summarized the combined impacts of the site characteristics they inventoried and provided for this study team a valuable assessment of the land area in the Research Campus which could realistically be considered developable. The area identified in Figure 10 as having severe and unsuitable limitations may still havt: recreation and open space uses which will not compound flood and/or other hazards.
Site Planning Module for Flexibility
A basic planning module is a unit of measure, the value of which is determined and fixed to coordinate the sizes of plan components for the sake of the greatest flexibility. With regard to the Research Campus, the design team used a planning system module 30' wide and 30' long. This modular system was overlaid across the campus site and provided the spatial framework for siting roads, buildings and other plan components. The 30' x 30' module relates directly to many of the land uses and their architectural form i.e. floorplates for research facilities, offices, parking structures etc. are also divised on a similar modular system and can therefore be readily placed within the plan module framework. This system of plan development is most common in campus planning and can respond to changing needs over time. Such a grid has been used for MIT, IIT, Chicago Circle, Auraria, GM Tech Center, etc. and historically.

i cp

Building Orientation
There are several factors that must be considered in establishing building orientation on the site; views, energy conservation, geographical features, commercial exposure for private facilities, potential shadows on open space features, etc. Energy, winds, superior short and long range views from the site as well as the general orientation of the Boulder Creek channel dictate an alignment which capitalizes on these features for prospective campus tenants. Weighing these factors, the design team concluded that an orientation of approximately 30 from true north with the longest facades bearing from southwest to northeast would optimize site values. Hence, the planning module system was given this orientation.
Density of Development/Building to Land Ratios
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) is the ratio of the total square footage of a building to the total square footage of land area. For comparative planning purposes, floor area ratios for several Boulder R and D/industrial developments and major facilities were.determined from analysis of subdivision plat maps, city files, phone interviews and other sources. The following are examples from this survey:
Ball Aerospace Site Area* (in acres) Floor Area (in sq.ft.) F.A.R. floor area land area
owned 25.2 350,242 .32
leased 34.4 438,843 .29
total 59.6 789,085 .30
Main Campus 312.0 13,590,720 .435
Sienna Park (Foothills & Boulder Creek) 34.0 38,240 .26
NBI (Foothills & Diagonal) 16.5 240,000 .334
Valleylab (Gunbarrel) 14.0 179,000 .29
Gunbarrel Place II 2.94 42,000 .328
(Lookout Road for IBM lease)
*NOTE: All area figures include rights of ways and roads.

While the size of these developments varies, their floor area ratios cluster in the .26 .33 range. Most of the structures included in this survey are two to three stories in height and their sites include extensive surface parking areas.
Also for comparison purposes only, the following building to land ratios of University affiliated research parks in the U.S. were determined in an Ohio State University survey:
The typical allowable building footprint is 27%.
The typical maximum total coverage (building footprint, roads, parking) is 49%.
The typical actual landscaping is 51%.
The typical minimum landscaping is 35%.
The average building size is 60,000 sf.
The typical height is three to five stories.
Type buildings 50% single user buildings,
25% single use, multi-tenant,
25% multiple use, multi-tenant.
While most research parks are low density, it is not a particularly good model to follow for the following reasons:
Land use inefficiences, promoting urban sprawl and greater transportation impacts.
There is no pedestrian movement between buildings and therefore no opportunity for incidental meetings or exchanges resulting in a loss of human scale attributes.
Lands are valued less at start-up second and third generation facilities face difficult problems with infilling and densification needs.
They present much the same image and composition and lack any distinct identity.
The survey data presented here should not inhibit planning for greater or lesser averages on the Research Campus site.
Land characteristics and carrying capacities vary greatly in each development. Alternative development scenarios should be devised and tested to determine opportunities and limitations on the Research Campus site.

Land Use and Architectural Considerations
The total of 155 developable acres of the Research Campus is, by comparison to equivilant facilities, quite small. Subsequently, it is of critical importance that the land use mix and development strategy maximize the use of this limited resource. It is also important to recognize the trend in research campus planning toward providing larger building-to-land ratios and more extensive landscaping the emphasis on "campus-like atmosphere" calls for improved levels in aesthetics and amenities in park development.
These two considerations and the desire to establish areas for one or two "anchor" tenants provide broad form determining elements of the Research Campus plan. The following considerations focus on the dominant land use type within the Research Campus program.
Research Facilities
In tne competative arena of research facilities continuous and unimpeded change rules. This is forcing building delivery to happen fast, and requiring building designs that permit ongoing adaption and modification.
The necessary flexibility of research labs has changed design standards radically in the last decade. Open labs are becoming more common to allow easy reconfiguration of work stations. Generic shell structures are becoming the model.
Modular and flexible lab components, furniture systems and heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems are becoming the preferred investment industry now invests an average of 75% in flexible equipment and 25% in buildings (1985).
The net result of these changes is a iab design model not unlike the labs constructed more than half a century ago.
Large rooms with shaft-free floor areas, often called "open fields," recall the earliest loft spaces used by scientists.
While using furniture and equipment rather than structured or mechanical systems to define a laboratory also recalls the older model.
The space requirements of research facilities are the highest per user of all functions supported by the campus. Studies have shown an average of 350 400 square feet per user is not uncommon

Parking requirements reflect this and range from one space for 400 square feet of floor area to one per 600 square feet.
The basic architectural planning module for lab facilities is commonly JO' x 20'. The greatest single advantage for its use is probably the savings m research time during remodeling periods. The goal of research/lab design is to create a universal environment that can be adapted later to suit any eventuality.
Research facilities usually have associated office uses up to 60% of the total research facility floor area.
Incubators for companies emerging from university research or for joint research projects are an important feature of university research campuses. Of high tech industry representatives surveyed, 77% consider it a critical element of their site selection criteria. Of university affiliated research campuses, 87% provide incubator space. Those research parks marketing incubator space and support facilities exclusively have the fastest leasing rates of all research parks.
Potential advantages to the university in providing incubator space are clearly illustrated by Stanford's history. Stanford's earliest tenants were two graduate students needing space to develop their audio oscillator. These students hyphenated their names and became Hewlett-Packard, now with six locations and 15,000 employees in the Silicon Valley. In addition, at an SBA conference in Colorado Springs in 1985 two figures were presented and are worth noting: small companies (with less than 20 employees) have created 20 times more job openings and have innovated 24 times as much for every dollar invested m R and D than any of the industrial giants.
Space provided at university affiliated research parks ranges from 10,000 to 550,000 square feet. In a centrally located multi-tenant building 113,000 square feet was the average condition.
Support facilities such as conference rooms, machine shops, counseling and computing services should be located in close proximity to incubator space.
Conference Center/Support Facilities and Amenities
Basic support racinties ror tenants in university related research parks are university "givens:" extensive library

