I’m pleased to present the Southwest Campus Sector Plan report in its entirety. The report has two parts: 1) the main body of the report and 2) the Appendices that contain the comprehensive technical details of the study, including building condition analyses, code reviews, etc. I recommend starting with the Executive Summary on pages 4-13. This section provides an excellent overview of the plan and a high-level synopsis of the work group’s recommendations. The links to both sections are just below this introduction.
In the Fall of 2012, the Southwest Campus Sector Plan (SWCSP) work group was assembled. The work group members were: Ben Augenbraun ‘15, Liz Creighton (Admission), Edan Dekel (Classics, Jewish Studies), John Gerry (Dean of the Faculty Office), Aaron Gordon (VP Campus Life Office), Max Heninger ‘14, Steve Klass, Chair (VP Campus Life Office), Tiku Majumder (Physics, Science Center), Jason Moran (Facilities), Lili Rodriguez (formerly Davis Center), and Chris Winters (Provost’s Office). In addition, Williams engaged Julia Nugent from HMFH Architects to assess current building and campus conditions, work with the committee to define options, and document the process and findings. The work group and architectural consultants met biweekly from November 2012 – May 2013, with additional meetings in the following year to discuss progress on the report.
President Falk charged the group with developing a coherent vision for the southwest precinct of campus. The study area was framed by Main Street on the north by Spring Street on the east by Walden Street on the south and by South Street on the west. It was determined that this kind of precinct-level overview would result in better long-term decision-making, particularly when coordinated with the just-completed Residential Sector Plan report. It should be noted that, while this is the most comprehensive planning exercise we’ve undertaken for this particular area of campus, not every building within those boundaries was included in the study.
The work group discussed a number of campus site scenarios for the placement of each of the study’s program elements in support of the academic mission of the college. In a majority of cases, these discussions were informed by detailed studies of specific program locations, co-location adjacency opportunities, and facility condition assessments performed by the consultant’s team. The full report – including the Appendices – provides the details of these studies. Many of the discussed options will not be pursued while others led to a set of immediate decision-making initiatives. Others represent longer-term opportunities that will require significant discussion and analysis over time.
Much like the open-ended nature of the Residential Sector Plan, the intent of the Southwest Campus Sector Plan is to present these scenarios as mid-to-long term campus planning opportunities and options, not as a package of discrete, single-solution recommendations. Additionally, the report was designed to present options focused primarily on the adaptation of existing buildings rather than the assumption of a lot of new construction. This largely adaptive reuse approach necessitates a reliance on carefully considered phasing of solutions over time as programs transition strategically from site to site.
As chair, I want to express my deep gratitude and admiration for the significant investment of time and energy on the part of the work group and our colleagues at HMFH.
Steve Klass, Vice President for Campus Life