Facilities Master Plan 2001-2020
January 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
I. Executive Summary...... 1 Process ...... 2 Timing...... 3
II. The University’s Mission and Current and Future Characteristics ...... 3 A. Mission...... 4 B. Enrollments ...... 6 C. Faculty and Staff Size ...... 7
III. Land and Facilities Assessment...... 8 A. Description of Existing Facilities and Acreage ...... 9 B. Assessment of Physical Condition of Buildings and Infrastructure ...... 10 C. Utilization of Existing Facilities ...... 10 D. Assessment of Sufficiency, Functional Adequacy, and Externally Mandated Program Standards...... 10 E. Space Analysis...... 11 F. Adequacy of Existing Land and Capacity for Future Development...... 11
IV. The Plan to Meet the University’s Facilities Needs ...... 12 A. Global issues...... 15 1. Environmental Stewardship...... 15 2. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation ...... 18 3. The Use of Land and Real Property to Reflect our Mission...... 18 B. Campus Development Plan...... 23 C. District Development Plans ...... 24 Historic Core...... 24 Southwest District...... 27 West District...... 27 Northwest District...... 29 North District...... 31 Northeast District...... 31 East Campus District...... 34 Golf Course District...... 36 Outlying Properties and Development Areas ...... 36 Transit District Overlay Zone ...... 40
V. Implementation ...... 40 Summary of All Planning Periods ...... 42 2001 – 2005 Planning Period...... 46 2006 – 2010 Planning Period...... 48 2011 and Beyond Planning Period...... 48
*Minor corrections were made to this version (6/21/02) Appendices
A. Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee Members ...... 1 B. Project List...... 2
Figures
Figure 1. 2001 – 2002 Facilities Master Plan...... 12 Figure 2. Environmental Stewardship: Proposed Open Spaces and Connecting Corridors ...... 16 Figure 3. Environmental Stewardship: Recommended Protected Areas...... 17 Figure 4. University of Maryland Regional Transit Alternatives...... 19 Figure 5. Proposed Shuttle UM System ...... 20 Figure 6. Proposed Internal Shuttle Route System...... 21 Figure 7. Land Use Map ...... 22 Figure 8. District Boundaries...... 25 Figure 9. Historic Core ...... 26 Figure 10. Southwest District ...... 28 Figure 11. West District...... 30 Figure 12. Northwest District ...... 32 Figure 13. North District...... 33 Figure 14. Northeast District ...... 35 Figure 15. East Campus District...... 37 Figure 16. Golf Course District ...... 38 Figure 17. Outlying Properties Development Areas...... 39 Figure 18. 2001 - 2005 Planning Period...... 43 Figure 19. 2006 - 2010 Planning Period...... 44 Figure 20. 2011 and Beyond Planning Period ...... 45
I. Executive Summary
In Fall 2000, President Mote appointed a Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost and the Vice President for Administrative Affairs, with broad representation from key university groups and the College Park community. The committee was charged with developing a plan that meets Maryland Higher Education Commission and Board of Regents requirements; that defines the principles and lays the foundation for the orderly development and growth of the campus over the next twenty years; and that addresses current campus needs and goals while being sufficiently flexible to respond to future changes.
The plan presented in this document lays the foundation for a first-class physical campus that is appropriate for a world-class university. It stresses thoughtful stewardship of the built environment that we have inherited, and it envisions a campus that both teaches and exemplifies concern for the natural environment. The plan supports the mission of the university to provide educational programs of the highest quality; to produce cutting-edge research, scholarship, and performing arts; and to promote connections and partnerships that contribute to the economic and social well-being of the citizenry of Maryland.
The 2001-2020 Facilities Master Plan builds on the work of the 1991 Facilities Master Plan and its 1996 update, but it advances a new vision for the development of the campus. Previous plans concerned themselves with the placement of physical facilities but did not consider much beyond the need to address the urgent requirements for space at a large, thriving, and complex university. The university continues to have great demands for space. However, this plan, in contrast to previous ones, puts the siting of buildings and the development of the campus in a wider context. The committee considered ways to preserve our architectural heritage and extend the aesthetic appeal of the grounds and buildings. It looked at problems of balancing appropriate density of buildings with accessibility and attractiveness, and it advocated environmental stewardship.
The planning committee established four principles or goals to guide future development: 1) plan the built and natural environment in a way that preserves the beauty of the campus and protects the environment; 2) reduce the number of automobiles on campus and eliminate vehicular congestion to the extent possible while promoting unimpeded movement across the campus; 3) reinforce the campus’s role as a good neighbor in the larger community by the careful development of sites on the campus periphery or in outlying areas that link us to the community; and 4) preserve the architectural heritage of the campus and enhance it through open spaces, gathering places, vistas of green lawn and trees, and groupings of buildings that promote a sense of community. These principles will determine how space is used at the university as demands for buildings and facilities increases.
This plan reflects and is consistent with the concepts of “Smart Growth,” in which the State of Maryland has been a leader. The University of Maryland is a partner in the state’s initiative, providing the highest caliber research and educational programs through its National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education.
This plan provides an assessment of current facilities and projections for the development of campus districts and outlying areas. The plan also includes goals and proposed actions for protecting and enhancing the natural environment and recommends an interconnecting system of shuttles to convey students, faculty, and staff to, from, and around the campus. It calls for a restriction of the number of automobiles on campus and the redirection of regular vehicular traffic from the center of the campus to its periphery. It suggests appropriate development and uses of university properties that reach into other neighborhoods in the larger community. The plan concludes with a list of the projects and activities that will be pursued over the next twenty years and the projected timetable for their completion.
Process
In the Fall of 2000, the University of Maryland began a comprehensive effort to update the 1991 Facilities Master Plan. The membership list of the committee appointed by President Mote is included in the appendix of this document. The Facilities Master Plan steering committee met weekly during the fall semester, reviewed the current status and proposals for each of the campus districts, and discussed the facilities needs in the context of growing and planned academic programs and research activities. At the conclusion of the semester, committee members identified the major issues to be addressed in a new plan as the context for the siting of projected physical facilities. The three most important issues were environmental stewardship, transportation and parking, and development of outlying areas. Consultants with expertise in university planning were sought to provide advice and proposals for dealing with these complex issues.
The firm of Ayers/Saint/Gross, a nationally known campus and architecture planning firm, was hired. Ayers/Saint/Gross brought in specialists from Biohabitats, Inc., ecological consultants, and Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, a transportation planning and traffic engineering firm. The consultants met with stakeholders from across campus and the community, analyzed the current state of the campus, and presented a vision of the campus and a series of recommendations to implement that vision.
Following many intensive discussions of the consultants’ recommendations, the Facilities Master Planning Committee, working with the university Department of Facilities Planning, crafted its vision of the campus for the next twenty years, developed a draft plan, and disseminated it widely among the campus community and to the citizens of College Park. A final plan was submitted to the President’s Cabinet and the Board of Regents for consideration. The President and his Cabinet monitored the planning progress and approved the final recommendations.
Planning is an ongoing process. Any planning document should be viewed as a snapshot of the institution, capturing a particular moment in time. The plans, principles, and projections must be continuously and systematically reviewed and updated. In the future, the university administration will adjust the plan in response to new issues or programmatic changes.
This Facilities Master Plan is flexible and general in its scope. It is not a detailed implementation, operations, logistical or budgetary blueprint for projects. The university will continue to improve and refine the Master Plan as a community-wide effort. As projects are carried out, university planners will be guided by the spirit and vision of this plan with its emphasis on creating a place of natural and architectural beauty, collegiality and community, and
2 utility. In implementing the vision of a modern first-class university campus, planners will be expected to balance a variety of complex systems and their interactions in a manner that takes into consideration special concerns of all members of the university community. (See Section V: Implementation.) The coordinating university agency for the Facilities Master Plan is the Department of Facilities Planning.
Timing
Time periods for the Facilities Master Plan are as follows:
S The base year established for this plan is Fall 2000.
S Planning periods have been established as Fall 2005, Fall 2010, and Fall 2020.
S Time required for full realization of the FMP will be determined separately as a result of annual reviews of the capital budget process.
II. The University’s Mission and Current and Future Characteristics
The University of Maryland was designated by the Maryland General Assembly as the flagship institution of the University System of Maryland in 1988. This legislation called for the university to achieve a status among the premier research universities in the country, and in the last decade, the university has met this mandate. The university is considered by many to be the fastest rising research university in the United States. In the past decade, the profile of the undergraduate student body has changed dramatically, with average SAT scores of entering freshmen rising from 1173 in 1991 to 1246 in 2001, and average high school gpa’s increasing from 3.01 to 3.75. Almost 50 percent of Maryland high school valedictorians and salutatorians now choose the university as their top choice for higher education. The university’s excellence is spreading across all departments. To highlight only a few accomplishments, it is the only public research university on the East Coast with programs in computer science, mathematics, physics, and engineering ranked in the top 25 by U.S. News and World Report; it has 60 programs, departments, or units ranked in the top 25 programs in U.S. News and World Report; it ranks fourth in funding from NASA; the university was ranked among the top 25 in the world in geoscience; in the College of Education three of the six departments are ranked in the top 10 and all other departments have at least one program ranked in the top 20; and the Robert H. Smith School of Business was ranked 13th in MBA programs world-wide by the Wall Street Journal.
Equally impressive is the surge in research funding for faculty. Total annual research expenditures now exceed $300 million, and research awards in FY02 were up by 33 percent over the previous year. Maryland has now become the partner of choice as well as the school of choice, and partnerships have been established with such major corporations and laboratories as Fujitsu, Fraunhofer, and Batelle/PNNL. Over 1,000 Maryland businesses will receive direct assistance from the university in this fiscal year through such campus units as the Technology Extension Service, the Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship, the University of Maryland Industrial Partnerships Program, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Technology Advancement Program. The university has also established new ties with major federal agencies
3 including a Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition with the FDA, which has built an $80 million laboratory in close proximity to the campus. Among other initiatives, the university has committed to strengthening significantly an array of bioscience programs to help the State capitalize on the huge amount of federal funding for the biosciences and become a leader in the biotech industry that is emerging as a keystone of economic development. The university also intends to use its many resources to contribute significantly to the national drive against bioterrorism. Finally, the university is developing a scientific research park in close proximity to encourage research partnerships, including the first research science park partnerships with the People’s Republic of China.
The University of Maryland has moved rapidly to a new level of distinction and excellence. Its physical facilities have not kept pace with this fast ascent. The explosion of research in such areas as the Social Sciences, in which as much as 16 percent of the federal research and development expenditures have come to the university, has widened the gap between the university’s development capabilities and its facilities. In fact, the inventory listed under Space Analysis (Section E below) reveals that according to the State of Maryland’s Space Planning Guidelines, the university faces a current total deficit of approximately 1.2 million net assignable square feet (NASF).
