A Sense Of Place Masterplan: Linking Mission and Place

John R. Reeve, AIA, President

Christner, Inc.
Douglas G. Kassabaum, AIA
Christner, Inc.

“Sense of Place”. . . an abstract concept. . . hard to tie down and define yet we all have experienced the
sensation countless times. We can all close our eyes and summon up powerful memories of places that
have left deep impressions on us, associations that stay with us all of our lives. We all understand that
environments trigger a response (it is in human nature to relate to our environment and to incorporate it into
our experience). Yet how can a place enhance our experience of it? How can a place enrich us? “Sense of
place” refers to our human, emotional response to the qualities of physical places whether interior or
exterior, large or small.

Our thesis is that by developing campuses that evoke a powerful “sense of place” we can further the mission
and goals of the institution in practical, educational, financial, operational and, of course, physical ways. And
that one of the most important (but least understood) goals of a campus master planning process should be
to create or preserve a “sense of place.”

It's well understood that prospective students respond decisively to the physical qualities of the campus. If a
campus is attractive and conveys vitality, it is desirable. Yet while “curb appeal” may underlie the prospective
freshman's critical emotional first impression, it is through a deeper level of reaction to the qualities of the
surroundings that campuses become places of substance, meaning and beauty.

Success rates of alumni-giving correlate with the degree to which students have developed an emotional
attachment to their colleges that extends beyond graduation day. The fondness for the physical place
contributes substantially to that emotional connection. Alumni remember most how a campus “felt”; positive
memories translate into patterns of alumni giving.

We believe that those of us involved with campus planning, design and development need to seize the
opportunity to promote greater sensitivity to “sense of place.” Our approach is to discover and articulate the
essence of a campus through a structured planning process. Then, through design guidelines and the
implementation of specific projects improve the overall quality of place. Through such a process, a campus
setting imbued with history, vision and traditions become a more evocative and meaningful place in which to
learn and live. It is our job as planners to recognize both the obvious and subtle characteristics of a place
and to develop guidelines to enhance them.

Definitions

Because “sense of place” refers to an abstraction wholly dependent on human perceptions, terminology is
particularly hard to clarify. In discussing sense of place we use the following definitions:

“Place”—a locality used for a specific purpose—and “place-ness”, a collective term relating to the
characteristics of a place.
“Sense of place” is the human perception of a specific environment, in other words how a person
feels about that place while experiencing it or recalling it (or even anticipating it prior to a first visit).
“Place-making” means the creation of settings specifically designed for a purpose or effect.
“Master planning” is an analytical and creative activity that results in a coordinated set of decisions
(the plan) about actions to be taken to accomplish stated goals.

A “sense of place” master plan identifies needs and opportunities for places (as on a campus), defines the
qualities of that place and recommends strategies for preservation and/or enhancement. The arrangement
of physical elements (buildings, site development) interact in a unique composite with the university's history,
present character and vision for its future. So a “sense of place” master plan is a set of coordinated
decisions (the plan) about actions to be taken to create or strengthen the sense of place.

Central to our definition of planning is that it is a purposeful activity designed to reach realistic,
implementable, and affordable outcomes. Also, such a plan can achieve maximum impact only through
consensus by the campus community, a prerequisite to effective action on the plan's recommendations.

Reasons for developing a “sense of place” master plan

With the cost of higher education rising faster than inflation and with a tightening of the eligible pool of
qualified students, the market place has become more competitive. And with continued access to
information (e.g. the Internet), a new generation of students (and their parents) are better and more careful
consumers. Thoughtful college administrators are increasingly motivated to consider the economic
consequences of what have previously been considered merely aesthetic planning decisions. As
competition and economic pressures intensify, the most successful institutions will be those that understand
and make investments in the campus's sense of place.

Enhancing sense of place characteristics through master planning can help address the following
fundamental strategic goals:

● To reinforce a sense of community on the campus.

● To enhance the teaching and learning experience.
● To support activities and enhance experiences outside the classroom.
● To help recruit students and faculty.

Further, a formal planning process affords the best opportunity to raise the consciousness of all
constituencies about the importance and relevance of preserving and enhancing the aesthetic dimension of
the campus experience. Planning to improve the quality of a place is a tangible expression of an institution's
pride and an essential component of enhancing an institution's worth in the eyes of its students, staff, faculty,
and alumni.

