Evolution of campus form and the university-affiliated research park

Material Information

Evolution of campus form and the university-affiliated research park progeny or a break from tradition
Loeb, Mark Lasker
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
vii, 88, [9] leaves : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Research parks ( lcsh )
Campus planning ( lcsh )
Campus planning ( fast )
Research parks ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaf 89).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mark Lasker Loeb.

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:
13789478 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1986 .L64 ( lcc )

Full Text

Evolution of Campus Form and the University-Affiliated Research Park; Progeny or a Break From Tradition
Mark Lasker Loeb B.A., University of Colorado, 1983
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Planning and Community Development College of Design and Planning 1986
A 78

Loeb, Mark Lasker (M.A., Planning and Community Development)
Evolution of Campus Form and the University-Affiliated Research Park: Progeny or a Break From Tradition
Thesis directed by Professor Herbert H. Smith
For over three centuries, the American university has been building campuses. The campus has evolved from the introverted, ecclesiastical cloister to the extroverted, worldly center for scientific inquiry. This opening up of the campus form has reflected changes occuring at the university which in turn reflects changes occuring in the surrounding world. As society today moves into the post-industrial period, the university is once again in search of a form which will be an appropriate expression of these changes. *To this end, the university is turning to the University-Affiliated Research Park. The Research Park offers many benefits to the university as attested to by its success. But these joint-ventured developments in their current form, appear to conflict with the ideals of the university. Symbolically, the university has always maintained some semblance of a nurturing community. This notion is derived from the herder spirit in mankind and is manifested in the campus form. The Research Park, on the other had, is a commercial entity with no sense of collective identity. This represents the hunter spirit in mankind whose objective it is to exploit.
The work presented here attemps to address this paradox by looking first at the development of the American university campus and the Research Park in hope of proving that they are cast from two different molds. And second, based upon this conclusion, discuss the appropriateness of the Research Park

and suggest alternatives.
In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the Research Park is a break from tradition. The university, throughout its evolution, has maintained a common thread in its physical form: that of the campus. However, from the very start, the Research Park has been derived directly from the industrial park. If the campus embodies the herder spirit and the Research Park embodies the hunter spirit then the Research Park must conflict with the university and is therefore neither a consistent nor an appropriate form. However, there are two solutions to the contradiction. First, disassociate universities from industrial park-type developments. The better solution is to create Research Campuses which would fill the missing link between the two and provide an appropriate physical form for the university in a changing society.
The form and content of this abstract are approved.
Faculty member in charge of thesis

ABSTRACT........................................................... ii
I. INTRODUCTION................................................... 1
Preface...................................................... I
Purpose of the Study......................................... 4
Problem Identification..................................... 4
Problem Statement.......................................... 5
Thesis Statement........................................... 5
Scope of the Study and Constraints........................... 6
Nomenclature................................................. 7
Conclusions................................................. 10
Arrangement of the Study.................................... 13
Preface..................................................... 15
English Antecedents......................................... 15
Colleges in Colonial America................................ 19
Spirit of a New Democracy.......................i.......... 28
Pre-Civil War Enthusiasm................................... 32
College Reform.............................................. 36
The City Beautiful Campus................................... 43
Revival of the English Ideal................................ 49
The Modern Movement......................................... 53
Essential Characteristics................................... 64
Preface..................................................... 67
Research on Campus.......................................... 67
Early Forms................................................. 69
Current Trends.............................................. 76
Essential Characteristics................................... 82
IV. CONCLUSION.................................................. 84
Progeny or a Break from Tradition........................... 84
Appropriateness of the University-Affiliated Research Park.. 86
Alternative Solutions and Future Prospects.................. 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................... 89

1 New College, Oxford University, England, ca. 1465................ 2
2 Astronomical Observatory, Georgetown College,
Washington, D.C., ca. 1S80....................................... 3
3 Nassau Hall, Princeton University, New Jersey, ca. 1960.......... 9
4 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1827................... 12
5 University of California (Benard Plan), Berkeley, 1899.......... 12
6 Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1668.................................. 17
7 New College, Oxford University, ca. 1979........................ 17
8 Oxford, England, 1675........................................... 18
9 Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge University,
England, 1688.................................................. 20
10 Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1726................. 20
11 College of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1896..................... 21
12 Yale College, New Haven, Connecticut, 1786...................... 21
13 Wren Building, College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, Virginia, late twentieth century.................. 23
14 Harvard College, 1767......................................... 24
15 College of William and Mary, ca. 1740........................... 24
16 "Old Brick Row", Yale College, 1807............................. 26
17 New Haven Green, 1748........................................... 26
18 College of New Jersey, Princeton, 1764.......................... 27
19 Union College (Ramee Plan), Schenectady,
New York, ca. 1820........................

20 Union College, ca. 1950.......................................... 30
21 South Carolina College, Columbia, 1872........................... 31
22 University of Virginia, 1856..................................... 31
23 Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, 1830.............. 33
24 Girard College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1869................. 35
25 Jubilee College, Peoria County, Illinois, 1844................... 37
26 Michigan State Agricultural College, Lansing,
ca. 1875, 1879................................................... 40
27 University of Missouri, Columbia, ca. 1875....................... 41
28 Hemenway Gymnasium, Harvard University, 1882..................... 42
29 Rogers Building, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Boston, ca. 1873..................................... 44
30 Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1888................. 45
31 Columbia University, New York City, 1894......................... 47
32 Cadet Quarters, United States Naval Academy,
Annapolis, Maryland, 1908.'..................................... 47
33 Sweet Briar College, Virginia, ca. 1901.......................... 48
34 Princeton University (Cram Plan), 1911........................... 50
35 Graduate College, Princeton University,
mid-twentieth century............................................ 51
36 Holden, Hamilton and Madison Halls, Princeton
University, mid-twentieth century................................ 51
37 "Cathedral of Learning", University of Pittsburgh,
mid-twentieth century............................................ 52
38 University of Colorado, Boulder, ca. 1919........................ 52
39 Gymnasium, Bakersfield College, ca. 1955......................... 55
40 Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, 1940.................. 55
41 United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs,
ca. 1962......................................................... 56

42 State University of New York, Albany, 1961...................... 56
43 Graduate Center, Harvard University, 1949....................... 58
44 Kresge Auditorium and Chapel, ca. 1955.................. 58
45 Florida Southern College, Lakeland, 1958........................ 59
46 The New Dormitory, University of Chicago, ca. 1958.............. 59
47 Morse and Stiles Colleges, Yale University, ca. 1962............ 60
48 Kresge College, University of California,
Santa Cruz, ca. 1975............................................ 62
49 Foothills College, Los Altos Hills, California, late
twentieth century............................................... 63
50 Pima County Community College, Tuscon, Arizona, 1967............ 63
51 James Forrestal Research Campus, Princeton
University, 1960................................................ 71
52 Princeton Forrestal Center, early 1980's........................ 72
53 Stanford Research Park, Stanford University, early 1980's....... 74
54 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, early 1980's............ 75
55 Buildings at Stanford Research Park, early 1980's............... 77
56 Grounds at Stanford Research Park, early 1980's................. 78
57 University City Science Center, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, early 1980's...................................... 80

Everything in the interest of comfort, everything for the sake of calm and serenity, everything to make solid bodies. Each college or university is an urban unit in itself, a small or large city. Lawns, parks, stadiums, cloisters, dining halls, a whole complex of comfortable quarter... The American University is a world in itself, a temporary paradise...^
Le Corbusier
Over the centuries, the university campus has provided a setting for some of the most unique design and planning in American history. From the monastic predecessors of Cambridge and Oxford Universities in England who turned their backs on the corruption of the outside world (Figure 1), to the extroverted, worldly centers for scientific inquiry (Figure 2), the campus has gone through a remarkable evolution. However, today, the American university campus is at a crossroads in its development. The explosive growth of the past twenty years has come to a halt, land resources held in trust for future generations have been nearly depleted, funding has become scarce and sporatic and changes in society resulting in changes in the workforce have all caused the university to carefully scrutinize its future.
The most recent and most significant development in university design and planning is the University-Affiliated Research Park. The Research Park provides a hope for a new era, one which promises to expand the base of the university, add prestige to it and provide it invaluable sources of endowment. But it is also an era which has the potential to diffuse the qualities which are

Figure 1 New College, Oxford University, England, ca. 1465. Source: Paul V. Turner, Campus: An American Planning Tradition.


