The universities are being challenged! Learning forms and subject boundaries are changing. New demands for sustainability and flexible building structures have emerged. And we are currently witnessing a different interplay between education, research and the surrounding world. This all combines to make it essential for universities to constantly rethink themselves.
2. STUDY & RESEARCG ENVIRONMENT
LITTERATURE
PHOTOS
BACKGROUND STUDIES
Kolofon
Hele publikationen som PDF [7.2 mB]
Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Bredgade 43
1260 København K
Tlf: 3395 1200
Fax: 3395 1300
ubst@ubst.dk
http://www.ubst.dk
Denmark should have world-class universities. An important parameter in this endeavour is a vibrant and challenging physical research and study environment.
Physical planning is of great significance to the quality of the study and research environment at and around universities. New methods of learning, new creative work environments, internationalisation, digital possibilities, and not least urban development and more stringent energy requirements continually increase the demands concerning the physical setting. Consequently, the universities' planning must be innovative in order to keep abreast with this development.
This publication is the essence of a project made in the Danish University and Property Agency under the auspices of the The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, which for two years has focused on the potentials of physical planning of universities. The project consists of studies of international and Danish examples and of a series of thematic meetings as well as a conference, in which Danish universities have participated. All studies are available for download in their original form from our website:www.ubst.dk
The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation hopes that this publication will be a source of inspiration for the creation of better circumstances for the development of the physical frameworks of universities. We hope that you as a planner, university administrator or committed university user, student or employee will enter into a dialogue with us.
Jens Peter Jacobsen Director of The Danish University and Property Agency The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
The universities are being challenged! Learning forms and subject boundaries are changing. New demands for sustainability and flexible building structures have surfaced, and today we see a different interplay between education, research and the surrounding world. This all combines to make it essential for universities to constantly rethink themselves.
More and more universities have realised the potential of applying physical planning. It is no coincidence that MIT chooses planning methods that ensure iconic architecture, that Harvard integrates sustainability into every stage of the planning, or that ETH Zürich chooses to convert a 70’s campus to an academic neighbourhood for ‘Think Culture’.
The physical frameworks are also used strategically on a lesser scale for handling new challenges and furthering study and research environments: Aalborg University provides students with permanent work spaces in the professors’ offices, the University of Copenhagen purchases 1000 tables and chairs, and MIT reconditions conventional lecture halls to encompass new teaching methods.
It is our ambition through this book to present examples of how international and Danish universities work with the physical frameworks. Furthermore, we would like to discuss the way in which we at the Danish University and Property Agency do this. In this way, we hope to inspire planning of the campus areas and student environments of tomorrow.
This book has been written for decision makers at universities, within consultancies and local authorities, as well as for practitioners and users, all of whom work on the planning of campuses and study environments. The book is in both Danish and English, because the challenges of planning campuses and study environments are international, and many of our collaborators are based abroad.
Campus and Study Environment consists of two parts, which deal with the universities’ physical frameworks on two different scales.
The first part of the book, Strategic campus planning, provides a view of what a campus is, introducing a historic, an international and a Danish perspective of the development. Subsequently, the Danish University and Property Agency introduces its strategy for the creation of world-class campuses. Finally, this section contains five international campus cases, which illustrate how they have chosen to handle general issues, such as the physical integration of the university in the city and society.
The second part of the book moves to a smaller scale and examines the Study and research environment. First of all, a number of individual students, teachers and researchers voice their personal visions. The book then goes on to introduce a discussion on what a world-class study and research environment actually looks like. Finally, the book turns to three elements of a good study environment: Study workplaces, ICT-supported learning spaces and laboratories. The three themes are elucidated by means of Danish and international examples and contain general perspectives that also apply to many other elements of a good study and research environment.
In closing, the book presents a vision for The campus and study environment of tomorrow through a series of discussion articles that outline future scenarios.
The book consists of the synthesis of the results of a development work at the Danish University and Property Agency under the auspices of the The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation about the physical framework for campus and study environments. The book is thus the result of a lot of people’s work. Many thanks for your collaboration. Without you there would be no book!
All studies are available for download in their original form from the website of the Danish University and Property Agency: www.ubst.dk. The work of drawing up development potentials for campuses and study environments continues, and we invite you to keep updated with the initiatives via our website; you are also very welcome to contact us.
Cathrine Schmidt, Anthropologist Mikala Holme Samsøe, Architect, MAA
Campus areas are places full of life. Foreign students and researchers are drawn there by a vibrant environment. If we want to attract the best foreign capacities, we have to start by focusing on the campus area
The following articles consider campus planning from three different perspectives. Together they describe what campus areas are and how they have developed.
The historical perspective takes a look at how universities have been built over the last 800 years, based on two traditions. According to one of them, the university is enclosed within itself, whilst in the other tradition, it opens up to the surrounding world and urban life. Although opposites, the traditions also complement each other in a way that is useful for today’s needs for both dynamics and in-depth studies.
The international perspective describes basic historical and cultu-ral differences between American and European campus typology and suggests a way of developing a European campus model.
The Danish perspective tells the story of Danish university planning’s development in recent years. Initially, this was mainly an ad hoc activity, but today we witness more strategic planning with consequences for the surrounding city.
Two different views of science are reflected in the university’s buildings and its physical relation to the city. Science can be considered as driven either by inner forces or by interaction with the surrounding world. This article offers a historical view of the make-up of universities and the movement between the immersion of the university and the city as a dynamic ’outside world’
For a long time, intellectual history has worked with two perspectives of the forces behind changes in science. One perspective considers science to be developed by inner driving forces, as contradictions emerge in a solution-finding thought system. This is called the internalist perspective. The other perspective claims that ‘reality’ raises issues and creates the preconditions for the development of science. This is called the externalist perspective. The two perspectives can also be used to describe the physical organisation of universities and their relation to the city. One is more closed and the other is more integrated in the city. The dispute between the two perspectives has at times been quite heated. At the same time, it is widely accepted that the two perspectives complement each other.
In the physical organisation of universities, the internalist perspective is evident in a closed, undisturbed environment of specialised truth-seeking and intellectual discussions at a high level. The externalist perspective deals with the university as strongly involved in the development of society, both in terms of issues addressed and in terms of how knowledge is applied. Therefore, in this perspective the university is also dependent on being an open meeting place for different currents of thought – well integrated in the city.
In the postscript to the book ‘The University and the City’, 1988, editor Thomas Bender writes about the differences and similarities between universities and the city. The city, he believes, is an “open heterogeneity”. The heterogeneity refers to the multiplicity and the inner contradictions inherent in any complex institution. The university is a “semi-cloistered heterogeneity”. The semi-cloisteredness represents a delicate balance between the university’s inner world (the cloister-like closedness) and participation in the exterior context. The interface between the university and its surroundings becomes an important spatial aspect.
Two traditions run through 800 years of university building history: The internalist tradition encompasses the college, the American campus and what might be termed the external university. The externalist tradition includes universitas, the institutional university and the city campus. These traditions are very much alive, both because of buildings that are still in use and because of points of view that are passed on in new buildings. I will alternately describe the internalist and the externalist tradition through a series of examples.
The college was established as a foundation by means of donated funds during the Middle Ages. It had statutes that governed the life of teachers and students. Collegio di Spagna in Bologna dating back to 1367 is often considered the first specialised university building in Europe. It is clearly modelled on the monastery. A closed wall surrounds a square two-storey building around an inner courtyard. Here, teachers and students sleep, eat and study in a world of its own. At one end of the courtyard there is a church, exactly as the church by the cloister.
he tradition lives on in English colleges. At Oxford, college areas are spread all over the city with houses and classrooms around large quadrangles, often with a church at one side. Cambridge is more divided into a row with the college on one side and the city on the other – the contrast known as ‘town and gown’.
