This document is presented for public review, to generate discussion, and to invite comments. It contains highlights of proposed amendments to Queens Universitys Campus Plan, which was last revised in 1994.
The full 1994 Campus Plan and this document are also available at the Douglas Library and at the Education Library, at the Kingston Public Library (central and some branch libraries). The complete texts of all of the proposed amendments, including those not highlighted here, are available from Campus Planning and Development (533-6827).
April 10 Deadline
All members of the community are encouraged to mail written comments on the draft amendments to Campus Planning and Development, Rideau Building, 207 Stuart Street, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6; to e-mail comments to email@example.com; or to fax them to 533-2724, before April 10. Comments are also invited from members of the community at an Open House to be held on April 4, from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m., in room 202 of the Policy Studies Building (at the corner of Union Street and Alfred).
Why a Plan?
The Campus Plan directs and constrains the physical development of the university, and provides for the meeting of any special needs of users without loss of general accessibility and utility. An effective plan ensures that new development complements existing buildings and landscapes, and reflects new ideals while preserving traditional values.
The Campus Plan deals with the physical campus. It is one component of a comprehensive Institutional Plan. The other components include academic planning and financial planning. While the components focus on different areas, they are highly interdependent: the elements of each component influence and respond to the elements of the others as they are developed and implemented.
The essence of the Campus Plan is a set of strategies that are definitive in intent but not in final form. Unlike the design of a specific building or landscape, the planning of a campus must provide guidance to ensure that general objectives are realised, while retaining the flexibility to accommodate specific needs as they are more clearly defined over time. The Campus Plan includes demonstration plans, which suggest some of the many possible strategies for future development.
Any campus plan requires periodic updating to incorporate changing needs and conditions. Updating should occur both as the specific circumstances of new projects become known, and at regular five-year intervals. All aspects of the plan should be publicly reviewed and formally confirmed or revised.
The 1994 Plan was the result of a series of technical studies dealing with buildings, landscapes, circulation, and utilities, and involved feedback from staff reviews, Town Hall meetings, and other public presentations. Following a period of public review and revision, the Plan was approved by the Board of Trustees in October 1994 for adoption as University policy.
What followed the Adoption of the Plan?
The 1994 Campus Plan anticipated the need for supplemental planning studies in the various infrastructure areas to provide more detailed guidance during implementation. Since 1994, these studies have been completed:
- Review of infrastructure and strategies for repairs and upgrades to parking, heat-ing, cooling, and electrical power services
- Inventory of heritage resources and guidelines for managing heritage resources
- Audit of classrooms and upgrade strategy, with annual program of upgrades implemented
- Reviews of space and departmental identification of potential for efficiencies
- Setting of policies and guidelines for signage, barrier-free accessibility, and construction projects
- Establishment of the Urban Forest Plan and the first phase of maintenance and planting.
The Plan has provided renovation and new construction guidance for various building and landscape projects. Work on a Grounds Revitalisation Plan will resume in the summer of 2000. This project will provide a strategy for coordinating im-provements to outdoor space on campus.
Why a General Review?
The 1994 Plan requires that general public reviews be conducted at five-year intervals, and that the Plans policy status be confirmed by the Board of Trustees after these reviews. The reviews serve to incorporate proposed plan amendments formally into the Plan. Periodic updating ensures that the plan is kept current and capable of responding to changing needs over time.
The Review Process
The current review process began in mid-1998. An advisory committee, the Campus Plan Review Committee (CPRC), representing campus and community stakeholders, met several times with the Universitys Campus Planning and Development staff to review issues and proposed draft amendments.
This brochure and the forthcoming Open House are parts of the public consultation process. Comments from these consultations will be considered in making revisions to the final draft plan amendments, which will be presented to the Campus Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Trustees. That committee will then send the amended draft to the Board of Trustees for approval. The Campus Planning and Development Committee expects to review all proposed revisions by the fall of 2000.
