2.5  Academic Facilities Element

       Data and Analysis

       2005-2015 Campus Master Plan Update

a)      A projection of future student credit hours distributed by campus or satellite facility (tabular).

Table 2.5(2)a) shows the projected student credit hours on the main campus at the University of Central Florida for the academic years 2005-06 and 2014-15.  In keeping with earlier remarks regarding possible future “excess” enrollments, we have included, just below the official 2014-15 figures, others that are greater by 15%.

TABLE 2.5(2)a)  Projected Student Credit Hours

b)     A projection of future WSCH (Weekly Student Contact Hours) distributed by campus or satellite facility (tabular).

Table 2.5(2)b) shows projected Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) on the main campus at the University of Central Florida for the academic years 2005-06 and 2014-15.

TABLE 2.5(2)b)  Projected Weekly Student Contact Hours

c)      A projection or assumptions about the future space utilization for the space types identified in the DATA REQUIREMENTS section of this element (tabular).

Impact of Enrollment Growth.  As indicated in data provided separately in Table 2.5(1)a) and subsequent material, the University of Central Florida is projecting enrollment growth over much of this decade that amounts to approximately 1000 FTE students annually, tapering off to a lower figure as the ultimate target enrollment around 30,000 FTE at the main campus is approached.  This is based on analysis by the Office of Institutional Research together with the Office of Enrollment and Academic Services. 

In particular, while the 2003-04 FTE count reported by Institutional Research is 24,486, but by the year 2014-15, the projected figure becomes essentially stable at 30,015.  In short, the overall enrollment growth is expected to be about 5,600 FTE students over the coming 10-year period—representing a 23% increase in student population at the main campus.

Having said this, we must recognize that for campus planning, these official enrollment projections are subject to significant uncertainty.  Experience over the past decade indicates that projections for UCF are consistently on the low side—even in the short run, let alone several years out.  There are a number of reasons for this, and they do not seem likely to change much over the planning period in question.  They include ongoing growth of the state population, much of which is concentrated in central Florida (especially the I-4 high-tech corridor, from Tampa through Orlando to the space coast); dramatic overall growth of Florida’s college-age population, ranging from mid-to-late teens through late twenties, much of which is concentrated in Central Florida; UCF’s increasing “market share” among Florida’s college-bound students, compared to other universities in the State system; and the relatively new and growing emphasis at UCF on graduate studies, especially at the doctoral level.

In short, our belief is that UCF’s official enrollment projections should be viewed as a lower limit on what the true figures are likely to be, rather than a close estimate of those figures.  In specific terms, we anticipate that enrollments by 2014-15 may be as much as  15% higher than those projected now—and consequently, it is imperative to cover such a possibility with current planning.  To echo a statement made earlier, if the excess enrollments do not materialize, no great harm will be done; but if they do, then by that time it probably will be too late to make suitable adjustments to the large-scale campus design and infrastructure.

At any rate, with reference to needs for academic facilities, we estimate that to serve an added 1000 FTE students annually will require added classrooms amounting to about 7,500 square feet per year, or, equivalently, 500 classroom seats per year.  This conclusion can be reached by various lines of argument, the simplest of which is based on overall numbers of classrooms and students.  On the main campus, for example, according to 1999-2000 inventory figures, the University used about 140 thousand square feet of space as “classrooms” (however, see below.)  At that time, the student FTE total on the main campus was only around 19 thousand.  This works out to an average of 7.5 square feet per student, which translates into the quoted figure of 7,500 square feet per 1,000 students.

More refined and/or updated methods of estimating the same quantity can be employed, based on, e.g., the assumption that the 1000 FTE students added each year will be distributed over the four levels of classroom instruction roughly as follows: lower level, 360 FTE; upper level, 510 FTE; graduate classroom, 120 FTE; and thesis/dissertation, 10 FTE.  Then, using typical figures for class sizes by level, square footage per seat, and seat occupancy per week, one can arrive at a figure for square footage per FTE.  Apart from details, and within the uncertainties attached to such figures, the result is consistent with that quoted previously.  It is also consistent with SUS classroom usage standards over past years, shown in Table 2.5(1)c)—especially given the uncertainties involved in averaging over the varying standards for different instructional levels.