The Natural Expression of Place

A unique combination of buildings, interior spaces, exterior spaces, landscape, climate and light creates
each particular environment. Sense of place is shaped by all the characteristics of a given location. It is
affected by the patterns of its use, the rituals and traditions of the community it serves. Just as it is affected
by whether it is a sunny or cloudy day, it is affected by whether or not the football game was won on
Saturday afternoon.

As part of the master planning process, analysis identifies deficiencies, inconsistencies, and weak aspects
of a campus's identity. Pleasant and meaningful sense of place results from a balance; too much conformity
is boring and too much variety is chaotic.

Once problems have been identified that detract from the potential sense of place of a campus, various
strategies can be devised to address them. Some of the most common are:

● Creating singular entry images through the treatment of arrival points.

● Improving the clarity of campus boundaries as they meet the neighboring context.
● Unifying the campus with guidelines for creating more consistent architectural and landscape
character.
● Creating special “events” which help structure the experience of the campus. Examples include
signature views, clock towers, focal points and a strong “heart” for the campus community.
● Handling the vehicular circulation (and parking) effectively, and separating vehicles from
 pedestrian areas.
● Enriching the pedestrian network through the creation of strong connections and consistent
pathway character throughout the campus.
● Nurturing a network of intimate human-scale places for the personal encounters of campus life.
In master planning, it is critical to acknowledge the special and unique resource of places that grow
out of a campus's history, values and aspirations. A successful master plan helps to mature the
sense of place of a campus.

Telling the Story of a Place

Much of what brings meaning to place is knowing its “story” and feeling yourself to be a part of it. Hence, in
place-making one must pay attention to an institution's history while reflecting on the philosophical roots,
legends and traditions, so that our efforts toward place-making both preserve and incorporate the past in the
service of the future. This does not mean simply replicating what's already there; as colleges must be
forward-thinking in order to survive and prosper, so too must the buildings accommodate and inspire the
future.

On a college campus people are engaged in activities that make them predisposed to memorable
experiences. College campuses are frequently the settings for some of the most important events of our
lives: our passionate intellectual quests, revelations about our life's work, falling in love and finding a mate.
College campuses become very special places imbued with personal meaning to the people who work and
learn there.

We would argue that the emotional and aesthetic dimension of campus life (the soul) is as important as the
functional adequacy of facility assets. The soul of the campus has a tangible impact on the daily life of the
campus, on the future life of students and on the long-term health of the institution. Educational campuses
are settings where we should lavish our efforts toward sense of place because it will yield significant returns
on our investment.

Authenticity—the Essential Ingredient

It could be argued that the Walt Disney Company understands how to create “sense of place” better than
anybody. Disney World's implied mission is for visitors to have fun at the Magic Kingdom and for that to
convert into making money for the company. In one sense, Disney World competes with other theme parks
for holiday makers just as colleges and universities compete for students and faculty. Yet in another sense,
Disney World and college campuses are entirely distinct from each other. Why? The critical difference
derives from the issue of authenticity.

Meaningful sense of place cannot just be created; it has to evolve. It grows out of the history of a place, with
time and experience creating the subtleties that accrue to sense of place. People respond to evidence of the
past (e.g. established trees, historic buildings) by incorporating their reactions into their own personal
understanding of sense of place. This is why the concepts of preservation and the maintenance of the
existing fabric are so fundamental to any strategy that strives to establish or enhance sense of place. It is an
analogue to planting seeds and allowing them to grow. Framework plans and “guidelines” preserve essential
qualities but allow the unique place-ness to evolve over time.

It is in this respect that “sense of place” cannot be created simply through construction of a total design. The
natural complexity inherent to sense of place evolves only over time. Educational environments should have
the intellectual depth of place grounded in reality. The seriousness of an educational mission should be
reflected in the surroundings in which that mission is carried out.

Sanctuary—A Place Apart

The campus should offer places of sanctuary that provide both real and perceived safety. A sense of safety
is both physical and psychological. The archetypal example is the gated entry and walled quadrangle of
collegiate gothic architecture. So are the monastic cloisters where the traditions of higher learning began,
places that protected the individual from the chaotic world outside in order to encourage contemplation. At all
levels of campus design, from the clarity of edges to a strong and well-defined heart, to an intimate alcove
for private conversation, the idea of sanctuary applies. The academic tradition of separation from society
incorporates the notion of uncensored intellectual pursuit as well as safety for building an intellectual
community.