Universitas means ‘guild’, in this case the guild of university teachers. Early universities were not physically anchored institutions, they could actually move from one city to another with their small collection of books. They did not have any purpose-built rooms, but rented space in ordinary houses in the town. Albeit preferably in one particular part of the city, just as other guilds belonged to their particular streets. The university’s street might be called ‘School Street’, ‘Book Street’ or something similar. In central Copenhagen, it was called ‘Studiestræde’ – Study Alley.
For large gatherings and formal occasions, the local church was used. One important aspect of universitas was that students, just as the teachers, formed their own ‘guilds’, or fraternities, and that they were clearly independent of and partly separate from the college.
The campus university is originally an American tradition. The earliest reference to the concept is found in a letter from 1774 about the Princeton university area. The tradition of American universities was brought over by the first English colonialists and had its origin in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. In America, there were no towns in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, the universities were often established at ‘the frontier’, as their primary task was to educate priests. It was considered particularly important to carry out missionary work amongst the Indians. There was no basis for encircled courtyards here. The square became a ‘yard’ or a ‘ground’. Following independence, the campus concept spread and ended up denoting not just the lawn in front of the main building, but the entire university area. Part of the college tradition lived on in the idea that the university should take responsibility for the student’s entire life, even including accommodation and spare time, e.g. sports. The university stood ‘in loco parentis’ i.e. in the parents’ place.
The institutional university on the European continent belonged more to the universitas traditition. As the university grew and had more purpose-built buildings – first anatomy theatres and astronomy observatories and then, from the 19th century on, an increasing number of specialised scientific institutions – it was no longer possible to keep the university area in one place. It became necessary to use plots of land that could be acquired around the city, which resulted in a more or less spread-out localisation, well-integrated in the city. In the course of the 19th century, new main buildings for academic ceremonies were constructed in many places. They also became a means of asserting the place of traditional humanities subjects at the university. And the seminar room became humanities’ answer to the laboratory of science.
The external university became the solution to the educational explosion of the 1960s. These university areas are often called campuses, but contrary to the American tradition, they do not usually include student accommodation nor sports facilities. One similarity is the separation from the city. The exponential growth of the university – a doubling of the number of students in 10 years – made extension possibilities and space for expansion a main requirement. On that background, the universities almost without exception were placed on the outskirts of a city or actually outside the city, surrounded by a lot of open space. The university gained a clear, cohesive identity. Integration into the city deteriorated. They were called ‘education factories’ because of the narrow-minded focus on teaching and speedy throughput.
The city university became the 1990s’ answer to the criticism against the external university. Once again, integration into the city was emphasised: the city as an approach to the university and the university as an approach to the city. In France, an extensive programme, ‘Université 2000’ was carried out, which aimed at moving the faculties into the city or turning the external universities into more urban environments. In Sweden, all newly established universities from the expansion boom of the 1970s were located either on the edge of or outside the city. During a new expansion wave in the 1990s, all new establishments were placed in available buildings. Often, old industrial facilities or military barracks were taken over. Today, external universities and city universities exist side by side, as buildings, as thought models, as today’s version of the two Middle Age models: the closed college and the well-integrated universitas.
By 1975, Gothenburg’s large university was spread across more than 70 different addresses in the city. A joint move had never taken place, as had happened in Stockholm. The disadvantages were evident: no economies of scale in terms of anything from cleaning and caretaker to café and library; slow dissemination of information; less spontaneous meetings between teachers from different academic disciplines. But there were some advantages, too: To local politicians, the university no longer appeared to be a world in itself. The ‘free and easy’ atmosphere at the small institutions furthered contact between teachers and students, and made management take on more responsibility.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, Gothenburg’s university was gathered in faculties, in clusters, which were given the size of entire city quarters, but which remained spread across the inner city. At the same time, the view of this changed, and the advantages of the city university were considered quite obvious. Over the course of a couple of years during the 1990s, a report was prepared in collaboration between the university, the municipality and the business community, based on the university.
The purpose was to “create a better and more vigorous city”. In customary planning style, the report presented a simplified image of the university in the city. The scattered localisation was summed up as a ‘university ring’. Three ‘avenues’ were added to this image: an ‘avenue of culture and entertainment’ along the city’s main street, Kungsportsavenyn, an ‘avenue of events’ with sports facilities, arena, exhibition hall and amusement park, and a less established ‘avenue of knowledge’ across the river for a new part of the technical university. The problem with this ‘avenue of knowledge’ is, however, that it requires a boat. This kind of planning is much too abstract to capture what I believe to be essential in order to create a living avenue of knowledge at the interface between the buildings and the city. Another picture exists that captures this interface better.
The ethnogeographer Torsten Hägerstrand has described his day as a student in the institutional university city of Lund during the 1930s. Hägerstrand developed ‘time geography’ as a science, and for this he uses trajectories through time and space. He describes his journey through the city from his home to a restaurant to various teaching facilities and the student house: The Academic Association. It illustrates that the way in which to use the city is a continuous movement in and out of buildings. The point is also, that his journey is overlapped by many other people’s journeys, creating opportunities for unexpected encounters. The city is a ‘creative space’, and it consists of real avenues of knowledge. Hägerstrand’s description of a trajectory belonging to a professor of medicine in the 1970s renders a somewhat different image.
He drives his car from his home outside the city and spends all day in the same specialised environment at the hospital. No unexpected encounters occur. The architect Christopher Alexander’s book, ‘The Oregon Experiment’ from 1975, which deals with the development of a university in Oregon, is characterised by similar thoughts. One of the patterns that he describes is the ‘open university’, which dissolves the boundary between city and university, and allows them to grow into each other. Other patterns include ‘university streets’, where the university is extended in small units along the street, ‘local administration’ in small, scattered units, ‘department hearth’ as rallying points in any institution, directly joined to passages and with all rooms that are important to the institution close-by, and last but not least, ‘real learning in cafés’, which are privately run cafés, restaurants, bookshops and cinemas close to each other, which serve as meeting places for students, teachers and local citizens.
The interface between the university and its surroundings is an important spatial aspect that outlines the framework for creative work. The physical planning must balance between the university’s inner world and participation in society. This article shows that the internalist and externalist perspectives are not incompatible, but that they rather complement each other. Creation of knowledge is a creative work. And the descriptions of Lund and Oregon are based on the idea that creative work is best carried out in continuous commuting between private and public life. Between introverted thought work and extroverted testing of ideas.
Research: Cathrine Schmidt
The US campus is admired and many European universities try to copy it. However, it is worth noticing some fundamental cultural and historical differences between the two typologies that have an influence on how the same idea works under opposite conditions on the two continents. This article summarises points from a German research project, which compares a large number of European campus areas with a large number of American ones in order to define what a European campus is and how it is planned.
Princeton and Harvard. To most people who are concerned with the development of the European university, such spectacular institutions appear to represent the very ideal of higher education. Only there is it possible to raise the future elite. Would it not be the most desirable goal to find these shining places, this close academic community, this lively 24-hour-campus in Europe as well?
However, there is a basic misunderstanding about the very idea of ‘campus’ behind the envious views across the Atlantic. The Harvard model does not work in Europe, and the European campus is already alive and yet to be discovered!
Educational institutions are intertwined with and dependent upon the society in which they function and for which they have been made.
All universities are comprised of three interdependent parts:
The successful development of the university requires all three parts: institution, academic community and space.
Each university consists of one or more locations housing teaching, research, institutional, administrative and infrastructural facilities. But the university space¹ is much bigger than those locations. It encompasses non-institutional facilities and spaces as well. What belongs to the ‘campus’ is subject to the perception of the community and to the surrounding observers – the city.
The difference begins here: Harvard is a town within a city. Various locations and spaces of the university overlap. That determines the special character of this campus type. Everything there seems to work perfectly, seductively inviting one to use it as a general blueprint for university development.
In Europe, university spaces and locations do not overlap. Thus, the European campus is another kind of campus, one that requires a rather differentiated search into the culture and identity of the surrounding city/society and in the collective consciousness – in combination with research into the respective university’s history, its institutional organisation and its academic community.