Status of Current Classrooms.  At the present time, it is clear that where classrooms are concerned, the UCF main campus already is operating “at or above capacity.”  Besides making full use of regular academic buildings, which in some cases includes utilization of spaces designed originally for other purposes (laboratories, theaters, library study areas, etc.), the university has been forced over the past several years to rent temporary facilities both on and off campus for classrooms and other purposes (offices, labs, etc.).

Meanwhile, some of the nominally “regular” academic buildings, though not rented, are deteriorating badly and will have to be taken out of service before much longer.  Indeed, this process has already begun.  The spaces in question are not permanent structures at all, but instead modular units, never intended to be used on any but a temporary basis.  Some are relatively new—seven, eight, or nine years old—but others have been in continuous use for fifteen to twenty years, or even more.

Efficiency of Classroom Usage.  To put the mentioned “full use” of existing facilities in perspective, one can remark that the university's fall semester figures for weekly hours of use involving general-purpose classrooms (excluding rented or temporary spaces) show that average usage per classroom is typically about 50 hours per week.  This naturally is concentrated in the high-demand Monday through Friday period, so that during this five-day portion of the week, the average classroom usage is about ten hours per day.  One clear implication is that not much relief from shortages can be found via attempts to increase the efficiency of existing classroom usage.  On the contrary, the University’s regular classrooms already are used essentially to their maximum capacity, the UCF weekly-average usage figures being among the highest in the SUS.

Planned Classrooms in Relation to Needs.  With the above facts in mind, an assessment has been made to determine the adequacy of classroom space apt to come on line in the next several years, in terms of projected enrollment growth.  The conclusion is that planned new construction will be able to accommodate the assumed new students, at current efficiencies of usage.  It should even be possible during the next few years to reduce or at least cap the rental of spaces off campus—and at the same time, turn back to laboratory and other usages a number of areas borrowed “temporarily” twenty or more years ago, to meet the then-emerging classroom shortage.  This of course assumes that PECO funding for new construction is somewhere near adequate to support the existing plans.

Teaching Laboratories.  Turning from general-purpose classrooms to teaching laboratories, one finds an enrollment-related problem there also.  In terms of currently existing spaces, teaching labs represent roughly three quarters as much total square footage as classrooms, as indicated earlier.  This is reasonable, given that weekly hours of lab usage per student are much less on the average than those for classrooms—almost exactly five times less, according to typical data.  On the other side of the picture is the fact that square footage per lab seat is typically about twice that per classroom seat, say 30-35 sq.ft. compared to 15-17 sq.ft.  One overall implication is that while enrollment growth does certainly lead to a need for more teaching laboratories, the need does not rise as steeply as that for classrooms, when couched in terms of square footage per added FTE student (two and one-half times less) or seats per added FTE student (five times less).

To be sure, “efficiency” of lab utilization in terms of total hours per week is ordinarily much smaller than for classrooms.  This evidently is one of the main reasons why at present the overall square footages of laboratories and classrooms are more or less comparable.  On the other hand, it also means that more flexibility remains at least in principle for increasing the weekly hours of usage, if enrollment growth makes that necessary.  To put what is essentially the same point differently, there is often a possibility of scheduling added sections in existing laboratories, and this persists (at least from the simplistic standpoint of "free hours" in the schedule) long past the point when general purpose classrooms are utilized to the maximum extent feasible.

At the same time, we add that the University’s new buildings on the PECO list do make provision for substantial added labs as well as classrooms.  Moreover, though the overall square footages planned for teaching labs will be less than that for classrooms, the new labs constructed should adequately serve needs caused by growth throughout the decade.

Research Laboratories.  Generally, needs for added research laboratories are not coupled as closely to enrollment growth as those for classrooms and teaching labs, but there is nonetheless some relation to enrollments.  First, with growth comes the need for added faculty, and in the laboratory sciences, studio arts, and similar disciplines, the new faculty in many cases have needs for their own dedicated labs to support scholarship and other required professional development activities.