the spiritual backbone of the university: the qualities of community, identity and tradition. On a more symbolic level, the university represents the herder spirit in mankind whose object is to nurture and to care. The University-Affiliated Research Park, as it appears today, seems to represent the hunter spirit in mankind whose object it is to exploit and kill. This fundamental paradox has not been adequately addressed as universities jump on the Research Park bandwagon. It is my hope to bring this issue to the surface in this study so that a more consistent and appropriate form can be applied in the future to reflect the ideals and goals of the university.
Purpose of the Study
During the fall of 1985, I had the opportunity to work on a preliminary development plan for a proposed "Research Campus" at the University of Colorado at Boulder.2 In its program description, the University was very explicit about the concept of a "Research Campus" as opposed to a "Research Park". It was up to our group to determine what this subtle difference was and propose alternative solutions to the program. It occured to me at the time from looking at the patterns of development of University-Affiliated Research Parks that what was being developed on these university land-holdings was distinctly different from what had been developed in the past. The physical form of the Research Parks bore little resemblence to anything university related and, in fact, seemed to be borrowed, with little alteration, directly from the private-sponsored industrial park.
For over three centuries, the American university has been building

campuses. Through each of its periods of development, the campus has evolved in its form tending to become more secularized with time reflecting changes occuring in the surrounding world. Could it be that the University-Affiliated Research Park was the next step in the evolution? If so, then why was the University of Colorado so adamant about creating a "Research Campus"? I felt that the issue needed further exploration and that led me to this thesis. Since nothing had been written on the subject of University-Affiliated Research Park form, I siezed upon the opportunity.
The problem that I have found is that the University-Affiliated Research Park, in its current form, conflicts with the ideals of the university (herder vs. hunter). Even the most modern and most recent campuses have got that sense of community which is derived from the nurturing spirit in mankind. That spirit is essentially nonexistent on today's Research Parks and it is my belief that that was the cause for fear by the University of Colorado in its choice of nomenclature.
To prove my argument I propose to do the two following things in this thesis: first, to discuss the patterns of development of the American university campus and the University-Affiliated Research Park in hopes of proving that they are cast form two different molds. Based upon this conclusion, I will, secondly, discuss the appropriateness of the current form of the University-Affiliated Research Park and suggest alternatives.

Scope of the Study and Constraints

This thesis will cover only the physical elements of the university and how it relates to the overall ideals of the institution. As well, it will concentrate on American universities with reference to Europeon universities when necessary. This is for the obvious reason that the University-Affiliated Research Park is an American phenomenon. One constraint on doing a study of campus form has been the lack of comprehensive histories of campus planning.3 Most of the works that are available are contained as sections of others books or focus soley on individual schools or architects. However, one recent book, "Campus: An American Planning Tradition" by Paul V. Turner proved to be an excellent source of information on the development of campus form and its correlation to academic ideals.^ Consequently is served as the basis for much of the discussion on the American university campus in Chapter 2.
The discussion of the University-Affiliated Research Park is limited here to those being developed in conjunction with universities on university land. This simplification is necessary for two reasons. The first is to establish the relationship between the campus and the Research Park. Second, although many Research Parks are springing up around America's universities in response to market forces, they often have little direct linkage to the school itself. Unlike the campus, no explicit material is available concerning the physical form ot the University-Affiliated Research Park. The only book currently available dedicated exclucively to the subject is "Research Parks and Other Ventures: the University/Real Estate Connection" by the Urban Land Institute (ULI).^ This book, like many of the journal articles published and the few

national symposiums held on Research Parks, tend to emphasize the business end of the subject: structuring, management, financing, economic
development, etc. One notable study done at the Ohio State University gives an indication of some of the development trends of a study group such as land absorption rate, floor-area-ratio, lot size, allowable land use, etc.^
However, master plans, program descriptions and the visual relationships of the parts to the whole are terribly lacking. That is not to say that they don't exist, they just haven't been compiled to date. This lack of information on form is due in part to the recentness of the phenomenon but also due to the orientation of the projects: the commercial end of the equation greatly outweighs the spiritual end. Although the university has long been involded in building construction and land development, the equation has traditionally been just opposite of this. For these reasons, the scope of Chapter 3 was limited by the availability of current information.
Before proceeding, some terms should be clarrified to avoid confusion in the study. First, is the use of the words "university" and "college". The meaning of these words has varied over time but today, the distinction is fairly clear. At Oxford and Cambridge, college refered to the various independent institutions which, as a whole, comprised the university community. Because of the monastic connotations of the word college, as used in this country, it came to refer to the small, ecclesiastical schools with their emphasis on a narrow and traditional curriculum. The word university had classical connotations with its

more diverse and secularized curriculum and an empahais on a democratic education. The essence of the historical meaning of the words can be seen in their usage today. The college is a smaller institution with its major emphasis on liberal arts subjects and undergraduate degrees.7 It also refers to sub-units within the university. The university is a larger institution which offers classes in both liberal arts and sciences and confers both undergraduate and advanced degrees.^ For the sake of simplicity, the term university will be used here to refer to institutions of higher education in the broad sense unless noted otherwise in the historical context.
Second is the use of the word "campus". The word has its roots in Latin where it simply refers to "a field".^ The term was later coined, probably at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) around 1770, to refer to the grounds at the school (Figure 3). 10 But campus has come to mean much more than the aggregation of buildings and grounds for it is the material embodiment of the spirit of the university. It is often a reflection of the school's idealism, identity and sense of community. An observer as early as 1879 wrote, "There is no spell more powerful to recall the memories of college life than the word campus."! 1 Kevin Lynch refered to this quality as "imageability".12 Understanding the concept of campus is very important to this thesis because it is these qualities which elevate "campus" above "park".
"Industrial park" is a fairly generic term used here to refer to a broad range of science, research and office parks. The name industrial park is a seeming contradiction in terms: "industrial" and "park" when used separately often conjure up images very different from one anouther. The term industrial

Figure 3 Nassau Hall (1756), Princeton University, New Jersey, ca. 1960. Source: Richard P. Dober, Campus Planning.

obviously describes the type of activity allowed. 13 The term park is more illusive but usually indicates that some landscaping is involved.
Finally, the term "University-Affiliated Research Park" refers to the centers for scientific research which are springing up on many universities' satellite land-holdings, the characteristics of which will be explored in Chapter 3. The exact origin of the term is not known for sure but it has been used in the Ohio State University Study***, the chapter by Douglas Porter in the ULI book*3 and most recently, at a conference sponsored by the International Association of University Research Parks and the Arizona State University Research Park.*6 The term "Research Park" will be used occationally as an abbreviation for the full term.
Throughout its history, the university campus has developed as a very recognizable form on the American landscape. This is evident from a review of the development of campus form. Although derived primarily from models at Cambridge and Oxford Universities, the American campus is a reflection of the distinct needs and ideals of the institutions and society which it represents. During its evolution, the campus has increased in size, sophistication and diversity, tending to become more of a magnet than a container with time. However, one element has remained intact regardless of the architectural or planning styles in vogue: the notion of community and being a world within itself. This is the spirit derived from the inward focus of the herder. The campus is the manifestation of this ideal. Hence, it is by no

accident that Thomas Jefferson described his university as an "academical village" 17 (Figure 4) or that the Hearst Competition for the University of California at Berkeley sought to create a "City of Learning"^ (Figure 5).
As seen from its early establishment, the development of the University-Affiliated Research Park grew out of a need to provide space for scientific research and to generate endowment for the university. The building orientation suggested a commercial form derived from the industrial park rather than from a preconceived sense of community or separateness from the world. This trend continues today with an emphasis on creating a completely business-oriented climate rather than a learning-oriented climate. This is a manifestation of the hunter spirit.
In reviewing this evidence, it is obvious that the University-Affiliated Research Park clearly breaks away from the traditions of campus. The minimum requirements necessary, community, identity and the collegiate ideal are conspicuously missing at the Research Park. Symbolically, the nurturing spirit in mankind is gone in the Research Park form. And if it is this nurturing spirit which is the common thread throughout the history of the university, then it can be deduced that the University-Affiliated Research Park conflicts with the collegiate ideal and is therefore not an appropriate form for the university.
However, I feel that the contradiction can be solved in one of two ways. First, dissassociate universities from industrial park-type developments. This solution resolves the conflict but doesn't solve the problems of providing necessary endowment, opportunities for expanding the research base of the

Figure 4 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1827. Source: Turner.
Figure 5 University of California (Benard Plan), Berkeley, 1899. Source: Turner.

university and carrying the university into the next century. The second choice is to create University-Affiliated Research Campuses. These Research Campuses would maintain the collegiate ideal, thus resolving the conflict, as well as provide all the opportunities that are currently available at the Research Park.
Arrangement of the Study
The chapters of this study are arranged in the following way: In Chapter 1, I introduce the subject matter of the thesis, identify the problem, state the purpose and discuss its various parameters. In Chapter 2, I provide an overview on the development of university campus form in America and discuss its characteristics. In Chapter 3, I look at the rise of the University-Affiliated Research Park, its current trends and its characteristic forms. This is followed by the conclusion in which I discuss the issues of evolution and appropriateness and suggest possible alternative solutions in Chapter 4. The appendix at the end provides a summary of currently planned and operating Research Parks as compiled in the ULI book. 17

1 Paul V. Turner, Campus: An American Planning Tradition, 1984, p. 160.
2 Victor Yang Chia-Cheng, et al, University of Colorado, Boulder Research Campus Plans; Draft Report, 1986.
3 Turner, p.4.
* Ibid.
3 Urban Land Institute, Research Parks and Other Ventures: the University/Real Estate Connection, 1985.
6 Arthur E. Adams, et al, A Comparative Study of University-Affiliated Research Parks, 1985.
7 Richard P. Dober, Campus Planning, 1963, p.4.
8 Ibid.
9 Turner, p.4.
10 Ibid., p.46.
11 Ibid., p.4.
12 Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City, 1960, p.9.
13 Douglas R. Porter, "Research Parks: An Emerging Phenomenon", Urban Land, September, 1984, p.7.
1^ Adams.
13 Urban Land Institute, p.70.
16 The International Association of University Research Parks and the Arizona State University Research Park, "First Annual International Conference on University-Affiliated Research Parks," April 27-30, 1986.
12 Turner, p. 79.
i8 Ibid., p. 180.
19 Urban Land Institute, p. 75.