The proposed amendments generally do not affect the fundamental concepts of the 1994 Campus Plan. They are intended to improve the link between the Plan and its implementation by:
- Adding clarity and emphasis to the Plans intentions
- Adding checks and balances in the implementation process to achieve the desired outcomes from the Plan
- Updating the text and the maps to reflect changed and changing conditions.
The draft amendments are below and on the in-side fold-out pages. Each affected section of the Plan is excerpted, with amendments highlighted in green. The locations of the excerpts in the 1994 Plan are indexed by page, heading and paragraph. Only major amendments representing significant changes are included. The other amendments, minor in nature, deal with revising headings and figure numbers, updating maps to show new buildings and walkways, and updating text to reflect changes in conditions and practices.
The full texts of all amendments, whether major or minor in nature, can be obtained by contacting Campus Planning and Development. Please see the front page side bar for contact information. In the following presentation of draft amendments, boxed text segments represent affected segments of the Plan. Changes are highlighted.
Purpose of the Plan
The Campus Plan provides the policy framework for campus development. It represents the Universitys policy on the continuing physical change required to accommodate the evolving programs and activities of Queens, and ensures that development will give physical expression to the Universitys values and priorities. The Plan seeks to ensure that each adjustment to the family of buildings and landscapes making up the campus will meet the needs both of specific users and of the university community as a whole. The interest of the campus is embodied in the Campus Plan. Therefore, sustained implementation of the Plan benefits the campus as a whole.
The Campus Plan does not attempt to determine the rate of development, but sets the principles for the design and location of various facilities when and if they are built. The Plan also establishes the implementation process for the consistent application of these principles in future decisions about the physical development of the campus. The policy framework and implementation process set out what is expected of various stakeholders within the capital project structure, so that both the Plan and the process align with the aspirations and mission of the University.
Link to Queens Vision, Mission and Goals
The Campus Plan must be based on the philosophical principles inherent in the spirit, culture and setting of Queens. Once the Plan is adopted, its principles and strategies are to be expressed in supplementary plans and carried through to project design. Input from members of the campus and wider community at Town Hall meetings helps to add widely shared values to the planning principles. The values inherent in the recent publication Queens in the 21st Century are also relevant to the Campus Plan. Some of the central statements of values are excerpted here:
From the Vision Statement
Queens aspires to be "the quality leader in Canadian higher learning, developing exceptional students and scholars for citizenship and leadership in a global society."
From the Mission Statement
"The University will build on the strength of Queens students, faculty, staff and alumni to be among the best of internationally known universities in Canada recognised for: the exceptional quality of undergraduate and graduate students and programs in the arts, sciences and professions "
The Queens Campus Plan must therefore provide guidance for the creation of a physical environment of buildings and outdoor spaces that promotes and supports quality of leadership and program delivery.
From the Statements of Goals and Objectives
- Goal One: To continue to attract and retain students with outstanding potential and diverse backgrounds from across Canada and around the world.
- Goal Two: To strengthen an environment that stimulates exceptional research and teaching. Objective Two: Supporting them with up-to-date facilities, information, resources and technology.
- Goal Three: To provide rigorous, relevant and challenging programs of study. Queens undergraduate and graduate programs will encourage students to expand their personal horizons and provide a basis and framework for continued personal and intellectual growth.
- Goal Four: To prepare graduates for roles as citizens and leaders of a sustainable global society. Objective One: Nourishing the broader learning environment to enhance opportunities for community service, cultural growth and personal development.
