2006-07
Update of the
April 16,
2007
Process
Each
year, Pennsylvania State System universities provide a capital request
detailing their major facility needs.
These are supported by an update to the University’s Facilities Master
Plan outlining significant changes in the conditions and assumptions of the
University’s facilities, most significantly for 2007 the completion and
approval of the University’s Strategic Plan.
The
Facilities Master Plan, like the Strategic Plan, had to reflect budget
constraints and challenges. Equally
important however were changes in the auxiliary sector which had major
implications, at minimum, for the pace of renovation to E&G buildings and
underlying infrastructure.
A. Assumptions, Themes, and Space Needs
In
constructing the April 1998 Master Plan, the committee and consultant worked
with a number of initial assumptions and themes. While the University has made some striking improvements, the underlying conditions in 1998
still determine many of today’s decisions.
1.
The landscape appearance is currently diminished by converted fragmented
collections, domestic residential or utilitarian buildings, and mismatched
furnishings handrails and guardrails which need to be upgraded to current
2.
While the features provide panoramic views and natural settings, the
steep slopes impede vehicle and pedestrian flow, are difficult to maintain, and
provide few level building sites.
3.
New facilities should link people and functions, define open spaces, and
establish visual, programmatic, and physical connections. They should be incremental and independent of
other changes.
4.
Academic offices & support facilities should be close to classroom
space. Faculty should be provided with
private office space and adequate support space.
5.
Academic uses should be clustered in one education core area and
administrative departments should be located where they can best serve their
student, faculty, staff, or public constituents.
6.
To enhance community relations the
This
qualitative analysis was buttressed by a quantitative analysis of the
University’s space needs in the context of State System of Higher Education
based on a projection of 5,900 FTE enrollment (Clarion Campus) for the year
2016.
B. Near-Term Issues
Since
the Facilities Master Plan was finalized in 1998, a number of elements under
consideration have been completed. The
list includes the renovation of Founders Hall, Harvey Hall, Keeling, Carlson
Library, and the newly-constructed
Even
with the successes cited above, the Master Plan diverges from the current
status of facilities in a number of ways.
First, Becht Hall has been listed as a potentially funded System capital
project for 2008. However, this delays
relocation of the
While
this addresses the needed relocation of the Academic Enrichment Center, the
delay in Becht’s completion impacts Financial Aid, Accounts Receivable, and
Accounts Payable, all part of the planned Becht “one-stop shopping”
concept. Moreover, the one-stop shopping
concept itself needs a fresh look in light of a recent Enrollment Management
study and changes in the student service field.
Early
in discussions of the Master Plan update, it became obvious to members of the
update committee that separate groups needed to examine one-stop shopping to
see if the original concept still provided the most desired method of improving
student services. Essentially, the
Facilities Master Plan must address one-stop shopping in the context of the
University’s academic plan and its strategic plan. As an interim measure, a virtual one-stop
center was set up as an extension to the University’s website, and an entrée to
an actual one-stop shopping facility.
The
Master Plan originally advocated Alumni and Advancement’s move from Haskell
House to Moore Hall and a move of the University Relations Department from
Alumni House to
Although
this construction accommodated the space and accessibility needs of Alumni and
Advancement, the master plan committee noted that these moves left behind the
University Relations Department.
According to the Master Plan, this Department would need to be relocated
to facilitate the demolition of both Haskell and Alumni Houses. Given the proximity of these structures to
underground lines and piping, and the need to accommodate potential new
on-campus student residences, implementation of that recommendation seems more
proximate and University Relations will move to Ralston awaiting completion of
the Becht renovation.
C. The Near-Term Plan (2004-2009)
(Refer to Tables 5.2-1 for accompanying
summary table.)
Consolidating
the above into an updated Master Plan begins with shifting the timelines for
near-term, mid-term, and long-term five years out, starting with the current
year, 2005.
As
noted above, the new building on
Minimal
renovations at the Ceramics Studio and the Foundry make these facilities
serviceable for classes. However, space
needs for Ceramics, Sculpture, and other art activities not currently located
in Marwick-Boyd continue to be assessed.