Secondly, research labs are very often essential for thesis and dissertation work by students in disciplines with active graduate programs, especially at the doctoral level.  To that degree, the distinction between research labs and teaching labs breaks down, inasmuch as instructional functions are intrinsic to both.  The difference is one of degree, not of kind.  (Besides, many cases exist on campus at present where one and the same lab is used both for graduate coursework and also thesis and/or dissertation work, not to mention faculty research as such.)

Finally, enrollment growth often comes about not simply from increasing the numbers of students in ongoing programs but from attracting students to wholly new programs.  Some bring with them distinctive laboratory needs which simply are not met by previously existing types of facilities.  Good examples are furnished by the university's strong push in recent years toward excellence in key areas such as advanced materials processing and analysis (particularly in regard to "I-4 High Tech Corridor" partnership activities), biomolecular sciences, and nanosciences.  These types of developments can only accelerate as the university moves toward its strategic goal of achieving national and international prominence in selected areas of research and scholarship.

One other point regarding research labs is that needs are likely to be much greater than might be inferred from the data provided separately in Table 2.5(1)c) showing “Instructional Space-Use Standards.”  For instance, assignable square footage per FTE listed for “C&G Research Faculty” is 291.26 NASF per FTE.  Prima facie, this appears a great deal too low.  Typically a full-time research faculty member in any of the physical sciences, life sciences, or engineering, who can be expected to hold Federal research contracts and/or grants which employ research associates or graduate assistants, technicians and other staff, etc., will need lab space in the range 1,000 to 1,500 square feet, if not more.  While this sort of range might be reduced when calculating a “standard per FTE,” due to the inclusion of research associates, grad assistants, etc., in the averages, it is hard to see how one can get down to 291.26 square feet per FTE that way.

In the specific case of UCF, further evidence concerning the need for research lab space can be obtained from the existing SUS study titled “Analysis of 2005-06 Space Needs by Category; Main Campuses.”  This was generated some time ago, and it represented the last of its type published by the Board of Regents staff, before “devolution” of the system took place.  The study was based on the UCF space inventory as of June 30, 1998, together with projects funded for construction through 1999-2000, along with student enrollments projected to 2005-06, which were used with the long-standing SUS formula for space needs in terms of enrollments.

At that time, UCF’s “Net Space Need” for research labs in 2005-06 was estimated to be 168,707 square feet.  However, this assumed total UCF enrollments of 21,649 FTE in that year.  But in actual reality, the university already had surpassed that enrollment mark by 2001-02, and currently (i.e., as of 2003-04) its total enrollments are 26,775 FTE.  By 2005-06, they are now projected to be 29,255 FTE.  If translated into space terms (using the traditional enrollment-based formula), this excess growth implies that the earlier SUS estimate of research “net space need” by 2005-06 was short by a factor of nearly two—i.e., 335K square feet, rather than 169K square feet.

Offices.  While offices are not viewed, strictly speaking, as “academic spaces,” mention of them is made here for two reasons.  First, UCF’s continued growth of enrollments over the coming decade will require additional large increases of regular faculty and staff, who cannot function properly without added office space.  Thus offices, at least for instructional faculty, are a necessary adjunct to the added classrooms and labs that will be needed.

Secondly, even the state’s earlier, summer 1998 estimate of “net space needs” for 2005‑06 (mentioned above under “Research Laboratories”) concluded that UCF’s shortage of office space would exceed that of any other space type.  Specifically, the 1998 estimate was that office shortages in 2005-06 would total about 400,000 square feet—more than the combined shortages of both classrooms and teaching labs.  Since then, however, excess increases of enrollments, beyond the 1998 projections, have substantially boosted the 2005-06 figure for unmet office needs—making the actual total closer to 500,000 square feet.

In terms of total generated office needs (as opposed to shortages), we estimate that by 2009-10, based on the official projected enrollments, these will exceed nine hundred thousand square feet on the main campus.  By the same token, if actual enrollments exceed projections by 15%, then office needs will exceed one million square feet.

To be sure, one must note that figures cited represent aggregates of all “office-type” needs for the entire campus, not only faculty and staff offices per se, in both academic and administrative units, but also related spaces such as conference rooms and “office support” areas, e.g., supply closets.  As such, they include the office figures quoted elsewhere in this document, under separate headings—e.g., those under Support Facilities, in Section 2.6.