The need for state-of-the-art facilities, as well as for more facilities, is urgent. The example of the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, which was recently opened, is telling. When this phenomenal performing center was completed, the quality of performances and the expectations of students, faculty, and members of the surrounding community immediately increased significantly. The Center is winning the praise of nationally-known artists; hundreds of students from regional high schools are being introduced to the nation’s top performers; graduate students and undergraduates in music, theatre, and dance are being challenged to perform at higher levels of distinction; and sold-out crowds are attending many of the 1,000 events that are scheduled for the first year. The university needs to match this caliber of facility for the science disciplines, the social sciences, the humanities, and the professional schools.
The Facilities Master Plan responds to the continuing growth of excellence at the university by presenting a vision of a campus that is first-class in facilities, first-class in its stewardship of the environment, and first class in its aesthetic ambiance and embrace of community.
A. Mission
The University of Maryland, College Park, is a public research university, the flagship campus of the University System of Maryland, and the original 1862 land-grant institution in Maryland. It is one of only 61 members of the Association of American Universities (AAU). In keeping with the legislative mandates of 1988 and 1999, the University of Maryland is committed to achieving excellence as the state's primary center of research and graduate education and the institution of choice for undergraduate students of exceptional ability and promise. The university has the only Division I intercollegiate athletic program in the state and offers a broad spectrum of programs for men and women at all levels of competition.
The highest degree that the university offers is the Ph.D. It also offers terminal professional degrees, such as the MBA and MFA, and a number of master’s and other doctoral degrees. The
4 university awards a wide range of bachelor's degrees. Relying on its distinguished faculty in an increasing number of nationally-ranked graduate programs, the university provides graduate education at the forefront of research and scholarship and attracts highly qualified graduate students. The university provides enriched and challenging undergraduate educational experiences, including a core arts and sciences curriculum, opportunities for undergraduate research, living-learning communities such as College Park Scholars and the nationally renowned Honors Program, and other unique, intensive, and innovative programs such as Gemstone and Civicus. Degree programs are offered in agriculture and natural resources; architecture; behavioral and social sciences; business and management; computer, mathematical and physical sciences; creative and performing arts; education; engineering; health and human performance; humanities; journalism; life sciences; information studies; and public affairs.
As the flagship of the University System of Maryland, the university shares its research, educational, and technological strengths with other institutions in the University System of Maryland and their constituencies throughout the state. The university's academic programs and expanding computer and information technology infrastructure serve many audiences, and the entire state has access to and depends on the university's libraries. In conjunction with the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, the university serves the state's agricultural needs through the Maryland Cooperative Extension and the Agricultural Experiment Station. The university delivers continuing education programs that are consistent with its research mission and core competencies to an increasing number of degree-seeking and professional audiences worldwide.
The University of Maryland serves as a hub of knowledge from which flow cultural, intellectual, and economic benefits that enrich the state and region. Because of the caliber of faculty across many disciplines, the University of Maryland is uniquely positioned to forge relationships with corporations, non-profit organizations, other educational institutions, local school districts, and major federal agencies, laboratories, and departments. Because of its breadth of strength, the University of Maryland is at the forefront in advancing knowledge in areas that increasingly depend on multi-disciplinary approaches. Through a variety of programs and collaborative agreements, university faculty share with many segments of society the fruits of knowledge and foster and participate in an entrepreneurial culture that is essential to the development of new industries based on knowledge.
The University of Maryland has a clear vision of its future as a nationally distinguished public research university. To realize this vision, the university expects to perform and be funded at the level of the public research institutions that have historically been the very best. Five such AAU members serve as the university's peers: the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, the University of California-Los Angeles, and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The 1988 Higher Education Reorganization Act called for the university to receive “the level of operating funding and facilities necessary to place it among the upper echelon of its peer institutions.” To compete effectively with our peers, in “Building on Excellence: The Next Steps,” the strategic plan for the university that was adopted in 1999, the campus reaffirmed its commitment to “develop the university’s physical facilities so that they meet the needs of a leading research university.”
5 B. Enrollments
Operating with the highest admission standards in the USM, the University of Maryland attracts to campus highly qualified students from all counties of Maryland, the other 49 states, and more than 120 countries around the world. The university counts the diversity of its student body among its special strengths; 33 percent of our undergraduates and 15 percent of our graduate students are minorities.
Total undergraduate enrollment has been held fairly constant at approximately 24,500 students over the past several years and is projected to continue at this level for the duration of this master plan. The current graduate student enrollment is approximately 8,500 and is projected to grow to 9,000 by 2005, after which it is projected to remain constant. Tables 1, 2 and 3 indicate projected enrollments in the following categories: headcount, full-time equivalents (FTE), and full-time day equivalents (FTDE). These data correspond to the university’s 10-year enrollment projections that are filed on an annual basis with the University System of Maryland Office.
Table 1 Headcount Enrollment 1996 – 2020 00-20 96 97 98 99 00 05 10 15 20 Net chg. Undergraduate FT 21,167 21,224 21,630 21,845 21,954 22,193 22,519 22,798 23,039 4.94% Undergraduate PT 3,362 3,230 3,146 2,872 2,687 2,307 1,981 1,702 1,461 -45.62% Graduate FT 4,231 4,296 4,179 4,454 4,966 5,220 5,220 5,220 5,220 5.11% Graduate PT 4,246 3,961 3,970 3,693 3,585 3,780 3,780 3,780 3,780 5.44% TOTALS 33,006 32,711 32,925 32,864 33,192 33,500 33,500 33,500 33,500 0.93% Source: UM Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP)
Table 2 FTE Fall Enrollment 2000-2020
FTE Enrollment 00 05 10 15 20 Undergraduate 22,704 22,837 23,072 23,273 23,447 Graduate 4,683 4,862 4,862 4,862 4,862 TOTALS 27,387 27,699 27,934 28,135 28,309 Source: UM Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP)
Table 3 FTDE Enrollment 1996 – 2020 00-20 96 97 98 99 00 05 10 15 20 Net chg. Undergraduate 20,424 20,543 20,906 21,062 21,090 21,213 21,431 21,619 21,780 3.27% Graduate 3,065 3,067 3,064 3,173 3,327 3,518 3,518 3,518 3,518 5.73% TOTALS 23,489 23,610 23,970 24,235 24,417 24,731 24,949 25,137 25,298 3.61%
Source: UM Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) -- Fiscal Year Data
6 As the university has attracted an increasing number of highly qualified applicants for admission into its freshman classes, the number of students enrolling full-time is increasing, and the ratio between full- and part-time students is gradually shifting. To accommodate the large numbers of students who are entering as full-time freshmen and who wish to participate in living-learning programs or take advantage of campus life, the university must increase its residence hall space with a projected need in the next decade for a total of 12,000 beds, or 2,000 more than those currently available.
C. Faculty and Staff Size
The number of tenured/tenure-track faculty at the university is expected to increase by 5 percent to 1447 over the next five years, as a result of enhancement funding from the state, and then remain fairly constant over the duration of this Master Plan. However, the total number of all faculty and staff is projected to increase by 1 percent per year as a result of the growth of our externally-funded research programs. We project research funding to grow by a rate twice that of inflation, based on the performance of the past five years, in which there was an average growth rate of research funding of 8 percent/year. This growth in faculty and staff is depicted in Tables 4 and 5. These data correspond to the university’s 10-year enrollment projections that are filed on an annual basis with the University System of Maryland Office.
Table 4 Faculty Headcount Full-time/Part-time 1996 – 2020
00-20 Ten/TTrk Faculty 96 97 98 99 00 05 10 15 20 Net chg. Full-time 1,397 1,336 1,329 1,314 1,347 1,414 1,414 1,414 1,414 5.00% Part-time 21 33 27 43 31 33 33 33 33 5.00% TOTAL 1,418 1,369 1,356 1,357 1,378 1,447 1,447 1,447 1,447 5.00% Other Faculty* Full-time 889 923 935 1,021 1,204 1,265 1,330 1,398 1,469 22.02% Part-time 636 621 722 794 873 918 964 1,014 1,065 22.02% TOTAL 1,525 1,544 1,657 1,815 2,077 2,183 2,294 2,411 2,534 22.02% TOTAL FACULTY 2,943 2,913 3,013 3,172 3,455 3,630 3,741 3,858 3,981 15.23% * Includes Research Faculty Source: UM Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP)
Table 5 Staff Headcount Full-time/Part-time 1996 – 2020
00-20 Staff 96 97 98 99 00 05 10 15 20 Net chg. Full-time 3,740 3,862 3,938 4,093 4,154 4,366 4,589 4,823 5,069 22.02% Part-time* 3,048 3,131 3,125 3,741 4,321 4,541 4,773 5,017 5,272 22.02% TOTALS 6,788 6,993 7,063 7,834 8,475 8,907 9,362 9,839 10,341 22.02% * Includes student workers Source: UM Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) Note: TOTALS may not equal the sum due to rounding .
7 III. Land and Facilities Assessment
A. Description of Existing Facilities and Acreage
The University of Maryland is located in the city of College Park, within Prince George’s County. The campus is 30 miles west of Annapolis, 25 miles southwest of Baltimore, and 5 miles north of the border to Washington, D.C. The region’s concentration of cultural, scientific, research, political, economic, and agricultural activities and facilities offers many unique advantages to the university’s academic and research programs.
Interstates 495 and 95, located approximately 3 miles north of the campus, provide direct regional access to the College Park community and to the institution via Baltimore Boulevard, a highly developed commercial corridor and a heavily traveled vehicular link between Baltimore and Washington.
The main campus is bordered by University Boulevard (Route 193), Campus Drive, Mowatt Lane, Knox Road, and Baltimore Boulevard (Route 1). Main campus also includes a parcel of land east of Route 1, which is primarily developed as student housing and service functions. The university Golf Course is located to the west of University Boulevard.
The facilities at the University of Maryland’s main campus, which is the primary focus of this Facilities Master Plan, consist of approximately 11 million gross square feet (GSF) in 262 buildings on approximately 1,200 acres. With the inclusion of off-campus facilities, the building inventory totals nearly 12 million GSF in 459 buildings on approximately 4,000 acres. As shown in Table 6, 65 percent of the total inventory is state-supported and approximately 35 percent is auxiliary.
Table 6 Building Overview Fall 2000
No. Percent of Building Inventory of Buildings GSF NASF Total GSF Main Campus
State-Supported 137 6,826,170 4,090,322 59.0% Auxiliary 125 3,961,890 2,239,972 34.3% Subtotal 262 10,788,060 6,330,294 93.3%
Other Facilities *
State-Supported 194 736,711 615,901 6.4% Auxiliary 3 38,341 38,341 .3% Subtotal 197 775,052 654,242 6.7% Total Inventory 459 11,563,112 6,984,536 100.0% *Includes Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute, Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, Cooperative Extension Services, and leased facilities.