Human Scale Experience

When we speak of “campus” it is the space between buildings that usually come to mind. Those spaces are
defined primarily by their scale, with components including not only the buildings that shape the spaces but
also other features generally relating to pedestrian experience— the walkways, amenities, trees and plants,
lighting and signage. Most campuses strive to create largely pedestrian environments and most campus
master plans struggle with balancing parking/traffic demands with aesthetic concerns. The heart of the
campus, around which academic life revolves, is often the nexus of campus circulation between campus
buildings. It is along the path network that people hang out to watch, listen, dream and associate.

The need to promote a sense of community gives rise to the design notion of an enriched pedestrian zone of
the campus as the primary realm of human experience. The ground level of buildings should appeal to
pedestrians through higher finish materials, texture and decorative details. Liberal site amenities, such as
seating, support informal social gatherings. The pedestrian domain can be enriched sensually by color,
texture and fragrances of plants that offer beauty, shade, shelter and a comforting sense of enclosure, as
well as reflecting the changing seasons. Art can flavor the experience and add a symbolic contribution. At
night, lighting creates an entirely different place out of the campus while giving the pedestrian security;
signage provides key information.

Interior Space

It is essential to realize that the issue of sense of place does not cease to be a concern at the front door of
campus buildings. Continuity is important to the experience of a campus so it is logical to consider the
qualities of the indoor spaces (places) along with spaces between buildings.

In this realm, there are again many aspects to consider. In fact, all the issues relevant to a campus' exterior
environment apply to the interior as well: comfort, clarity, ceremony and functionality. The exterior and
interior experiences of a campus should be seen to be complements. How the interior and exterior spaces
are connected has great potential for the poetic evocation of sense of place. Imagine sitting in the sun on the
seat in a bay window of the library, musing on the possibilities of your future as you gaze out at the blowing
leaves in the courtyard on a moody autumn day. Many college memories are generated by such evocative
experiences.

In many respects, issues of human scale are multiplied in importance in interior spaces. Inside, a sense of
shelter, mood, color, texture, pattern, security, etc. are all enhanced by their concentration in more personal
space.

Concept of the “Overlay”

Ideally, the character of a place accumulates organically over time, growing richer layer by layer. Within this
idea, an attitude of respect for the existing fabric of the campus is both a response and an approach to future
changes. Future changes will therefore be overlays that enrich what already exists. When existing
structures contribute to the campus character we should, within reasonable limits, renovate instead of
replace. When adding structures, the first instinct should be to extend successful organizing patterns rather
than to impose new ones.
Small incremental steps of development contribute very effectively to the layering that imbues a campus with
a sense of past and authentic place-ness. Potential conflicts should be viewed as serendipitous
opportunities to create unique “events” that can punctuate the campus with subtle character. For instance, a
crumbling stone wall or bench could be refurbished instead of being replaced with something new. Such a
philosophy of development may yield some short term inefficiencies but the longer term return on investment
is a richer, more evocative character for the campus.

When the Canvas is Blank

Though the focus for most campus planning is on existing campuses we must also address the challenge of
place-making when the canvas is blank. Truly, the canvas is never blank because even with a new site the
site's natural features provide the base layer to which the campus planners and designers respond. In
creating a new campus environment from scratch, whether a new campus altogether or a new campus
precinct, we advocate a design process that is modeled after traditional campus planning.

This implies a layering of ideas from large scale to small. Starting with formal organizing ideas, a hierarchical
set of axes, a mall, a circle drive, etc., can establish an overall coherency to the campus layout. The next
level of detail is that of spatial organization. This involves the general strategy which locates building masses
to create the “outdoor rooms” characteristic of campus design. There should be a consistency to the layout
of these “rooms” and a ceremony in the passage from one “room” to another. To support this emerging
general campus plan, locations for “Special Events” should be considered. These help structure the
experience of the campus by creating visual focal points that stand as landmarks for the campus. Gates, bell
towers, plazas and fountains have become collegiate archetypes due to their emotive significance in
campus life.

The final level of detail planning for a campus is the “furnishings” of the outdoor rooms. The path network,
landscaping and pedestrian amenities represent the human scale experiences that support the community
life of the campus. In general, the planning of this scale of detail should reflect a larger and more
improvisational spirit that allows intimate responses to small-scale site opportunities.

Process

Traditional campus master planning in many cases has not fully explored “sense of place” because the idea
is so abstract it is difficult to articulate. However, a comprehensive campus master planning process will
provide the best framework for addressing “sense of place” and establishing practical guidelines for
improvements in the quality of campus spaces. A comprehensive approach can address the intersecting
issues of creation/preservation/enhancement of a place in the context of other critical concerns such as
functional needs, space adequacy and utilization, and development opportunities.