Development Trends and Pressures(Page 6)
1994 CAMPUS PLAN
2000 CAMPUS PLAN
Consolidation of dispersed units
Consolidation and new Integrated Learning Centre
Expansion of Biosciences and Chemistry
Biosciences expansion completed; Chemistry planning underway
Expansion of Chemistry
Social Sciences and Humanities
Expansion or rationalisation of existing space
Rationalisation of existing space
Improved teaching facilities and school identity
Ongoing: Search for new home began in 1998
Relocation to Victoria School site
Law and Policy Studies
Expansion or rationalisation of existing space
Law Phase I renovations completed
Complete Law Phase II renovations and adapt existing space to meet Policy Studies program changes
Fine and Performing Arts
Music: 400 seat recital hall and additional academic facilities; Fine Art: expand Art Centre and consolidate facilities to enhance teaching; Film and Drama: new and upgraded facilities
Art Centre renovated in 1999
Music: medium-sized recital hall; Film and Drama: new or upgraded facilities
Space to accommodate expanded extension programs
Adapt to accommodate new programs
Renovations of existing space
Planning underway for hospital restructuring and move to King West site; review and re-planning of Health Sciences space underway
Upgrade of classrooms and laboratories to respond to changing class sizes and teaching methods
Ongoing renovated about 40 classrooms in 9 buildings
Renovations in accord with findings of Enrolment Task Force
New/upgraded facilities to accommodate multi-disciplinary and technology transfer programs
KTEC space provided in Biosciences
No change; ongoing review
Stauffer Library; Douglas Library renovation to establish Engineering and Science library
Stauffer Library completed; Douglas Library Phase I and II renovations largely completed.
Relocation of Art Library to be resolved.
1994 CAMPUS PLAN
2000 CAMPUS PLAN
Expansion and rationalisation of indoor and outdoor facilities for academic, athletic, recreation and community programs
Williams report completed in 1998 and task force recommended planning funds be approved for conceptual design of Field House
Planning for student life facilities underway:
Phase 1 - field house;
Phase 2 - Phys. Ed. Centre
Current review may lead to expansion or rationalisation Student Health and Disability Services consolidation completed. Renovated Mac-Corry Student Street and study room; renovated Skylight Lounge and Queens Pub at JDUC
Re-planning of JDUC space use underway (Phase 3 of student life facilities);
Student Health Services and Career Services to be relocated.
Administrative and Physical Plant Services
Consolidation and rationalisation of services to promote greater operational and space efficiency
No change: infrastructure and deferred maintenance planning underway
University Ancillary Services
Rationalisation or expansion in response to University community needs
Dining area and lounges at Ban Righ renovated, convenience store at Victoria School
Requirements yet to be defined
Dept. of Residences began planning process for Residences space in early 1999
Planning for facilities renewal underway. New undergraduate and graduate residences may
be needed pending enrolment planning
Meeting facilities and on-campus accommodation for expanded programs
Donald Gordon Centre renovated, Ban Righ Dining Room renovated and expanded
No major new initiatives
Foundation Principles (Pages 36-37)
3. Built Environment
3.1 Capital projects should take place in an orderly way and within a planned framework to fulfil both constituent and communal needs.
STRATEGIES: 8, 42, 43, and 44
3.2 The design, execution and maintenance of campus buildings and landscape should be based on:
a space-making approach, i.e., arranging buildings to create positive open space that contributes to the larger structure of open space on campus
the best of contemporary design and construction
compatible architectural style
adequate flexibility to adapt to changes in needs
year-round and mixed use for optimal space utilisation
the appropriate management of heritage resources.
STRATEGIES: 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 30
3.3 Campus development should be compact and urban,
to get the best use of existing areas;
to preserve walking distance between facilities; and
to support interdisciplinary interactions;
to strengthen the historic core as the educational and social centre of the campus
STRATEGIES: 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 23, 32, and 41
4. Open Space
4.1 The University should continue to be a place for people.
4.2 Open space should be valued as a common good and should be an integral part of the physical development program to accommodate the functions of social interaction, passive and active recreation, accessibility, aesthetics and micro-climate management.
STRATEGIES: 7, 12, 13, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 39
4.3 Open space between buildings should be properly funded, carefully developed and renovated.
STRATEGIES: 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 39, and 42
4.4 The campus open space structure should also be used to guide the shaping of the footprints and massing of new buildings.
STRATEGIES: 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 39
5.1 Transportation issues should be considered in conjunction with other functional and appearance considerations
STRATEGIES: 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22
5.2 Pedestrian needs should have priority, with accommodation for other needs and abilities.
STRATEGIES: 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 26, and 27
5.3 Vehicular traffic and parking in the centre of campus should be minimised.
STRATEGIES: 3, 7, 17, 21, and 22
5.4 Non-motorised modes such as bicycles should be accommodated in response to demand.
5.5 The conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles and bicycles should be resolved or minimised in capital projects.