The purpose of this chapter will be to provide an overview of campus form and its development in this country. The emphasis will be placed on the characteristic physical form and how it relates to the changing ideals of the university and the society through time. The trends that emerge from the study of campus evolution will be used as evidence to prove the break from tradition of the University-Affiliated Research Park.
This chapter reviews the American campus from a chronological point of view starting with the English models immediately preceding the founding of the colonial college up to the modern campus of the twentieth century. Of course, not all universities can be included in such a brief review. I will concentrate on those examples which I feel are representative of a certain style or historical period or serve to make a point about campus form. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the exceptional text by Turner serves as the primary source for much of the discussion in this chapter. The chapter is concluded with an analysis of American campus form and a discussion of the qualities which are embodied in it.
English Antecedents
The lineage of the American university points directly to the models established at Cambridge and Oxford Universities in England. The enthusiasm

for higher education during the early seventeenth century in England was at a peak. In fact, a greater proportion of the population was receiving higher education during this period than at any other time up until the twentieth century. 1 This commitment to learning was imported to the colonies from the very start when in 1636, Harvard College (now Harvard University) was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts (Figure 6). By the time of the Revolution, there were nine degree-granting colleges in America, a high proportion to the total population.2
The colleges at Cambridge and Oxford were first established around the twelfth and thriteenth centuries. These colleges developed as a community of masters and students living and studying together in compounds patterned on the monastic cloister (Figure 7). Whereas the medieval cloister sought to defend against invading armies, the collegiate cloister sought to defend against the evils of the towns and the townspeople themselves. As well, the cloister allowed for a highly controlled and regulated environment in which to shape young minds. In terms of planning, the cloister also made sense because large parcels of land were simply not available in the crowded towns (Figure 8). Symbolically, the cloister represented an inward focus and a sense of containment which reflected the ecclesiastical ideals of the English universities. This symbolic focus was to set a precedent for university development in America.
The predominant architecture of the English colleges was Gothic, even into the eighteenth century when the Renaissance movement was well over three centuries old. This attests to the strength of the traditional collegiate

Figure 6 Reconstructed view of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1668. Source: Turner.
Figure 7 New College (1386-1405), Oxford University, ca. 1979. Source: John Ashdown and Anthony F. Kersting, The Buildings of Oxford.


values and the spiritual connotations contained in the Gothic form. However, an innovation occurred at Cambridge in the mid-sixteenth century that was sure to have a lasting impression on colonial colleges: that of the three-sided quadrangle (Figure 9). Although most probably built in this manner for health reasons, the three-sided quadrangle represented a more open and less defensive attitude towards the world.3 This marked a small but significant movement in collegiate form where the absolute enclosure of the cloister had been broken.
Colleges in Colonial America
The emphasis on education in the colonies, particularly in New England with its largely Puritan population, was a carry-over from England but was also a reflection of a strong desire by the settlers to establish an intellectual and cultural laity in the wilderness of the New World. From the beginning, the colonial colleges were distinct in their form as they sought to satisfy their particular needs based on their relatively impoverished conditions. The pattern of development of the earliest colleges was to build a single structure to house master and student under one roof as in the English tradition. Because of the lack of money, plain, narrow buildings were erected rather than the elaborate monastic quadrangles of England. When- the colleges began to grow, new facilities were built flanking the old, sometimes in a C-shape (Harvard College -Figure 10), sometimes in an L-shape (College of Philadelphia, now University of Pennsylvania Figure 11) and sometimes in a row (Yale College Figure 12). These patterns are notable for their attempt at variety and openness, truly a reflection of the independent and innovative attitude of colonial America. It is also important to note that, at the time of their construction, most of the

Figure 9 Gonville and Caius College (1617-1619), Cambridge University, England, 1688. Source: Turner.
Figure 10 Harvard College Yard (1682-1720), Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1726 Source: Turner.

Figure 12 Yale College (1750-1761), New Haven, Connecticut, 1786. Source Turner.

college buildings were the most imposing and architecturally significant of the period, thus demonstrating the vitality of the educational commitment (Figure 13).
Related to this tendency for spaciousness is the fact that the colleges were widely dispersed among the colonies and were located in largely rural sites. This was perhaps motivated by the goal of training Native Americans for missionary work, but more significantly, carried over the monastic ideal of being removed from the profane city, coupled with the romantic ideal of the purity of nature. This distinctly American union of ideals has undoubtedly contributed to the location and planning of numerous American schools. Even as urbanization has engulfed the university and land become scarce, the concept of free-standing buildings in an open plan has persisted.
As mentioned, several unique patterns of development began to appear in the colonial college. As opposed to the generally accepted form of the cloister in Cambridge and Oxford, there seemed to be no definitive mold from which the colonial college was to be cast. The unusual diversity of plans did provide some noteworthy examples. The 1726 view of Harvard shows an open three-sided quadrangle (Figure 10). The buildings are unattached but the form is very compact and focuses inward. However, the 1767 view shows the College opening up to road along a row displaying a more outward view of the town while still maintaining a tight college community (Figure 14).
Although the grouping of buildings at the College of William and Mary, seen in Figure 15, resembles the three-sided quadrangle of early Harvard, it is

Figure 13 Wren Building (1700), College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, late twentieth century. Source: Turner.

2 4
Figure 14 Harvard College (1699-1764), 1767. Source: Turner.

distinctive for a few reasons. First, the quadrangle is more spacious and symmetrical with a dominant building. Secondly, it was the terminus of a powerful axis leading to the capitol building. Thirdly, the planned joining together of education and government went against English tradition. This Baroque scheme suggests a more open and domestic attitude most likely reflected in the school's educational ideals.
Yale College (now Yale University) is notable for its so-called "Old Brick Row" (Figure 16). This form resulted from the construction of a succession of buildings having a common setback and facing onto the New Haven Green. This plan is interesting in three respects. First, unlike the square, the row could be extended indefinitely to accommodate future growth. Secondly, the site plan included details for landscaping signifying a concern for the college grounds even in the very early years. Finally, there wasn't even the slightest attempt to isolate the College from the community (Figure 17), although the students and masters did continue to be housed together at the College as per tradition. Although widely imitated in the early nineteenth century, the Yale row never became a lasting form.
The College of New Jersey was founded in rural Princeton, a small town far removed from the malevolence of the city. The combination of the medieval and romantic ideals were best exemplified in the plan for this College. The original building, Nassau Hall, with its stately Georgian architecture, and the President's house were the only two buildings envisioned on the spacious grounds (Figure 18). This village-like setting embodied what was later termed here as campus, the image of which was to have left a lasting

Figure 16 "Old Brick Row" (1750-1803), Yale College, 1807. Source: Turner.
Figure 17 New Haven Green (Yale College upper left), 1748. Source: Turner.

Figure 18 College of New Jersey (1756-1757), Princeton, 1764. Source: Turner.

impression on the American university.
Spirit of a New Democracy
The period following the Revolutionary War was marked by a renewed commitment by the Nation to higher education. The number of colleges had grown to about forty-five by the 1820's.^ This growth can be attributed in large part to the desire of the various religious sects to have a college in every section of the growing nation. It was also at this time that the state-funded school had its beginnings. These institutions, driven by the separation of church and state of the new democracy, were to offer the campus an even more outward, if not cautious, view of the world. This new era also saw the advent of the professional architect who was to innovate the process of college planning in America. Many of these architects were aware of the trends occurring in Europe and incorporated these ideas into their planning. Most significant was the tendency towards a more secular ideal based on the classical order of architecture and the diversification of curriculum taking place at the German universities such as in Gottingen. This German influence was to have only a small impact at first due to the stronghold of traditional curriculum and ideals but contributed to the-permanent departure of some universities by the late nineteenth century.
The increasing sophistication of campus planning during this period can best be illustrated by two noteworthy examples. 3oseph-Jacques Ramee's plan for Union College in Schenectady, New York, proposed in 1813, was the most magnificent campus plan to date. The combination of Union College's

progressive curriculum and learning environment along with Ramee's European architectural background provided a refreshingly new opportunity for a campus form. The engraving from ca. 1820 shows a U-shaped quadrangle with buildings connected by an arcade and having a central Pantheon as a focus (Figure 19). The plan, knitted together and balanced in the French manner, yet spacious in the American manner, was executed as seen in the aerial view from 1950 (Figure 20). The essence of the original plan is still evident although the fully connecting arcade is conspicuously missing. This plan demonstrates a strongly Baroque idea, perhaps reminiscent of Versailles, France, yet is softened by the extensive landscaping. Although not widely copied in its form, the scheme planted the seeds for a more up-scaled approach to campus master planning.
Another important campus form began to emerge during this period. Thought to have been first conceived at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in 1795, the concept of the mall first appeared on campus probably at South Carolina College, Columbia (now University of South Carolina Figure 21). Although the mall was introduced to America by Charles-Pierre L'Enfant's 1791 plan for Washington, D.C., Thomas Jefferson's plan for the University of Virginia at Charlottesville in 1817 was perhaps the most important execution of the form. The plan for the campus was like no others. Jefferson's desire to create an "academical village" was manifested in the scheme by his creation of a unique blend of formality and informality, enclosure and openness, monumentality and domestic scale, variety and unity and rural and urban within a single plan (Figure 22). Jefferson was also an educator and was set on the idea of creating the consummate university where the emphasis was to be placed on a reformed curriculum, yet maintain the monastic tradition of a

