2.16 (1) Landscape Design Guidelines Element Analysis
As noted in the 1995 analysis, documentation of data relating to an inventory of existing landscape treatments, character, location and quality was not available and has not been completed to date. In addition, the 1995 analysis states that a landscape master plan was created in 1992 and is referenced in the goals, objectives and policies section of the 1995 master plan document. This data was not available and will be an important resource to understand how the character of the campus has changed or reflected this plan. Therefore, the following analysis is based on summary campus tour observations, photo documentation and guidelines established in the goals, objectives and policies.
a) Assessment of Coordination of Landscape Features and the Degree to which they Contribute or Distract from the Visual Quality of the Campus.
1. Refer to the 1995 Analysis.
2. Since 1995, the University has maintained the image of campus community built within a natural environment. The natural environment, composed of sand pine scrub, pine flatwoods, forested and non-forested wetlands, are the unique vegetative communities that create that sense of place for the University. The existing development has successfully maintained the diverse tree canopy at the core of the campus. Through further analysis of past aerial photographs, a pattern for new development along and beyond Gemini Boulevard has pushed the environment to the edges. In order to maintain this unique identity of a campus built within its own natural environment, the landscape communities that have been replaced need to be restored. They need to be designed and integrated within, and connected to, the campus core. Although it has been mentioned and debated that the campus lacks an overall landscape theme and design, the University has many unique environmental assets and opportunities. It only lacks a designed and updated maintenance and landscape plan to help shape and organize the overall theme of a campus structured, built and integrated within a natural ecosystem.
3. In addition, current landscape treatments, hardscape installations, signage, site furnishings and have been designed as a response to individual building architecture. As mentioned in the urban design element, campus quads, greens and plazas will also bring organization, sense of way finding and destination to the campus. Landscape spaces need to be identified and recognized as equal importance to architecture projects. It is these landscape spaces, which will blend and unify all current and future architecture facilities. Although standardization and blending of all the elements mentioned is not critical to the overall eclectic image of the campus, it is recommended that strong landscape spaces and a coordinated landscape palette will create an overall sense of unification and way finding to the University. Integration and understanding of urban design elements such as gateways, landmarks, campus corners, campus edge conditions, roadway character, and pedestrian treatments will further enhance and unify a sense of arrival, destination and place.
b) Assessment of Existing Treatment with Regards to their Impacts on Campus Safety
1. Refer to the 1995 Analysis.
2. Vehicular Circulation Routes
Current building projects along Gemini Boulevard have enabled opportunities to plant young live oaks and southern magnolias. Although there may be concerns for vehicle and pedestrian safety, tree canopy and minimal landscape understory within the medians will create a sense of enclosure for traffic calming. A standardized streetscape is not necessary to the overall theme of the University. The implementation of the diverse UCF vegetative communities into the formal greens can extend to Gemini Boulevard. It is the diverse tree canopy and integration of Pines, Oaks, Palms and Cypress that will complement the theme and provide a unique driving experience through a series of Central Florida’s natural environments.
3. Parking Facilities
The implementation of gradual berming adjacent to Gemini Boulevard has been successful. Traditional landscape screening techniques of edging parking with shrubs does not complement the overall landscape theme. Although the graceful and natural berming screens downplay the overall size and scale of pavement, it allows enough visibility for location and access. Depending on future land use designations for surface parking lots, long term faculty and student interior parking lots can integrate tree canopy through the use of pavement cutouts. Coordination of tree locations around future facilities and in parking areas will establish canopy for the future.
4. Pedestrian Circulation Routes
Although the main 16’ concentric ring walks are signed and provide tree canopy, there is no sense of arrival or destination to the walk. The walk can further be enhanced and recognized through techniques from simple hardscape scoring treatments to implementation with brick. The ring walks contribute to the university’s overall sense of way finding. Within the concept of the urban design plan, the walks would serve as the essential link or main street to the four green malls. Implementation of designated bike and pedestrian paths will create order and scale to the large 16’ walks.