Much of the value of the master plan is to provide insights and understanding about existing assets. The
analysis should identify and define characteristics in order to appreciate the positive and raise awareness
about the negatives. Through a master plan process you should develop a shared vocabulary and
consciousness that is documented for both current and future decision-making.

A master planning process comprises analysis of conditions, analysis of needs, generation of concepts,
evaluation of concepts and framework and guideline development. As with all complex intellectual and
creative endeavors it is both linear and iterative in nature. In the institutional context its most significant
characteristic is the active participation of the institutional constituencies represented by a planning
committee through workshops and focused review sessions. Since “sense of place” is by definition an issue
of human response, the information-gathering process must incorporate ways to capture that response,
such as through interviews, focus groups, surveys, and town hall meetings.

Site analysis takes the form of layered mapping of characteristics. Analyses should extend to the following
listing to reveal the subtleties that are most meaningful:
 ● Regional Setting
● Natural Setting
● Vehicular Circulation and Experience
● Architectural Character
● Open spaces
● Landscape Character
● Pedestrian Circulation and Experience
● Historical Development Patterns
● Campus Mythology
● Edges/Contextual Relationships

The analysis of existing conditions and the presentation of that information is the essential first step in
understanding and communicating sense of place. Planners observe and seek to understand aspects of the
physical environment, especially the human experience.

Design Guidelines

The operative mechanism for sense of place improvement is the design guideline. A specific set of design
guidelines grows naturally out of the analysis process described above. The guidelines help facility decision
makers build on the strong points of campus character and eliminate weaknesses. And guidelines will
encourage authenticity in that they are grounded in a clear assessment of the existing campus.

Successful guidelines must strike a delicate balance. They must be open-ended enough to allow the
innovations that will carry a campus into the future yet be restrictive enough to preserve the legacy of the
specific history of the place.

The guidelines for development that result from this process of analysis vary widely in their emphasis
depending on the assessment of the existing campus. An old campus with a rich historic character calls for a
cautious attitude toward change that is very respectful of the campus legacy. On the other hand, a more
recently developed campus with weaker character warrants a more aggressive agenda for change in order
to create a new strong identity. Similarly, a campus composed of an undistinguished collection of buildings
may call out for a dramatic punctuation with a new focal points; and a campus composed of a “mixed bag” of
buildings could benefit from solutions that knitting existing elements together to create a more unified
campus character.

We have frequently encountered all of these conditions in our master planning work. Sometimes the issues
are fairly clear cut; in most cases, existing conditions on a campus calls for a site specific mixture of
approaches because the sense of place varies from one campus zone to another.

Case Studies

Three of our recent campus planning subjects — Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky, The
University of Chicago in Chicago, Illinois, and Maryville University in St. Louis, Missouri — convey a
representative range of campus size, planning issues and sense of place dilemmas. They are, respectively,
a small traditional college in a small town context, a “high-powered” university in an intensely urban context,
and a relatively recent suburban commuter campus on the outskirts of a metropolitan area.

Georgetown College

A small liberal arts college located in a town outside Lexington, Kentucky, Georgetown shares an intimate
“symbiotic” relationship with its surrounding community in that it is knitted into the fabric of the town both
physically and culturally, and it functions as the cultural center for the town. As it develops, it should enhance
these relationships and further its role as a cultural resource for its community.
Georgetown has been successful and now needs new facilities to continue to compete: a new library,
Performing Arts/Fine Arts Center, and Athletic Complex. In addition, more housing and specific academic
facilities were justified by increased enrollment. Several facilities offered the potential for shared use with
the surrounding community. Thus, their future location within the campus plan had to be carefully considered
to serve both the town and the college.

Physically, the campus has a rich historic character established by several landmark buildings which
constitute the original core of the college. The inner campus has an intimate site character organized around
a pair of axial experiences: the vehicular “entry” avenue which leads the visitor to the inner circle drive with
the impressive Giddings Hall as its centerpiece, and the central axis of the pedestrian mall of the inner
campus which runs perpendicular to the drive.

Most of the more recent buildings on the campus were not very sympathetic in their relation to the original
historic character of early architecture of the college. The proposed new facilities offered a great opportunity
to reinforce the historic character of the campus. The appropriate placement and design of these new
buildings could help to focus this character, creating a sense of place that would become a major asset to
the college. The new buildings offered the possibility to “complete” the historic campus diagram by creating a
strong new terminus at each end of the pedestrian mall of the inner campus. The building would enhance
the definition of the inner campus and the grandeur of its concept. In addition, the major spaces of the new
buildings related to the internal pedestrian mall, future development offered the opportunity to exploit an
under-developed attribute of the campus to the great benefit to its sense of place.