resources, comprehensive computer and communications services, sophisticated laboratory equipment and faculty consultants. As competition for desirable tenants increases, many universities are including sucn amenities as conference centers, banks, restaurants and health facilities in their research park plans. Parks that do provide, internally, such facilities often do so to prevent proliferation of unplanned support services on the periphery of the park.
The highest priority amenities among parks surveyed are conference center, restaurants, banks, jogging paths and hotels.
The average open space/park area of research campuses is 51% of the total land area.
New conference center/hotels need 250 300 hotel rooms to be profitable. In research parks, these centers and athletic facilities provide the focal points for information exchange; they are the greatest interaction center and as such are ideal attractions for use by both private research park tenants and the visiting public. They should be activity centers and include such things as exhibit areas, art centers, international libraries, clubs and restaurants or any other activity which promotes communication and interaction.
Due to their uses and activities, center locations should be prominant and central to other research campus facilities, yet cognizantly located outside of quiet campus areas.

It is desirable to phase development of a campus in cohesive blocks within a framework adaptable to long range variations in program needs. In order to establish a framework for so doing, the design team evaluated existing facilities on the campus site and established the goal to retain facilities as much as possible based on the following considerations:
Colorado Court housing expendable in the short term.
Stazio Fields 10-15 year lease agreement in effect with city buyout of lease available at any time.
Pott's Field 3100,000 recently spent on improvements -within five years will need replacement.
Service Center Complex needed immediately.
Existing research facilities may retain value for a 20 year term.
Smiley Court 15 to 20 year value potential to convert to office uses.
Subdivision of Lands and Absorption Rates
A variety of parcel sizes and tenant mixes are desirable for research parks. Deep sites allowing for expansion are desired by users. A survey of research parks providing the following additional information upon which to lease subdivision and phasing decisions:
The average land absorption rate is 21 acres per year.
The average number of new tenants is two per year.
The average lot size is 11 acres.
The typical minimum lot size is three acres.
Research parks with fewer acres sometimes specify a maximum lot size usually between 6% and 24% of total coverage. Boulder's current market for industrial lands shows most available sites being less than five acres in size with most of these being two acres or less.

Architectural Module
The following space planning modules were used for the development of alternative site plan components. While there exists a complx series of building types, programs and parking requirements, the design team simplified these for concept development to the following:
Ceiling Height (floor to floor) Space Plan Module Parking Requirements
Research Lab 15' 30' x 20' 1:350'
Education 15 ' 30 x 20' 1:500'
Office 12.5 ' 30 x 301 ( 51 increments ) 1:300sq.ft.
Center 9'-10' (varies) 30' x 30' 1 per 2 rooms
Parking Structure 10' 60' x 120' (2 bays; 1 aisle/2 way) as appropriate to main use(s)

Site Development

Design Framework Site Plan A
Figure 11 diagrammatically illustrates the fundamental organizing elements and design concepts of Site Plan A. The vehicular and open space systems overlap, forming a grid which defines building envelopes within the developable area of the site. These systems are oriented northeast to southwest to take advantage of short and long range views, natural site features and landmarks and to give high visibility into key development sites.
Within this framework, the design concepts are noted (see Exhibit). An informal building edge circumscribes the site in response to the natural channel flow of Boulder Creek site topography and to adjacent residential uses; public oriented activities are intended to provide the first positive visual impression for the University of the Foothills Highway Colorado Avenue "front door" to both its Research and Main Campuses.
Two distinct roadway systems serve the north and south sides of the Research Campus. Marine Street is realigned and intersections signalized with full turning priviledges to better serve developable areas and improve access and traffic circulation. Limiting research campus access to one point on Arapahoe and one on 10th Street reflects the near term saturation of capacity of these roadways and the desire to reduce any impedence to traffic flows on these corridors currently created by multiple entries to University facilities. This concern as well as limited access options is also reflected in the location of three evenly distributed entries to the research campus along Colorado Avenue. Each access serves a portion of the Research Campus yet the central access serves as the formal gateway and avenue leading to the formai boulevard of the campus. An uninterrupted two miie on site bicycle/jogging trail circumscribes che campus and/or follows open space corridors to tie into Boulder's regional bikeway system. Two regional transit stops are also proposed to serve the campus in the approximate locations shown on Figure 11.
The greenway system is punctuated with larger open space areas at its crossroads which are intended to serve as central activity nodes. Other open space areas serve as "forecourts" or focal

£Xl$TiKi£> KO£-p Baasa 6£MTrAuiifK. SySTen ^S2J CK_E&k-
...MOpiFl&C? FUCOC? UlMlT
* Fico Hcmto i.y
% ^ATBWA,V4.
(^j) OVftXV AHF'H IThtAT^E.
pt&m -sysTEri
O <
AU7MA "SO'JTM&CPk' fcCfi>6- PEFtR. TP CeSiDCfJTi Al_ <-*6tS
f=XHW3\T* II

points to development. Open space is also featured m non-deveiopable portions of the Research Campus along floodways. And, finally, open space surrounds the property in areas of building setbacks. This system of open space linkages contributes to establishing a campus like character for the site and binds disparate site elements such as the northern and southern portions of the site. (Note should be taken that an expensive option exists to link these two portions of the site with a limited access bridge from the main southern boulevard to Marine Street in the open space corridor to the west- While this alternative is provided, the design team felt a stronger "campus like" linkage is created by a pedestrian and bicycle bridge.)
Land Use Concept Plan A
The Land Use Concept for the Research Campus focuses on a central precinct surrounded by affiliated uses (see Exhibit 12). The concept responds to University program concerns by locating a consolidated service center in the Marine Street Center, (incorporating existing facilities where feasible) and providing predominantly research oriented and supportive land uses throughout the remaining area of the campus.
The "heart" of the campus is an area of mixed uses including incubator space, institutes, bureaus, support business and commercial facilities and research related offices. This area is ringed by land devoted to private and sponsored research.
The frontage along the Foothills highway is strictly devoted to private research and business enterprise, a response to the visual prominance which these sites afford and for which they are valued. Similarily, the prestige sites along the Boulder Creek open space corridor are anticipated to be devoted to private research entities, again due to their intrinsic appeal and value. The western end of this research ring is also devoted to strictly research purposes.
The hotel/conference center complex is located in an area where it welcomes both tenant and public use and is visible from Foothills Highway. The western parcel of this area is suggested for use as a daycare center. A University information center is located at the Foothills Highway campus gateway on Colorado Avenue, also in the area devoted to more public uses.