While we have sought opportunities for leased space for these programs, current
budget constraints have precluded this option while the long-term desire to
consolidate these programs in Marwick Boyd still holds true. To this end, a capital project for the
renovation and expansion of Marwick Boyd was approved in Act 40 of 2004 and now
awaits placement in the PASSHE funding plan. Recent concerns about the structural envelope
of the Tippin Gymnasium facility and the high ongoing operational costs of
maintaining it lead us to make this facility a higher capital funding priority
at this time.
A
feasibility plan will be necessary to assess the need for possible near-term,
renovations to Tippin Gymnasium and the Marwick-Boyd Fine Arts Center. This is particularly important in the case of
Marwick, if funding for its renovation and addition is delayed.
D. Mid-Term Issues
Two
key recommendations of the original master plan, relocation of student services
to Becht and construction of a parking deck have been re-considered in light of
favorable alternatives. Becht has been
discussed above in the near-term section, and the parking alternative is
provided in a separate parking plan attached as Appendix B.
The
renovation of Becker Hall to provide more usable space was mentioned in the
mid-term section of the original Master Plan (now the near-term). To date this renovation has not been
programmed in detail, and the future needs of Becker need to be defined in a
feasibility study, particularly in light of increased activity on the south end
of campus.
Finally,
several other elements of the original Master Plan require in-depth
re-examination, possibly through separate or combined feasibility studies. For example, in light of the current
environment, it has become apparent that some areas of Stevens Hall need to be
reassessed to determine that facility’s capability of supporting programs in
the
In
addition to this, the Master Plan also targets the
E. The Mid-Term Plan (2009-2014)
(Refer to Tables 5.2-2, Phases I & II
for accompanying summary tables.)
The
Mid-Term Plan will begin just after completion of the new Science and
Because
so many of the recommended changes take place in the mid-term 2009-2014, this
period has been split into two phases:
Mid-Term-Phase I (2009-2011) and Mid-Term Phase II (2011-2014). The distinguishing characteristic of Phase I
is the renovation of Becht. As shown in
the summary Table 5.2-2 and the Residence Hall Master Plan, students presently
occupying Becht Hall will relocate to a newly constructed, suite style
residence hall. Faculty presently
occupying the first floor of Becht Hall will be relocated to temporary offices
in Ralston Hall during the renovation.
Phase
II is distinguished by the relocation of a number of offices into Becht from
Ralston after conclusion of the Becht renovation. This relocation, incidentally, would
facilitate the closer relationships among these offices that the traditional
one-stop shopping concept would require.
Of
particular note is that Admissions is presently located in a small
residential-style building. Current
plans for the One-Stop Shopping concept in Becht Hall now includes space for
Admissions. In view of lost parking due
to the siting of the new dining hall, the Admissions building is presently
programmed for demolition with parking proposed to occupy the cleared
area. This will regain some of the
parking stalls lost and also service the One-Stop Shopping activities in the
renovated Becht Hall nearby.
F. Long-Term Issues
The
long-term aspects of the master plan generated a great deal of discussion by
the committee as well as recommendations which diverged from the original
plan. Leading the way was discussion of
Carrier.
In
the master plan, many of the administrative functions including the President’s
office, the Provost’s office, the office of the Vice President for Finance and
Administration, the office of Social Equity, and the Comptrollers Office would
be relocated to Egbert Hall. Egbert, in
turn would relocate Student Affairs, Career Services, Counseling, and Housing
to Becht. From a practical perspective,
Becht would not be available for renovation or relocation until at least
2010. Beyond that though, moving
administrative operations with minimal student contact to the center of campus
and relocating student functions to the edge appeared to the committee to run
counter to one of the primary tenets of the plan: keeping “academic offices & support
facilities . . . close to classroom space for their programs”. A straightforward and cost effective solution
suggests itself: to keep these functions
where they are. The strategy of avoiding
two moves or even one unnecessary move underlies this update and future
facility plans.