The founding of the American university was an essential part of the colonisation of a wild country. The first universities were the frontier of civilisation. Through the founding of universities, the religious Pilgrim Fathers attempted to model a better world and an antipode to the Europe of morally rotten cities. Institutions like Harvard, Princeton and Berkeley were there before the surrounding cities. Education always meant civilisation and formation of a better man and society.
ven today, a fear of the city – of the uncontrollable – remains strong, exemplified through the suburbs and gated communities. American urbanisation means suburbs in combination with nodes of densification. The most notable kind of node is the campus. Distinguished from the environs, protected, well maintained and without the need to intermingle with the perilous surroundings. On campus, brilliant urban and landscape design and architecture can be found. This is where the future and the ideal of the American city are realised. Museums, theatres, libraries and collections were founded and remain on campus; research naturally finds its place here. And down the road, universities are home to major sports teams. Fear and monastic idealism have merged to create the American campus, the heart of American urbanisation.
The idea of ‘university’ is a European concept. The development of institutions with a universal approach to knowledge was the expression of a progress-orientated urban community with the need for intense exchange – thus the concept of unity of research and teaching.
European universities show impressive historical importance. Common to their development is that they were founded within existing urban societies and as a part of the surrounding city. They represented the ruling order and contributed to the reputation of the sovereign.
University and city grew with mutual influence. Even today, they are tightly connected through student neighbourhoods and shared institutions. The city offers museums, theatres and public libraries, sports clubs and infrastructure, and the academic community uses them and becomes active in them. The European city and university are unified. While in the US, you study at Harvard (in the city of Cambridge), in Europe you study at the University of Frankfurt.
The institutional structure of the European university reflects its main purpose: State-run, it is optimised for efficient mass education. With one professor as the core, ‘chairs’ offer specialised teaching and research. Departments are weak bodies, self-governed by the chairs, with the dean as the rotating (approximately every two years) ‘first amongst equals’. The central bureaucracy is strong, administering all funds. In this system, students have to be independent and ‘grown up’. They shop around for the education that best fits their personal study goals. They consider the university as a workplace. Entering the university is the beginning of their professional life.
The typical built structure of the European university is comprised of large inner city complexes combined with post-war satellite areas, designed to accommodate the student masses of the scientific revolution.
Universities have to compete through excellence in their fields but are always in danger of being accused of wasting tax money if spending becomes visible from the outside.
American universities, on the contrary, form academic villages. “But the founders were resolute in the collegiate belief that higher education is fully effective only when students eat, sleep, study, worship and play together in a tight community” (Turner, 1984, p. 23). Thomas Jefferson’s design for the University of Virginia in Charlottesville shows the ‘Professors’ Houses’ surrounding the central campus: Here, professors and students live and work together forming an academic family and village. These ‘villages’ are governed by a strong dean and managed by a central administration.
The built structure of this village is important for carrying its image and ideas. A tradition of buildings by famous designers offers landmarks to the outside world and points of identification for the members of the academic community. The buildings express the spirit and the achievements of the institution.
The housing facilities are one of the most important components of the American campus. Most of the venerable buildings surrounding Harvard yard are undergraduate dorms – a fact that is very surprising to European visitors. Far away from their homes the – in many cases only 17 years old – undergraduates find a surrogate family in the American college system. Living together and socialising while taking responsibility and learning thus form the undergrad curriculum.
he on-campus housing forms the special character and the 24 hour-liveliness of the American campus – a quality that the European campus will never be able to achieve on university locations.
Harvard may be brilliant and attractive. However, even though it is more difficult to spot, the European ‘campus’ exists, is alive and is worth further development! It is a space intertwined with the surrounding city, neighbourhoods and their culture and infrastructure. In university cities like Tübingen or Florence, the entire city takes on a ‘light’ university lifestyle and in Munich and Barcelona, the university shapes residential neighbourhoods, a bar scene and cultural activities, and creates an active street life.
Unfortunately, public opinion did not recognise this ‘secret’ until it was endangered. The University of Frankfurt planned to create the ‘Harvard of Europe’ by moving from its embedded location to three remote campus areas. When one visits these newly built places on a Saturday it is notable: closed gates, empty, guarded. This is not a campus but an empty hull, lacking the proper history and background. Now that the students have moved away from the old locations, action groups have formed to ‘save’ the university character of the neighbourhoods.
Harvard as a place does not work in Europe. It rather endangers the variety, the cultural qualities and the special charm of the European university campus.
To further develop this European campus we recommend three main points of action:
Above all, it is important to agree on the general rule: The space of a university is its campus. This space by far exceeds the sum of the locations of the university and is only functional as a whole. Where, as is the case with most European universities, university and city are complexly intertwined it becomes challenging to describe the campus. The European university is not an island in the city; its space overlaps large city neighbourhoods. Campus development thus becomes a matter of collaboration between university and city developers and planners. This collaboration between university and city planners is urgent and essential and mutually beneficial for the development of both the European university and the European city!
¹ This definition of ‘campus’ as ‘space’ is based on the relational understanding of space described by Prof. Martina Löw. She understands space as the relational order of social goods and people in a certain place. This perception of space connects the structuring, static and ordering function of space with its genesis and permanent change (Löw 2001).
One typical difference between the American and the European campus is that the American has grown step by step in large and medium-sized urban-like building structures, whilst in Europe, we have more often built large teaching complexes in one go. Here, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Princeton University shown on the same scale.University planning started in the mid-19th century with the development of modern science. Up until the last decade, planning was characterised by the vision of one compact university located on the city’s edge. From then on, a new development has emerged, in which city and university are developed together
The extension of the Danish university sector via planning follows the expansion of the cities and first saw the light of day around the mid-19th century. Prior to that, university extension was more of an ad hoc activity, based on current needs and the few available plots of land in medieval towns. To a great extent, the university sector’s expansion follows the development of modern science. Old buildings were not adequate for housing the new functions.
University planning in Denmark started with the University of Copenhagen. In contrast to other European city universities, it was decided to move parts of the University of Copenhagen out to released areas by Rosenborg Bastion. The Botanical Garden was established here, as were the Observatory and a number of other university buildings close to the Municipal Hospital.
Then followed the relocation of the Veterinary College from Christianshavn in 1856 to the open country at Frederiksberg. The school which is today known as The Faculty of Life Sciences was established in the manor-like building designed by the Danish architect Bindesbøll. At the same time, the College of Advanced Technology (now Denmark’s Technical University) was established on open embankment areas by Sølvtorvet square.
The establishment of Aarhus University at the beginning of the 1920s would become a significant manifestation of how universities were moved out into the provinces. The government wanted to improve educational possibilities in the provinces by means of a university in Jutland. In contrast to the universities in Copenhagen, the new university was to offer a world with accommodation, teaching and social life all in one place. In other words, a classical campus plan following the Anglo-Saxon model:
“One very important means to giving character to the university is (...) that the new university to as great extent as possible becomes a college university, i.e. that the university not only offers students teaching, but also has at its disposition student hostels where the students can live.”
“The university complex should, as a whole, be better than that of the University of Copenhagen, though beautiful and with an open landscape. The students’ physical and personal well-being should be catered for, not only by means of the student hostels, but also by means of facilities for feeding the students, sports fields etc.”¹
The universities’ development on the edge of the city continues up through the 1940s. The College of Advanced Technology, now located at the centre of the city due to the expansion of the city, tries to expand at this stage. However, a new building complex in the city centre immediately proves too small. Consequently, the Ministry of Education plans for the university to be moved outside Copenhagen. This happens in the course of the 1960s, when they move to an open area in the town of Lyngby, with good parking facilities, as it is expected that the students will primarily drive to the university by car!
The 1960s saw a significant growth, both in the number of students and in the demand for academic labour. The government decided to build a third university in Denmark. Odense University, today known as the University of Southern Denmark, was designated as a supplement to Copenhagen and Aarhus.