O 100 200 400 600 Of D f SiGn 4N0 Piann.nG
^H-|6.lT iz.
LAkjr? -FL^M A

The Sports Complex and related use are located, for the most part, upon lands prone to flood hazard. Affiliated sports club buildings and/or indoor athletic facilities will be sited adjacent to these uses on land out of the floodway.
In this iand use configuration the Research Campus provides the potential for developing a strong outward appeal on its private and public edges and a more inward focusing, private campus like appeal in its core. It is a hybrid of campus form as much as it is a hybrid of public and private ventures. Subdivision of Lands and Flexibility
The modular and systems framework upon which planning has been structured for the Research Campus provides a skeleton within which multiple variations may occur. While subdivision of land illustrated in Exhibit 12 provides a wide range of sites from four acres to 13 acres, it is by no means the only division possible. Prominant plan features are still retained in subdivisions of one acre or 34 acres. Flexibility is a prime consideration in the plan system.
Exhibit 12 illustrates five "anchor" sites in the four property corners and at the Research Campus gateway. All but one of these sites (at Foothills Highway and Colorado Avenue) are 12 or more acres in size. Lots in the central portion of the site average 4.5 acres but may be divided to one and two acre sites (as shown).

Illustrative Site Plan A
Placing building and landscape elements within the design framework and land use systems provides a more unified image of the features in plan A and potential form (see Exhibit 13).
While appearing quite formal and disciplined, the scheme is ultimately flexible and permits incremental growth. It is, however, an urban model, maximizing development potential and utilizing site attributes in creating a campus atmosphere.
The circulation framework is intended to permit the user to readily comprehend, and thus identify with the whole as well as the parts of the campus. It encourages pedestrian circulation with a sequence of open space experiences and activity centers providing multiple opportunities to meet and exchange ideas.
Open spaces vary from the formal commons area anchored on each end by water amenities or sculpture and a western view of the Flatirons to informal and intimate natural creekside areas.
The Oxbow Amphitheatre for example provides a small group seminar or meeting area as well as the opportunity for noontime creekside concerts or other events encouraging 'meetings of the minds.' More private open spaces for building users are located atop free standing parking structures linking central campus area buildings. Group and/or team sports could also encourage interaction of park tenants at the University's relocated athletic facilities, safely resting in the floodway area.
The relationship between the north and south sides of the campus is to be reinforced visually and physically by site design, landscape development, architectural style, signage and pedestrian/ bicycle circulation systems.
Each block is given value by its facing site landscape view amenities as well as having exposure along major circulation routes.
Campus Center Concept Plan A
At the heart of the plan is a campus center consisting of building shells that allow a wide range of functional uses.
Modular building components allow flexibility for internal cnange to accomodate varying needs (especially incubating research). These shells would be designed with exterior materials that characterize the main campus and Klauder's original vision of the Italiante style; tiled roofs, concrete and masonry facades.

Land Use Density Analysis Site Plan A
Development Zone Land Area %Site Buildinq Area F.A.R. %Developed
A Information Center 2.7ac 120,000 1.4% 16,000 .13 2.0%
B-D Office/Research 23.Oac = 1,001,880 11.8% 532,800 .53 16.6%
E Athletic Club 2. Oac = 87,120 1.0% 16,000 .18 1.4%
F-G Research 10.Oac = 435,600 5.1% 260,000 .60 7.2%
H-I Research/Office 24.Oac - 1,045,440 12.4% 668,200 .64 17.4%
J Daycare Center 2.8ac = 121,968 1.4% 32,400 .27 2.0%
K Conference/Hotel 12.4ac = 540,144 6.0% 309,600 .57 9.0%
L-S Research/Ed./ Service/Man. 37.Oac 1,611,720 19.0% 1,294,000 .80 26.8%
T Service Center 12.8ac = 557,568 6.6% 202,200 .36 9.3%
U Research/Office 11.6ac = 505,296 5.9% 260,000 .51 8.4%
R.O.W. 5,600' x 120' 15.4 1,800' x 80' 3.3 18.7ac = 814,572 9.6% - -
Net Developable 157.0 = 6,838,920 3,591,200 .53
Boulder Creek/ Floodplain 37.6 19.3%
Total Site 194.6

It is the desire of the design team that the distinct regionai expressionism of this style must he retained and continued to architecturally tie the Research Campus with the Main Campus.
The eight buildings ultimately making up this central thematic component of the Research Campus would eacn face the central pedestrian mail (or "alley") with a western view directly anchored upon the Flatirons. The four central buildings would set back further from the mall axis to create a wider plaza area. These ouildings could house small restaurants, coffee houses and specialty support facilities to serve the user population of the Researcn Campus as well as to provide some evening activities.
The pedestrian bridge wouid link the western and eastern sides of the central plaza for continuity of foot travel. The bridge would further enhance the sense of an entry gateway to the campus and the boulevard uses beyond as well as increase visual ties to the campus buildings across Boulder Creek in the Marine Street Service Center. (New components along the creek would have a style similar to those on the south bank.) Density of Development Plan A
The urban image of the Research Campus proposed in Plan A belies the fact that overall, ground level open space area approaches 50%. Nevertheless, densities on the site (as illustrated in Figure 14) do, on average, exceed those currently common in Boulder. Greatest density is m the heart of the campus and eastern edge, consistant with its purposes.
Overall, the density of the site is .53 F.A.R. For comparative purposes this is slightly over 1.2 times the density of the main campus and 1.6 times the rough average of Boulder's newer industrial facilities.
Phasing Plan A
The following two illustration (Figures 16 and 17) show phasing of this site plan into five periods of growth. It should be noted that existing campus facilities and uses are staged within their tenure framework discussed in the Site Analysis section of this report.
The first phase shows lease up of the prime commercial frontage along Foothills highway so the University has the ability to generate income for future improvements. One ioop