STRATEGIES: 3, 7, 8, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22
6. Educational and Social Setting
No change to text.
General Strategies (Page 42)
PROJECT LOCATION, PROVISION OF SPACE: Utilisation, Renovation, Infill, Expansion
In meeting space needs, the University will in general emphasise consolidation rather than expansion.
There are four ways in which a demand for building space can be met at Queens, and these should be investigated in sequence to optimise land and plant utilisation. Maximally efficient utilisation of existing space has first priority, the renovation of existing space has second, and local expansion and infill development has third. The removal of unsatisfactory buildings should be part of the planning process. Only when the potential for action within the first three priorities has been exhausted should expansion at the campus perimeter, the fourth approach, be considered.
Particular projects may use a combination of all four approaches, but this sequence of priority should still be applied. The criteria and process for space allocation and siting of new buildings should follow the objectives of this strategy and of strategies 1, 7, 11, and 29.
Campus Structure and Character Strategies (Pages 48-65)
CAMPUS STRUCTURE: Identifying Core, Integrating Edges
Future development will lead to the emergence of a cohesive and vibrant campus core, and of edges that identify the campus while integrating it with the community fabric beyond.
No change to first paragraph.
Future development at Queens should be directed by a campus model that reflects the goals and objectives of the University. The model should express the Universitys identity as an institution and as a member of the larger community, and should reflect both the current identity of the University and its historical character, as revealed in partially implemented past models. The current structure of the Queens campus is a product of incremental expansion at the periphery accompanied by gradual consolidation at the core. The core is tending towards an established pattern of quads and corridors with University Avenue corridor and the Union Street-University Avenue intersection as its dominant features, and the edges of the campus are indistinct and penetrated by public streets.
Future development should reinforce and clarify this pattern.
An Identifying Core
No change to text.
No change to text.
Entrances and arrival sequences are important to the overall campus experience. Entrances to the campus should project a positive and enduring image of the University. Particular attention should be paid to the edge landscapes and building facades that signal entry to the campus precinct and provide those approaching the University with a first impression of the campus.
THE SPIRIT OF THE PLACE: Parks, Quads, Fields, Streets
The design of new projects will reinforce the prevailing landscape-development typologies, which reflect the historical development of the campus, and are now fundamental to the established image and amenity of the campus. New projects should not reduce the amount and quality of green space.
Queens University has an established character that is inherent in the patterns of buildings and landscapes. This character the genius loci is largely a product of successive layers and increments of built form (some pre-dating the University) overlain on the sites native topography, soil and vegetation. Variations of the genius loci exist from one part of the campus to another and are representative of the range of partially implemented planning ideas that underlie its historical development.
Future development should tend towards a consolidation of the prevailing genius loci, building upon the most distinctive aspects of the existing condition and those best suited to the social and academic life of the University. Consolidation should not be construed as leading to uniformity: a vital aspect of the Queens genius loci is the diversity that occurs within a larger order and provides surprise and delight as essential counterpoints to order and legibility. Future development should not reduce the amount and quality of green space.
Principals Park and the Arboretum should be maintained and nurtured. Overlooked by the three original buildings and itself sloping towards the lake, the park provides an important amenity for the community, balancing the more ordered campus fabric to the north and the imposing and seemingly disorganised hospital to the south.
No change to remaining text for Strategy 12.
LANDSCAPE QUALITY: Structure, Delight, Economy
The design of landscapes will reinforce the spatial structure of the campus, stimulate social interaction, offer comfort and security, and provide delight through diversity. Landscape work must be adequately funded through a set percentage of project budgets.
The Queens campus is well known for its landscapes: the mature trees and the dramatic seasonal displays of colour combine to provide a richness and diversity that strongly identifies much of the campus. With careful direction, this attribute of the campus will be further strengthened, as in the Arboretum.
A comprehensive Landscape Master Plan should be developed for the main campus to guide future landscape design and management.