Study Spaces.  Another sort of space to be kept in mind is titled “Study.”  This is mostly but not entirely accounted for via the University Library.  In that regard, recall the Data provided separately in Table 2.5(1)c) showing Instructional Space-Use Standards for libraries, where besides the usual stack areas for books and journals, provision is made for reading rooms and study carrels.  The latter are classed as Study, but additional Study areas occur in scattered buildings across the campus.  (In general, roughly 20% of main campus study areas are outside the Library.)

Given that the state’s overall 1998 estimate of UCF’s  2004-05 need for main-campus “Study” space was around 300,000 square feet, while the Library part was estimated at less than 200,000 square feet (see below, Table 2.5(2)d), an added need for 100,000 square feet of such space was estimated (that is, exclusive of the Library).  If we use the updated enrollment projections, this increases by another 100,000 square feet, of the “non-library” part can be considered to be about 20,000 square feet. 

Area Campus Facilities.  The enrollment growth projected for the decade in question will affect space needs at the Brevard and Daytona area campuses, as well as other instructional sites in the UCF service area now under development, along with those at the Orlando area (“main”) campus.  Indeed, since growth at the area campuses has become a special priority of UCF, growth at those campuses is projected to occur more than proportionately to the overall growth.  In specific terms, while the entire student body will be increasing by roughly 6,000 FTE over the given ten-year period (about 16%), the area-campus portion will be increasing by perhaps 2000 FTE (about 50%).  About one-third of this will be divided more or less equally between the two locations mentioned, with the remaining two-thirds being distributed among the remaining sites..

From what was said earlier, it follows that a ten-year enrollment growth of perhaps 300 FTE students at either of the two main area campuses will require the addition of no more than roughly 3,000 square feet of general purpose classrooms (i.e., roughly 200 classroom seats).  This need is sufficiently small that it can be dealt with in due course, without making special provision in advance.  In particular, the university does not anticipate adding Brevard or Daytona campus facilities to its PECO list during the period mentioned.  On the other hand, it will be necessary to augment the university’s joint-use facilities at other community-college sites in the service area, and provision is being made for this on the mid- to long-term PECO list.

d)        A projection of future net academic space needs based on the future WSCH and ASF distributed by campus or satellite facility.  Future academic space needs shall be calculated at a minimum for the space types identified in the DATA REQUIREMENTS section of this element (tabular).

Table 2.5(2)d) shows the projections of future needs for instructional, research, and study space, in terms of Net Assignable Square Footage (NASF).  They are based on the SUS study “Analysis of 2005-06 Space Needs by Category; Main Campuses,” mentioned above, with adjustments for excess enrollments since it was published in 1998.

TABLE 2.5(2)d).  Projection of Future Space Needs, Part I

e)      A projection of future academic gross building area needs (tabular).

The gross building area necessary to meet the growth demands has been projected for five and ten year planning periods.  Table 2.5(2)e) indicates the amount of gross square feet (GSF) required to satisfy the demand for space in the four categories listed.  The GSF projections are a result of increasing the assignable square footage for each category by a 1.5 multiplier.

(excluding temporary and leased space)

f)       An analysis translating the future net and gross building area requirements into building “increments”.  The basis for this analysis shall be fully described and shall be based on considerations of funding, prototypical building sizes, or other logical and replicable method of calculation.  The analysis should also consider whether future new space needs would be best accomplished through renovations or additions to existing facilities.

University campuses are typically made up of buildings that house a wide range of uses.  At the University of Central Florida many buildings accommodate varying proportions of academic, study and support space within a single structure.

Projecting future net and gross building area requirements into building "increments," can be misleading since it is unlikely that all of the future academic facilities will be accommodated in single use buildings.  It is more likely that new academic facilities will be integrated across the campus in a diverse range of building type.

Moreover, the logical building increments will be determined as much by site planning and urban design parameters as they will be by the specific programmatic elements.

If we assume a prototypical campus building will be between 80 and 100 feet in width, five stories in height and not more than 300 feet in length we end up with between twenty-six and thirty-three new buildings.  Each building would accommodate approximately 150,000 assignable square feet of space.