XM *00

iwa hummm
£*Hig>rT 1^

university of Colorado


J l
O 100 200 400 eoo
occfuatn. laaa

of the main access road is improved for access.
Phase II begins to bring in incubator facilities and some amenities while still not disturbing existing facilities.
In the third phase Stazio Fields are removed and staged improvements in the service center area are begun. The fourth completes the campus commons roadway network and incubator facilities.
The last phase of the project development is reserved for the removal of Smiley Court housing and improvement of the area for larger tenants growing out of their existing campus facilities or other uses as deemed appropriate.
Building Heights Plan A
Figure 15 illustrates building heights utilized in determining density and developing the illustrative site plan. Essentially two to four story buildings dominate the site. These are punctuated with taller structures, none exceeding 75 feet or seven stories in height the common limit for hook and ladder equipment. These taller buildings are situated in locations at lower and eastern site elevations, set back significantly from neighboring areas and are outside of mountain view lines from points external to the site the design team took great pains not to disturb neighboring views.
Campus Center Research Building Prototype
Figure 18 illustrates three alternative configurations of the campus center research building prototype intended to house multiple uses within a flexible space system. Alternatives increase in density with each stage. Parking structures are central to the two buildings in each complex, providing shared parking and rooftop common plaza areas. Surface visitor parking is on either side of structure entries. The buildings can be built in stages with lateral expansion. Building service area is between the parking structure and the building shells.

TDTA SITE 331200 ST 100*
build nmm 70200 2114
BUILDING SP 105220 \fi
TuniBffmfi 127800
mu. 31%
cAHPU-s- pl-A-m Ai
331200 sr loo i,
70220 21 1
128700 0
87400 2&X
72000 11%
138800 41/.
1.3: l
1111111 parking Structure
331200 ST loor.
70200 21 f> UNIVERSITY
152100 0 IB* RESEARCH
55800 CAMPUS
1.3: i

Design Framework Site Plan B
Several components of Site Plan A reoccur in Site Plan B: the use of open spaces and their focus upon site features; the central vehicular circulation system and alignment of Marine Street; the predominant research oriented land use types; and the location of central common facilities such as the conference center and athletic areas.
Major design variation m the plan is that it has a strong inward orientation throughout (see Exhibit 19). Open spaces converge toward the creex and building sites, while remaining on the same skewed north-south grid,focus more on these open space resources.
The overall design has a more informal appeal as well it is more amorphic and less rigid than Site Plan A.
Land Use Concept Site Plan B
The Land Use Plan shows two significant variations from Plan A (see Exhibit 20). Housing and educational land uses are both distinct separate plan components. While housing is a use not previously addressed, the educational use was incorporated in the campus center in Plan A.
Housing is buffered from adjacent uses by greenbelt areas and is proposed to replace, at higher density, the existing housing in Smiley Court.
Illustrative Site Plan B
Site plan variations from Plan A are evident in Figure 21, the illustrative site plan. Campus vehicular circulation systems and gateways are formalized throughout the plan, while building sites are more organically defined by open space corridors.
There is a dominant street/building/open space sequence in the planning matrix that provides all sites with both vehicular and recreational access. Buildings are staggered on the plan to break up their mass and provide a sequence of interesting views as one circulates through the development. Ponds more than plazas define the open space amenity focus for a less dense development.
Research Building Prototype
Figure 22 illustrates the research building prototype used in Plan B's development. Each structure is L-shaped with

KSad$eHfpA<- Tf^,
* Hl^rt
-- Y*CK>\P\tt> *\£>OC> L-iH
LH_____/ I
0 too too 400 too


-pp^rJKi ^

L_n_______i i
0 IOO 200 400 000



-cR) I I "."'T"
ncrpoocro") I' rWnL
TUIDL SITI 201 600 5F 100/
BUILDIHE 35.100 it 5 7.
m BU1IDIH5 70700
PDDMHB/DRIVE5 384oo 19/
DP^ SP05E 178100 6351
010. 0 35 1
fflMNB/BUILDIHfi 05 1
35.100 17 37.
46.800 23/
119700 59 32
0 39 1
Id 1
201 600
35.100 1732
144 900 RESEARCH
CM '.pus n,A-N &
Parking Structure

parking central between the two wings. Each wing can be expanded as required within given site constraints. The L-shape is oriented toward the street so that the parking area is hidden from view. Natural landscaping buffers the structure as it abuts open space uses.
Housing System Prototype
Figure 23 illustrates a typical cluster of the proposed multi-family housing prototype. The following describes this proposed married student housing and its development program:
Appropriateness of Location
o Complements, on the Research Campus, the mixed use and residential components of Main Campus and the Williams Village Complex.
o Complementary to adjacent residential land use to west and south of site.
o Ease of access to commercial support at crossroads area/ recreation at Scott Carpenter Park, o Mountain and Boulder Creek view.
o Potential separation from and/or linkage with remaining Research Campus site via greenbelt system proposed in option Plan B.
o Out of floodway area-full site available for development.
Proposed Density and Unit Distribution (see illustration)
o New construction would nearly double the current number of dwelling units (324) providing 640 units in 32 buildings of four floors each, five units per floor, o Floor area ratio: floor area = 420,OOOsq.ft. _
20 acres = 871,200sq.ft. o Building height: 35 feet.
Site Utilization
o Building footprint: 18%
o Parking (1.2 spaces/unit and R.O.W.): 31% o Open space: 51%
o First phase development in playground area and north of Smiley Court (existing)/removal of Colorado Court housing -tenant relocation to new units, o Second phase replace Smiley Court units.

