2.15 Architectural Design Guidelines Element
Data and Analysis
2005-2015 Campus Master Plan Update
a) General Description of the Campus Architectural Character
Since they reside within the Academic Core, in close proximity to one another, the major academic buildings need to be engaging in architectural relationships. The core is meant to act as a frame for the architectural compositions it encapsulates. It should be natural for the core buildings to relate to one another in mass, form, and style.
The inherent
symbolic content of the campus plan should not be ignored. The rings of the
Academic Core carry astronomical and astrological names. The “helix shaped”
roadway which was to circumnavigate the core is symbolic of the basic structure
of life, the double helix. All of the roadways are named after constellations.
The apses of the roadways were to contain “academic villages” that were directly
connected to the core, which in turn contained all of the major academic
buildings. It could be argued that the original campus plan represents an
encapsulated universe. Some architectural schemes have responded to this
symbolic content in plan and in form. For example, the
CREOL Building, which has a long
curved wall on its principal façade creates a large circular landscape island
floating beyond the building that looks, in plan, like a planet in orbit.
(Figures 15.1, 15.2, 15.3).
b) Architecturally Significant Historic Buildings
Because the
University is
slightly more than thirty-five
years old, no building could be described as being historically significant. It
is, however, important to note that the Library was the first building to be
constructed on campus, followed by the Administration Building.
c)
1. Materials
The predominant exterior building material throughout the campus is brick, occasionally accented by certain architectural elements that are rendered in either stucco or exposed concrete.
2. Color
There are approximately nine different shades of brick on campus. They vary from dark brown to dark red. One particular blend of brick has been defined as the “UCF blend”, which is the brick of choice for buildings residing within the Academic Core. Natural mortar has now become the standard for campus buildings since it tends to define the brick with a wall surface.
3. Style
The style of the campus can be described as multifaceted. A variety of styles are represented, which define and place buildings in a particular architectural period. The Library, Administration Building, and Health and Physics Building all relate, in that they exhibit a similar architectural element, the “UCF Arch”. This grouping is also similar in form and shape.
4. Siting
Buildings within the academic Core are directly affected by a concentric sidewalk system. The architecture within the core has responded to this condition by attempting to create at least two facades, facing each concentric sidewalk system. Since the core is the most dominant central geometric element on the campus, it would be natural that siting of buildings outside the core should be affected by the core’s “lines of force”.
d) An assessment of the degree to which existing building designs are coordinated, and the degree to which they contribute to or detract from the present visual or functional quality of the University.
Refer to the 1995 Analysis.
In addition, it is noted that there has been a trend in the design of campus facilities since that update in which designs have begun to introduce other materials, colors and design details which deviate noticeably from the original, more esthetically cohesive campus esthetic. Whereas the older campus buildings were more consistently covered in the “UCF blend” of reddish-brown brick, many newer facilities have introduced increasing amounts of cream, or yellow colored brick. Also, newer structures have started to introduce metal, usually in a silver-metallic finish, as a significant exterior material. There is a noticeable trend in the newer designs to emphasizing horizontal lines. In design details the older facilities were more austere, using brick as a largely unarticulated exterior surfacing with simple, punched opening. Newer designs have relied on different trim materials or varying brick coursing/corbelling/coloring to articulate openings. Generally, the trend in the newer designs is to reflect contemporary design esthetic as opposed to reflecting the esthetic of the era of the older buildings.
The current trends, while moving away from the earlier esthetic, show an awareness of modern architectural esthetic that is more reflective of the high-tech, increasingly diverse world in which the University exists and of the more recent research-oriented, diversity-enhanced mission of the University. From the point of view of the current student and research-oriented faculty the newer facilities as individual designs may create an esthetic more reflective of the University’s contemporary mission. That being said, when viewed together with the older designs, the newer designs, unless they have clearly identifiable visual connectivity with the older designs, may create a frenetic campus visual image. It is a matter of degree and interpretation, both very difficult, if not impossible to judge, since “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. If the design diversity reaches the threshold of visual schizophrenia for a significant number of the students and faculty, it may have an overall negative impact on the University mission.
The challenge for the designers and design directors/reviewers is to build a design bridge between 1) the older campus esthetic with the traditional values it connotes and the resulting esthetic consistency and 2) the more contemporary, progressive esthetic. This should be a major goal of the University’s architectural design guidelines.
Another major issue of concern is the degree to which the “vertical” facilities reinforce the campus radial planning organization. The radial plan works well as an organizational element to create a pedestrian-only academic core. On the other hand, since most users are overwhelmingly acclimated to an off-campus world of orthogonal urban planning, the radial plan creates great challenges in wayfinding. New students and visitors are particularly worthy of consideration, as their level of comfort with the campus environment will certainly affect their initial and perhaps overall impression of the campus. The University clearly values retention of freshman as four-year-plus students as reflected in its policy of providing on-campus housing for 75% of freshman. Ease of wayfinding is critical in the adjustment of new students and visitors to the large, potentially intimidating environment of a major university.
What is recommended to improve on the current situation is 1) clearly defined urban design and future land use goals and objectives and 2) policies which establish a means of achieving these goals and objectives. The goals and objectives should clearly state design principles which are to be achieved. The policies should establish procedures for communicating these principles and means for directing and monitoring progress toward achieving these principles.
e) An assessment of the accessibility of University buildings to disabled persons.
Refer to the 1995 Analysis.
The University has an active process of 1) requiring adherence of new designs to handicapped accessibility requirements, 2) providing handicapped student ombudsman review of all projects and 3) identifying and prioritizing handicapped accessibility deficiency correction concurrent with remodelings and renovations of existing facilities. Because of the relative youth of the campus, the backlog of existing deficiencies is of less impact than older universities. Nonetheless, the importance of accessibility to mission and to admission policy makes it a priority.
By policy all new facilities are to meet all accessibility requirements.
Deficiencies have been identified and cataloged for correction with scheduled remodeling or renovation.