8 B. Assessment of Physical Condition of Buildings and Infrastructure
The advanced age and deteriorating condition of UM facilities are major concerns. Approximately 40 percent of the total gross square footage is over 40 years of age. Insufficient funding for maintenance and facilities renewal has resulted in enormous deferred maintenance needs and an aging, increasingly obsolete physical plant. More than 41 percent of the total inventory is coded as Condition 3 and 4 (requiring either major updating and modernization or major remodeling of the building) as shown in Table 7. It is estimated that an expenditure of more than $500 million would be required to change code 3 and 4 space to code 1 or 2.
Table 7 Building Condition Overview Fall 2000
No. of Percent of Condition Code Buildings GSF NASF Total GSF Code 1 (normal maintenance) 199 4,465,306 2,386,876 38.6% Code 2 (minimal renovation) 76 1,588,553 999,008 13.7% Code 3 (major updating) 38 2,072,505 1,322,218 17.9% Code 4 (major remodeling) 68 2,707,390 1,706,972 23.4% Code 5 (removal) 0 0 0 0 Code 6 (planned termination) 78 729,358 569,462 6.3% Total Inventory 459 11,563,112 6,984,536 100.0%
The advanced age and deteriorating condition of the campus infrastructure (utilities, roads, parking, landscape, and pedestrian walks) also pose a threat to the fulfillment of the university’s mission. Concurrent with the need for new facilities at the university is the need for renovation and renewal of existing infrastructure.
Full funding of the facilities renewal program in the annual operating budget is required to reverse current conditions and effect permanent change. Annual facilities renewal funding should be at a level not less than 2 percent of the replacement value of buildings and infrastructure. In January 2002 dollars, achieving this level would require funding of approximately $42 million annually to address all university facilities. Given the research mission and extensive laboratory activity, experts in the facilities renewal field suggest funding should be at as much as 4 percent of the replacement value, which is approximately $84 million for UM.
Provision of appropriate and adequate facilities on the University of Maryland, College Park campus is integrally tied to the facilities renewal funding as part of the annual operating budget of the institution. However, rebuilding and maintaining the campus infrastructure cannot be accomplished with operating funding alone. Infrastructure funding must also be provided in the annual capital budget. The university has entered into a 20-year agreement with a vendor to operate, maintain, and renew its steam and high-voltage electric systems. This agreement will allow the university to renew and expand these systems without impacting the state’s capital
9 budget. However, all other infrastructure will continue to require support from the university’s capital and operating budgets.
C. Utilization of Existing Facilities
Use of the Maryland Higher Education Commission’s (MHEC) definitions for building types provides a useful means of categorizing the inventory, shown in Table 8. Approximately 45 percent of the space at the university is concentrated in 91 academic buildings. Two main libraries, five administrative buildings, 122 auxiliary enterprise facilities, and 239 non-academic buildings comprise the remainder of the space inventory.
Table 8
Major Building Function Fall 2000
Percent of Building Function Codes GSF NASF GSF Total
Academic 5,263,209 3,265,882 45.5% Administrative 202,658 136,533 1.8% Library 636,427 460,556 5.5% Auxiliary Enterprise 4,500,754 2,388,937 38.9% Other - Non-Academic 966,064 732,628 8.3% Total Inventory 11,563,112 6,984,536 100%
D. Assessment of Sufficiency, Functional Adequacy, and Externally Mandated Program Standards
UM suffers from a lack of sufficient quantity and quality of space, which is a serious obstacle to sustaining the university’s scholarly activities. Additionally, the lack of functionally appropriate or suitable space makes the fulfillment of the university’s mission at an appropriately high level of quality increasingly difficult. Emphasis on graduate level education, the increased technological requirements of instruction, externally mandated program standards, (e.g., requirements set by Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care), and advances in research technologies all contribute to a growing need for renewal of existing facilities and the infrastructure.
Limited capital resources have not resolved the problem of insufficient space and have only had a minimal impact on improving the condition and affecting the functional adequacy of UM facilities.
10 E. Space Analysis
The use of Space Planning Guidelines is intended to assist the university and the state in identifying the overall adequacy of types and amount of space. The data represented in Table 9 show the calculated space allowance derived from the application of the Space Planning Guidelines. Space allowances are compared to a static inventory and yield either a space surplus or deficit. The base year (Fall 2000) inventory reflects a total space deficit of approximately 1.2 million net assignable square feet (NASF). All of the major room use categories (classroom, class laboratories, research, office, and study) show deficits. Using a static inventory, the deficits are projected to increase during the 20-year period for all categories. The magnitude of the existing space deficit and the projection of continuing deficits clearly indicate that higher levels of capital expenditure are required from all sources, including university sources.
Table 9
Inventory and Space Guideline Allowances Base Year (Fall 2000) and Projected (2005, 2010, 2020)
Fall 2000 Fall 2000 Fall 2005 Fall 2010 Fall 2020 Code/Space Static Inv Def/Sur Def/Sur Def/Sur Def/Sur 110/5 Classroom 314,640 (106,932) (112,482) (117,400) (125,330) 210/5 Class Labs 370,783 (36,993) (42,392) (46,877) (54,213) 250/5 Research 685,781 (638,428) (679,928) (722,428) (812,728) 300/5 Office 1,497,302 (52,524) (130,672) (194,106) (330,918) 410/5 Study 442,189 (180,195) (296,366) (298,037) (301,252) 500/5 Special Use 621,988 (9,792) (12,223) (14,659) (19,027) 600/5 General Use 392,646 (136,220) (149,069) (151,239) (155,061) 700/5 Support 319,605 (42,988) (54,207) (59,585) (70,557) 800/5 Health Care 13,517 5,792 5,698 5,632 5,528
Unclassified 175,588 - - - - Outside Agencies 103,665 - - - - Residential 1,392,588 - - - - Total Inventory 6,330,294 (1,198,280) (1,471,641) (1,598,699) (1,863,558)
F. Adequacy of Existing Land and Capacity for Future Development
Future development sites have been identified that could accommodate an additional 6.6 million GSF of new construction. Beyond the 20-year planning period, consideration may need to be given to locating certain university functions on campus edges and peripheral properties in order to keep the concentration of student and academic functions as close to the Historic Core as possible.
11
IV. The Plan to Meet the University’s Facilities Needs
Figure 1. 2001-2020 Facilities Master Plan
12 2001 Facilities Master Plan: Planning Principles
S Realize Institutional Vision The campus will be a place of beauty that celebrates history, generates pride, and manifests the university’s mission, academic aspirations, programmatic needs, and concern for the quality of life.
S Create a Coherent Campus Design Campus planning will promote a coherent design that recognizes or reinforces natural environmental patterns, campus planning traditions, and neighborhood organizational patterns and that improves operational efficiencies.
S Practice Good Environmental Stewardship The campus plan will protect and enhance existing natural environments (woodlands, wetlands, and floodplains) and create connections with adjacent habitats, and new development will be guided by principles of environmental stewardship.
S Increase the Access and Appeal of the Campus for Pedestrians Campus planning will encourage and invite pedestrians to move freely and safely across campus through appropriate design in and between campus areas and careful control of vehicular access.
S Encourage and Facilitate Use of Transportation other than Personal Vehicles Plans for development will reduce presence of automobiles on campus and encourage and facilitate all modes of transportation -- shuttle busses, bicycles, new light rails or metro lines -- that will minimize vehicular congestion, consistent with design and environmental stewardship priorities.
S Strengthen Community Relations Planning and design patterns will strengthen the connections of the campus to the surrounding neighborhood communities and contribute to high quality town-gown relationships.
S Embrace Campus Traditions and Heritage Planners will use the best features of campus plans nationwide and of the existing campus design as a guide for future development in order to promote organizational and architectural harmony.
S Emphasize the Importance of Open Spaces Campus design will affirm the essential importance of open spaces -- natural areas, lawns, malls, plazas, patios, places to sit, etc. -- to the image, organization, and quality of the campus environment.
13 S Achieve Appropriate Development Densities Building patterns will achieve the density levels and the balance of new development, renovation, and removal that make the best long-term use of available land and financial resources.
S Ensure Greater Sustainability Planning and building for the long term will be a key goal in the design of new facilities, in the renovation of existing buildings, and in the location of supporting utilities.
S Enhance Campus Security Planning and design of all areas of campus will make personal safety and the security of public and personal property a priority.
14 Although the population and space projections are for a 20-year planning period, the vision for the physical development of the campus goes well beyond the programmatic 20-year projections (Figure 1). This Master Plan envisions the future campus as a cohesive whole and a place of beauty, an environment that nurtures diversity and that fosters learning and community.
In developing the Facilities Master Plan, the steering committee and consultants dealt first with the primary issues that will affect development across the entire campus and in every district. These global issues consist of matching our growth and planning with environmental requirements and projections, developing a comprehensive system for managing vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and fostering land use and buildings that promote community on campus and in the surrounding neighborhoods. The consultants first consolidated and then analyzed the collective vision presented them by the Steering Committee and various stakeholders with whom they met. They then submitted a summary of goals and recommended actions that will help the university achieve its vision. Finally, the committee developed plans for the composition of each district, projecting possible land uses and buildings for the 20-year planning period. The plan provides a narrative and graphic summary of the physical recommendations proposed and a vision of the campus that will guide efforts over the coming decades.
A. Global Issues: Environmental Stewardship, Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation, and Land Use.
1. Environmental Stewardship: (Figures 2 and 3)
Goal: Preserve and reinforce regional ecological connections. Recommended Actions: Establish greenways. Manage invasive species. Protect streams, wetlands. Protect existing specimen trees. Restore and enhance forest cover.
Goal: Restore the natural hydrologic cycle. Recommended Actions: Manage storm water run-off more effectively. Improve water quality.
Goal: Foster ecological stewardship. Recommended Actions: Develop specific policies and goals to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources. Minimize hazardous and toxic materials. Promote environmentally responsible procurement of goods and services. Adopt a waste reduction goal for the campus. Incorporate energy conservation measures and renewable energy production. Implement “green” architecture.
15 Figure 2. Environmental Stewardship: Proposed Open Spaces and Connecting Corridors
LEGEND
Forest Cover
Ponds and Streams
Major Campus Open Spaces
Courtyards and Plazas
Tree-lined Pedestrian Routes
Campus Trees
16 Figure 3. Environmental Stewardship: Recommended Protected Areas
LEGEND
Existing Forest Cover
Proposed Protected Forest
Stream Buffer
Existing Stream
Regulatory Forest Preservation / Wetlands (approximately 50 acres)
17 Goal: Explore and implement historic preservation measures. Recommended Actions: Establish campus historic preservation policies. Complete study of campus historic resources (buildings and landscapes).
2. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation: (Figures 4, 5, and 6)
Goal: Maximize use of alternatives to driving to campus alone. Recommended Actions: Improve the campus’s integration into the regional transit system network in the short term by increasing the frequency of shuttle busses between campus and UM/College Park Green Line Metro station. Build UM park-and-ride facilities with high quality transit. Support purple line stations on or adjacent to campus. Introduce pre-tax payroll deduction for transit pass/voucher. Offer pre-tax benefit for parking at park-and-ride facilities. Coordinate centralized information through the Commuter Services Office. Fine-tune Shuttle-UM commuter routes/service.
Goal: Create a more pedestrian-friendly central campus and significantly reduce number of automobiles. Recommended Actions: Allow only restricted automobile access to internal streets with high pedestrian volumes and conflicts. Establish a high quality internal campus loop shuttle throughout the center of the campus that will provide convenient intra-campus travel and reduce internal auto travel. Organize campus growth around a series of new open spaces friendly to pedestrians and bicycles.
Goal: Minimize new parking on campus. Recommended Actions: Improve the environment for bicycles within and around campus. Replace surface lots with garages.
3. The Use of Land and Real Property to Reflect our Mission: (Figure 7)
Goal: Preserve and develop land in the best interest of the environment, the university community, and the citizens of the region. Recommended Actions: Identify, prioritize, fund, and implement key environmental, open space, and landscape projects as a critical part of the campus infrastructure. Support development of the Route 1 Corridor and the East Campus “Town Commons” in ways that link them to the university’s mission and community. Support development of the College Park Metro site as a center for high tech/science organizations and businesses.
18 Figure 4. University of Maryland Regional Transit Alternatives
LEGEND Shuttle UM MetroRail UM Main Commuter Lines Campus Routes
19 Figure 5. Proposed Shuttle UM System
INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Proposed Shuttle UM Commuter Routes
Proposed Internal Shuttle Loop System
Campus Neighborhood Hubs (Stops with 5 min walking radius)
20 Figure 6. Proposed Internal Shuttle Loop System
21 Figure 7. Land Use Map
LEGEND
Potential East Campus Joint Development University of Maryland
U. of M. Housing Lease
Commercial Retail Apartment Buildings
Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Metro / MARC
City of College Park
Federal Government Church
22 Acquire and develop extension, research, and training facilities at selected locations throughout Maryland, as required to support the university’s outreach initiatives. Acquire in-parcels and other immediately adjacent properties as appropriate to establish a clear and attractive edge for the campus.
Goal: Recognize and carefully assess the intrinsic natural value, the pedagogical value, and the commercial economic value of university land. Recommended Actions: Use the land as an environmental asset in education and research. Implement historical preservation policies to determine use of land. Develop a strategy for land use that shows respect for local and regional natural systems of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and enhances Smart Growth principles and projects.
B. Campus Development Plan
The Facilities Master Plan (Figure 1) provides a graphic summary of recommendations proposed during the 20-year planning period. This illustration captures the vision and incorporates the principles that are intended to guide facilities planning at the University of Maryland. It shows greenways linking pedestrian corridors within and between districts. It gives possible building sites within the districts and indicates proposed transportation changes and links. As with any planning document that covers such an extended period, the vision it presents is the goal toward which we will strive, understanding that unexpected opportunities, significant changes in a variety of circumstances, or other factors can effect changes in specific recommendations. The overall principles and goals on which this plan is founded, however, will not change.
Additional graphics are included to give a better understanding of the various infrastructures and systems that inform the final vision. Environmental preservation and enhancement form one of the underlying grids, or major infrastructures, of the final plan. Figures 2 and 3 show the environmental plans for the entire campus. Figure 2 projects the connecting corridors the plan envisions, and Figure 3 shows the protected forest areas and stream and wetlands restoration areas.
A second major infrastructure comprises the transportation recommendations designed to accommodate more efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement and to relieve congestion. Figure 4 shows the existing commuter shuttle routes. Figure 5 shows the proposed shuttle system that would reach out into the region beyond the campus and would also connect to I-95 and a parking garage at the 495 interchange with I-95. (Not all commuter shuttle routes are shown graphically.) Figure 6 presents a graphic of the proposed internal shuttle loop system. These three graphics illustrate the integrated transportation system envisioned for the campus. When the internal shuttle and connecting commuter shuttle systems are fully implemented, vehicular access will be restricted on the following campus roads: Campus Drive, Field House Drive, Valley Drive, Preinkert Drive. These roadways will be closed to general, daily traffic and configured to support the campus shuttle and pedestrian and bicycle use.
Finally, the plan considers land use of properties adjacent to the campus, such as that east of Route 1. Figure 7 indicates the land uses for adjacent, peripheral, and outlying areas.
23
At the conclusion of this chapter, a list is included of projects currently underway, projects planned for future planning periods. Detailed graphics indicate sites of current construction projects and sites designated for projected construction in accordance with the environmental principles and aesthetic goals of this plan.
C. District Development Plans
The campus comprises eight districts on the main campus (Figure 8), plus outlying university- owned properties. The size of each district is defined by an approximately five to seven minute walk radius. Various campus districts have developed over time, from natural woodland and meadows, to agrarian fields, to romantic and classical campus compositions, to more "urban" areas, resulting in the general orthogonal street grid and the high-density buildings found in some areas. Such features continue to characterize many of the districts. Depending on the period of its development, each district has unique physiographic and cultural characteristics evidenced in its natural features, open spaces, buildings, and their uses. The plans for each district have been designed to embrace the most positive characteristics of the campus and to extend them forward into the future.
Historic Core
The University of Maryland campus, formerly the Maryland Agricultural College, began on a hilltop now known as Morrill Hall Quadrangle, named after the oldest remaining college building (Morrill Hall, completed in 1898). As was customary of many public colleges founded during that period, the environs of the initially modest campus were planned and developed over time, into the early twentieth century. The development generally followed the American Romantic Style of landscape architecture and was characterized by the tradition of English landscape gardening; i.e., “picturesque/naturalistic” scenery.
The campus experienced its most notable period of expansion from 1935 to 1954, during which the specific Neo-Georgian style of architecture was established, and the landscape of McKeldin Mall was created as the heart of campus. Designed in the Neo-Classical Beaux Arts landscape tradition, this existing physical order and orientation of the mall is essential to the University of Maryland to help maintain an overall identity, hierarchy, and sense of place within such a large institution. The physical order of the traditional campus is, therefore, the point of departure for all future planning and design of new development in this district.
The physical plan for the Historic Core projects capital improvements that maintain its character (Figure 9).
S Projects in this district will conserve and maintain valued landscapes; architectural hierarchies, scale, and character; pedestrian networks; picturesque vistas; and the symbolic importance of this district.
24 Figure 8. District Boundaries
LEGEND District Boundary
Historical Core
Southwest District
West District
Northwest District
North District
Northeast District
East Campus
Golf Course District
Transit District Overlay Zone
Outlying Properties and Development Areas
University Property Line
Rte. 1 Sector Plan Boundary
25 Figure 9. Historic Core
26
S Necessary improvements will be achieved through renovation, renewal, and, as appropriate, adaptation of existing buildings for reuse.
S Selected sites will be used for infill buildings for academic, research, and student life uses, including open space improvements that will enhance mixed-use and foster a safe and diverse community.
Southwest District
This district is bounded by the Historic Core to the north, Mowatt Lane to the west, and privately owned properties to the west and south. This district is part of the watershed into Guilford Run. This district shares boundaries with the Route 1 Sector Plan and includes the Buddington property.
The Southwest District Plan calls for priority capital improvements and potential public-private venture; i.e., existing building renovations and new infill development focused on the creation of well-defined open spaces between buildings that will create stronger links to the core of the campus (Figure 10).
S The proposed new mall or linear green space for this area conceptualizes a core that will spatially organize new development and will scenically tie this district, by channeling pedestrian movement patterns, to the Historic Core of the campus. This new mall terminates to a view of the cupola of Anne Arundel Hall.
S Colonnade Drive will be relocated and redeveloped as an east-west, tree-lined pedestrian link from the new addition to Van Munching Hall to new student residential facilities to the east.
S Future academic buildings in this district are projected for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Schools of Architecture, Business, and Public Affairs, plus renovation and new infill development for student residential and recreational facilities.
S Planned new buildings and open spaces will replace many existing surface parking lots, resulting in the development of structured parking facilities.
West District
The West District is bounded by University Boulevard to the west, Campus Drive to the south, and Stadium Drive and the predominantly high-rise residential community to the north. To the east it merges into the parking lots and buildings that surround the southwestern side of the Historic Core.
Historically a back door and rear yard of the campus containing athletic fields and large parking areas, this district is increasingly a new front door to the campus. It is the historic and present location of the President’s residence, which is situated on one of the highest points on the campus with vistas to the north and the south. The significant landscape open space in the district is the President’s lawn and the areas and vistas associated with the President’s house.
27 Figure 10. Southwest District
28 The district also contains many of the campus’s iconic assembly buildings and spaces including Byrd Stadium, Cole Student Activities Building, the new Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, and Ludwig Field. Additionally, the Inn and Conference Center, while not technically part of the campus, has a strong visual and functional connection to the campus and is part of this iconic group of buildings and spaces. The campus planning and architectural development of the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center and the Stadium Drive Parking Garage have transformed Stadium Drive into a new front door and gateway to the campus. Several access points to campus are also located along Campus Drive. The stream of Guilford Run has its origins along the southeast edge of the President’s lawn.
The long-range vision for this district and “western gateway” to the campus calls for its transformation from one dominated by acres of asphalt parking lots for thousands of cars to an ordered, mixed-use district with strong and clear connections to the adjacent campus districts. This vision also includes long-range consideration of possible property acquisitions to the south of Campus Drive and connections to the Buddington property and consideration of future transit and auto access.
The ordering concepts for the district are as follows: 1) a north-south vehicular and pedestrian axis and series of spaces and malls aligned with Lot 1 Road; 2) an east-west axis and mall between Tawes and the Inn and Conference Center; 3) the President’s lawn as the significant campus space in this district and western section of the campus; 4) the development of Guilford Run headwaters as an aesthetic and ecological amenity (Figure 11).
S The site of the President’s residence will be retained to serve as both the family residence of the President as well as the site of the complex social activities that are required by his position. The natural landscape and vistas associated with the President’s house are important to these activities and are to be maintained and further developed.
S Capital programs are planned for the adaptive reuse of the Tawes Building for the Department of English, an addition for the College of Education, a new building for the College of Journalism, and the new Riggs Alumni Center.
S Potential future development includes multi-modal transit, a combination of academic and student facilities, and spaces for major special events to be hosted in this district.