-W0U-5lU<£ 'PKOTOT'/FE-
ZTCtIf3^ PlAM &--------------
4 *STO>R.lf& 5 D.U/PLOO*. AKgA: 20 ACK&* 871,20091
UNIT^: 2 13.r /noc>&........£*0^
I Mt. / too Hi........30 1#
STUOIO'S /^5i)C...... s.??*
3 &.R. / 1001(1...... +.Z1o
Or CM 5F^CB. 5"l^
120 D.U.
PAK^nIMO PATIO |. 2 OAt tffAC£5/UNir AV6.
l-4-t OAR-S,
typicaj, ^cctioni


dd D H C 0 d d dC
(1) ? 0 3 3 0 d M 0 3
H H* 0 ft H- H > < 3 H-
ft H 0 0 < H d W H<
3H 3 P 0 0 H d d0
0 H- tr a tiiQ 0 0 P
Pd 0 H'(/l 0 la d H M
P M H- w g N p.
0 ft 0 d w ft
Ofl) (D u VD H-K{ Hi 0 3 ok:
> d d h 0
23 HOd H d
£'(/) 0 1 1 HH-H10 W 0 0
03 M H P W
Ho 00 0 OH* Sd 0 0
OiH OlQ > d 0
kjHS 0 P
0 w 0
[/) P 0 0 3*
ft 0 3 K
H> 3d d 0
3 *1 rt do 0
H* d 3
0 0 H d
3 H- ft 0 3
£ C 3 w
S dd3
(t ^ 1 0 H-
0 H 00
3 p

University Research C ampus
De v lopment Strategy
High tech response to foreign competition
High job growth in the service and high tech sectors
Potential declining student enrollments
Uncertainty of future educational and research funding
Goals 2
Translate land values into economic returns
Develop alternate sources of financing programs and facilities
Strengthen and expansion of research base and capabilities
Create integrated academic/research opportunities
Staged infrastructure to coincide with market demand
Environmental sensitivity
Land Values
Development Criteria
Land Use/Density/Analysis
Land Use/Density/Value Map
Land Utilization
Development Strategy
Economic Analysis Overall
- Phased Land Lease & Infrastructure 10
Development Budget 11
Feasibility 12
Financing Alternatives 13
Benefits 14
To the University
To Research Industries
To the Community
General Note: All factual data presented herein is based on "Research Parks and Other Ventures The University/Real Estate Connection" 1985, case studies in the "Project Reference File," the "Panel Advisory Service" and "Urban Land," all published by the Urban Land Institute.
ro ^ in VO t 00

Univers_ t yy Research C ampus
Deve?lopment Strategy
The American economy's growing dependence on international
The response to foreign competition has been to emphasize more strongly the development of new processes, products and technologies.
Industry is turning to universities for assistance in basic research and the development of technology.
Government is increasingly considering universities as the vehicle for community economic assistance by way of "technology transfers."
High growth rate for jobs in the service and high-tech sectors.
The baby boom surge in labor supply is over. Thus labor intensive technologies must be replaced with capital intensive technologies of production.
Colorado is a prime location for communications and aerospace technology industries.
Declining student enrollments and funding for education.
Universities are in the position to sell their ideas to industry in return for cash to support basic research and education which enables them to remain competitive nationally with other universities.
The changing circumstances in the funding of research.
Uncertainty over the future of Federal support for basic research.
The threat of growing obsolescence of facilities and equipment is causing universities to explore alternative sources of finance.
Increasingly, states are acting as a catalyst to closer university industry ties by providing "centers of excellence," incubator facilities and seed money for entrepreneurial companies starting up from university research activities.

University Research Campus
Deve 1 coipmcE? rat Strategy
Deve: lopment Goals
1. Leverage land values into long term returns on investments, providing long term ongoing endowment income that can aid the University's overall academic, research and cultural objectives. With potential declining student enrollments and the uncertainty of future academic and research funding, utilization of University assets to generate alternate income is imperative.
2. Strengthen and expand the University's research base and capabilities to provide national credentials as well as consulting or job opportunities for faculty, graduates and students.
3. Create integrated academic/research opportunities, thus combining the University's principle interest in basic research with industry's concern for applied research.
The University is the natural focus for the desired "technology transfer" and corresponding economic assistance.
4. Support the community and state economy by providing employment opportunities for local citizens, generating new dollars into the community from outside funding, and by providing a foundation for "incubator research" that can spin-off into economic opportunities for the private sector.
5. Stage the infrastructure to coincide with market demand.
The phased construction of expensive roads, utilities and other major improvements to correspond with the demand for improved sites ready for construction of research facilities is crucial to financial success.
6. Environmental sensitivity is imperative, as both the University campus and the Research Park have an environmental affinity that seems to reinforce the academic and economic ties between them. Key attributes include a campus like setting, protective covenants, clearly established land use planning, architectural controls, high quality work environments, greater emphasis on natural landscaping and recreational activities and provision for employee personal services (restaurants, bike paths, jogging trails, exercise facilities).

University Research Campus
Devel opme ru hi Strategy
Land Valtre (see land value map)
Land value is based on:
1. Comparable land sales land along Arapahoe Road, Boulder Turnpike (Interlocken), North 1-25 and Southeast 1-225 have regional frontage sites for sale with .5 to .75 allowable FAR for $5 to $7 per land square foot. Internal sites are discounted according to acheivable densities and location relative to park amenities.
Achievable density (FAR) in the above comparable, the land value of land per buildable square foot is as follows:
land value or $_5 =
FAR .5
or ^ $10 per buildable square foot
For improved sites (not raw land) the land value is typically determined by achievable density since that is the measure used in a developer's economic proforma analysis. Thus, the remaining sites will decline in land value relative to their achievable densities. For example, the Research Site "C" would have a base land value of .625 x $10/building square foot = S6.25/land square foot.
3. Location after allowable/achievable density, the next factor to consider is a site's location relative to other improvements or amenities which affect its land value.
Again, regarding Research Site "C", the frontage along Boulder Creek is of comparable value to basic research users as is Foothills Parkway to .the business user, so the above described density factor on land value would hold true. For Research Site "A" and "B", some discount factor would need to be applied.
4. Type of use each type of use has its own individual affordability quotient due to internal economic constraints. The business and applied research uses involve a free market quotient and can afford fair market land values.
The conference/hotel can also afford fair market if it has a true market niche. The basic research can require subsidization in some cases while the education and housing uses most certainly require a discounted land value.