And suddenly, development took off. Even before Odense University had been established, the Danish Parliament decided that it would not be sufficient to absorb the expected rapid growth in student intake. As a result, it was decided as a part of national planning to strengthen business development regionally by establishing two, maybe three further universities across the country.
The new universities were placed outside city centres, as this was the only place a sufficiently large compact area could be acquired. Aalborg was designated as the location for one of the universities. Roskilde was named as the other, as this would best relieve the pressure on the University of Copenhagen.
The universities were planned without residence halls, as the idea that students should spend both their study time and their spare time in the same place was losing support. It was now considered important that students participated actively in society, and that they should be integrated in ordinary housing rather than in residence halls on campus. The Danish Act on Residence Hall Construction was repealed, and instead, priority was given to youth residences for all youngsters in process of training.
Out of the three new university areas that were planned from the 1970s, Odense University was the first to be built. 4 km from the city centre, without residences or any other functions close to the university. From then on, a growing desire for city integration became evident. Roskilde University was designed to be surrounded by residences and businesses, but with a clear division between the individual functions. Later on, Aalborg University was designed as a city-integrated university in a new suburb. The university was built in enclaves with the largest possible interface to other functions. However, today it is evident that the original intentions about creating an urban context in these three cases only succeeded to a limited extent.
At the same time, space for the inner city faculties at the University of Copenhagen became so cramped that the Faculty of Humanities was temporarily moved to the island of Amager – known today as KUA. Many people think incorrectly that the buildings were constructed for temporary use. They were, however, constructed as normal buildings, but with a general purpose so that they could later be used for other purposes, should the university at a later stage be gathered outside Copenhagen, as plans had it.
The number of students continued to grow. As a consequence, in the mid-1990s, the Danish Parliament drew up a new plan of action for the universities, called ‘Growing Universities’. It marked the beginning of large extensions in the university area and implied the allocation of DKK 500 million annually for new construction over a 10-year period.
In that connection, KUA was extended and modernised, and its location was made permanent. The plans for the future Øre-stad district had all of a sudden turned the university complex into a part of an entirely new quarter of the city, with direct metro access. The new district would house a significant amount of buildings, including the DR-byen (the national broadcasting corporation’s headquarters) and the IT University as neighbours and good opportunities for synergy. The decision to retain the University of Copenhagen, Amager (KUA), meant that the plans to move the university out of the city were finally abandoned. The idea of gathering the university in one place was abandoned, too. This idea was, however, followed through in other places as the opportunity arose.
Copenhagen Business School had been very spread out, but it was joined together in a section of the Frederiksberg district between two new metro stations. Similarly, the artistic educational programmes in Copenhagen were gathered on the island of Holmen in a former military area centrally located in the city. The development of the area also included construction of residential areas and the Copenhagen Opera House.
Aarhus University was kept together, particularly because the government managed to acquire large building complexes in the vicinity, and because the Aarhus University Foundation Construction Company purchased areas and buildings for innovation and IT in the Katrinebjerg neighbourhood close to the University Park. Plans about moving Aalborg University out of the city were finally abandoned.
Up until the year 2000, all university buildings were placed at the universities’ disposition by the government on the basis of needs analyses. In 2000, most of the universities were brought under the SEA scheme (the Governmental Property Administration), according to which the Danish University and Property Agency serves as property owner and property letter in relation to the universities. The universities receive governmental grants for payment of their rent, but they are free to manage the properties. The SEA scheme provides an incentive to utilise and rationalise the use of the area and the opportunities for construction according to need. Savings on area rationalisation can be put to use in research and education.
Recent years have also seen a significant organisational concentration of the universities in order to accommodate internationalisation and increasing international competition. In 2005, the government initiated a development process within the universities and the governmental sector research institutions. This has led to a series of mergers, reducing the number of universities in Denmark from 12 to 8, whilst the number of sector research institutions has been reduced from 13 to 3. In the coming years, the organisational concentration will be followed by a physical concentration, whereby university facilities will be gathered in fewer locations.
One significant challenge in university planning over the coming years will be to ensure expansion options for the universities – particularly in urban settings.
The global challenge within research and education has led the government to allocate more funds for publicly financed research. This will result in the construction of more buildings in years to come, not least laboratory facilities. The laboratories that were built 30-40 years ago are ready for modernisation. The laboratories account for some 800,000 m2, or approx. 40 % of the total university areas. Out of these, only about 200,000 m2, are new or newly renovated (built/renovated within the last 10 years).
Given the increase in research funds and the mergers, several of the universities face new and extensive challenges to create space for future growth. Especially because other university related functions must be added to the university areas, so that they will appear as attractive academic city quarters.
From the 1990s and onwards there has been great pressure to move the universities towards the city centre, as experience shows that it is difficult to create life on the edge of the city. But space in the city is cramped, and both Aarhus University and the University of Copenhagen have limited expansion options within their own area boundaries. Consequently, the universities, the government and the municipalities are now making plans for future development. The planning involves the municipalities to a higher degree than previously, because their goodwill is necessary when the universities acquire plots of land and make plans outside their own areas in the urban environment.
One of the results is a new campus plan for the University of Copenhagen, which concentrates four campus areas in city quarters: South Campus, City Campus, North Campus and Frederiksberg Campus. The division into campuses is based on academic subjects, i.e. each campus accommodates educational programmes at all levels as well as research within a general subject field. The University of Southern Denmark has chosen the same model for its campuses, which are located in the towns of Odense, Sønderborg, Kolding and Esbjerg.
Similarly, Aarhus University has just prepared its visionary plan for the next 20 years, placing a further 300,000 m2 in the urban area around the existing University Park in Aarhus. The intention is to gather all bachelor programmes here, whilst the graduate programmes, PhD programmes and research will be located in the University Park and at 15 research units spread in urban communities around Denmark.
The government and the universities are currently attempting to create attractive campus environments throughout the country. They should both contain the environment and facilities of the city and at the same time offer the qualities inherent in an academic campus. This means a high concentration of academic facilities, innovation facilities, residences for visiting lecturers and exchange students in urban environments – and this will require a lot of space.
The first challenge will be to create a medical and scientific city quarter in the northern part of Nørrebro in Copenhagen, an already completely built-up area.
¹ C. F. Møller, The Buildings of Aarhus University), 1978
This section poses the question of how to create a world-class campus. It is illustrated by means of examples from a series of studies of Danish and international campus areas carried out by the Danish University and Property Agency under the auspices of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
The section provides numerous examples of universities that use the physical framework strategically in order to become even more attractive and functional. They physically open up to the surrounding world and gain a physical presence and identity in the cityscape, whilst at the same time involving the municipality and local environment in sustainable planning. Additionally, the examples demonstrate how functionalities beyond the mere academic ones – such as innovation environment and accommodation for international students and researchers – strengthen the university.
The section as a whole outlines the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation´s view of the physical qualities and functionalities that a world-class campus should contain.
Which qualities and functionalities does such a campus have? And how is it designed and organised physically? The Danish University and Property Agency under the Ministry of Science has carried out a series of studies of Danish and international campus areas in order to shed light on these questions. The result is a series of inspiring examples of universities that use the physical framework strategically in order to become even more attractive and functional. They combine to provide six snapshot images of what a world-class campus should contain, and how it is planned and run
Modern-day universities have a physical presence and identity in the urban landscape. The studies show that many European universities, which are typically planned as mono-functional zones with a focus on academic activities, are now opening up their areas to the surrounding world.
The typical European campus is built outside the city centre without integrated functions for other purposes than the university’s teaching and research. It often consists of large cohesive building complexes, which have been built in one go or just a few stages. The buildings are functionally designed solely for teaching and research in the daytime. For this reason, residences shops, sports facilities and child care centres are not normally included in the structure.
This type of university can be seen in many places around Denmark, e.g. Roskilde University or the University of Southern Denmark. Earlier complexes such as Aarhus and the North Campus in Copenhagen follow the same model, although today they are located centrally in an urban area. However, at the time when Aarhus University and North Campus were established, they too were located outside the city centres. They were also constructed as large uniform mono-functional building masses.