Land forms, paving, plants and furnishings are the primary landscape components and materials that give the public environment its sense of order, cohesion and finish. They must be coordinated. Individual landscape projects must be planned and designed to contribute to the sense of a whole, while meeting more immediate site and program requirements. This will be particularly important on large endeavours such as the University Avenue rehabilitation and streetscape walkway redevelopment, which will probably be implemented in phases: a vocabulary of materials and elements must be established and consistently employed to ensure the successful execution of these projects.
The campus character and spatial structure will be supported and reinforced through landscape development. A set percentage of each project budget should be set aside for landscape work, which includes planting, paving for pedestrian use, bicycle parking and lighting. If a project budget is cut, the landscape budget should be cut by a percentage similar to that for the building budget. The different characters of Park, Quad, Field, Street and Walkway should be reinforced through the selection of suitable forms, materials, plants and furnishings. Landscape design will provide spatial containment where buildings do not and perhaps never will provide it. For example, the redevelopment of the Queens Crescent area to enhance its cohesion and spatial structure will necessarily rely heavily on landscape design.
In addition to reinforcing the overall structure of the campus, landscape design should strengthen the delightful sense of surprise and whimsy associated with many of the unique gardens, courts and laneways tucked away within the academic blocks. It is in these places that a broader palette of plants and paving materials can be employed, and the richness and diversity of the campus fully developed. New and replacement planting on the campus should follow the Queens University Urban Forest Plan.
No change to text.
New Strategy 15.
BUILDINGS AS SPACE MAKERS
The campus is a symbol as well as a family of buildings and open spaces that support the functions of the university. Open space defines a campus as much as buildings do. Cordial and memorable open spaces are as important as buildings in shaping the image and liveability of the campus, and enhancing Queens competitiveness. Therefore buildings and open space should be carefully placed and designed to contribute to the life, structure and identity of the larger campus.
A campus is more than buildings or the sum of its buildings. It is seen as the spaces between buildings rather than the buildings on their own. A memorable campus relies on well-designed landscapes and buildings organised within a clear spatial structure. Together they create an enduring image with layers of meaning and function that support the institutional vision and mission. The relationship between the buildings and the interstitial space should be carefully designed. Each physical change to the campus must contribute to the larger spatial structure. Buildings should be placed so that they create usable and memorable open space, rather than simply occupying space. The open space structure may also be used to shape the footprints and massing of new buildings. Buildings as space makers should meet the following objectives, and each project should ensure that adjacent open space or residual open space affected or created by the project meets the same objectives:
- Create open space within a project site
- Contribute to the larger open space structure on campus
- Meet the criteria of direct access, suitable adjacency relationship and flexibility of use.
Instead of prescribing a strict code for architectural vocabulary, the Plan provides broader statements relating to building character. The intent is to allow for variety and individuality in all building projects, which must also fit within a family of compatible design expressions and a massing framework. The focus is less on architecture as a stand-alone statement, and more on the open space in between giving form to the campus. A massing study should be required for major projects: this will define site use and the three-dimensional relationship between building footprint, envelope, and open space. A microclimate impact analysis should be required for major new buildings and additions, to ensure that the buildings do not create inhospitable outdoor spaces. A specialist other than the project architect should do the microclimate study.
Strategy 16 (Formerly 15)
New buildings will be designed to express their role as "university" buildings, to make evident the activities occurring in them, to support the larger structural patterns of the campus, and to welcome and accommodate those who use them. Building design has a special responsibility to take inspiration from the original older buildings and should contribute to campus cohesion by supporting the best of predominant existing architectural motifs.
The Architectural Heritage
No change to text.
The Character of New Buildings
New buildings on the campus should be expressive of "university," resolving the complex and often conflicting notions of permanence, tradition and historical continuity; of innovation and experimentation; of human warmth and public accessibility; and of technical pre-eminence and academic integrity.