University Research Campus
Deve J_opment Str ate
Development Criteria
In comparing 24 university-affiliated research parks around the country, the following statistics seem relevant:
Land absorption.
1. The average land absorption rate is 21 acres per year.
2. The average number of new tenants is 2 per year.
3. The average lot size is 11 acres.
4. The typical minimum lot size is 3 acres.
Building to land ratios.
1. The typical allowable building footprint is 27%.
2. The typical maximum total coverage (building footprint, roads, parking) is 49%.
3. The typical actual landscaping is 51%.
4. The typical minimum landscaping is 35%.
5. The average building size is 60,000 square feet.
6. The typical height is 3 to 5 stories.
7. Type buildings 50% single user buildings
25% single use, multi-tenant 25% multiple use, multi-tenant.
8. The typical parking ratio is 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area.
Land use.
Research only parks are virtually non-existent.
75% permit manufacturing of assembly directly related to ongoing research activities only.
37% permit general light manufacturing.
92% permit prototype manufacturing.
17% permit warehousing (only 3% allow distribution).
75% lease office space.
87% provide incubator space.
General Note: All factual data is based on "Exerpts From A Compartive Study of University-Affiliated Research Parks" by Ohio State University, June 13, 1984. As published in "Research Parks and Other Ventures The University/Real Estate Connection" by the Urban Land Institute.

University Research Carapu: Land Use / Dens d_ t yy Analys d_
Development Zone______Land Area______________% Site
Information Center 2.7 AC 120 000 SF 2%
Business 23 AC = 1 ,000 000 SF 14%
Conference/Hotel 9 AC - 400 000 SF 6%
Research "A" 10 AC = 430 000 SF
"B" 11 AC = 480 000 SF l 27%
"C" 22 AC = 960 000 SF
Education 19 AC = 825 000 SF 12%
Housing 22 AC = 960 ,000 SF 14%
Service Center 26 AC = 1 ,130 ,000 SF 16%
Public R.O.W. 14.3 AC = 620 ,000 SF 9%
Net Developable 159 AC 6 ,925 ,000 SF
Boulder Creek 35 .57 AC
Total Site 194 .57 AC
Building Area
.1 10,000 SF
1:1 1,000,000 SF 25%
625 250,000 SF 6%
625 270,000 SF
625 300,000 SF 29%
625 600,000 SF J
.5 400,000 SF 10%
.52 500,000 SF 13%
.6 670,000 SF 17%
.58 4,000,000 SF

Re^(£Ag^n FSlu.
OL& 4co' fJoRTH

cj na-ve it s d_ t:y e s e a. :ir cc It. Oa-m^u-s IDgvg lo^ment Strategy
Land Dove lopmerat
Business 5-7 story buildings; 4/1,000 parking ratio
building footprint 8 bldgs. @ 20,000 sf floorplate surface parking 10% of spaces = 400 x 350 sf/space
structured parking 3,600 spaces x 325 sf/space f 4 levels open space
total site
Conference/Hotel 3
building footprint surface parking structured parking open space
story building;
300 rooms @ 500sf 7 3 levels +100,000 sf conf.
15% of spaces = 100 x 350 sf/space
600 spaces x 325 sf (less under building)
total site
Research 3-4 story buildings; 4/1,000 parking ratio
building footprint 16 buildings @ 23,000 sf floorplate surface parking 15% of spaces = 700 x 350 sf/space
structured parking 3,980 spaces x 325 sf 7 2\ levels open space
total site
Education 3 story buildings; 3.5/1,000 parking ratio building footprint 4 buildings @ 33,333 sf floorplate surface parking 33% of spaces = 462 x 350 sf/space
structured parking 938 spaces x 325 sf/space 7 2 levels
open space
total site
Housing 36 dwelling units/acre; 1.2/unit parking ratio building footprint 800 units x 650 sf/unit 7 3 levels
surface parking 1.2 spaces/unit x 800 x 325
open space
total site
Service/Administration building footprint surface parking open space
existing + 60,000 sf
3/1,000 ratio = 2,010 spaces x 325 sf/space
total site
160,000 140.000 288.000 412,000 sf sf sf sf 16% 43% 41%
1,000,000 sf
150,000 sf 38%
35,000 sf
45,000 sf Z U 0
170,000 sf 42%
400,000 sf
370.000 245.000 520.000 735.000 sf sf sf sf 20% 41% 39%
1,870,000 sf
135.000 160.000 150.000 380.000 sf sf sf sf 16% 38% 46%
825,000 sf
180,000 sf 19%
312,000 sf 33%
468,000 sf 48%
960,000 sf
225,000 sf 20%
650,000 sf 58%
255,000 sf 22%
1,130,000 sf
o\ o\ o\c o\ o\ o\

In}ro £>in^
"£6 UklN/^.oirf
fej&N20f -1fte &1CCS& efeTM^ol M?
eOJCMIol (TaU^faoJ),
1>fe HJAq' op-ms (mW*?,
BSkJfc^ Hod^^i-
pUto tJZP&MloJ ) Op- |ZcAOjA^f f¥ PsoJcfc 6Ji% alrv
££5*(K. IiJi4*U? rbcjv
edF^ HofcfcO pmi ^ iriz^r

6NTj| '
FWjW y awiA
|2rfeAOtf -. Levl'jANjt &<**?<) OiKrfeM/
Wii^ur ja*/fc

'\^\> ccw h^$'
^J O' 0*1
6orJp£jJa6/ torio
feami u>/|^ooJAY

<\ 6**cTfe*l*< to \V ?H1'
*JAb|t*AnaJ aalffcL
eCALfc l". t Jem

_iiJ h/bC'^iTi' ^lfg> r'LAn
$CAi£ Mao' Nlo.TH

UilbJWr] TY
'tfeA/Jv l-'b Yf2Wi> Co- lo Y*Aiif/ ll'lf? 155 Y^/ICp-'Jo
^cale |"s4-do'

University Re sea. re It. Camp>i_is
Deve lopment S trr a tecyy
De ve lepme n't S t r a-fce<3-y
Lease the business development zone:
Land area Land value
23 AC = 1,000,000 sf
x $10
Business zone land value Lease rate Income
Use the lease income to fund:
Debt service on improvement bond;
x 8%
(Note #1)
$7,000,000 @ 8%
Staff (Dir. & Asst.) $60,000 Expenses 40,000
Maintenance 80,000
$180,000/year (Note #2) 60,000/year
General Notes:
1. Return is comparable with other universities (Arizona State).
Lease rate does not include prorata common area maintenance (CAM). Lease rate growth - 5% of $10 land value beginning
year 6, this $10.50 year 6. Lease term 31-51 years initial term, then renewals.
2. As additional development of research and educational sites is accomplished, the park operations budget and funding would grow from each additional site's CAM contribution.