Currently, there are many Danish and international examples of attempts at physically opening up these enclaves of university buildings in order to create a multi-functional and academic quarter. This is illustrated by the five campus cases described in this book. The purpose in each of the cases is to inspire students to spend more time on campus and at the same time open up campus so that it also physically invites the surrounding community to take part in knowledge, experiences and learning.
This tendency should be seen in the light of the fact that many universities until recent years were obliged to supply two services, i.e. education and research, to society in turn for the funds placed at their disposal by the government. A more recent requirement to many universities, including those in Denmark, is that now they also have to ensure knowledge dissemination. The obligation to communicate knowledge is evident in the planning. It is essential that the universities open up physically to the surrounding world in order to communicate and also to justify their existence.
To several universities, the ambition is to become a bustling city quarter, open 24 hours a day, and with activities late in the evenings. However, reality shows that in practice there is no basis for achieving this in the short term.
As an example, ETH Zürich now works strategically to extend the period with activities at the university by focusing on the weekend. There is no teaching during the weekend, and consequently everything is normally closed; however, during the weekends, the locals have the time and inclination to visit the campus. So, ETH now arranges academic activities, including tours of the laboratories, a children’s chess club and ScienceTalk with well-known researchers. And all this goes on during the weekend. Everything takes place in a purpose-designed exhibition building located centrally and visibly on the campus.
Naturally, the many visitors have resulted in a need for cafés that are open during the weekends, and thus it has started a positive spiral: The cafés and the visitors make it more appealing to the students to visit the university during the weekend, and ETH has seen an increasing number of students who go and work on campus during the weekend.
The studies solely show examples of universities that would like to be considered places that can be entered and visited. Even American elite universities strive for this openness. It is generally considered a means to spreading knowledge and creating greater understanding and visibility, indirectly justifying the existence of the university.
Some establish physical exhibition buildings in the centre in order to reach an audience that would otherwise never visit the university. The reputable architecture and art school Pratts in Brooklyn, NY, for instance, presents its students’ work in its own exhibition building, which is located centrally in Manhattan, where many people have the opportunity to stop by.
The University of Manchester has set up information hoardings along major roads, announcing today’s public lectures and other events on campus. They indicate time and place and encourage participation. These are initiatives that make it easy for outsiders to spontaneously visit the university. New York University is another example of this. It is located as an integrated part of urban life on Manhattan and has lectures in what resembles shop premises. Anybody can follow a lecture and even enter and participate, and in that way, the university’s work becomes more relevant in a very direct sense.
As mentioned in the opening articles, American campus areas, which have a tradition of closing themselves against the surroundings in practice, are now in several places working on physically opening gates and creating opportunities for insight and enlightenment. This is currently happening at Columbia University, which in its ‘Manhattan Village Project’ rents out shop premises on the ground floor to businesses that are related to the university. This means, that a public medical practice for brain examinations may move into the very house in which the university’s brain researchers are teaching and researching etc.
In Denmark, the University of Copenhagen’s North Campus is currently planning an international competition about a holistic plan, which will open up the areas and create greater interplay with the surrounding city. The university’s Faculties of Science and Health Sciences would like to develop the city quarter under the theme ‘Health and Knowledge’ in collaboration with the Rigshospitalet hospital, the Municipality and the Parken national stadium. Today, the area appears fragmented and in parts not very accessible because of very busy roads. The University of Copenhagen wishes to use the knowledge and activity generated in and around the campus to develop the neighbourhood physically and mentally.
The universities’ activities can also be communicated via art. The University of Copenhagen’s Frederiksberg Campus and the Holmen Campus for the artistic educational programmes in Copenhagen have just finished the preparation of art plans that integrate art on campus. The art plans describe a joint idea for the role of art within the campus area and aims at communicating and making professional competencies visible. The work of art also gives the public a reason for visiting campus.
The universities are met by demands for greater openness and relevance to the surrounding world. Naturally, this places new demands on building functions and on campus itself, and it makes it necessary to view university planning on an even larger scale than before.
One tangible challenge when turning mono-functional campus areas multi-functional is that nowadays, universities often do not have the authority to house functions that go beyond actual university functions. This is a tradition that is also seen in other parts of Europe. It is necessary to work on making it possible to integrate kindergartens, residential areas or shops on campus. At any rate, contemporary physical campus planning must be worked out in interplay with the surrounding city as well as its functions and users. A larger and more complex scale than before.
Modern universities have a written strategy and policy for the physical study environment and campus. And they act accordingly. The study shows that students and staff experience the study environment at the universities that have clearly phrased a strategy and policy for the physical campus environment as more attractive than those universities that do not have a strategy. Most often, the strategy is an expression of the management’s support and recognition of physical planning as a part of a management toolbox.
Lancaster University is situated outside large city areas and therefore it has to make a special effort to attract students. A couple of years ago, the university decided to invest in a programme for significant upgrading of the building mass. The university has risen considerably in British university rankings for its good study environment, and today, its marketing focuses on an appealing social environment supported by a good physical framework for both study and accommodation on campus.
Several universities have acknowledged that it takes extra manpower to convert physical strategies into action. In many cases, the strategy cannot simply be implemented as an extra task in the everyday building service. Competences completely different to those normally available in the service department may be required. At ETH Zürich, for instance, a group has been established to ensure and manage the implementation of a large master plan. The group includes both a researcher with a background in physics and a communication consultant.
CBS in Denmark has written a strategy for the physical conditions, and at the same time, CBS uses design as a strategic tool for campus upgrading. According to CBS, they spend a tad more on design and planning because they recognise its significance.1 This focus is clearly noticeable when you visit the Frederiksberg Campus, which appears inviting and modern, in keeping with the signal CBS wishes to send.
Inspiration may be found in e.g. the way in which the Ørestad Nord Gruppen2 uses physical planning in the strategic development of an area in Copenhagen. This is an interest group whose secretariat arranges large and small activities around the city area, which also includes the University of Copenhagen. Ørestad Nord Gruppen targets local residents as well as private and public companies in the new city district. The group counts on both architecture and communication capacities and experiments with e.g. how to utilise temporary city spaces or how to set up sports and spare time activities.
To several universities in the study, the challenge seems to be that physical planning – as in many other types of organisation – is not generally considered and accepted as a development tool, although focus on this is increasing. This also means that funds are not always allocated for the implementation of the strategies. It takes resources and manpower to create and realise a holistic plan.
This is evident both on a large scale, as in the ETH example, and on a small scale. At some Danish universities, managers or employees with a background in architecture serve as alert, aesthetic eyes. They move around campus and take responsibility for ensuring that e.g. interior design, lighting and signposting work as intended. Their presence also ensures that the ideas behind great strategies are communicated professionally to the users.
The modern university is in close dialogue with its surroundings. It needs the support and goodwill of the local community to complete its plans. Studies show that the planning process is changing. Formerly, it was common to prepare master plans that indicated possible construction fields, heights and building volume for the coming maybe 20 or 30 years. This made it possible to incorporate the master plan into the municipality’s district plan once and for all.
Today, however, master plans are often replaced by holistic or visionary plans with less specific frameworks such as guidelines, and with a shorter lifespan, e.g. 10-15 years. This combination of a gradual change in the planning method and a shorter time limit means that more and more often, universities may need to request changes to e.g. the municipalities’ district plans in order to complete their building works. This requires a continual and constructive dialogue between the universities and the authorities. Naturally, this does not just apply to a local level, as university planning to a higher degree should also be considered at a regional and a national level in order to ensure a holistic cohesion. Traffic planning is a good example of this. The establishment of a new metro ring is thought of in connection with campus planning, so that it will not only serve residential areas but also large university areas.