Figure 19 Union College (Ramee Plan), Schenectady, New York, ca. 1820. Source: Turner.
Figure 20 Aerial View of Union College, ca. 1950

Figure 21 South Carolina College Mall (1806-1840's), Columbia, 1872. Source: Turner.
Figure 22 University of Virginia, 1856. Source: Turner

residential college. The library replaced the chapel and the pavilion replaced the dormitory. Interestingly enough, the mall form was to have little effect on campus design until the late nineteenth century when it was to become the most imitated campus form.
Pre-Civil War Enthusiasm
The exuberant decades leading up to the Civil War were marked by the proliferation of colleges as the Nation saw itself grow in population, wealth and sheer size. Higher education became a symbol of progress, a progress based on endless optimism and expansion. As a result, many impressive and ambitious college master plans were developed but were often doomed from the start due to their generally unrealistic expectations. The historian Frederick Rudolph commented, "College-founding in the nineteenth century was undertaken in the same spirit as canal-building, cotton-ginning, farming and gold-mining. In none of these activities did completely rational procedures prevail.Thus, only about one in five colleges founded by the time of the Civil War was to survive.^
Colleges of this period followed the trend of locating in largely rural sites. Although still seeking to escape from the depraved city, the colleges were being inspired by the aesthetic qualities of nature, reflecting the romanticism of the times (Figure 23). Small towns and villages wishing to capitalize on the economic benefits of having a college locate nearby competed fiercely between one another, often trying to outdo the other with promises beyond reason. This "boosterism" produced some fine architectural masterpieces but led to very few exceptional overall plans since the grandiose

Figure 23 Williams College (1790-1828), Williamstown, Massachusetts, 1830 Source: Turner.

schemes had little chance of being fully executed.
The first few decades of the nineteenth century were dominated by Greek Revival architecture in America. This trend had its early beginnings in the Federal-style buildings but soon was replaced by a taste for the more classical styles. This style was more than just a fashionable trend to universities for it embodied the classical ideals of "democracy, purity, wisdom and independence".'7 The planning of this period was similarly influenced with the predominant themes being order, symmetry and grand scale. This is best epitomized by the 1865 engraving of Girard College in Philadelphia showing the chaste Greek temples (Figure 24). In comparison with the "Old Brick Row" at Yale (Figure 16), the buildings are aligned in a row with coherent architecture and even setbacks looking out to the town green. In contrast, the Girard buildings are monuments built on pedestals, standing more independently and having a centrally dominating building. When built from scratch, the Greek Revival campus provided a congruent form but the singular building was often an imposition on the older campus because its vastly different scale.
The Gothic Revival style was to follow, gaining popularity in the late 1830's and 1840's. This movement drew its support primarily from the various churches and colleges who were looking for a less pagan form in their architecture. Undoubtedly, the expense and expertise required to render the Greek Revival style must have been too much for some smaller schools to bear. And finally, possibly reacting to the high mortality rate, many colleges wanted to give the impression of venerability and permanence.


Although Gothic Revival architecture had substantial connotations to the medieval cloister, the Revival examples prior to the Civil War were executed in an expansive American fashion (Figure 25). In many cases, the entire college was to be housed in the single building, thus, continuing the English collegiate tradition but in a form suitable to American tastes. This unique combination of medieval and romantic ideals developed into a stylistic movement now affectionately referred to as "collegiate Gothic".
Since many of the colleges of this time had similar facilities needs, the choice of architecture was a symbolic gesture usually tailored to the college's desires. Many of the professional architects were well versed in both classical and medieval styles and typically would offer the college a choice between the two although the overall plan would be identical for both. Even the non-traditional schools such as the military academies and the medical schools clung to the architectural historicism often choosing a style based on the tastes of the founder or a prominent patron, rather than as an expression of function.
College Reform
Although going through fits and starts for decades, the reform of the American college finally culminated with the enactment of the Morril Act in 1862. The Act set up the land-grant school with its emphasis on the liberation of curriculum from traditional confinement and freedom of education from the elite for all social classes (including women and blacks). This shift from the traditional to the democratic laid the groundwork for the modern university. More symbolically it marked a divergency between the sectarian and the truly

Figure 25 Design for Jubilee College, Peoria County, Illinois, 1S44. Source: Turner.

secular, rational ideals of higher education. The number of directions that the university could choose from was reflected in the increasing diversity of building requirements: from observatories to athletic facilities to women's housing. All these changes were having an enormous influence on campus form with many trends taking place simultaneously.
The reform movement supported the notion of an education relevant to the needs of the contemporary society. For this reason, the curriculum in these schools took on a more vocational nature, often specializing in agriculture and scientific fields of study. As well, these schools would be institutions for the masses. No real antecedents existed in terms of architecture and planning for the schools except perhaps the distant and unfamiliar German universities. Some schools continued to build in the fashionable trend, but for others, the styles were too ostentatious and did not represent the academic persona which they wished to project. Consequently, they turned to the informalist movement led by the famous American landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.
Olmsted was well attuned to the dichotomy between rural and urban land and devoted the majority of his career trying to resolve the antagonism between them. His urban parks, with their picturesque and naturalistic qualities, particularly impressed the land-grant schools for they shared some common goals: that of being neither completely urbane nor being completely removed from it and that of improving the conditions for the working masses. In a letter to the University of California Trustees, Olmsted wrote, "I would propose to adopt a picturesque, rather than a formal and perfectly symmetrical arrangement, for the two reasons that such anarrangement would better

harmonize artistically with the general character desired for the neighborhood, and that it would allow any enlargement or modification of the general plan of building...".8 Thus, Olmsted's appeal was based not only on aesthetics but also on the practicality of a plan able to accommodate unforeseeable future needs.
Olmsted's plans were generally characterized by an organic or "cow path" system of roads with more domestically scaled buildings irregularly grouped in superblocks (Figure 26). This rural, village-like setting was particularly appropriate for the land-grant colleges with their liberal and democratic ideals of education. Even at the traditional colleges, the landscape plans were being revised to reflect the popularity of the naturalistic campus. Some schools went so far as to demolish buildings whose original intent it was to provide symmetry for the sake of an informal form (Figure 27). This was not so bad for the irregular Gothic plan but was particularly harmful to the Greek Revival plan whose vitality depended so heavily on balance and purity.
Another change that was having an influence on the campus landscape was the rise of college athletics. The activities required their own special facilities including gymnasia, tracks, playing fields, stadia, and various other suitable accommodations. These facilities often required more area than the entire existing campus and once again gave credence to the choice of locating in largely rural areas. The sheer bulk of the buildings often proved difficult to integrate into the campus so they were given architectural shells (usually based on Roman idioms) to better blend in with the surrounding buildings, even though the form rarely followed the function (Figure 28). This paradox in building form also held true for the other utilitarian buildings appearing on campus such as

Figure 26a Plan for Michigan State Agricultural College (now Michigan State University), Lansing, ca. 1875. Source: Turner.
Figure 26b View of Michigan State Agricultural College in 1879. Source: Turner.