University Research Campus
Devce lopment Str ategy
Economic Analysis Overal_L
Return on overall land value:
Business Zone Land Area 1,000,000 sf 0 SlO/sf x . Q 9-. O o $800,000/year
Conference/Hotel 400,000 sf @ $8/sf x 8% = $256,000/year
Research "A" 430,000 sf 0 $5/sf x 8% = $172,000/year
"B" 480,000 sf 0 $5/sf x 8% $192,000/year
"C" 960,000 sf 0 $6.25/sf x 8% $480,000/vear
Education 825,000 sf 0 $4/sf x 8% = $264,000/year
Housing 960,000 sf 0 $ 2.5 0/ s f x 8% = $192,000/year
Service/Admin. 670,000 sf 0 $5/sf x 8% = $268,000/year
Stabilized income on land value: $2 ,624,000,/vear
Less Expenses:
Debt service on improvement bonds: $560,000/year
Administrative expenses: Director
Assistant Director Planning Director Staff Expenses
Net Return
General Notes: In 1985 dollars, developed, the University could on land values alone.
$60,000/year $40,000/year $30,000/year $34,000/year $724,000/year
when the Research Park is fully expect the above annual return
It is assumed that all required operations and common site improvement maintenance (CAM) costs are passed through pro-rata and fully paid for by developed or leased sites at each stage of the overall development'.
Income from the University's participation in research, conference hotel, or housing ventures is not included in the above analysis.

University Research C arapus
Deve 1 cement S tr r a tr e gy
Economic Analysis
Rhaseci Land Uses and Inf rastr'u.ctmre
Assume a business zone land lease based on:
50,000 sf building area absorption per year.
A 100,000 sf building built every 2 years (years 1,3,5,7,etc.)
Initial development to be less intensive (assume a .5 FAR) to allow for initial surface parking only with later infill of additional buildings and structured parking thus eventually achieving the full 1:1 FAR.
A minimum 250,000 sf site (6 acres) to
two years (vrs . 1 ,3 ,5,and 7)
Land Lease
Year 1 250 ,000 sf 0 $10 X 8% = $200,000
2 same = $200,000
3 500 ,000 sf 0 $10 X 8% = $400,000
4 same = $400,000
5 750 ,000 sf (§ $10 X 8% = $600,000
6 750 ,000 sf @ $10. 5x8% = $630,000
7 1 ,000 ,000 sf 0 $11 X 8% = $880,000
be taken down every
annual income
Corresponding value of improvements and operations financable:
Year 1 Initial improvements $2,000,000 (1/3 of project)
Operations and contingency 500,000 $200,000 income f 8% = $2,500,000 (financable)
Year 3 $240,000 finances, $3,000,000 improvements ($1 million
additional, 3/7 project).
$160,000 covers annual operations and contingency $400,000 income years 3 and 4.
Year 5 $400,000 finances, $5,000,000 improvements ($2 million
additional, 5/7 project).
$200,000 covers annual operations and contingency $600,000 income years, year 6 is $630,000
Year 7 $560,000 finances, $7,000,000 improvements ($2 million
additional, total project).
$320,000 covers annual operations and contingency $880,000 income year 7

Univers d_ Research C ampu s
Devel opme rat Strategy
Development Budget (conceptual only)
1985 Dollars
Overiot Grading; 100,000 cu.yd. @ $3 Water; 5,000 If of 12" 0 $22 Sanitary Sewer; 5,000 If of 15" 0 $20 Storm Sewer; 5,000 If of 24" 0 $30 Natural Gas; 5,000 If of 6" 0 $20 Electrical; 5,000 If 0 $15 Telephone; PBX switch and distribution Communications; 8,000 If 0 $40 Systems; computer, dish Streets; 5,000 If x 60', 2,000 If x 50',
2,000 If x 30' 0 $1.50 Curb & Gutter; 20,000 If 0 $10 Sidewalks; 6' x 2 x 18,000 If 0 $1 Landscaping & Irrigation; 400,000 sf 0 $1.50 Signage, Entry features Street Lights Mall/Plaza features Contingency
200.000 200,000 600,000 100,000
Information Center; 5,000 sf 0 $50
$ 250,000
Indirect Costs
Legal and accounting
Insurance, bonds, permits, fees, taps Planning; 5%
Engineering; 10%
Construction Management; 74%
Testing and inspection
300.000 50,000
Financing and Brokerage
Bond placement fees; 3^% $250,000
Bond interest reserve, 1 year 600,000
Land lease brokerage fees 600,000
TOTAL 159 Acres = 6,926,000 sf 0 $l/sf

Univer s iL t yy Research C ampus
De ve lo]p>meni=: Strategy
The University definition of feasibility can be much more flexible than for private sector development when the University owns the land free of any debt and without real estate tax obligations or other carrying costs.
Feasibility can be measured by:
The number of new jobs that are created.
The expansion of research opportunities.
Reasonable recovery of invested capital.
Coverage of development and operation costs.
Endowment of additional University programs, and
The non profit model where income is recycled into other opportunities for projects (MIT).
The for profit model where a market competitive return on investment is desired (Princeton, Stanford).
Key issues:
The University must resolve questions related to the development's management in each of its three major phases:
1. The conceptual, planning and approval phase.
2. The financing and construction phase.
3. The long term, ongoing marketing and management phase.
University control of the income consider if state budget makers simply deduct that income from annual appropriations, leaving the University no better off financially and with added responsibilities for managing developed properties.
Restrictions on use including the following concerns:
1. Land covenant restrictions by the terms of the donor's grant.
2. State imposed limitations on use, restrictions on sale or lease.
3. Zoning and land use controls if privately used.
4. Property tax status if privately used.
5. Can the University take a position under state law as
an owner, mortgage, lessee, or guarantor of a commercial faculty.
6. Federal taxation of University income resulting from this change in roles.
7. Does the University's active role in development alter the applicability of state laws or waive necessary exemptions.