The campus cases in this book represent different planning pro-cesses and ways of involving interested parties. MIT, for instance, applies a model they call ‘Real-Time Planning’, which is an ad hoc planning process, in which the outlook is a maximum of five years. The focus is more on reductions and individual buildings than on large perspectives, such as a general improvement of outdoor spaces. The weakness of this method is that it fails to create unity and cohesive experiences between the individual buildings. This is evident at MIT, where the gap between the houses – from a Danish point of view – is poorly utilised, and only a few places invite you to spend any time there. MIT is known for using world famous architects through the years to design building works full of identity, but the buildings appear as individual lighthouses rather than as a harmonious whole. The real-time planning method’s focus on the individual building does, however, fit in well with the American funding form, which is based on sponsorships. If a sponsor spontaneously offers to finance a specific building, e.g. a swimming pool or a new laboratory, the method makes it easy to quickly integrate new building projects.
Another example is ETH in Zürich, which chose to involve inte-rested parties a mere three months after they had the first idea for a comprehensive transformation of their campus. They prepared a draft to visualise the idea of a dense campus area and used this to enter into dialogue with people and organisations who might have a political or financial interest in the project. The dialogue created the foundation for a master plan competition, which provided guidelines for construction within specific building fields in the future. This process had the advantage that the university, without making large investments, could quickly enter into a dialogue and ensure financial and political backing to realise their vision.
A third model is used by the University of Copenhagen’s Frederiksberg Campus. Through a one-year vision process, they have established the basis for realising a step-by-step extension of the campus. The process has examined three sides of campus at three different levels. A sort of matrix process, in which the focus was to create an overview of and a hierarchy between the various interested parties’ information about and visions for the place. The intention was to establish approved guidelines for further development. The advantage of the process is that it makes it possible to include a lot of knowledge and involve a lot of partners at different levels, all at once.
So far, many campus areas in Denmark have had holistic plans elaborated, which in great detail indicated construction fields and heights for buildings that might not be built within the next 10 years. As can be seen, the content of a ‘strategic holistic plan’ is currently undergoing change. The examples show how universities to a higher degree require frameworks and rules according to which future buildings can be designed. Regardless of the choice of process model, they all require a close dialogue with the municipality and local partners.
The universities also see themselves in a new light in relation to the surroundings. It is no longer sufficient to phrase what they can do for students, researchers and business community. The universities now also articulate to a higher degree how they can contribute to the city or the area. Universities should be an important component in a knowledge city.
This is a new self-understanding, and it requires collaboration with local authorities and players. The University of Copenhagen, for instance, is currently working on developing the North Campus between the districts of Nørrebro and Østerbro in Copenhagen. The intention is to physically open up campus so that it interacts with the surrounding city quarters. To the University of Copenhagen, this means that in collaboration with the Municipality of Copenhagen, building owners and a number of large institutions and businesses in the area, they are currently establishing the basis for a joint vision plan for the district.
It is a challenge to ensure the goodwill and attention of local politicians and civil servants. Many municipalities are preoccupied with how the residential areas develop, and they are not necessarily interested in the needs of knowledge-heavy businesses and educational programmes. Alsion, the knowledge and cultural centre of the University of Southern Denmark in South Jutland encompasses a university, a research park, a foundation-funded concert hall for the local symphony orchestra and a ticket office for Danish Rail in one large building. This is a good example of a type of planning that could not take place without close collaboration with authorities and other partners. The university develops best physically if the municipality and local environment perceive a strategic advantage in the presence of the university.
The modern university needs opportunities for quick reaction to changing circumstances. In brief, there needs to be space for enrolment of more students, new research units, start-up projects etc. Studies from other countries show that facilities such as science centres, student centres, parks or incubator environments for young researchers contribute positively to a holistic campus area. They create opportunities for e.g. coupling study jobs and practical assignments closer to the teaching, thereby easing the transition from study life to work life. It is essential to be able to create space for such environments on campus in the future.
At MIT, private research companies have settled in the university’s periphery in areas owned by MIT. The university deliberately invests in areas around the campus area. Partly in order to invest with a view to profit, partly to secure the area for future expansions. It also gives the university the opportunity to build buildings for spin-offs, incubator environments and private companies with which they want to collaborate.
Lancaster University is a public university financed partly by the British government and partly by the university’s own income. The university owns buildings and the land on which it stands and rents out some of the buildings to private businessmen. Lancaster has 6,000 resident students on campus and needs many grocery stores because of its isolated location. One of the tasks of the university’s property manager is to control retail trade on campus, so that retail, residential and teaching areas supplement each other in terms of needs and contents. Among other things he sets up commercially run cafés, which are converted into non-profit student-run places at night, or he offers a cheap rent to a Red Cross charity shop, because it ensures that students donate their furniture and other items instead of dumping them as rubbish, which the university then has to clear away by the end of term. To Lancaster University, the flexibility is not found in their being property owners. They consider this to be of minor significance. Instead, the possibility of renting out to others and thereby creating a profit is of primary significance.
Danish universities are subject to a rent scheme, which implies that governmental institutions within e.g. the research and teaching field pay rent for the buildings they use, most of which are let by the Danish University and Property Agency. This gives the universities flexibility, as they can terminate a lease at short notice, if they do not need it or require it for expansion.
Aarhus University additionally collaborates with a property company under the auspices of the Aarhus University Research Foundation. The company constructs buildings and then lets them out, primarily to the university. The property company has been an active player in the extension of computer scientific learning and research environments at the Katrinebjerg area, which were bought and developed by the company. The property company lets out areas to both businesses and Aarhus University. Consequently, several subjects within the institute of computer science today coexist side by side with private consultancies from the IT sector.
When it comes to being able to act quickly to changing area and functional needs on campus, the challenge is an increased risk and financial uncertainty. For instance, it may be difficult for universities to be bound to an area which they are not sure that they will be able to let out, e.g. to small newly started businesses. The physical presence creates synergy and is decisive when a university expands. It may mean increased focus on the existence of e.g. cheap and flexible areas with low operating costs.
The modern university not only offers attractive learning and research environments, but also attractive accommodation options for its foreign visitors. The studies indicate that several universities, also Danish ones, consider the number of foreign visitors on campus as directly proportional to the number of attractive residences for foreign researchers and students. The residences are a significant key in a strategic effort to establish an international study and research environment. Residences also ensure life on campus and are therefore included as an urban development factor for the campus.
Foreign universities work with residences on campus to a much higher degree than Danish universities. American and Anglo-Saxon universities in particular consider housing options along with the educational programme, but universities from the European mainland are also interested in integrating housing on or around campus.
There are historical and cultural reasons why Danish/European students and researchers primarily live outside campus, as Wilhelm and Elbe describe in their article. A typical Danish campus – in contrast to an American – is built as a place of work, and it is situated as a supplement to the city, just as business areas are. This explains why housing, shopping facilities and varied cultural spare time offers for young people are not a natural feature around campus as it is seen in the USA. In Denmark, we also have a cultural desire to make young people independent, including by giving them a life where they are physically away from studies and teaching. Similarly, it is traditional that researchers and teachers do not spend their spare time at the university, but instead participate in social life and make use of the cultural offers outside the university. In spite of these fundamental differences it is, however, worth noticing a couple of housing initiatives abroad, as the ideas can be transferred to e.g. accommodation for foreign students or visiting researchers in Denmark.
Many American universities such as MIT, where 40 % of the undergraduate students are foreigners, deliberately attempt to make student life merge with private life. This is done, for instance, by integrating learning and group rooms at the residence halls, which are also used for teaching. This is a structure known in Denmark from the folk high schools, where learning and spare time also merge. MIT considers housing a good way of ensuring quick integration, which is particularly important to a researcher or student who is only visiting for a short time.
MIT also deliberately locates attractive researcher family accommodation in buildings where students live, in order to further contact in that way. This is supported by activities such as offers about communal eating. In practice, this means that the researcher and his/her family feel at home among the students, and that discussions continue after class in a more private setting. MIT has experienced better and quicker integration between visiting researchers and students as a result of the researcher being accommodated at residence halls on campus.