Figure 27 University of Missouri, Columbia, ca. 1875. Source: Turner


Figure 28 Hemenway Gymnasium (1878), Harvard University, 1882. Source: Turner.

physical plants and laboratories (Figure 29).
The City Beautiful Campus
The end of the nineteenth century saw the return of the grand master plan. This is attributable to two main causes: a new breed of benefactors able to endow a school on an unprecedented scale and the Columbian Exposition in Chicago of 1893 with the subsequent City Beautiful Movement. Leland Stanford's immense contribution of about $20 million to the founding of Stanford University provided an opportunity to create a totally new campus.^ In 1886, he hired Olmsted and Boston architect Charles A. Coolidge to produce an overall plan for the campus. After much deliberation between the architects' more naturalistic concepts and Stanford's more monumental concept, a plan, as seen in the 1888 rendering, was decided on (Figure 30). The plan was unique in several regards. First, the unified design contained a unique combination of Romanesque and Spanish Mission architecture which represented a degree of regionalism and a certain departure from mainstream styles. Secondly, it marked one of the first uses of the entirely enclosed quadrangle in American campus planning. And finally, the design possessed a degree of formality and grandeur not seen since perhaps the University of Virginia and Union College plans. There is also some debate as to the influence Olmsted had over the final design due to the sharp contrast between this plan and his plans of twenty years earlier.
The City Beautiful Movement captivated campus planners with its unitary architectural order and plans, usually dominated by a monumental axis. This

Figure 29a Rogers Building (1X66), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, ca. 1873. Source: Turner.
Figure 29b

Figure 30 Stanford University California, 1888. Source: Turner.
(Olmsted and Coolidge Plan), Palo Alto,

renewed interest by the campus planner in a formal scheme is possibly in response to the perceived haphazard, careless and often temperamental attitude towards the campus in preceding years. Pretentious as it may have been, the Movement gave rise to a revived enthusiasm in campus planning. The first clear expression of this trend appeared in the plan for Columbia University, New York, in 1894 (Figure 31). The plan clearly demonstrates order, axiality and hierarchy of spaces with the rotunda-like library serving as the heart of the research-oriented University. The extensiveness of the City Beautiful Movement and return to the classical order was evident from the University of California at Berkeley's Beaux Arts plan in the west (Figure 5) to the French Baroque buildings of the United States Naval Academy in the east (Figure 32).
Related to this Movement was a revival of the Jeffersonian mall. This was perhaps due to the renewed interest in classical architecture and a surge of interest in America's architectural heritage, but most probably was due to the similarities in form to the Beaux Arts campus. In comparison, the Beaux Arts and the Jeffersonian plans both incorporated the linear quadrangle with a strong focus and both sought to create unity from variety. In contrast, the Beaux Arts plan contained greater scale and incorporated secondary axes and subsidiary spaces. As well, it also made provisions for a greater variety of facilities reflecting changes in the university's program needs since Jefferson's day. These similarities and differences can be seen in the 1901 rendering of the master plan of Sweet Briar College in Virginia (Figure 33).

Figure 31 Columbia University (Charles F. McKim Plan), New York City, 1894. Source: Turner.
Figure 32 Cadet Quarters (ca. 1901), United States Naval Academy, 1908. Source: Turner.

Revival of the English Ideal
The large university came to dominate the American campus in the first two decades of the twentieth century. But, like with every great movement there came a subsequent counter-movement. Thus, the ideals of the English quadrangle were reborn in campus form. However, this time around the return to the historic collegeiate form was more of a confirmation of traditional values than a rejection of the secularized curriculum which had become synonymous with the university by this time. The leading advocate of this counter-movement was the architect Ralph Adams Cram whose ideal school was "half college and half monastery".^ His development plan of 1911 for the remaking of Princeton University reflects this imaginative combination with generous uses of both axiality and cloistering (Figure 34). However, of all the elements of this plan, the design of the Graduate College best exemplified his collegiate ideals (Figure 35).
The monastic quadrangle of Holden, Hamilton, and Madison Halls at Princeton carried on the Cram ideal but this time designed by prominent Gothic architects Frank Miles Day and Charles Zeller Klauder (Figure 36). Klauder was to go on and do significant work on the college campus, in particular the extraordinary forty-two story "Cathedral of Learning" at the University of Pittsburgh (Figure 37) and the imaginative "Rural Italian" architecture at the University of Colorado, Boulder (Figure 38). The distinctiveness of these designs reflects his bias that "the individuality of each institution be sought".^

Figure 3^ Princeton University (Cram Plan), 1911. Source: Turner.

Figure 35 Graduate College, Princeton University, mid-twentieth century. Source: Turner.
Figure 36 Holder, Hamilton and Madison Halls (1910-1916), Princeton University, mid-twentieth century. Source: Turner.

Figure 37 "Cathedral of Learning", right (1927), Heinz Chapel, also by Klauder, left (1933), University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, mid-twentieth century. Source: Dober.
Figure 38 Design for the University of Colorado, Boulder by Klauder, ca. 1919. Source: Turner.

The Modern Movement
Even after three hundred years, since the founding of Harvard College, the debate between whether the American university should be inward or outward oriented continued. Whether it be the classical style, the medieval style or some variation of the two, the fact remained that by the 1930's, the contents had changed, yet the container remained the same. So the argument goes for the proponents of the modern movement in architecture. The seeming contradiction of form and function was illustrated by the first splitting of the atom under the Gothic grandstands at the University of Chicago in 1942.
Widespread changes had already begun to take place in society with industrialization and were slowly finding their way into the college campus. This delay was no doubt a reflection of traditional values of the university which many institutions, particularly liberal arts colleges, hung on to. However, the impact of the automobile could hardly be suppressed and a new facility, the parking lot, found its way into the campus plan, often having an appalling effect on the coherency and aesthetics of the campus. The automobile also provided an opportunity for the creation of a new campus form, that of the commuter college. Never before had the university been so open and extroverted. The challenge to maintain a campus community and identity was great as the traditions of the collegiate life founded on English student/master relationship was broken. Even the traditional colleges found it impossible to be a container for the entire college community.
As a solution to the complex issues of the campus, the twentieth century

designer found himself choosing between one of three paths. First was the adherence to the historic idioms of the college campus particularly espoused by the historic preservation movement. This movement was widely criticized as being inadequate and inflexible to the needs of modern society. Also plaguing the movement was the lack of authenticity of the new buildings either because of financial constraints or because of the lack of craftsmanship necessary to execute the styles faithfully (Figure 39). For these reasons, the traditional campus forms have virtually disappeared in the design and planning of new facilities.
On the other end of the spectrum were the pure modernists who soundly rejected the traditional ideals of the past. Believing that the university should be in tune with the needs of the outside world and that the institution should reflect this both in curriculum and in physical form, the pure modernist sought to create a campus which would be fresh, bold and open. This movement was divided into two categories, one based on unity and one based on individuality.
One of the first modern campuses containing unity in design was the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, by Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe in 1940 (Figure 40). This plan is notable for its uncompromising International Style architecture, axiality, rigidity and the lack of any real focus. Other, more recent examples of the consonant campus include the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs (1954) (Figure 41), and the State University of New York at Albany (1961) (Figure 42). The Graduate Center, Harvard University, by Waiter Gropius (1949), in contrast to these monumental and formal plans, displays more irregularity in plan and a more tightly knitted spatial form


Figure 39 Gymnasium, Bakersfield College, ca. 1955. Source: Dober.
Figure 40 Illinois Institute of Technology (Mies van der Rohe Plan), Chicago, 1940. Source: Turner.

Figure Gl United States Air Force Academy (1956-1962) by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Colorado Springs, ca. 1962. Source: Turner.
Figure *f2 State University of New York, Albany by Edward Durell Stone, 1961. Source: Turner.

(Figure 43). The proportion of building to open space is not unlike that found on many of the traditional college campuses, thus continuing the happy medium between the monumental and the domestic character of the American ideal.
The modern individualist had a disdain for the structured, master planned campus believing it to be unresponsive to the complexity and unpredictability of the modern university. But there was also a more artistic reason for the rejection. The individualist believed that each building should have its own identity, gaining drama from the discord and contrast to surrounding buildings (Figure 44). This concept often found its way into the older campuses which could not easily achieve unity with their highly articulated Greek or Gothic forms. The plan for Florida Southern College by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1938 is an example of a pre-planned campus containing individuality in its building forms (Figure 45). However, this plan is unique in that it also contains arcades linking together the different buildings, thus giving the plan a sense of variety within unity reminiscent of the Jeffersonian ideal.
And finally, lying between the preservationist and pure modernist was a collection of architects sympathetic to the values of the past but whose solutions were expressed in a very modern way. In particular, it is the work of Eero Saarinen at the University of Chicago (Figure 46) and Yale University (Figure 47) who flirted with the neotraditional approach. Although spending a great deal of his career working in the International Style, Saarinen sought to link the new facilities with the old through the use of scale, materials and siting. His buildings were obviously not literal translations of the Gothic style but neither were they competing for attention with them. For this effort, his

Figure 43 Graduate Center, Harvard University by Walter Gropius, 1949. Source: Turner.
Figure 44 Kresge Auditorium and Chapel (1955), M.I.T. by Eero Saarinen, ca. 1955. Source: Turner.

Figure H5 Florida Southern College (Frank Lloyd Wright Plan), Lakeland, 1938. Source: Turner.
Figure ^6 The New Dormitory, Eero Saarinen, ca. 1958. Source:
foreground (1958), University of Chicago by Dober.