S The development of this area will make open-space development and pedestrian and spatial links to the core of campus a priority, as these will form the structure for future development.
Northwest District
This district is bounded by the Stadium Drive gateway and University Boulevard to the west, Field House Drive to the south, and Campus Creek to the north. Located on a ridge, this district offers framed views of exemplary buildings such as Anne Arundel Hall and the spire of Memorial Chapel to the Southeast and natural woodland to the Northwest.
The architecture of this district is extremely diverse in both character and scale. Open spaces in this district are predominantly playing fields, large paved parking lots, and the spaces between
29 Figure 11. West District
30 the buildings of each residential quadrangle, which need enhancement and better landscaping. Currently, the stadium and playing fields cut off the Northwest District from the campus because students are forced to walk around these large fenced in areas.
The Facilities Master Plan proposes the following general strategies for the Northwest District (Figure 12):
S Strategically place the new Biosciences Research Building in this district, with subsequent phased expansion of research and support facilities.
S Undertake the ecological restoration of Campus Creek.
S Maintain the major Intercollegiate Athletic land uses and facilities, but reorganize Intercollegiate Athletic fields to accommodate other facilities growth.
S Enhance and clarify pedestrian access between the Historic Core and high-rise student residential buildings to facilitate stronger connections to the academic campus.
S Plan for future development of structured parking and student residential and recreational facilities.
North District
This district is bounded by two important biohabitats and corridors unique to the campus: Paint Branch and Campus Creek, part of the Chesapeake Bay Water Shed. The majority of the eastern portion of this district lies within the 100-year flood plain of Paint Branch and Campus Creek and contains some jurisdictional wetlands.
The image and architecture of this district, once characterized by agricultural pastures and maintenance outbuildings, is now dominated by the Comcast Center, playing fields, and surface parking areas, as well as a few buildings such as the Research Greenhouses and the Chesapeake Building.
The Facilities Master Plan calls for the continuation of current development patterns in this district (Figure 13):
S Engage in the restoration of Campus Creek; enhance and extend wetlands; remove or manage invasive plant species, among other adopted environmental initiatives.
S Limit development in the flood plain to Intercollegiate Athletic and recreational fields and surface or structured parking facilities.
S Relocate Intercollegiate Athletic facilities from West District and consolidate in North District over time, as necessitated by other campus development. These facilities include tennis courts, Shipley Field, and Ludwig Field.
Northeast District
This district is bounded by Campus Creek to the north, Paint Branch to the east, Regents Drive to the west and the farm beyond Regents Drive, and Campus Drive to the south. Campus Drive,
31 Figure 12. Northwest District
32 Figure 13. North District
33 Azalea Lane/Paint Branch Drive, and Regents Drive are all major vehicular access routes to and through the campus.
The engineering building, mathematics building and physics building combined form a "face" for this district onto Campus Drive and overlooking the engineering fields. Other than this "face" and the North Gate entrance, the district has no other positive visual features or organizational attributes, despite the presence of Campus Creek and Paint Branch. While retaining a vestige of the historical roots of the campus in the small farm complex in the northwest corner, this district has otherwise developed as one of the most dense and "urban" areas on campus. The street structure forms a small, if imperfect, grid filled with utilitarian buildings and parking lots. Landscaping only edges the buildings. There are no unifying open spaces or pedestrian ways. Most of the architecture within the district lacks grandeur, unity, and continuity with the Historic Core and other symbolic traditions of the campus.
The vision for this district is to create a much stronger and positive district identity by restoring Campus Creek and Paint Branch along the north and east edges of this district, reinforcing the urban character of the interior of the district with infill buildings, enhancing the landscape and creating gathering plazas and major north-south pedestrian walkways. Pedestrian bridges will link the district with the Route 1 area and the housing to the east of Route 1, creating a gateway experience from Campus Drive into the district.
The campus began as an agricultural college, and much of the original land was devoted to farm research. The vestige of farmland in this district will be preserved as part of the university heritage. It will also support current agriculture programs and the university mission of diversity in experience and education.
Recommendations in the plan for this district focus on creating a stronger sense of community and definition (Figure 14):
S The preservation, restoration, and enhancement of Campus Creek and Paint Branch as unique features, pedagogical instruments, and campus amenities.
S Development of high quality and strong pedestrian environment and linkages to the surrounding districts and College Park, including links across Paint Branch to the Route 1 area. S Planned capital improvements for the Colleges of Computer, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (including a new physical sciences facility to replace the antiquated facilities currently in use), Engineering, and Life Sciences.
East Campus District
This campus district is bounded by Route 1 to the west, Paint Branch Parkway to the north, and the City of College Park to the south. The image and identity of this area of campus are visually connected to the Historic Core via Memorial Chapel, North and South Gates and the associated lawns, Chapel Lawn and the recreational fields south of Martin Hall. Fraternity Row defines a major campus open space within this district that visually links across Route 1 to Chapel Lawn and Memorial Chapel. The predominant land uses in this district include the Central Heating
34 Figure 14. Northeast District
35 Plant and other campus service units and facilities, Fraternity Row, and other student residential clusters.
This area of campus falls within the College Park U.S. Route 1 Corridor Sector Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment, conducted by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). The university Strategic Plan calls for this district to be redeveloped as an “East Campus College Town Commons.” This area will be a mixed-use college town environment that includes retail, office, and residential uses and a hotel and conference center. A street and pedestrian pattern will strongly link to the campus and to Old Town College Park, and a town square will act as a focus and visual link across Route 1 to the Engineering Fields.
Development plans call for the relocation of campus service units to make this area available for development to be achieved largely through public-private sponsorship (Figure 15).
Golf Course District
The Golf Course is located to the west of the campus proper. It is bounded by University Boulevard to the east, Adelphi Road to the southwest, the National Archives building and grounds to the northwest and Metzerott Road and single family residential development to the north.
The Golf Course is a major asset for the university. The course and its woodlands are the upland areas of the Campus Creek watershed and, thus, part of the watershed and wildlife corridor of Campus Creek and Paint Branch. Designed as a romantic or English picturesque landscape with rolling hills, specimen trees, and ponds, the Golf Course and new clubhouse are important campus and community amenities as a natural area, an open space, and a recreation area.
The Facilities Master Plan retains the essential quality of this district (Figure 16):
S Maintain the appropriate land for continued use as a golf course, conserve and enhance the natural woodland corridor, and restore Campus Creek and the ponds.
Outlying Properties and Development Areas
Development in the various outlying university properties exists as either contiguous campus edges or disconnected physically from the campus. Additionally, the university will continue to explore the potential of public-private partnerships to help catalyze appropriate local economic and physical development and strengthen relationships with existing businesses and institutions. These properties or areas may be characterized as follows (Figure 17):
S U.S. Route 1 Corridor
S Transit District Overlay Zone (Metro/Airport)
S Knox – Guilford District
36 Figure 15. East Campus District
37 Figure 16. Golf Course District
38 Figure 17. Outlying Properties Development Areas
39
S Adelphi – Metzerott Gateway
S Metzerott Corridor
The environmental and existing development context of each of these properties must be considered in relation to the balanced environmental and development objectives of the Facilities Master Plan. Both environmental considerations and development potentials and appropriateness are unique to each site. Therefore, conservation and development guidelines will need to be developed for each parcel and the circumstances of each project. Future planning, design, and building in outlying properties will consider the following:
S The property’s physiography and environmental qualities;
S The environmental importance of the property as a woodland, wildlife area, and watershed;
S The recognition that development will be encouraged closer to campus, more immediate to existing transit, and in the preferred development areas of the Route 1 corridor, East Campus Town Commons, and TDOZ as appropriate to each development proposal;
S Appropriate uses consistent and compatible with neighboring land uses;
S The importance of maintaining identity with the University of Maryland campus, reflecting the general character and qualities of campus architecture; and
S Where appropriate, the extension of the campus hierarchy of buildings and open spaces.
Transit District Overlay Zone
The university currently owns property in the TDOZ and was a member of the group required by legal planning process to work with M-NCPPC to develop a plan for this area. In October 1997 a Transit District Development Plan (TDDP) was approved by Prince George’s County for the area previously proposed as a Transit District Overlay Zone. The university continues to explore the public-private development opportunities consistent with both the university’s mission and the provisions and zoning restrictions of the TDDP.
V. Implementation
The 11 principles listed at the beginning of Section IV are statements of the priorities that will guide planners. In the implementation of the plans for an enhanced environment and significantly improved traffic and pedestrian flow, for example, concerns for security of people and property will be a priority, as stated in the eleventh principle. Planners will be asked to design safety features into parking garages and shuttle connection points, to maintain well-lighted open spaces in areas with forest covering, and to provide secure facilities for bicycle storage. In addition, as new shuttle service arrangements, parking, and vehicular traffic patterns are instituted, every
40 effort will be made to accommodate the needs of those with disabilities and to address concerns of the large numbers of commuting students. Traffic designers will also be asked to include flexibility in the system of restricted roads necessary to respond to exceptional needs of faculty, staff, students, or guests to access particular campus areas, for example, to attend special events at the Memorial Chapel, athletic arenas, or Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center.
The outlines of this Master Plan allow the university to take advantage of special opportunities off campus. Specifically, the plan provides flexibility for interaction with a Purple Line in the Washington area metro system, which would offer a welcome new means for transportation to the campus. Though specific metro stop sites have not yet been designated, it is assumed that at least one Purple Line station will be located on or adjacent to campus, with the exact siting dependent on the final route of the Purple Line. The university intends to advocate for a metro system that offers maximum access to the campus.
While allowing for flexibility to respond to a variety of opportunities, the plan also sets standards to guide future development. The principles stated in the plan will provide a valuable guide to any development that might occur if, as an example, the 2012 Olympics are held in the Baltimore-Washington region. If the Olympics are held in this region, the campus would be a primary location for events. Acting in accordance with this plan, the university’s goal would be to arrange special accommodations for participants and visitors with attention to the guidelines set forth in this plan, protecting to the extent possible the environmental qualities and architectural unity envisioned in this document.
Implementation of specific projects occurs under the oversight of the Office of Facilities Management. A hallmark of this planning process has been consultation with a wide range of constituencies, and the Master Plan Steering Committee has sought input and advice throughout the planning procedure. As development of each district goes forward, and specific projects are implemented, campus planners will continue this process of consultation and discuss issues with all concerned stakeholders-- faculty, staff, students, and local officials. In areas in which university faculty members and staff have special expertise, their advice and insight will be especially welcomed.
To achieve the environmental vision set forth in the plan, for example, much collective and continued work needs to be done by the entire campus community in research, education, planning, and implementation. It is expected that the Facilities Management staff will work collaboratively with appropriate academic units and departments, outside consultants, and the university leadership in setting and reaching specific goals. The university will also continue to seek support from local communities, county and state legislators, friends, and donors.