University Research>\a.s
Devea lop>nn Financing Methods
Land Lease to Developer MIT, Princeton
One of the most effective ways for a university to participate in a project while both maintaining optimum control as well as avoiding problems in taxation.
Land Sale Georgia, Purdue, Triangle
Raises capital at the expense of long term income, control and involvement. Typically found only in pure speculative ventures, not in estate acquired lands.
Joint Venture With Developer
Provides for utilization of both developer capital and expertise or either. According to the Urban Land Institute, at the present time no university is serving as their own research park developer.
Equity Capital
University related general fund, endowment, foundations. Florida, Georgia.
Associated parties alumni, local businesses, grants, investments.
Private developers, user venture capital, endowments, foundations, investment syndications, pension funds.
Stanford, Triangle, Oklahoma.
Government loans typically programs.for targeted types of faculties. Utah, New Mexico.
Tax exempt bonds typically industrial development bonds. Commercial mortgages Purdue.
Pension funds.
Joint venture with related equity and debt typically large multi-national corporations with both financial and research arms.

University Research C ampus
Deve lopment S t xr sl t e B enefits
The Benefits to the University:
Expand or strengthen their research base and capabilities.
Provide consulting or job opportunities for faculty, graduates, or students.
Utilization of a dorment asset.
Translate land values into economic returns to fund operations, programs and facilities that aid overall university objectives.
The Benefits to Research Industries:
Academic the availability of educational programs and a technically trained labor pool.
Research the availability of technical and scientific information.
Cultural access to the cultural environment that surrounds a university.
Association with or around a university has a commensurate credential enhancement.
The Benefits to the Community:
A university research park is a major catalyst for community economic development.
Jobs for local citizens.
The university can provide a foundation for 'incubator
research' that can spin off into economic opportunities for the private sector.
Generation of new dollars into the community.
Utilization of a underdeveloped parcel of land within the city, utilizing existing public infrastructure.


1 z LM C 1 i 1 1 u- I Uu 1 < i
£ |a ee | E 1 E1 cc < E !
t-; = ^ <-J 1 u.! l_; C 1
5 z
cc r: i r s3lwu.i sc = 1
u. WO CD i/i o; t < u i wo Jn i
Researcr 31ac. *1 | Cires Seismograon ; 1 : I 3 l 1 9 i 1 0 1 3 i 12 1 A *3 |j
Researcn 31da. *2 N.C.H.t.M.S. Cires world Data Center ! 1 l 1 3i j 9 j 0 3 12 2 14
Researcn Slog. *3 NOAA NCAR 0 l 1 2 4 0 3 7 0 7
Researcn 31dc. *4 Life Science Researcn l 2 1 3 12 0 0 12 0 12
Benavior Genetics Laboratory Genetics Lab l 2 1 3 12 0 0 12 0 12
Transoortation Center Garage l 0 1 2 4 0 0 4 4 8
Marine Street Science Center N.C.A.R. (National Center for Atmosoheric Research) l 1 1 1 3 0 3 6 2 8
Service Building Linen, Butcher, Bakery l 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 4 7
ComDuter Center Comouter Center 0 0 I 1 1 0 3 4 0 4
Physical lant Cyclotron 1 1 1 3 9 0 3 12 2 14
Smiley Court Linear Family Units in Clustered Buildings 0 2 1 3 9 0 3 12 0 12
Colorado Court Clustered Family Housing 3 4 3 2 20 5 3 N CD 4 32
Housing Maintenance Center Service and Maintenance for Housing Units 0 i 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 2
Hazardous waste & Storage Hazardous Waste & Storage 1 3 2 1 6 1 1 8 2 10
Stazio Recreation Center Softball Comdex 1 2 4 1 7 s 0 13 0 13
Structural Subtotal Age Coefficient x (Founoation Structure Roof)

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO-EAST CAMPUS Existing Facility Inventory Summary
0 - Grade beams with caissons
1 - Concrete spread footings
3 - Grade beam without footings or caissons
0 - Concrete columns and slabs
1 - Steel columns and beams
2 - Concrete blocx bearing wall
3 - Metal panels
A Wood stud bearing
(!) New bui 1 t-up roof with insulation
1 - Built-up roof with insulation -
2 - Metal roof panels
3 - Asphalt shingles no gutters
4 - Wood shingles
1 - 0-11 years old
2 - 12-18 years old
3 - 19 or more years old
0 - Brick, concrete block, or precast concrete panels
1 - Metal panels
5 - Exterior plywood with battens
6 - Wood siding
0 - Brick, concrete block, or precast concrete panels
1 - Metal panels
3 - Gypsum board
0 - Possitive visual impact
1 - Minor visual problems
2 - Moderate visual problems
4 - Negative visual impact

Minor fdliny alony Roodpam frinye mi No encroachment on flooiMai
Minor channelization of Rouldev Creek Locallied diainafc anpio vrments fill placement and floodproofmy
I e'l Minimum limits of floodwoy channel
lj l_; ,
East Campus
AF^Moiy: e>

Of major concern to the professional design team are the form giving effects of the site characteristics. It is critical that the inventory and analysis data be processed into a format that can be used by the client and the team. A proven approach to providing the inventory and analysis information is a site suitability map. This single map illustrates the combined impacts of the site characteristics inventoried. The map illustrates a progression of suitability ratings ranging from most favorable for development through unsuitable for development. The findings illustrated on this map will serve as guidelines for Phase Two land use pianning.
To establish a development suitability rating system for the University of Colorado-East Campus site, four site characteristics were assigned rank points. The sum of accumulated ranking points determined the suitability. The site characteristics were rated as follows:
Site Characteristic Remarks Ratinq
Floodway Limits Area 1 0
(See Figure 6) Area 2 1
Area 3 3
Area 4 6
Area 5 9
Area 6 12
Depth of Flooding o'-r 1
r+ 2
Depth of Bedrock 0'-10' 0
(See Figure 9) 10'-20' 1
20' + 3
Depth of Groundwater 10' + 0
(See Figure 10) 5'-10' 1
0 *-5' 3

Composite Suitability Rating for Urban Development
SIiqht Limitations Moderate Limitations Severe Limitations Unsuitable for Development
0-3 points 4-8 points 9-12 points 13+ points
The site characteristics most limiting development were assigned the largest ranking points. Because of the high cost and political difficulties associated with modifying floodway limits in Areas 4, 5 and 6, the ranking points are large. The smaller the sum of ranking points, the more suitable the area for development. The composite suitability rating for the site are illustrated in Figure 13.