Figure 0-1 Morse and Stiles Colleges (1962), Yale University by Eero Saarinen, ca. 1962. Source: Turner.

work won wide acceptance as well as wide criticism. The pure modernists saw this as a betrayal while the universities seemed to find virture in the idea of harmony and compatibility.
Another interpretation of traditional ideals on the modern campus could be found at the University of California, Santa Cruz. This campus was divided into eight colleges, each visually isolated from one another by the heavily forested site but within easy walking distance. The districting of colleges recalls the English collegiate ideals while the siting of the University in the woods recalls the romanticism of historic American colleges. Although modern, the architecture contains historic symbolism (within a Spanish idiom) with its gateways, arches and pedestrian courts (Figure 48).
As mentioned, the automobile has had a tremendous impact on the university campus. For those schools which were land poor, the issue of parking was simply ignored, often leading to widespread conflict between town and gown. On other campuses, the parking lot has consumed so much of the open space that it has changed the character of the campus, often resembling more a regional shopping mall than an "academical village" (Figure 49). However, in most all cases, the university has been careful to provide places for human interaction recognizing this as an integral and vital part of the concept of campus. A typical solution to this has been to establish a ring road with outlying parking around the campus, thus preventing the automobile from penetrating the central core (Figure 50). Although distinctly more urbane in character, the university still found comfort in the idea of a place to nurture young minds regardless of the fact that they no longer live within the confines

Figure 48 Kresge College (1974), University of California, Santa Cruz by Charles W. Moore and William Turnbull, ca. 1975. Source: Turner.

Figure 50 Pima County Community College (Caudill Rowlett Scott and Friedman Jobusch Wilde), Tuscon, Arizona, 1967. Source: Turner.
- Aerial view of Foothills College (1959), Los Altos Hills, California Kump and Mastern and Hurd, late twentieth century. Source:
Figure ^9
by Ernest Turner.

of the campus.
Essential Characteristics
Throughout its development, the American university campus has grown and evolved to become a very recognizable form. In its earliest years, the university maintained a fairly closed and inward orientation based on the ecclesiastical ideals adopted from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. However, several forces have caused the campus to become more open and secularized. First were the principles of freedom and democracy on which the Nation was founded. This opened up the university to the masses. Second was the vastness and spaciousness of the American frontier. The university was no longer confined to the walled monastic towns of England but spread its wings on the new landscape. And third was the development of the United States into the leading industrial country in the world. The university has become the logical place for exploration, research and training for a mechanistic society.
The university has responded to these outside forces by creating forms which reflect the changes. However, there is a common thread which has linked the university throughout its development: the campus. The campus has some notable characteristics. From a review of its form, the campus usually focuses around a central core or place. The various solutions have been cloisters, malls, quadrangles, courtyards, etc. These areas can be formal or informal, open or closed, historic or modern or urban or domestic. It is the central core that the rest of the campus revolves off of. This is the sacred space, the interior, the place to care for and nurture. Related to the notion of

core is hierarchy. The chapel, the library and now the student center are the anchors or major landmarks of the campus. Other buildings become secondary and tertiary. And finally, the space relationships demonstrate buildings creating spaces rather than floating in space. This creates cohesiveness and tends to distinguish between inside and outside. These characteristics are true for all campuses, even the commuter college, which is one of the most open and diffuse campus forms ever conceived. Why? Because the university has developed as an independent community and relies on the herder instinct to maintain its identity. In the next chapter, the characteristics of the University-Affiliated Research Park will be explored.

1 Turner, p. 15.
2 Ibid., p. 17, The colleges were: Harvard College (1636); the College of William and Mary (1693); Yale College (1701); the College of New Jersey (1746); King's College (1754); the College of Philadelphia (1755); the College of Rhode Island (1765); Queen's College (1766); and Dartmouth College (1769).
9 Ibid., p. 12.
^ Ibid., p. 53.
^ Ibid., p. 120.
6 Dober, p. 14.
7 Turner, p. 90.
8 Ibid., p. 142.
9 Ibid., p. 167.
10 Ibid.^p. 217.
11 Ibid., p. 238.

The purpose of this chapter will be to look at the rise of the University-Affiliated Research Park from its establishment to its current forms. I will start out by exploring the circumstances which led up to the creation of the Research Park followed by an overview of some early examples. This review will provide evidence in determining the origin of the Research Park form. In addition, I will summarize some of the trends occurring today.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, there is little written on the University-Affiliated Research Park in general and nothing about its form. Because of this, the review of the Research Park is limited here to those examples which are available in print, primarily in the ULI bookl, or those which were discussed during the University of Colorado project^. Fortunately, the Research Parks which have the most amount of information on them are also among the most significant.
Research on Campus
The curricular activity having the greatest influence on the campus today is that of scientific research. This is true for two reasons. First, the space requirements per user for scientific and laboratory facilities is the highest for any academic activity on campus, sometimes being as high as five times that of

other activities.^ And, depending on the equipment needs, the facilities can be the most expensive. Secondly, the tremendous growth in high technology industries has required that the university become a center for the training of a highly-skilled workforce as well as a center for conducting basic research.
Of course, scientific inquiry has been a part of education since Artistotle but only slowly did it work its way into the collegiate curriculum. The scientific enlightenment of the seventeenth century found few supporters among the academic clergy of Cambridge and Oxford. Only in Scotland with its non-Anglican and growing mercantile population did the ideal of a practical and secularized education find favor during this period. Since the colonial colleges were modeled on the academic ideals at Cambridge and Oxford, little of this vocational training was to be found on campus. However, as noted in Chapter 2, courses in scientific investigation slowly worked their way into the American university opening it up to the outside world. An important change occurred after the Civil War with the acceptance of "Wissenschaft", the German university empirical approach to knowledge. This had its effect on the social sciences as well as the natural sciences.
The monastic and Germanic influences coalesced to form the modern university. The modern university is extensively involved in basic research, research undertaken to increase the general store of knowledge. In the early years, the university discouraged accepting research grants from private industry as a conflict of interest with the traditional values of education. Gradually, this became a more accepted practice, particularly with the most

secularized schools and with those schools finding research endowments a necessary tool for staying solvent. Federal aid for research was considered unconstitutional although this was breached after World War I with training programs and direct student aid. By World War II, the university had become a center for research and development of military technology and after the War continued to received the majority of its research funding from the federal government. However, as of late, the trend is beginning to reverse as federal money becomes scarce and private industry begins to rediscover the value of university research and development.
Early Forms
In the twentieth century, the universities engaged in scientific research have had to locate these activities around the periphery because, as mentioned, of the space requirements and because the main body of the campus was already developed. Some universities which happened to have excess land, either left to them as a bequest or purchased explicitly to provided for future growth, began to establish research activities on the satellite land holdings. At first, these research activities were agriculture related. Soon, laboratories began to spring up. Thus, from the very beginning, research activities have been isolated from the campus core both physically and psychologically. The two earliest and most prominent examples of the satellite research center were the 850 acre James Forrestal Research Campus, Princeton University founded in 1950 (later expanded to 1604 acres and referred to as Princeton Forrestal Center) and the 660 acre Stanford Research Park founded in 1953 (located within the 8800 acre site already owned by the University). Also notable from

the early years is the 6200 acre Research Triangle Park located generally between the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina State University, Raleigh and Duke University, Durham.
The James Forrestral Research Campus, as seen around 1960 (Figure 51), appears as a tightly clustered group of utilitarian buildings surrounded by parking. The overall form suggests a functional arrangement of elements with each building standing as an independent unit. There is very little cohesiveness and interdependency to the form to suggest a notion of community, much less anything to indicate an affiliation with a university. The buildings seem to float in space rather than create space. As well, there is no apparent pedestrian network to tie the whole thing together. The focus is completely on the street with no semblance of internal identity. These characteristics strongly suggest on industrial park form rather than a campus form.
Princeton in its selection of form for this complex set a precedent for later research centers. Even the change in name from "Campus" to "Center", whether intentional or not, suggests that the University had found a new home as well as a new attitude about research on University land. The aerial view of the Forrestal Center from the early 1980s (Figure 52) shows the more recent trend of providing greater open space in a park-like setting, possibly reminiscent of Olmsted's plans but with very little attachment or cohesiveness to create a unified form. It is apparent that from the very start the hunter spirit of the entrepreneur had won the battle in the planning and development of the university's reserve land holdings.

Figure 51 James Forrestal Research Campus, Princeton University, 1960. Source: Dober.

Figure 52 Princeton Forrestal Center, early 1980's. Source: ULI, Research Parks and Other Ventures: The University/Real Estate Connection.

Stanford University was even bolder in its commercialization of university land. Seventy-one acres of the Research Park was to be developed as a regional shopping center (Figure 53). Constructed in 1954 and expanded in 1974, the center has 120 stores and 1.2 million square feet of leasable space. Interestingly, the entire development is managed by the University itself. The Research Park is considered to be one of the most successful and is today fully leased. The success of the Park has also been tied to the economic development of high technology industries in the nearby area known as Silicon Valley. The linkages between university and community have provided economic benefits to both, but at a long term cost to the image of the university. This will be discussed further in Chapter 4.
In the case of Research Triangle Park, three separate universities have pooled their resources and influence to develop the single largest Research Park in the country (Figure 54). From the beginning, this project was established with the goal of enhancing the economic base of the state as well as providing endowment for the universities. Also, the plan incorporated a hotel/conference center which serves as a place for community interaction and exchange of ideas. This inherits the functions of the psychological center for the Research Park as the college chapel and then the library did for the traditional campus. However, where the chapel and the library are focuses and central places for the university community itself, the conference center tends to link the Research Park with the outside community. Instead of locating at the core, the conference center is often found fronting on high volume roadway similar to the practice found in private research and technological parks.