ETH Zürich is planning to construct a number of four-room housing options on campus, because they would like to have an attractive offer for students and foreign researchers with a family. They are financed by sponsors and will be rented out via a property company. The accommodation is deliberately designed as four-room units so that they can be used either for flat sharing with three to four students or as spacious researcher family units. This will also make them attractive to ordinary families, so that in times of recession the units might be let out to interested parties in the area.
In Denmark, a number of new, attractive foundation-funded student hostels have been built in Copenhagen, including the Bikuben and the Tietgen on the University of Copenhagen’s South Campus in the Ørestaden district. The offer here is attractive independent accommodation for young people, with the chance of interacting with peers. The interest in these housing units seems to be growing among students, and this probably means that this type of network accommodation, where you benefit from the resources of each other, is generally gaining popularity among Danish youth. However, these student hostels are built by donors without the involvement of the university or anybody else.
One of the challenges when offering accommodation to foreign visitors is to clarify who owns and runs the residences. In Denmark, the municipalities are generally under obligation to provide housing, but not particularly responsible for resolving this kind of housing issue. The universities can rent from private people, but experience – particularly from the capital – shows that typically, Danish universities cannot afford to rent appropriate accommodation close to campus, as the basic price here is typically too high. Another aspect is the relatively large amount of practical work that goes into finding accommodation on the private market – especially for visiting researchers who only visit for, say, a couple of months.
The modern university has a strategy for its sustainable effort and it acts accordingly. The examples in this book show that sustainability far from being mere political correctness to the universities is an opportunity to save money in the long term. Danish universities must take the lead and ensure a sustainable strategy.
A good example of a successful organisation that has worked with this theme from an early stage is the ‘Harvard Green Initiative’, which was founded in 2000. The office has some 20 professional full-time employees who for a couple of years influence all building projects, for instance by making sure the environmentally correct American certification LEED is obtained and that the university’s users are trained.
Training may consist in creating a ‘peer-to-peer workshop’ for kitchen staff or students, in which they talk to each other and compete about who can save the most. Students from different academic subjects are recruited to be green ambassadors and get paid to turn up every two weeks to be taught concrete measures, which they can implement and pass on to their fellow students at the residence halls, e.g. saving water or turning off the light. Harvard has 10,000 resident students on campus, so the savings are significant.
This means that the people employed in the initiative work as a cross between practical caretakers who have water savers installed in the showers in the residence halls, and strategists who communicate the greater picture both downwards to the users and upwards to the management. All employees are self-financed in the sense that the university pays them as sustainability consultants who ensure environmental certification in reconstruction and new construction cases. It turns out that the additional expenditure for consultants and building costs are recovered through operational savings.
The Danish University and Property Agency is currently building its first CO2 neutral building at the University of Copenhagen’s North Campus. The Green Lighthouse will consume 22 kWh / m2, corresponding to 80 % less than prescribed by the Building Code. As a general rule, the Agency’s new strategy for the energy area establishes as a minimum to build in low energy class 1, which is 50 % below the Building Code.
In the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s essay competition about the physical framework for student environments at the country’s universities, students indicate that they find it a struggle ‘to be allowed’ to engage in sustainable work on campus. Both employees at Danish universities and the people behind the Harvard Green Initiative have also experienced how difficult it is to involve the students. Typically, they have very little understanding of the university’s organisation, and therefore it is difficult for them to act within it.
A considerable challenge remains in thinking sustainability into every step of the university’s operation and work. That being said, examples show that it is difficult to organise and systematise sustainable efforts at the universities. It is a laborious work with a lot of stages, and there are only very few models to follow. In an article in this book, the founder of Harvard Green Initiative, Leith Sharp, encourages universities to use sustainability as an opportunity to undergo a systemic transformation. She believes that they should move from being teaching and researching organisations to being learning organisations, too, which can professionally handle the transformation processes implied by sustainability.
How do we then create a world-class campus? Urbanity, sustainability, residences and the inclusive planning process each contributes and each expresses the same: It is all about using the physical framework and planning strategically and professionally to handle some of the challenges facing the universities.
This article is based on information from studies that can all be downloaded from the website of the Danish University and Property agency at www.ubst.dk /projekt Campus
¹ Rector Finn Junge, theme meeting at the Danish University and Property Agency, June 2007
In this section, five campus cases combine to provide an idea of how international and Danish universities work with physical campus planning. These particular campus areas were chosen because they handle current challenges, which several other universities are also facing in their physical campus planning. ETH Zürich’s focus is urban integration, Harvard’s is sustainability, University of Copenhagen focuses on inclusion and art, Lancaster aims at the good student life, and MIT’s focus is on a planning process that furthers iconic architecture.
The five cases represent different campus typologies: An open campus, such as Lancaster University, which is surrounded by fields. A campus on the edge of the city, which strives to be integrated into the city, such as ETH. And finally, a campus that is integrated into the city, exemplified by Harvard University, University of Copenhagen and MIT. Common to all five cases is the fact that they deal with urbanity and the desire to open up and physically make the university visible in society. Their diffe-rent approaches result in their opening up in completely different ways. Some universities strive to integrate themselves into the city. In the case of others, the city is too far away, and therefore they create urbanity on the actual campus.
Each case consists of a campus analysis. This illustrates how the university is organised, how buildings and urban spaces as well as social and professional life work together, and finally, it describes the future strategies for the campus. The analysis is supplemented by amplifying interviews with people who are involved in the planning.
The cases may contribute as inspiration when universities, authorities and consultants create the campus areas of the future.
The ETH Hönggerberg (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich) campus was built after the Second World War on the outskirts of Zürich, 15 minutes’ drive by car from the city centre. The university wishes to turn the mono-functional Hönggerberg into a lively knowledge neighbourhood in Zürich. This development takes place within the framework of the Science City development project, which since 2003 has organised academic activities, communication and construction projects to open up the university to the surrounding world
| Hönggerberg, Zürich, Schweiz / | |
|---|---|
| Established | 1855; campus commenced in 1964 |
| Status | Federal university |
| Campus population | ETH Hönggerberg Campus: 5,500 people. In total 18,000 at ETH: 6,300 Bachelor’s degree students, 4,700 Master’s degree students, 3,000 PhD students and 4,000 technical and academic staff |
| Distance from the city | 7 km from the centre of Zürich (1.1 million inhabitants) |
| Subject areas | Engineering, Architecture, Humanities, Business, Science |
| Annual study fee | Approx. DKK 2,800 |
| Number of beds on campus | None |
ETH is one of two federal technical universities in Switzerland as opposed to regional institutes of learning in the cantons. The federal Swiss government therefore owns the ETH buildings, and as a consequence, the university can only lease areas and rooms to parties with no academic interests such as private businesses, cafés and shops in the Hönggerberg campus area. ETH does not have the option of purchasing areas or buildings that can later be built on or leased. ETH is developing its university in close collaboration with the city of Zürich (construction permits and general political support), the canton of Zürich (public transport and educational framework) and the federal government (finances and overall strategy).
ETH Hönggerberg was originally planned as a complex with large detached buildings of an almost industrial character intended exclusively for teaching and research. The university lies isolated in peaceful surroundings amongst fields and green woods.
As part of the Science City project, an urban space competition was held in 2005. The winner was a flexible urban strategy proposing high-density construction to ensure urban qualities. The idea that private and public zones should overlap and create interaction constitutes another main component. In the past, ETH had kept the subject areas separate, e.g. engineers in one building and architects in another. The current strategy is to mix the subject areas in the different buildings to promote better understanding between the subjects.
One of the most recent building projects has added a closed urban space to the campus in the form of a square. This square is now the central point of arrival and information and its urban character and local feel has made it very popular. The square is fitted out with large orange light-weight furniture that fills the spaces between the buildings. The furniture is a gesture that invites informal sojourns, playfulness and user influence.