Environmental stewardship and effective management of vehicle and pedestrian movement, as presented in this plan, constitute major new emphases for the campus. Careful oversight and implementation of environmental and traffic control projects are essential to fulfilling the vision of the plan.
The plan for implementation of capital projects below will guide the siting and timing of future development of buildings on the campus. Recommended capital improvements have been assigned to one of three planning periods based on the institution’s most critical needs and assumptions concerning funding availability. An appropriate balance between building,
41 infrastructure, and landscape improvements is proposed. The infrastructure and landscape improvements recommended in each planning period are necessary to support the proposed additional building square footage. Infrastructure projects include utilities, satellite central utility buildings, roads, and transit systems. Landscape projects include ecological restoration, open space enhancements, new open spaces, reforestation and tree planting, and hydrology/storm water management projects. The cost figures are estimates in 2002 dollars.
Infrastructure upgrades to be funded via the Energy Performance Contract are not included, as many specific scopes, costs, and locations have not been finalized. Most of these infrastructure upgrades are expected to be completed within the 2001-2005 Planning Period.
Summary of All Planning Periods
The total square footages and costs for new facilities, building renewals, building demolitions, infrastructure, and landscape improvements for all planning periods are reflected in Table 10. In total, we expect to add approximately 9.1 million GSF of new space and renew 3.3 million GSF of existing space. To meet program requirements, approximately 0.7 million GSF of existing space will be demolished. The total cost for all facilities and related infrastructure and landscape improvements is estimated to be approximately $2.4 billion.
Table 10 Summary Table # of Total Total Areas of Need/Project Types* Projects GSF Costs (in $1000’s) 1. Planned New Construction 60 9,019,489 1,754,545 2. Planned Building Renewal 48 3,274,272 533,650 3. Planned Building Demolition 70 683,002 ** 4. Planned Infrastructure Improvements 21 39,874 49,750 5. Planned Landscape Improvements 25 0 34,270
* Excludes High Density Library Storage Facility and New Storage Facility proposed off- campus. Also excludes undesignated building sites. **Cost is associated with the project that necessitates the demolition.
Site locations for all program requirements are identified in Figures 18, 19 and 20. In addition, undesignated building sites are identified in Figure 20 to provide additional capacity for unanticipated program needs and opportunities or to serve as alternate locations for identified program needs. A total of 36 undesignated building sites with a total capacity of 3.6 million GSF are identified. In addition, one landscape improvement project that supports some of the undesignated building sites is identified.
42 Figure 18. 2001-2005 Planning Period
43 Figure 19. 2006-2010 Planning Period
44 Figure 20. 2011 and Beyond Planning Period
45
Table 12 2001- 2005 Planning Period: Planned New Construction
Site Project GSF Cost (in Potential Fund Source(s) $1,000’s) N1 Kim Engineering Bldg. 141,300 50,000 State N2 Chemistry Teaching Bldg. 58,500 30,200 State N3 Computer Science Instructional 37,222 10,300 System Center N4 Research Greenhouse Complex 65,500 17,500 State N5 Van Munching Hall Addition 103,000 24,800 State, Institutional, Private N6 Riggs Alumni Center 60,000 20,500 Private/Institutional N7 MFRI Headquarters Addition 20,000 5,200 State N8 Operations & Maintenance 61,800 11,100 System Shops Relocation N9 Motor Pool Relocation 9,300 1,700 System N10 Campus Mail Facility 5,800 1,000 System Relocation N11 Service Building Relocation 72,600 13,100 System N12 Shuttle UM Relocation 10,500 1,900 System N13 Softball Stadium 2,635 3,900 State N14 Gossett Team House Addition 18,700 5,700 Private N15 Health Center 51,900 14,000 System Addition/Renovation N16 Mowatt Lane Parking Garage 525,000 18,200 System N17 Campus Drive Parking Garage 560,000 18,700 System (1,600 spaces) N18 Comcast Center 470,000 126,845 State, Private, System N19 Arena Parking Garage 360,000 16,300 System N20 East Campus Mixed Use 1,280,000 256,000 Public-Private Partnership Development Phase 1 – (Includes Conference Center) N21 Housing/(600 beds) 145,000 28,000 Public-Private Partnership N22 New IT Building at College 219,000 54,800 Public-Private Partnership Park Metro site (part of carrier hotel) N23 Day Care Facility 13,500 2,500 Public-Private Partnership N24 Laboratory for Telecommunication Sciences 85,000 25,000 Public-Private Partnership N25 Capstone Housing (799 beds) 232,532 44,200 Public-Private Partnership
Projects are not presented in priority order.
47
2006 – 2010 Planning Period
The construction of approximately 1.9 million GSF of new and renewed space is planned to meet identified program requirements in this period. The total cost for new facilities, building renewals, and infrastructure and landscape improvements in this planning period is approximately $319 million as shown in Table 13. Figure 19 depicts projects in this planning period.
Table 13 2006-2010 Planning Period # of Total Total Areas of Need/Project Types Projects GSF Costs (in $1,000’s) 1. Planned New Construction 9 1,310,000 215,100 2. Planned Building Renewal 11 521,019 74,800 3. Planned Building Demolition 4 33,760 ** 4. Planned Infrastructure Improvements 9 26,625 22,950 5. Planned Landscape Improvements 7 0 5,850
**Cost is associated with the project that necessitates the demolition.
2011 and Beyond Planning Period
The total cost for new facilities, building renewals, and infrastructure and landscape improvements in this period is approximately $1.2 billion as reflected in Table 14. Figure 20 depicts projects in this period.
Table 14 2011 and Beyond Planning Period
Areas of Need/Project Types* # of Total Total Projects GSF Costs (in $1000’s) 1. Planned New Construction 26 3,100,700 738,000 2. Planned Building Renewal 30 2,253,053 386,400 3. Planned Building Demolition 35 346,359 ** 4. Planned Infrastructure Improvements 4 0 12,450 5. Planned Landscape Improvements 9 0 13,450
* Excludes High Density Library Storage Facility and New Storage Facility proposed off-campus. Also excludes undesignated building sites. **Cost is associated with the project that necessitates the demolition.
48 Appendix A
Facilities Master Plan Steering Committee Members
Jerome Anzulovic - Civic Association Member, City of College Park J. Frank Brewer - Assistant Vice President for Facilities Management Valerie Broadie - Executive Director, Constituency Programs Amy Brown - Associate Professor, Entomology Charles Caramello - Professor and Chairperson, English George Cathcart - Director, University Communications William Destler - Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost William Fourney - Professor and Chair, Aerospace Engineering Gregory Geoffroy - Former Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Irwin Goldstein - Dean, College of Behavioral and Social Sciences Matthew Herb - Student Steve Hurtt - Dean, School of Architecture Warren Kelley - Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs and Director of Planning and Research Brian Kelly - Associate Professor and Director, School of Architecture Ronald Lipsman - Associate Dean, College of Computer, Mathematics and Physical Sciences Bill Mallari - Coordinator, Campus Development, Department of Facilities Planning Randall Mason - Assistant Professor, School of Architecture Robert Mullens - Executive Senior Associate, Intercollegiate Athletics Eric Olson - City Council Member, City of College Park Joanna Schmeissner - Assistant to the President Terry Schum - Planning Director, City of College Park Charles Sturtz - Vice President for Administrative Affairs Jack Sullivan - Associate Professor, Natural Resources and Landscape Architecture Brenda Testa - Director, Department Facilities Planning Eleanor Weingaertner - Chair, College Senate 2001-2002
Appendix B
Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Academic Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N1 NE Kim Engineering Building 79,200 141,300 $50,000 State
N2 NE Chemistry Teaching Building 32,755 58,500 $30,200 State
N3 NE Computer Science Instructional Center 21,000 37,222 $10,300 System
N4 N Research Greenhouse Complex 46,655 65,500 $17,500 State
N5 SW Van Munching Hall Addition 56,601 103,000 $24,800 State, Institutional, Private
5 TOTAL 236,211 405,522 $132,800
PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source r1 NE Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Bldg Renovation - Phase I 53,009 84,615 $3,900 State
r2 HC Taliaferro/Key Halls Renovation (2nd and 3rd floors) 23,638 39,316 $4,550 Facilities Renewal
2 TOTAL 76,647 123,931 $8,450
Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Academic Support Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N6 W Riggs Alumni Center 35,000 60,000 $20,500 Private/Institutional
N7 HC MFRI Headquarters Addition 16,677 20,000 $5,200 State
N8 OP Operations & Maintenance Shops Relocation** 45,146 61,800 $11,100 System
N9 OP Motor Pool Relocation** 6,806 9,300 $1,700 System
N10 OP Campus Mail Facility Relocation** 4,225 5,800 $1,000 System
N11 OP Service Building Relocation** 53,018 72,600 $13,100 System
N12 OP Shuttle UM Relocation** 7,648 10,500 $1,900 System
7 TOTAL 168,520 240,000 $54,500
PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R1 E Pocomoke Building Alteration - Public Safety 18,902 24,002 $2,200 System
1 TOTAL 18,902 24,002 $2,200
State State Capital Improvement Program (State General Obligation Bonds, USM Academic Revenue Bonds) System System Funded Construction Program (student/faculty/staff fees) Institutional Institutional Funds Facilities Renewal Facilities Renewal Program (projects over $1M) Private Private fundraising PPP Public-Private Partnership (private developer financing)
R Renewal of entire facility. r Partial renewal of the facility.