Figure 53 Boundaries of Stanford Research Park, main campus is in lower left corner, early 1980's. Source: ULI.

2 Research triangle institute
North Camput
15 South Camput
Figure 54 Plan of Source: Turner.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, early

Current Trends
Today there are dozens of University-Affiliated Research Parks either in operation or being planned (see Appendix). Certain patterns of development are becoming apparent. The parks tend to be of very high quality and are in most cases governed by strict design covenants. These covenants outline everything from floor-area-ratio to allowable uses to building and landscaping materials. Although most times buildings are designed within a selected pallete for the Research Park, they often have little to do with other buildings as the firms strive to establish a corporate identity (Figure 55). This can create a situation where buildings compete to become a focal point and thus fragment the community. Plant materials and planting schemes are used to create a parklike atmosphere (Figure 56). When done properly, the landscaping can even emulate some of the elements of the campus: tree-lined canopies representing the arcaded walks, perimeter buffering separating sacred from profane and gateway treatment announcing entry and arrival. However, the landscape in the Research Park is usually used only as aesthetic enhancement rather than for creating psychological ties.
The Park is usually organized around the transportation network, primarily the automobile. This can be seen in the Research Triangle Park plan (Figure 5k). In this case, the freeways and diamond interchanges are the most imposing features of the plan. Although there is a wide variety of sizes (see Appendix), most Research Parks are simply too big to be able to walk from one corner to the other. More importantly, the commercial orientation of the Research Park requires that it be continually in contact with the outside world.

Figure 55a Hewlett Packard Building, Stanford Research Park, early 1980's. Source: ULI.
Figure 55b Syntex Building, Stanford Research Park, early 1980's. Source: ULI.

Figure 56 Grounds at Syntex Building, Stanford Research Park, early 1980's. Source: ULI.

The buildings have their front door facing the street whereas the traditional university building has its front door facing onto the green (Figure 57).
The trend is towards an even more commercial development. Research Parks today are including banks, restaurants, copy centers, travel agencies, even airstrips into their plans as they seek to compete in the free market. This raises the question of how a university can compete in the market place. The most common solution is for the university to set up an office of real estate management. The office is responsible for marketing, management, pricing, etc. Other techniques include selling or leasing the land to a private developer, joint partnerships and establishing autonomous university foundations for management. All this added management burden has expanded the scope of the university, certainly adding prestige and endowment but possibly competing with academic endeavors for the attention of the administrative body.
The rise of scientific research at universities has provided impetus for the creation of Research Parks. Unlike the private research and technological park, the University-Affiliated Research Park has the distinct advantage of providing direct technological transfer from basic to applied research. These real and dynamic linkages between university and industry are so strong, in fact, that it has provided impetus for the creation of the joint ventured parks. The phenomenal success and vigorous planning occurring in the 1980's is no doubt testament to the strength of these ties.
The university benefits by expanding their research base and capabilities. Association with private industry in disciplines where the university is

Figure 57 Multi-tenant building at the University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early 1980's. Source: ULI.

particularly strong can make the school better able to compete for leading faculty and research grants with other universities. The association also provides opportunities for student internships and permanent employment by graduates as well as faculty consultation. Finally, the development of research parks provides endowment for the university coffers.
For the high-technology firm, the University-Affiliated Research Park provides a location close to a university with its skilled workforce, libraries and information systems, recreational facilities and cultural activities. This implied affiliation with the university adds prestige not only to the large corporations but also to the small start-up firms who might otherwise go unnoticed in a private research park. As well, the university may be able to offer financing mechanisms not possible with private research parks.
Not to be forgotten in the synergistic equation is the surrounding community. The University-Affiliated Research Park can play an important role in the economic development of the area. The creation of a research or industrial zone from an institutional zone can bring more of the city into productive status. As well, spin-off industry is almost always stimluated from a successful park as has been witnessed around the country (the effects of the Stanford Research Park have been noted). And finally, the working relationship between town and gown have been improved because of the mutual benefit to both parties. These are certainly good reasons for the creation of the Research Park, but is this the appropriate physical form for these ventures? This is discussed in Chapter 4.

Essential Characteristics
As discussed in this chapter, the University-Affiliated Research Park has developed as a much more commercial enterprise than the campus. The emphasis is on creating an environment conducive to individual expression rather than on community identity. Each building is an independent unit with a high degree of contact with the outside world but with little or no contact with other entities in the Research Park. This is not to say that each building is an island, but that the parts do not add up to create a whole, only a collection of parts. Thus, the essential elements which define campus are missing: continuity, cohesiveness, collective identity and a sense of belonging.
What has been created on the universities' reserve land-holdings is an adaptation of the industrial park, a very high quality industrial park, but an industrial park nonetheless. This was apparent from the very first example at the James Forrestal Research Campus. As the University-Affiliated Research Park has come into its own in the last decade, the trend is towards even more commercialization and privatization and away from anything remotely related to campus other than generous amounts of landscaping. These conclusions are based on several prominent examples which typically are suburban in nature but apparently apply to urban Research Parks as well. In either case, the form symbolically suggests the hunter spirit in mankind.

1 Urban Land Institute.
2 Chia-Cheng, et al.
3 Dober, p. 97.

Progeny or a Break from Tradition
In each of its periods of development, the American university has sought to create a physical form which would serve as a suitable expression of its needs and ideals, as well as those of the surrounding world. The notions of campus have come to represent the physical manifestation of these needs and ideals. Today, as society moves into the post-industrial period, the university is once again in search of an appropriate form. The University-Affiliated Research Park has emerged as the leading candidate. Is this the right choice?
The first step in demonstrating this is to look at the development of both the campus and the Research Park. The second step is to compare and contrast their characteristics. The university can trace its origins to the models established at Cambridge and Oxford Universities. The colleges at these Universities developed as ecclesiastical communities and the physical form, the cloister, served as a retreat for contemplative thought. As well, the cloister embodied the inward focus of the monastic colleges. In colonial America, the absolute enclosure of the cloister was broken but the focus was still on the inside. As the Nation developed, the university slowly began to open up and look out into the world. With the industrial age, the university became a "machine for learning". But whether it be Harvard College (Figure 10), the University of Virginia (Figure 12) or Pima County Community College (Figure

50), the university campus has continued to maintain a central core or place which has served as the internal focus. Thus, the herder spirit has been preserved.
The University-Affiliated Research Park grew out of a need to provide space for scientific research and a need to generate endowment for the university. Because the older campuses were nearly full, the Research Park began to spring up on the universities' satellite land-holdings. Most of these sites were unimproved, thus presenting the university with the opportunity of creating a form from scratch. The James Forrestal Research Campus was the first and set a precedent for the developments of today. The form chosen has been based on the industrial park.
The characteristics which support this can be seen in the overall physical form of the University-Affiliated Research Park. Like the industrial park, the buildings of the Research Park appear to float in space (Figure 52) rather than create space as in the campus (Figure 34). In an effort to project a corporate image, the buildings compete with one another to become a focus. Thus, the hierarchy of the campus is lost in the confusion of the Research Park. In addition, the Research Park emphasizes individuality while the campus emphasizes community identity. Only through landscaping has the Research Park tried to capture some of the essence of campus. This superficial effort falls short because it cannot make up for the lack of interdependency and cohesiveness in the buildings, networks and fabric. Thus, the evidence clearly shows that the dissimilarities are just too great, proving that indeed the University-Affiliated Research Park is a break from tradition.

Appropriateness of the University-Affiliated Research Park
It has been shown that the American university campus and the University-Affiliated Research Park are derived from two different molds. More significantly, they represent different and opposing forces in mankind, the herder and the hunter, respectively. If it is the herder spirit which has linked the university throughout its evolution and it is this essential ingredient which is missing in the Research Park then it can be deduced that the Research Park is in conflict with the ideals of the university. Therefore, it is not an appropriate expression of the university's mission.
I feel that the break from tradition is more than just a symbolic gesture for it nullifies the meaning of university and its role in society as it has developed in this country. If the university is competing in the free market directly with the private research park, then the image of what a university is and will be is confused. As seen in Chapter 3, the Research Park offers unquestionable benefits to all the parties involved but the long term effects for the university could be potentially devastating. The university could become diffused into the profane world which it has always managed to segregate itself from. As a result, the university's virtuous appeal would be degredated. If the university is no longer appealing, then the attraction to the private company is lost, thereby causing it to locate elsewhere. Thus, the very thing that the university is banking on to provide for the future might just destroy the future. This is the real importance of the break from tradition of the University-Affiliated Research Park. Recognition of the problem is the first step in finding a solution and that is what this thesis has attempted to do.