This expression relates partly to the question of "style," but more importantly to fundamental design principles relating to building character. New buildings should
- be an average of four storeys in height to maintain the prevailing low-rise character of the campus and to take advantage of the walk-up format;
- relate to and work with adjacent buildings to create cohesive groupings of buildings rather than aggregations of stand-alone structures;
- reinforce the integrity and vitality of all open spaces, and support the basic structural organisation of the campus;
- make the activities of the University both apparent and accessible, avoiding overtly opaque and internalised structures;
- have primary entrances that are easily identified and that address important public spaces and thoroughfares, and secondary entrances that are located and designed to serve major pedestrian routes and that are suitably developed to accommodate occasional service vehicles where required;
- be clearly planned so that internal facilities and spaces can be easily found;
- be designed to "read" at different scales: from afar in their silhouettes, from the middle distance in their massing, and close up in their detailing and decoration;
- be sufficiently generic, or "loose fit," to be adaptable to new uses as requirements evolve;
- have interior design that emphasises comfort, attractiveness, and durability with low maintenance;
- have roof-treatments that are attractive and compatible with the predominant character of older campus buildings.
Land Use Strategies (Pages 93-105)
SITE SUITABILITY: Preserve the Best, Remove the Worst, Repair the Rest
Project sites will be selected that preserve the existing assets of the campus and favour the repair of problem sites, avoiding the replacement or modification of good quality buildings and landscapes.
No change to introductory text.
The selection of building sites will become increasingly difficult as the number of developable sites diminishes, and the "asset value" of all sites rises. Possible Main Campus sites for mid-range development are identified on the accompanying diagram, and the most significant are discussed below. Some of these sites have been assigned to current or contemplated projects. Others represent a potential for new uses not yet defined.
Site A The site west of Stirling Hall currently includes two temporary buildings (St. Lawrence and Rideau) and a number of houses. While these buildings fulfil useful functions, the land is very under-utilised. This is one of the few remaining areas within the campus core where intensification could occur. Development of these lands also offers the potential to establish a new strong link with the waterfront by extending the St. Lawrence Avenue view corridor to Victoria Hall. The new Chemistry Building is planned for this site.
Site B No change to text.
Site C Victoria School is an important heritage building, but it is currently set in a field of asphalt. The existing parking lots should be redeveloped in ways that meet University needs while respecting the character of the former school. This site is designated for the School of Business expansion.
Site D The University properties along the north side of Clergy Street are compromised by the scale and attitude (service functions and back doors) of the University buildings across the street. Redevelopment of these properties may be necessary to accommodate new development needs associated with Applied Science and JDUC-Physical Education Centre. They could also provide an opportunity to establish a more suitable interface between the University and the residential fabric beyond.
Site E No change to text.
Site F This site may be redeveloped for residences to accommodate housing needs from enrolment growth.
Others No change to text.
No change to text.
MIXED USE: The Integrated Campus
Greater emphasis will be placed on mixing uses throughout the campus to establish a closer proximity among people, disciplines, activities and services. Space for student life activities should be maintained and should be increased where feasible.
No change to first paragraph.
Implementing this strategy through new projects cannot fundamentally overturn the emerging pattern of single-purpose land-use zones, because there is a considerable stock of facilities already built to this pattern, and because decisions have already been made about the current round of new buildings. The initial interventions will of necessity be small and concern the distribution of social, recreational and support uses. But as new projects are defined and ones under programming and design are rethought, this strategy should be brought into greater play until a more appropriate balance between mixing and separating uses is achieved. The relative amount of space for student life activities should not be reduced as a result of new projects.
The existing stock of campus residences will be maintained and modified. A comprehensive housing strategy will be established in collaboration with the City of Kingston that will balance the needs for economy, proximity and community stability.
To assist the nearly 85% of the student body (about 11,000 people) who come from out-of-town, the University has traditionally undertaken to provide directly at least some of the housing required. The University now offers about 4,400 beds both on and off the campus.
No change to second and third paragraphs.