* Estimated cost is in thousands in January 2002 dollars. ** Facility to be relocated to University property near College Park Metro Station. District Key on next page
1 Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Auxiliary Enterprise Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N13 N Softball Stadium 1,600 2,635 $3,900 State
N14 NW Gossett Team House Addition 12,050 18,700 $5,700 Private
N15 HC Health Center Addition/Renovation 29,773 51,900 $14,000 System
N16 SW Mowatt Lane Parking Garage N/A 525,000 $18,200 System
N17 SW Campus Drive Parking Garage - (1,600 spaces) N/A 560,000 $18,700 System
N18 N Comcast Center 289,300 470,000 $126,845 State, Private, System
N19 N Arena Parking Garage N/A 360,000 $16,300 System
7 TOTAL 332,723 1,988,235 $203,645
PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R2 W Queen Anne's Hall 21,902 37,237 $7,000 System
R3 HC Fraternity/Sorority Houses (170,171,172) 28,197 32,016 $5,000 System
R4 SW Caroline Hall Renovation 17,955 26,960 $4,900 System
R5 HC Stamp Union Renovation 169,333 256,054 $44,900 System
4 TOTAL 237,387 352,267 $61,800
Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Public-Private Partnership Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N20 E East Campus Mixed Use Development Phase I · (includes Conference Center) 896,000 1,280,000 $256,000 PPP
N21 SW Housing/(600 beds) 115,000 145,000 $28,000 PPP
N22 OP New IT Building at College Park Metro site (carrier hotel) 131,400 219,000 $54,800 PPP
N23 NW Day Care Facility 11,000 13,500 $2,500 PPP
N24 N Laboratory for Telecommunications Sciences 51,000 85,000 $25,000 PPP
N25 HC Capstone Housing (799 beds) 186,000 232,532 $44,200 PPP
6 TOTAL 1,390,400 1,975,032 $410,500
District Key C Campus-wide/Various Areas E East Campus District HC Historic Core District N North District NE Northeast District NW Northwest District OP Outlying Properties SW Southwest District W West District
2 Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Infrastructure Improvements PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source I1 NE North Campus SCUB 4,002 13,249 $3,200 State, Institutional
I2 W Lot 1 Boulevard N/A N/A $2,000 State, Institutional, Private
I3 SW Mowatt Lane Improvements and Gateway N/A N/A $1,700 State, Institutional, Private
I4 E/HC Route 1 Pedestrian Median Improvements N/A N/A $1,300 State, Institutional, Private
I5 C Campuswide Pedestrian & Way Finding Improvements - Phase I N/A N/A $1,150 State, Institutional, Private
I6 NW Stadium Drive Gateway Enhancements N/A N/A $1,200 State, Institutional, Private
I7 C Campuswide Bike Improvements - Phase I N/A N/A $700 State, Institutional, Private
I8 C Transporation Improvements to support Shuttle Routes - Phase I N/A N/A $3,100 State, Institutional, Private
8 TOTAL 4,002 13,249 $14,350
Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Landscape Improvements PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project Cost* Fund Source L1 W Campuswide Creek Improvements - Phase I (Terrapin Creek and Pond) $1,700 State, Institutional, Private
L2 N Campuswide Creek Improvements - Phase I (Campus Creek) $1,400 State, Institutional, Private
L3 E Campus Ponds - Phase I (Create Pond East of Route 1) $700 State, Institutional, Private
L4 HC Campus Drive Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements $1,700 State, Institutional, Private
L5 N Paint Branch and Stadium Drive Streetscape Improvements $1,070 State, Institutional, Private
L6 SW Campus Malls/Quads - Phase I (North-South Mall in S.W. District - Section I) $2,200 State, Institutional, Private
L7 W President's Lawn Site Improvements $1,000 State, Institutional, Private
L8 SW East-West Pedestrian Connection $4,000 State, Institutional, Private
L9 HC Athletic Fields - Phase I (Engineering Athletic Fields) $1,200 Institutional
9 TOTAL $14,970
3 Fall 2001-Fall 2005 Planning Period Demolitions/Removals PLANNED DEMOLITIONS/REMOVALS Building Number District Building NASF GSF Reason for Demolition 002 E Harrison Laboratory 56,246 62,004 Site for new facility
003 E Service Building 59,049 83,590 Site for new facility
343 E Campus Mail Facility 4,225 5,380 Site for new facility
011 E Motor Transportation 6,574 8,462 Site for new facility
020 E Motorcycle Storage Bldg 360 416 Site for new facility
006 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Building 15,405 17,466 Site for new facility
012 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Shop 11,832 13,915 Site for new facility
055 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Storage 680 868 Site for new facility
100 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Shop 1,829 2,310 Site for new facility
208 E Temporary Building 666 719 Site for new facility
210 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Storage 499 504 Site for new facility
212 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Shop 1,874 2,088 Site for new facility
215 E Building Services Operations 3,342 4,007 Site for new facility
216 E Heavy Equipment Building 3,267 5,479 Site for new facility
217 E Plant Operations & Maintenance Storage 682 700 Site for new facility
385 E Pest Control Trailer 610 695 Site for new facility
013 E Shuttle Bus Facility 5,862 6,579 Site for new facility
112 E Shuttle Bus Trailer(s) 603 663 Site for new facility
201 E Leonardtown Office Building 10,018 12,748 Site for new facility
204 E Temporary Building (West of 201) 726 868 Site for new facility
207 E Temporary Building (West of 201) 687 719 Site for new facility
238 E Leonardtown Apartment 10,152 11,448 Site for new facility
239 E Leonardtown Apartment 12,582 14,197 Site for new facility
240 E Leonardtown Apartment 10,152 11,448 Site for new facility
241 E Leonardtown Apartment 6,291 7,099 Site for new facility
242 E Leonardtown Apartment 10,152 11,448 Site for new facility
243 E Leonardtown Apartment 5,076 5,724 Site for new facility
041 HC Vending Machine 581 673 Site development project
095 NE Garage 2,939 4,090 Site for new facility
106 NE Classroom Building 3,155 5,136 Site development project
116 SW Temporary Building (English) 1,347 1,440 Temporary facility
31 TOTAL 247,463 302,883
4 Fall 2006-Fall 2010 Planning Period Academic Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N26 SW BSOS Research Facility I 66,740 120,000 $30,000 State
N27 NE Biosciences Research Building - Phase I 69,095 125,600 $54,800 State
N28 HC Multi Media Instructional Center 49,960 90,800 $25,900 State
N29 HC International Center 19,405 35,300 $13,200 Private/Institutional
4 TOTAL 205,200 371,700 $123,900
PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R6 HC Jimenez Renovation 39,457 63,200 $8,400 State
R7 W Tawes Renovation 83,295 146,220 $18,700 State
r3 HC Woods Renovation (Ground and 1st floors) 10,817 19,596 $2,900 Facilities Renewal
r4 HC Key Renovation (Ground and 1st floors) 14,444 24,804 $4,000 State
r5 NE Chemical & Nuclear Engineering Bldg Renovation - Phase II 53,009 84,615 $11,200 State
5 TOTAL 201,022 338,435 $45,200
Fall 2006-Fall 2010 Planning Period Auxiliary Enterprise Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N30 HC Graduate Center 7,500 12,500 $4,800 System
N31 HC New Housing (400 beds) 79,000 100,000 $18,100 System
N32 NW New Housing (1,000 beds) 190,000 240,000 $43,900 System
N33 NW North Hill Parking Garage (1,600 spaces) N/A 560,000 $18,700 System
4 TOTAL 276,500 912,500 $85,500
PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R8 HC Rossborough Inn Renovation 6,255 8,963 $1,500 System
R9 NW Denton Dining Hall Renovation 31,363 43,859 $8,000 System
R10 E Sorority Houses (173,174,175,176) 37,893 55,511 $6,600 System
R11 SW Carroll Hall Renovation 16,922 26,471 $4,800 System
R12 HC Cecil Hall Renovation 12,811 20,096 $3,700 System
R13 SW Wicomico Hall Renovation 17,982 27,684 $5,000 System
6 TOTAL 123,226 182,584 $29,600
5 Fall 2006-Fall 2010 Planning Period Public-Private Partnership Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N34 NW Residential Facilities Office/Service Building Relocation 15,500 25,800 $5,700 PPP
1 TOTAL 15,500 25,800 $5,700
Fall 2006-Fall 2010 Planning Period Infrastructure Improvements PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source I9 SW SCUB II Expansion N/A 8,625 $2,200 State
I10 NW SCUB III Expansion N/A 12,000 $3,100 State
I11 NW North Campus Residence Halls SCUB N/A 6,000 $1,500 System
I12 SW Guilford Road Extension N/A N/A $4,300 State, Institutional, Private
I13 N Greenmeade Drive Connector N/A N/A $8,200 State, Institutional, Private
I14 W Union Drive Extension N/A N/A $1,900 State, Institutional, Private
I15 C Campuswide Pedestrian & Way Finding Improvements - Phase II N/A N/A $850 State, Institutional, Private
I16 C Campuswide Bike Improvements - Phase II N/A N/A $400 State, Institutional, Private
I17 HC Transportation Improvements to Support Shuttle Routes - Phase II** N/A N/A $500 State, Institutional, Private
9 TOTAL N/A 26,625 $22,950
Fall 2006-Fall 2010 Planning Period Landscape Improvements PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project Cost* Fund Source L10 SW Campus Malls/Quads - Phase II (South-West Quad) $1,200 State, Institutional, Private
L11 NE Athletic Fields - Phase II (Tennis courts replacement - 8 courts) $500 Auxiliary
L12 NE Campuswide Creek Improvements - Phase II (Paint Branch Creek) $1,400 State, Institutional, Private
L13 SW Campuswide Creek Improvements - Phase II (Guilford Run) $700 State, Institutional, Private
L14 NE Wetlands Enhancement and North Gate Park - East of Paint Branch Drive $1,200 State, Institutional, Private
L15 HC Campus Ponds - Phase II (Chapel Pond) $700 State, Institutional, Private
L16 NW Campus Malls/Quads - Phase II (Residential Quad) $150 System
7 TOTAL $5,850
** I-8 (Transportation Improvements to Support Shuttle Routes - Phase I) on maps indicates the location of the entire shuttle route. I-17 is on the list but not on the maps, and represents the second phase of improvements at multiple locations along the shuttle route.