Alternative Solutions and Future Prospects
The solutions to the problem, as have been identified here, provides the opportunity for a study in itself. But let me make two suggestions. First, disassociate the university with the industrial park-type developments. This resolves the contradiction between the herder and hunter spirit but leaves the university with nothing to meet the needs for today's society. Second, provide a physical form which would bridge the gap between campus and University-Affiliated Research Park. This could be called a Research Campus as suggested by the University of Colorado. In its ideal form, it would contain the characteristics embodied in the campus form while providing suitable facilities for scientific research. As in the campus, the school would have the opportunity to create an environment which would be a reflection of its own needs and ideals.
There would be several advantages to this arrangement. First, it would provide every bit of the advantages which the Research Park offers today. Second, it would provide a consistent physical setting for the university. Thirdly, the linkage between university and industry would be real rather than implied. The workers would become members of a community which offers the academic, social and cultural advantages of a university. This is the university's ace-in-the-hole, the one quality that it can offer that the Research Park cannot. The leveraging of this quality in attracting industry is, in my opinion, the key to success for the university in meeting its needs in the
decades to come.

In conclusion, I hope the issues which have been raised in this thesis provide impetus for further study. With the vigorous planning being done on the University-Affiliated Research Park in the 1980's, the time is certainly at hand to address these issues. The outcome of this dialogue will effect the university for decades to come as the last of its reserve land-holdings are quickly depleted.

Adams, Arthur E., Finholt, Richard D., Kiser, Gary T., Reid, Theresa, A Comparative Study of University-Affiliated Research Parks, The University Research Complex Office, The Ohio State University, June 13, 1984.
Architectural Record, Campus Planning and Design, ed. by Mildred F. Schmertz, New York: Me Graw-Hill, Inc., 1972.
Arizona State University Research Park, "Declaration of Convenants, Conditions, and Restrictions", 1984.
Ashdown, John and Kersting, Anthony F., The Buildings of Oxford, New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1980.
Chia-Cheng, Victor Yang, Loeb, Mark, Seydel, Karle, Tawfik, Hesham, Yeh, Paul Samming, University of Colorado, Boulder Research Campus Plans; Draft Report, College of Design and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, 1986.
Dober, Richard P., Campus Planning, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1963.
Finholt, Richard and Kiser, Gary T., Survey of University-Affiliated Incubators, Department of Development, State of Ohio, 1985.
Fink, Ira, "The Role of Land and Facilities in Fostering Linkages Between Universities and High Technology Industries", Planning for Higher Education, Spring, 1985.
Lynch, Kevin, The Image of the City, Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press,
Porter, Douglas R., "Campus Capitalists: Universities as Development Entrepreneurs", Urban Land, August, 1982.
, "Research Parks: An Emerging Phenomenon", Urban Land, September,
Turner, Paul V., Campus: An American Planning Tradition, Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1984.
Urban Land Institute, Research Parks and Other Ventures: The University/Real Estate Connection, ed. by Rachelle L. Levitt, Washington, D.C.: ULI,


University-Affiliated Research Parks
Research Contact Name and
Park Address
Size Target
(Acres) Status1 Market
Arrangements Amenities Notes
Arizona State University Research Park Reginald Owens Director Arizona State University Tempe. AZ 85287 (602) 965-2105 .323 Predevelopment; infrastructure development: three multitenant buildings to begin construction R&D. high-tech. international firms Land leased to university-sponsored nonprofit corporation; will sublease land to developer tenant for building construction Conference/ hotel center. 18-acre lake, jogging trails, tennis courts Board of Directors comprised of three university representatives and four private-sector representatives
Engineering Research Center (University of Arkansas) Dean Neil Schmitt Cato Springs Road Fayetteville. AR 72701 (501) 575-3051 23 Construction underway on first building (150.000 square feet) High-tech & startup firms University acts as developer may institute a joint venture with developer None
Stanford Industrial Park (Stanford University) Frank Morrow Director of Real Estate Stanford University 209 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94301 (415) 326-7195 660 Completed R&D firms University leases land to tenants for development None
University of California -frvine Park -San Diego Park -Santa Cruz Park Christopher Adams Principal Architect University of California University Hall Room 247 Berkeley. CA 94720 (415) 642-3081 160 30 70 Predevelopment Planning Predevelopment
University of Connecti-cut-Storrs Dr. James Makuch Director of Administrative Services Gulley Hall Box U-187 University of Connecticut Storrs. CT 06268 (203) 486-2339 80 GroundbreakingMay 1985 R&D. light industrial No tenants, final land control achieved Hotel/confer-ence center, housing
Science Park (Yale University) Henry Chauncey. Jr. Science Park Development Corporation 5 Science Park New Haven. CT 06511 (203) 786-5000 80 Development; 62 companies High-growth companies Development Corp renovates and leases buildings: leases sites to developer (e g.. Richard Gordon Interests. Hartford) Incubator services: 1.800 jobs
University Research Park at Lewes (University of Delaware) Dr. Robert D Varrin University of Delaware Newark. DE 19716 (302) 451-2136 100 65 acres serviced R&D. marine studies University developing and managing park in connection wth marine studies complex Conference facilities available in marine studies complex

Research Park Contact Name and Address Size (Acre*) Status1 Target Market Development Arrangements Amenitle* Notes
Innovation Park (Florida State University & Florida A&M) Fred Williams Executive Director 1673 West Paul Birac Drive Tallahassee. FL 32304 (904) 576-8573 208 95 acres fully serviced. 7.4 acres sold Computer sciences. communications, natural sciences Nonprofit corporation organized by state, city, county, and chamber of commerce tenants design and build buildings Jogging trails, parks, meeting space, and racquet-ball courts completed Both university presidents on board
Central Florida Research Park (University of Central Florida) Dr. Ralph Gunter 11800 Research Parkway Orlando. FL 32826 (305) 275-2275 1.400 100 acres under development. 260 acres sold High-tech. R&D. aerospace & defense industries. companies that can' benefit programs at university Coventure between university and Orange County R&D Authority; authority develops and manages park, buildings developed privately Hotel/conference facility planned Uses IRBs; authority is a volunteer group; staff performs marketing and supervision of developers
Research and Technology Campus (University of Florida) Dr Price Vice President for Research Grmter Hail University of Florida Gainesville. FL 32611 (904) 392-4646 2.200 260 acres sold or leased. 360 subdivided into lots, three incubator buildings with office complex completed High-tech, research. or light manufacturing firms Land being developed by private developer (The Talqum Corporation) Conference facilities, logging trails, parks, and lakes planned Venture capital group formed to back startup companies
Tampa Bay Area Research and Development Park (University of South Florida) Dr. Jack Hennessey Director University of South Florida Administration Room 275 Tampa. FL 33620 (813) 974-2890 88 Predevelopment, one building under construction Research institutes. laboratories that work with university Under negotiation with private company; buildings developed by private sector Bike trail, university computer access
Advanced Technology Development Center (Georgia Tech) Leamon Scott Facilities Manager 430 10th Street. NW Atlanta. GA 30318 (404) 894-3575 3 43.000-square-foot building completed and leased, second building completed and 25 percent leased Small, startup companies producing a technology-based product University is developer Conference facilities for tenants
University of Georgia Research Park William Burke Assistant Vice President for Research Boyd Graduate Studies 400 260 acres in planning, 140 acres leased Research-oriented firms University develops land, user constructs buildings None
Research Center of Georgia
Athens. GA 30602 (404) 542-3360

Research Contact Name and
Park Address
Size Target
(Acres) Status1 Market
Arrangements Amenities Notes
Evanston/Uni- William I. Ihlanfeldt 26 Land develop- High-tech Joint partnership Anchor ten-
versity Re- Vice President ment completed. firms and between city of ant Basic In-
search Park Northwestern University 623 Clark Street Evanston, IL 60201 (312) 492-7490 or Joel M. Asprooth City Manager City of Evanston 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston. IL 60204 (312) 328-2100 marketing basic industries applying high-tech processes that will relate to university Evanston and Northwestern University dustry Research Laboratory (150.000 square feet)
Purdue Industrial Research Park Winfield F Hentschel Vice President & Treasurer Purdue Research Foundation Business Office Hovde Hall W Lafayette IN 47907 (317) 494-8641 177 100 acres completed, 10 acres under development. 67 acres predevelopment Office and research firms Foundation manages development None
Northern Ken- Ralph A. Tessener 75 7 acres in plan- Research or- Foundation sole Conference
tucky University Foundation Research and Technology Park Northern Kentucky University Foundation Highland Heights. KY 41076 (606) 572-5126 ning. 3 acres leased ganizations, hotel, office building tenants developer facilities, jogging trails lake planned
Maryland Science Technology Center (University of Maryland) Robert Smith Vice President-University Relations University of Maryland Adelphi. MD 20783 or Carley Capital Group (202) 965-6380 466 Predevelopment Computer industry. systems and equipment development Carley Capital Group is developer Hotel restaurant. conference facilities, banking planned
Simplex Development Area (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Philip A Trussed MIT, Room 12-192 Cambridge MA 02139 (617) 253-4304 27 Predevelopment Mixed-use office and R&D Forest City Enterprises will lease land and develop in three phases Hotel/conference facilities, housing planned
Technology Square (MIT) Philip A. Trussed 15 Completed. 1.2 million square feet leased Office. R&D Cabot. Cabot & Forbes developed. sold to Prudential, joint venture None