The University should not build any more dormitory-style residences in light of the growing student preference for non-institutional housing models. The existing housing stock does, however, represent a large investment, and it is conveniently located. It should be maintained as housing and modified where possible to better fit student preferences. Some of the buildings have been modified to provide co-educational housing. This is more consistent with current values and expectations, and has resulted in considerable benefits for residents and managers alike. The conversion of existing buildings to co-educational living should continue, although the University should maintain some single-sex residences to meet specific student preferences. Additional residences may be needed to accommodate enrolment growth. The style of the new residences should respond to changes in lifestyle preferences.
The majority of students always have lived off campus. This will not change. The city has a rich housing stock that offers a broad spectrum of choices, although preference is always expressed for locations within easy access of the campus. The area immediately north of the campus the "Student Village" caters largely to students, partly because of location and partly because of its historic association with campus expansion. The private sector will continue to share with the University in supplying a diverse inventory of student housing.
The University and the City should continue to establish policies for off-campus student housing that balance the needs of students for accessible and economical housing with the communitys needs for neighbourhood stability and housing stock diversity. Aspects that require study include preferences for various housing models, the actual demand for various kinds of housing and the degree to which they are now met, the convertibility of existing out-moded housing forms, and the impact of future campus expansion on existing and potential housing stocks.
The University will continue to provide athletic facilities on the Main Campus and to upgrade them as required to meet community needs.
Athletics are seen by the University as an essential adjunct to the more formal academic activities that occur on the campus, and as an important link with the larger community. Lands and resources should be allocated to maintaining and upgrading associated athletics facilities. The use of open space and appropriate facilities should be investigated.
Tindall Field should be moved east when its current site is required for development, and developed to higher standards and with parking underneath if justified by demand. Kingston Field should be upgraded as required. Other spaces on the campus including Leonard Field and many of the quadrangles and lawns should be maintained for casual recreation and "pick-up" sports.
No change to remaining text.
Implementation Strategies(Pages 108-111)
The Campus Plan is approved as University policy by the Board of Trustees, and maintained as an effective development directive through continuity of responsibility, consistent application, and regular updating and review.
To ensure that the Campus Plan remains an effective basis for development, the University should establish administrative structures for its approval, application and updating.
An Approved Campus Plan
No change to text.
Applying the Campus Plan: Continuity and Interpretation
No change to text.
Updating the Campus Plan
The Campus Plan is capable of responding to changing needs over time. It therefore requires periodic updating. Plan amendments should be an explicit and not an implicit step, and should be formally made.
The first method of updating is a Plan Amendment, which is triggered if it is found that a proposed project would contradict the Plan in some way but seems otherwise to be desirable. Campus Planning staff should review and advise as to whether a proposed project is consistent with the Plan, and be responsible for calling on senior management to decide whether a major or a minor amendment to the Plan is required. Major amendments should apply where the changes significantly affect the public interest or the quality of the campus environment, and should include public consultation where public interest is affected. Minor amendments are changes that have no significant negative impact on the Plan and may be approved by the Vice-Principal (Operations and Finance), who will report the change to the Campus Planning and Development Committee.
Modifying the Plan to meet the needs of a project should only be undertaken after examining the implications of so doing, and should require formal amendment of the Plan by the Campus Planning and Development Committee.
The second method is a General Review, publicly conducted at five year intervals, by which the Plans policy status is confirmed by the Board of Trustees. This review will include a re-examination of the Plan principles, and the incorporation of Plan Amendments made in the preceding period.
Supplementary Planning Studies
Supplementary planning studies should be formally approved as sub-sets of the Campus Plan and thus have the status of policy. This will allow supplementary studies to be effective upon approval, without requiring a formal Plan amendment. If parts of a supplementary plan contradict the Plan and the contradiction is justifiable and desirable, if this occurs in between the five-year general reviews, a Plan amendment is required. If the timing coincides with that of the general review, the supplementary plan can be re-affirmed as part of that review.
THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The construction project process will ensure compliance at all stages with established objectives and guidelines and with the Campus Plan. The process will invite public input at the planning/programming stage and whenever variations to the Campus Plan are proposed.
No change to first paragraph.
All major projects, whether communal or constituent, generally go through five stages, each of which should be completed and approved before proceeding to the next.1) Selection-Initiation
2) Planning and Programming
5) Operation and Maintenance.