University of Chicago

Master planning for the University of Chicago posed a different challenge. Endowed with a powerful sense of
place in its historic core, it was faced with three key concerns. First was to extend these qualities to newer
peripheral areas of the campus and consolidating the campus. Second was to create strong defined edges
where the campus meets the city neighborhoods without walling the campus off from these historic urban
surrounding. The third concern was to create a campus environment that would be more supportive of the
diverse community of scholars. The tradition of the institution was that of an academic boot camp. And
though some took pride in this reputation, it became clear that a more well-rounded student life and a vital
college community would be more competitive. The development of a stronger, more positive sense of place
would help meet this goal.

Part of the solution to this problem was a programmatic one. A new athletic/recreation center and major new
housing complex were strategically located near the campus core so they would generate student
pedestrian activity, thus enlivening the community life of the campus at its heart.

The other component of the planning strategy was an aesthetic one. Great care was taken to complete the
formal campus diagram as established by its historic plan. The formal axis of the original quadrangle was
extended into the new development areas and given a suitable terminus at the north edge of campus. The
quadrangle, the basic planning module of the historic campus, was utilized in the conceptualization of both
the proposed housing and athletic facilities. Thus the scale, texture and open space character of the
landmark historic campus was extended. The proposed developments would create a sense of place to
complement the treasured qualities of the historic original campus.

Maryville University

Maryville University, in suburban St. Louis County, faced an entirely different set of sense of place issues in
planning for its future success. It was (and is) primarily a commuter campus. People come and go with no
real emotional attachment to the place. Although blessed with a pleasant naturalistic setting, the core
campus lacked the site and architectural character to support the cohesive sense of community essential to
campus life. It was a campus where positive “sense of place” barely existed.
The Maryville campus offers little historic legacy to preserve in developing future facilities. Rather, it is a
campus ripe for invention. Its existing architecture has certain characteristics which should be incorporated
in the interests of visual unity and certainly its site has a beauty which should be exploited in future design. A
major goal for future development is to elevate the character of the campus and create a stronger sense of
place from what exists.

Again the proposed solution to this dilemma is part programmatic and part aesthetic. Much needed facilities
were identified for construction including a new student center and central auditorium that directly bolstered
the common community life of the university. This plan includes future housing complexes which will
increase the number of students living on campus.

These new programmatic elements were carefully arranged within the campus plan to meet specific
objectives that were all intended to enhance the sense of place of the campus. New buildings were
proposed to give the university a dramatic new entry image framing a vista into the heart of the campus. This
heart was consolidated by the new student center; a major facility devoted to student life as a new focus of
the campus. Additionally, proposed new buildings and additions expanded the core campus. Important
pedestrian connections to the somewhat isolated existing library were enhanced by the placement of
proposed buildings. All the while, the existing campus assets of a pleasant natural character and a
well-defined loop road systems were consciously reinforced by proposed changes.

Maryville is an ideal case study because now the proposed improvements are being implemented. Three
building projects and related site improvements gave us the designers the opportunity to carry place-making
theories into specific architectural and site designs. At this level of detail enhanced sense of place,
architectural unity, sensitive integration of buildings and landscape, and enhancement of the pedestrian
environment were brought to fruition.

Conclusion

In creating and/or altering our campuses, we must be able to address the question: is this place good or not
so good and why? We must have sufficient understanding and insight to determine how we can enhance or
preserve the qualities that create a positive sense of place. We must also be place-makers—creating
settings for activities or passive contemplation.

Certainly we must be ambitious in fulfilling the promise of each campus, in order to properly consider the
long view of value rather than simply short-term costs or expediency. Our guiding beacon should be to
support the mission of the institution. Recommendations should reflect substantial and enduring values, the
outcomes should ring with authenticity.

As you approach master planning on your campuses, seek to recognize, define, and enhance the essence
of the campus. Seek ways to strengthen the quality of places and to knit them meaningfully into your
community of learning. Remember the definition of a place: “a locality used for a specific purpose.” The
campus environment should enable the mission of your institution — be it liberal arts college, graduate
professional, post graduate research or interdisciplinary scholarship, the campus setting can and should
support it. We must plan for and create academic environments that recognize the importance of place in
supporting the institution's mission.