Correspondingly,
discussion of Public Safety, Facilities Planning, and Admissions currently
located in small residential-style buildings on the edges of campus concluded
that they served their customers best in their current locations. Moreover these structures look to have
extended useful lives, where the Master Plan recommended that they be
demolished. Of course, the perspective
ten-years out may come back to the original Master Plan conclusion. Nevertheless, the other key factor to
consider for these buildings and residence halls that will eventually be
vacated is the significant costs for demolition of these buildings. Conversely we may be able to generate revenue
to fund facilities needs by renting out residential properties.
Also
under discussion in the long-term section was a permanent home for the Siler
Children’s Learning Complex. Current
thinking has this relocating to a permanent site on the edge of campus which
would address parking and vehicular safety concerns. This would depend on the availability of
funding to support a stand-alone facility.
Another
long-term element of the master plan concerned the relocation of the Small
Business Development Center (SBDC) and Computing Services out of Still
Hall. A pressing issue is the need to
renovate Still Hall to accommodate space needs, remedy acoustic problems, and
repair the HVAC system. Current thinking
has SBDC and other applied research functions moving to the Trinity Point
facility.
Also
at the north end of campus, are the Ceramics and Sculpture Laboratories. These two functions have been housed in older
buildings not originally intended for these uses, and the costs of upgrading
the facilities to meet these new purposes have been prohibitive. Rather than continuing to invest resources in
buildings ill-suited to these functions, it is envisioned that they will move
to a large open warehouse style building.
G. The Long-Term Plan (2015-2019)
(Refer to
Table 5.2-3 for an accompanying summary table.)
As
the Residence hall plan that follows suggests, when Ralston is no longer needed
as swing space during the Becht Hall renovation, it may be scheduled for
demolition. At this time there are no
plans for the use of this space. The
original Master Plan also suggests moving Health Services from Keeling and SBDC
from Still. Enrollment trends in these
out-years will clarify whether this is necessary.
H. The Revised Residence Hall Plan
Findings
from the residence hall feasibility study that was conducted in April of 2001
by STV Architects point out the following:
1.
Student expectations for housing have changed significantly in recent
years.
2.
Clarion’s six residence halls not longer offer the diversity of housing
types and amenities to fulfill the needs of the student population.
3.
77% of the residence hall students expressed a preference in having
single rooms or apartment style housing and expressed a willingness to pay a
little more for this.
4.
New residence hall construction could negate the need for
reconfiguration of the current residence halls.
Based
on the feasibility study and on the decision to maintain the designed housing
capacity of 2171 beds between the
FALL
2006
1. Ralston Hall was taken off
line as a residence hall
2. Educational Talent Search
was moved to the second floor of Ralston
SUMMER
2007
1.
University Relations moves from Alumni house to Ralston Hall
2.
Alumni and Haskell house demolished to make room for new suite style
residence hall.
FALL
2007
1.
Construction will begin on two new suite style residence halls with a
total of 360 beds. One will be located next to Ballantine at the present site
of the Alumni and Haskell houses and the other between
2.
The project is to be funded by the Clarion University Foundation serving
as the affiliated entity.
SPRING
2009
1.
Becht Hall is taken off line as a residence hall
2.
The suite style residence halls are open for occupancy.
3.
Approximately 40 rooms in other halls are converted from double rooms to
single occupancy.
FALL
2009
1.
Approximately 40 rooms in other halls are converted from double rooms to
single occupancy.
2010
AND BEYOND
1.
Ballantine Hall goes off line as a residence hall and is demolished to
create space for the construction of two new suite style residence halls with
occupancy of 350.
2.
The planning for the new residence halls includes the creation of
approximately 240 single rooms by reassigning double occupancy rooms in the
other halls. This will allow the
flexibility of converting these rooms back to double occupancy in the event of
an enrollment increase.
3.
Becht Hall is converted one stop student services facility.
4.
Present E & G offices in Becht will move to Ralston.
5.