The first four of these stages are described in more detail in the "Queens University Construction Project Process."
Crossing the threshold from one stage to the next should require that the project meet the planning and program requirements of both the constituent group and the University at large.
Input on projects is normally received from project building committees, the Campus Planning and Development Committee, and advisory committees, which usually include University, user, staff, and student representatives. Where impact on public interest is expected to be significant, broader community input should be invited.
No change to text.
2. PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN GUIDELINE
During the second stage, the detailed building program is established, the site selected, the budget confirmed or modified, and the project incorporated into the Campus Plan. The products of this phase (sometimes called a framework document or charge to the architect) should be approved by the Campus Planning and Development Committee before architect selection begins, and include:
i) Program of constituent and com-munal requirements
ii) Statement of compliance with or proposed revision to the Campus Plan
iii) Site selection
iv) Relocation strategy for existing site users and functions
v) Effect on campus utilities
vi) Project budget
vii) Outline of campus quality impact
viii) Draft project design guideline and massing study. (The design guideline takes all of the relevant strategies from the Campus Plan and expands on them relative to the site in question.)
Any amendment to the Campus Plan will require public notification and consultation.
The "project design guideline" will focus on the Campus Plan Strategies and site conditions relevant to the particular project.
In the case of an architectural design competition, the planning, programming and project design guideline reports (item 2 above) will form the basis of the competition brief.
In the case of standard design services, the Project Design Guideline (item viii above) should be reviewed by the prime design consultant. Comments and findings resulting from preliminary design explorations should be incorporated into the finalised Project Design Guideline. It should then be adopted as University policy and should govern the project design.
The project design guidelines will focus on the Campus Plan strategies, site conditions and urban design objectives relative to the particular project. The preliminary massing study will define an interim building footprint and envelope to ensure a contribution to the campus open space structure, and to encourage the most efficient use of the site. This will involve the articulation of building and landscape to create a meaningful spatial sequence. The preliminary massing study should be prepared independent of and before the selection of the prime design consultant. If the guideline indicates a contradiction to the Campus Plan, a plan amendment will be required.
Campus Plan Briefing: Prime Consultant Selection
During the architect selection, a briefing of the short-listed contenders should include the building program, Campus Plan, and project design guideline.
After the architect is hired, a meeting of University planning staff and the consultant should be set at an early stage to discuss Campus Plan objectives and the expectations of the project in terms of enhancing campus image.
Collaborative Design Process
The quality of a project relies on the skilful management of the various contributors representing the University, users and consultants to ensure that both communal and constituent objectives are met in a balanced manner. The University, through its delegated staff and committees, should be responsible for upholding the goals of the Campus Plan. Major projects may also benefit from consultant design critique by qualified advisors in the appropriate disciplines. The work of these advisors should complement the work of staff and committees in reviews during the design process. The collaborative interaction among these contributors should begin at the early stages, before design ideas are frozen, and continue throughout the design process, so that suggestions can be easily incorporated. The goal is to achieve alignment, so that projects move always in the direction of Plan conformance from stage to stage. If the above requirements have not been met, the University should stop a project until the outstanding issues are resolved.
Design RefinementThe design stage for major projects should include reports on three essential phases: schematic design, design development, and working drawings. These separate reports are necessary to ensure that the adequate examination of alternatives has been undertaken at all levels, from site selection and general massing through to materials selection and contract documentation.
For each phase, the following products (presented in drawings and report format) should be required of the prime design consultant:
i) Site and context analysis
ii) Architectural design and rationale
iii) Structural design and rationale
iv) Mechanical design and rationale
v) Electrical design and rationale
vi) Site utilities design and rationale
vii) Landscape design and rationale
viii) Construction cost estimate
ix) Evaluation against Program, Campus Plan strategies and checklist, Project Design Guideline, and budget
x) Microclimate impact analysis and recommended modifications to building massing and design. (This last should be required before schematic design sign-off.)
No change to text.
5. Operation and Maintenance
No change to text.