New 6’ walks have been a response to pedestrian created dirt paths adding to the series of numerous walks, which degrade the natural image of the campus. Pedestrian circulation volumes and patterns for the entire campus need to be studied and documented. The summary of these findings and future landscape and urban design plans need to be integrated to avoid future unnecessary walks and create an overall sense of way finding and further enhance the natural image of the campus. Simple landscape treatments and strong identified walks can direct and guide students to their destinations without future addition of concrete to the campus.
5. Bicycle Facilities
Currently, the number of bicycle facilities needs to be increased to be consistent with the amount of users on campus. The number of bicyclists will increase as the University detaches itself from the image of a “commuter campus” and creates stronger connections to the future development of housing along the edges of campus and within UCF. Locations of current and future facilities need to be coordinated with proposed designated bicycle routes. Aesthetically, bicycle parking lots need to be organized and located at strategic places around campus rather than along the entrances or facades of buildings.
6. Public Transportation Facilities
With the addition of proposed intermodal stations, transit stops have been integrated and organized into the overall circulation system. Signs and graphics still need to be enhanced. Further investigation of the facilities, furnishings and circulation routes is needed to complete this part of the analysis.
7. Emergency Access Facilities
As noted in the 1995 plan, emergency access appears to be adequate. Current and future facilities need to be analyzed and documented on an individual basis as improvements are made to specific buildings and facilities.
8. Planted Areas
Overall landscape planted areas still are in response to individual building projects and have no sense of unification of adjacent building projects. As mentioned, landscape malls, plazas and parks need to be identified, designed, and installed to serve as the framework for future building projects. The creation of additional planted areas within the campus core will unify individual building architecture. Further investigation of soil types and vegetative communities will dictate the landscape palette for additional planted areas.
9. Site Furnishings
Although the campus has an array of campus furniture, a selection of a University bench, light pole, or signs can further enhance the overall quality and way finding of the campus. Further documentation of furnishing types and locations need to be documented to complete this analysis.
10. Lighting Location and Type
Without existing lighting fixture data and photometrics, accurate analysis cannot be made at this time. Initial visual observations conclude that fixtures throughout campus are not consistent. An organized lighting system with uniform colors and fixtures will improve safety and enhance the experience of night-time visitors.
11. Trash Collection Facilities
New dumpster locations make an attempt to screen dumpster facilities, but existing core facilities need to be studied. A specific study of these facilities should be undertaken on a campus-wide basis or as individual buildings and facilities are upgraded or improved.
12. Maintenance Facilities
Loading docks along Gemini are generally exposed to pedestrian and vehicular circulation. A specific study is needed on a campus-wide basis or individually as buildings or facilities are improved. The loading needs of individual facilities should be considered.
13. Campus Edge
The campus edges serve as the primary visual image of the campus. The campus corners such as the intersection of Alafaya and McCollough create a visual impression. Entrances also create an image.
Improving campus edges, corners and entrances will have several benefits, including creating a sense of arrival and making a strong first impression on visitors.
The term buffer always refers to the idea of screening the unwanted. Alafaya and the surrounding developments need to have a sense of connection. Although the intent of the buffer is to have an environmental buffer with minimal maintenance, maintenance is needed. Historically, in nature burning controls invasive understory and exotic species. The location, the activities (e.g., Frisbee football), and other factors of the buffer do not allow this natural process to occur and thus produces the current “clutter” image. By creating a maintenance program for this area, by organizing the pattern of the pine trees, and by incorporating berming techniques, the University can create a visual connection of University architecture from outside the University and still screen the unwanted automobile traffic on Alafaya Trail. Design concepts for the edges, corners and entrances should be explored in subsequent efforts to address the visual image of the University.
c) Assessment of the Ease or Difficulty of maintaining Existing Landscape
Features
Maintenance program and data are still needed to further this analysis.
d) Assessment of the Physical Condition of Existing Landscape
In general, the overall physical condition of the campus appears to be in adequate condition.
e) Assessment of Accessibility of the Campus to disabled Persons
New building projects require approval from the University ADA personnel and are quite thorough. A campus-wide assessment of accessibility could be conducted as a subsequent activity or individual buildings and facilities could be evaluated and improved as necessary on an individual basis as renovations occur.