6 Fall 2006-Fall 2010 Planning Period Demolitions/Removals PLANNED DEMOLITIONS/REMOVALS Building Number District Building NASF GSF Reason for Demolition 066 SW West Education Annex 2,572 3,818 Site for new facility
072 SW English Composition Trailer 913 1,020 Temporary facility
075 HC Shriver Laboratory 22,315 28,428 Site for new facility
107 N Recycling Trailer 385 494 Temporary facility
4 TOTAL 26,185 33,760
7 Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Academic Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N35 W New Journalism Building 35,300 64,200 $19,500 State
N36 NE New Computer Science & Engineering Building 100,000 182,000 $54,200 State
N37 SW BSOS Research Facility II 66,740 120,000 $30,000 State
N38 NE Engineering Research Laboratory Building (addition to Engineering Lab Bldg) 44,000 80,000 $24,000 State
N39 HC Nutrition and Food Sciences Building 22,000 40,000 $12,000 State
N40 NE Animal Science Teaching Arena 16,000 18,200 $2,300 State
N41 N Chesapeake Bay Mesocosm 7,400 8,000 $1,100 Private
N42 W Benjamin Building Addition - Phase I 46,500 85,000 $27,100 State
N43 W Benjamin Building Addition - Phase II 46,500 85,000 $27,100 State
N44 SW New Humanities & Fine Arts Building 64,000 112,300 $28,700 State
N45 NE Life Sciences Library 76,147 122,800 $30,700 State
N46 NE Physical Sciences Complex - Phase I 155,000 282,000 $75,900 State
N47 SW New School of Public Affairs Building 40,000 72,700 $22,500 State
N48 NW Biological Sciences Research Building - Phase II 69,095 125,600 $54,800 State
N49 SW Architecture Building Addition 48,074 84,300 $22,800 State
N50 NE Engineering Lab Building Replacement 71,500 130,000 $41,600 State
N51 NE Physical Sciences Complex - Phase II 90,000 163,600 $44,000 State
N52 NE Biosciences Research Support Facility 40,000 76,900 $41,200 State
18 TOTAL 1,038,256 1,852,600 $559,500
8 Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Academic Facilities PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R14 NE Renovation of Physics Building 140,505 237,826 $47,600 State
R15 NE Renovation of Geology Building (converted to other use) 11,870 24,390 $4,400 State
R16 NE Biology-Psychology Building Renovation 146,297 250,240 $52,000 State
R17 SW Architecture Building Renovation 44,490 67,163 $9,400 State
R18 HC Journalism Building Renovation 14,389 22,647 $4,100 Facilities Renewal
R19 W Benjamin Building Renovation 73,599 112,505 $15,800 State
r6 NE Animal Sciences - Wing 1 Renovation 31,142 62,462 $11,200 State
r7 NE Renovation of Energy Research (old wing) 15,741 21,956 $3,100 State
r8 NE Chemistry Building Renovation - Wings 1 & 2 107,600 183,700 $38,200 State
r9 HC H. J. Patterson Building Renovation 59,700 89,700 $20,700 State
r10 HC Symons Hall Renovation (center & north wings) 33,634 54,753 $5,400 State
r11 NW Health and Human Performance Court Conversion TBD 30,800 $5,400 State
r12 NE Hornbake Ground and 1st floors Renovation (College of Information Services) 17,915 30,018 $3,200 Facilities Renewal
r13 NE Engineering/Science Library Expansion 4,947 8,400 $1,200 Facilities Renewal
r14 NW Renovation of Computer & Space Sciences (East Wing infrastructure upgrades) 47,627 78,104 $7,000 State
r15 SW Van Munching Hall Renovation 18,600 34,900 $4,900 State
16 TOTAL 768,056 1,309,564 $233,600
Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Academic Support Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N53 HC Service Learning Center 10,000 18,200 $5,100 Private
N54 NE New IT Building 59,000 100,000 $33,500 State
2 TOTAL 69,000 118,200 $38,600 PLANNED BUILDING RENEWAL Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R20 HC Shoemaker Renovation 16,072 23,383 $3,300 Facilities Renewal
R21 HC Memorial Chapel Renovation 15,963 25,776 $2,300 Institutional
r16 HC Mitchell Building Renovation 28,406 19,840 $5,100 Institutional
r17 HC Lee Building Renovation 14,169 20,662 $3,700 Institutional
r18 HC Armory Renovation (Ground Floor) - Student Services 21,597 35,541 $6,400 Institutional
5 TOTAL 96,207 125,202 $20,800
9 Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Auxiliary Enterprise Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N55 NW Byrd Stadium expansion (add 12,000 seats & sky boxes) N/A N/A $8,000 System/Private
N56 NW Indoor Practice Facility with rooftop fields 100,000 120,000 $26,000 System/Private
N57 N New Baseball Stadium 5,700 11,700 $7,000 System/Private
N58 NW Soccer Stadium 2,000 3,200 $4,900 System/Private
N59 N Paint Branch Drive Parking Garage (1,800 spaces) N/A 630,000 $21,000 System
5 TOTAL 107,700 764,900 $66,900 District Key Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source R22 HC Worcester Hall Renovation 22,160 33,541 $6,300 System
R23 SW South Campus Dining Hall Renovation 92,525 133,845 $24,100 System
R24 HC Dorchester Hall Renovation 23,712 35,436 $6,500 System
R25 W Centreville Hall Renovation 76,402 128,198 $11,500 System
R26 W Cumberland Hall Renovation 75,635 124,486 $11,200 System
R27 W Bel Air Hall Renovation 17,756 29,090 $2,600 System
R28 W Chestertown Hall Renovation 16,928 29,090 $2,600 System
R29 W Cambridge Hall Renovation 34,675 55,792 $5,000 System
R30 W Cole Student Activities Building Renovation 176,252 248,809 $62,200 System
9 TOTAL 536,045 818,287 $132,000
Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Public-Private Partnership Facilities PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N60 E East Campus Mixed Use Development - Phase II (on new Leonardtown Site) 255,500 365,000 $73,000 PPP
1 TOTAL 255,500 365,000 $73,000
10 Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Infrastructure Improvements PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source I18 W Roadway Improvements (Presidential Drive and Regents Drive) N/A N/A $1,200 State, Institutional, Private
I19 C Security and Safety Systems: Infrastructure N/A N/A $2,900 State
I20 C Clean and Redundant power: Infrastructure N/A N/A $3,700 State
I21 C Heating and Cooling: Infrastructure N/A N/A $3,800 State
I22 C Campuswide Pedestrian & Way Finding Improvements - Phase III N/A N/A $850 State, Institutional, Private
4 TOTAL N/A N/A $12,450
Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Landscape Improvements PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project Cost* Fund Source L17 HC Campus Malls/Quads - Phase III (McKeldin Amphitheater) $400 State, Institutional, Private
L18 NE Athletic Fields - Phase III (New Practice Field) $800 System, Private
L19 OP Campuswide Creek Improvements - Phase III (College Park Woods Stream Restoration) $1,000 State, Institutional, Private
L20 N Campus Ponds - Phase III (Storm Water Pond - Metzerott Gate) $700 State, Institutional, Private
L21 NE Campus Ponds - Phase III (Storm Water Pond Restoration) $150 State, Institutional, Private
L22 NW Athletic Fields - Phase III (ICA Practice Fields) $2,600 System, Private
L23 SW Campus Malls/Quads - Phase III (North-South Mall in S.W. District - Section II) $2,400 State, Institutional, Private
L24 W Athletic Fields - Phase III (Residential Recreation Field) $400 System
L25 N Athletic Fields - Phase III (Ludwig Track & Field Relocation) $5,000 System, Private
9 TOTAL $13,450
Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Projects Located Off-Campus PLANNED NEW CONSTRUCTION Potential Site District Project NASF GSF Cost* Fund Source N61 OP High Density Library Storage Facility 11,000 12,000 $3,100 State
N62 OP New Storage Facility 28,000 41,000 $6,600 System
2 TOTAL 39,000 53,000 $9,700
11 Fall 2011 and Beyond Planning Period Demolitions/Removals PLANNED DEMOLITIONS/REMOVALS Building Number District Building NASF GSF Reason for Demolition 045 NE Instructional Televisison Facility 2,735 3,085 Site for new facility
054 SW Preinkert Field House 19,837 28,592 Site for new facility
085 NE IPST 17,669 28,534 Site for new facility
086 NE IPST Storage 580 1,014 Site for new facility
089 NE Engineering Laboratory Builidng 63,191 84,173 Site for new facility
093 NE Engineering Annex 8,329 11,291 Site for new facility
227 NW Jull Hall 9,318 17,574 Site for new facility
102 NE Agriculture Shed 2,229 2,416 Site for new facility
103 NE Animal Science Services Building 1,026 1,480 Site for new facility
104 W Special Education Trailer 559 733 Site for new facility
105 W Special Education Trailer 559 733 Site for new facility
108 NE Horse Barn 6,617 7,068 Site for new facility
109 NE Sheep Barn 5,339 5,680 Site for new facility
110 NE Cattle Barn 6,587 8,394 Site for new facility
114 NW Poultry Garage (northeast of Apiary) 445 578 Site development project
119 NE Blacksmith Shop 926 960 Site for new facility
149 NW Cottage 2 1,713 2,009 Site development project
150 NW Cottage 3 1,713 2,009 Site development project
151 NW Cottage 4 1,713 2,009 Site development project
152 NW Cottage 5 1,713 2,009 Site development project
153 NW Cottage 6 1,713 2,009 Site development project
154 NW Cottage 7 1,713 2,009 Site development project
155 NW Cottage 8 1,713 2,033 Site development project
156 NW Apiary 1,680 2,082 Site development project
158 NW Varsity Sports Teamhouse 12,504 18,320 Site for new facility
159 NW Shipley Field House 1,541 2,830 Site for new facility
244 E Leonardtown Apartment 13,452 15,654 Site for new facility
245 E Leonardtown Apartment 13,452 15,654 Site for new facility
246 E Leonardtown Apartment 13,452 15,654 Site for new facility
247 E Leonardtown Apartment 13,452 15,654 Site for new facility
248 E Leonardtown Apartment 13,452 15,654 Site for new facility
249 E Leonardtown Apartment 13,452 15,654 Site for new facility
250 E Leonardtown Apartment 3,660 7,280 Site for new facility
332 N Anacostia Building (Metzerott Road) 1,423 1,869 Site development project
369 NW Byrd Stadium Building 3,319 3,662 Site for new facility
35 TOTAL 262,776 346,359
12 Undesignated Building Sites
Site District Functional Use NASF GSF Number of Floors* N62 NE Academic 71,000 125,000 4
N63 NE Academic 97,000 170,000 4
N64 NE Academic 43,000 75,000 2-4
N65 NE Science 33,000 60,000 1-2½
N66 NW Academic 51,000 90,000 5*
N67 NW Academic 63,000 110,000 5*
N68 NW Academic/Special 77,000 135,000 5*
N69 NW Academic/Special 51,000 90,000 5*
N70 NW Special 10,000 18,000 2
N71 NW Athletic 26,000 45,000 2½
N72 W Arts 28,000 50,000 2
N73 W Special 32,000 56,000 1-3
N74 W Housing 165,000 235,000 3
N75 W Academic 46,000 80,000 4
N76 W Academic 63,000 110,000 4
N77 W Academic 63,000 110,000 4
N78 W Special 100,000 175,000 12
N79 W Academic 94,000 165,000 4
N80 W Academic 30,000 52,000 4
N81 W Academic 105,000 185,000 4
N82 W Academic 46,000 80,000 4
N83 W Academic 57,000 100,000 4
N84 N Special 24,000 42,000 1-2
N85 N Special 46,000 80,000 4
N86 OP Parking Garage (1,400 spaces) N/A 405,000 5 Parking Levels
N87 OP Science 16,000 30,000 2
N88 OP Science 26,000 48,000 4
N89 OP Science 26,000 48,000 4
N90 SW Academic 71,000 125,000 4
N91 OP Science 5,000 10,000 1
N92 OP Science 14,000 26,000 1
N93 OP Housing 193,000 275,000 4
N94 SW Special 28,000 50,000 2
N95 SW Special 28,000 45,000 2
N96 HC Special 35,000 65,000 4
N97 HC Residential 21,000 30,000 3
L26 W Academic Mall & Pond N/A N/A N/A
37 TOTAL 1,884,000 3,595,000
* Assumes a basement
13