When renovations are complete and all E & G functions move from
Ralston to Becht Hall, Ralston may be demolished.
I. Food Service
Fall
2004
A
feasibility study conducted in January 2003 revealed the need to renovate the
Gemmell snack bar. Students were
dissatisfied with the long lines, limited seating space, variety of
entrees. The limited kitchen area
prevented the food service from offering a variety of entrees without the
proper equipment, and the area did not provide the space for additional
equipment. Taking into consideration all
the above factors and the fact that more students chose to eat their meals at
the snack bar instead of the main dining facility in
FALL
2006
Based
on the cost to renovate Chandler Hall and to update the antiquated and
inefficient food service equipment a feasibility study was commissioned to
study the possibility of constructing a new dining facility. The study was
concluded and a new dining hall utilizing the latest equipment and featuring a
new way to serve and prepare meals for the students was proposed. Due to the changing eating habits of our
student body and the popularity of our food court in Gemmell it was decided
that
Spring
2007
1.
Design phase of new dining facility
FALL
2007
1.
Begin construction of new dining facility on the corner of
SPRING
2009
1.
New dining facility opened.
2.
Chandler Hall demolished to make way for second phase of new suite style
residence halls.
J. Parking and the Master Plan
Currently
there are 1689 parking spaces within the Main Campus area. Individual lots on the campus are grouped
into one of three use-permitting categories:
employee lots, commuter student lots, and resident student lots. 34 per cent or 568 spaces are assigned to
commuter student parking. Resident student parking accounts for 510 spaces or
30 per cent. Employee lots utilize 605
spaces or 36 per cent.
The
concept of separating lots for commuting students and resident students was
implemented in 1999. The goal of this
re-organization of lot assignments was to discourage resident students from
utilizing their vehicles to travel throughout the campus. This reduction in vehicle traffic was a goal
identified in the master plan, thus reducing the potential vehicle-pedestrian
conflict.
A
key recommendation in the April 1998 master plan regarding parking was to
expand parking at the stadium and connect it with transportation which was
subsequently provided by the Clarion Area Transit Service. In addition to the 1,689 spaces on campus,
the 442 stadium spaces are being utilized for long-term parking, allowing for
the limiting of resident permit sales.
The result has been a consistent 85%-90% occupancy in residential lots,
despite increasing demand for resident permits.
Over the past three years, the increase in demand for resident permits
has required more and more students to park at the stadium. In the year 2000, there were virtually no
vehicles parking long term at the stadium.
In 2003, approximately 150 vehicles are consistently parked long-term at
the stadium. As an incentive to use the
stadium, both commuter and resident students are offered a stadium permit free
of charge, in comparison to the $100 per year fee for an on-campus permit. Most of the 150 vehicles parked at the
stadium are not there by choice, however.
Master
Plan Recommendations Implemented
1.
Growth Scenario projected 1,657 parking spaces by 2003. Available space totals 1,689 though Lot P is
leased space, with the lease to expire in 2011.
2.
The Plan called for reduced parking next to residence halls. As a result, Lot 5 (Nair) has been converted
to commuter parking and Nair/Wilkinson residents are parking in Lot P
(Receiving) or
3.
The Plan recommended prohibition of campus parking for students living
within one-half mile of campus. As a
result, approximately 25% of off-campus students have purchased commuter
permits (1,000 out of 4,000).
Remaining
Issues
1.
There is still a widespread feeling that there is not enough parking “on
campus”. Based on the industry standard
for available parking of 10%, it would appear that the Clarion campus has
adequate parking however there are shortages depending on the time and type of
permit.
2.
The new Science and
3.
The Reinhard Villages will likely change traffic patterns significantly,
but we do not know how or how much. It
has already changed the bus routes, thereby parking needs.
4.
We continue to implement the fringe parking solution, moving student
parking and some parking in general to the edge of campus.
5.
The current proposal to solve issues one through four would be to build
a parking deck on the site of Campbell Hall.
This function will need to be self-sufficient however, and funding
models to accomplish this are currently being considered.
UpdateDraft070413.doc