It is ETH’s intention that Hönggerberg Campus should be more than just a place of work and study, and therefore tours and lectures are planned that target user groups living in surrounding city areas. ETH communicates about research and current academic topics to user groups that normally do not have the opportunity to participate in such events during the day. Because of the growing number of visitors over the weekend, the university’s canteens are now open on weekends. This has sparked a positive spiral, as it has now also become more attractive for students to spend time at the university over the weekend.
Science City is also a learning project and the university includes the campus development in its curriculum and research projects. A research project at ETH about campus development, for instance, communicates knowledge about planning and sustainable campus development to other universities around the world.
A large international conference on sustainable campus development is held in April each year, which emphasises the central aspect of Science City: The intention is to make ETH Hönggerberg a sustainable urban area – and at the same time efforts are being made to use Science City as a starting point for the creation of an international sustainable network. Disseminating and initiating knowledge becomes an active component of the university profile.
The Science City project is to ensure that Hönggerberg becomes an ‘academic city area’ with more than just academic functions. The Science City project is a platform that the university uses to create a dialogue with authorities, inhabitants and interest groups about the development of the area, and the platform is also used to create the framework for a master plan, traffic, sustainability, financing, communication and maintenance.
Each year, new projects are added. There is a total of approx. 70 sub-projects under the umbrella. Current work involves new signage at the campus and publication of a digital monthly magazine about campus development. In addition, the first residential buildings on campus are being planned in an attempt to include more functions and daily rhythms in campus life. A thousand residential units are planned, typically four-room flats that can be used both as shared accommodation for students and as accommodation for visiting researchers. The residences are managed by the city’s housing association, and because of the way they are fitted out, they can also be let to other target groups, if relevant.
This chapter is an edited summary of the working paper ‘The campus area of the future’ by the Danish University and Property Agency and Juul|Frost Arkitekter.
Yvonne Wäger is a fourth-semester student of Environmental Studies
How much time do you spend at Hönggerberg campus each week?
I don’t really have a specific errand. A couple of Saturdays ago, I was on a tour of the campus and discovered how beautiful it is. So, I took my own class of pupils up here one day. We brought a bat and balls and played both rounders and volleyball. Afterwards, we walked through the medical garden and looked at plants from the Alps. On the way home, we bought ice cream in the small campus kiosk. Today, I am here with my own children, as I thought the shallow paddling pools would be ideal for them on such a hot day.
Which facilities do you use in addition to the academic facilities?
When I am at Hönggerberg, I always try to go to the sports centre. Last year, I was part of a rowing team where we received free training, but unfortunately I don’t have enough time this year because of my studies. In addition, I often go to the cinema on the campus in the city, when access there is free.
Do you know students from other subjects than your own?
I share a flat with other students from ETH; we all come from different subject areas. ETH has a central housing service that helps students find a place to live. By sharing a flat with other students, I have extended my network at university both academically and socially. In addition, Environmental Studies and Geology are located together, which has given me an opportunity to get to know other students.
Eveline Meier is a primary and lower secondary school teacher and has come to campus with her children and their friends to enjoy the good weather. She lives about 10 minutes from campus.
What is your errand here on campus today?
I don’t really have a specific errand. A couple of Saturdays ago, I was on a tour of the campus and discovered how beautiful it is. So, I took my own class of pupils up here one day. We brought a bat and balls and played both rounders and volleyball. Afterwards, we walked through the medical garden and looked at plants from the Alps. On the way home, we bought ice cream in the small campus kiosk. Today, I am here with my own children, as I thought the shallow paddling pools would be ideal for them on such a hot day.
So when you came here the first time, it was because of the many Science City initiatives? Yes, I read in the paper that there were a lot of new things happening here, and I decided to go to an open house event. The guide who showed us around was very enthusiastic, and as soon as I saw the orange furniture floating in the paddling pool, I thought my children would love that. So, here we are! I think the next time we come here will be for the ‘university day for children’ where they have chess for the little ones, among other things.
Henri Hagenmiller is a cross-disciplinary PhD student at the institutes of pharmaceutical sciences and mechanical engineering. Last year, the engineering degree programme moved from the city to Hönggerberg. Henri therefore divides his time between his office in the city and his desk in a major research cell at Hönggerberg
What do you think of Hönggerberg as a campus?
It is a huge contrast for me to work in a closed office in the city one day and in a research room with plenty of other people the next. But I actually like being at Hönggerberg because I meet more people in the research room than in the city where I sit completely on my own. On the other hand, the atmosphere is a bit more personal in the city. The new building here from 2004 is cold and sterile. All rooms have partitions, which can be moved around and nothing is permanent for any length of time. The good thing about it is that my desk is right next to my laboratory, and I therefore have quick access to experiments and results. I can also quickly get help from others. If I need to concentrate at Hönggerberg, I have to go to the library to find peace and quiet. I don’t need to do that at my office in the city.
Can you compare Hönggerberg with other universities?
I have also studied at a recognised American university – and I must say that the research facilities are actually much better here. A lot of money is obviously being invested in us, which makes it a pleasure to go to work in the morning. As regards non-academic programmes, however, we are way behind American standards. In that area, we still have a lot to learn.
Do you use any other university facilities?
I often use other machines at the university in connection with my research, but that's about it. I’m not very good at participating in social events, for example. Things happen here and there but I’m a bit too much of a university geek to participate. The only thing I really use is the café opposite the bus stop. There I can enjoy a cup of coffee and read the newspaper while waiting for the bus.
Interview Gerhard Schmitt, Vice President of Planning and Logistics at ETH
It took just three months from the time that the idea to radically transform the campus was conceived in 2003, until the vision was presented to the public. The Science City project aims to transform the mono-functional ETH campus into a living academic neighbourhood.
How did the process begin? What came before the vision?
Before the vision there was a pronounced need for a new campus. At the time, ETH had the majority of its buildings located in downtown Zürich – and an outpost at Hönggerberg in a recreational area. It was a collection of buildings used for research and teaching, there were no residential areas, no life, no campus in the proper sense of the word.
This was seen as a major shortcoming by both students and staff, and some of them would have preferred to move the entire university back to the city. This spurred the idea to radically regenerate and revitalise the outpost in such a way as to make the premises as good as – or even better – than moving the facilities to the city.
How many people were involved in this process?
Only very few people. I consulted with and was of course supported by a number of colleagues – but the actual decision was made by only a handful of people.
How long did it take?
What sort of information was used in this first draft proposal for the Science City? We already knew the functions – we knew for instance that we needed to build residential areas for students. The primary aim of the first proposal was to demonstrate the spatial effects. The draft plan played a crucial role in the further process, because we were able to use it as a basis for the discussions with our stakeholders.
What sort of information was used in this first draft proposal for the Science City?
We already knew the functions – we knew for instance that we needed to build residential areas for students. The primary aim of the first proposal was to demonstrate the spatial effects. The draft plan played a crucial role in the further process, because we were able to use it as a basis for the discussions with our stakeholders.
A sort of basis for dialogue?
Yes, exactly, a physical dialogue model! With this first spatial sketch we were able to communicate with the neighbours – the adjacent city quarters – and they were able to ask us more specific questions.
How, more specifically, did this dialogue take place?
We established so-called echo rooms – ‘Echo-räume’ – to permit participation also by groups that were not necessarily directly involved in our project – partly because we did not know them yet – such as NGOs, political parties, neighbours, neighbouring institutions, and so on. We discussed the various options and risks of the project – using the first draft model – all of which helped us clarify and improve our proposal.
Do you have some good advice for other universities facing similar challenges?
An absolutely decisive factor for us was the fact that we involved our stakeholders at the earliest possible stage of the process to tell them about our vision. In this, the initial draft proposal was a help, as it proved indispensable to our dialogue. We consider it important to focus on the stakeholders, because they have powers to halt the process in a very direct way. The Swiss principle of direct democracy means that even small groups can stop a proposal by voting against it. And this is the real wonder: We were able to overcome the initial doubts and questions when the project was first presented to our neighbours, and we were able to adjust the plans and give accommodating answers to them. There was not a single ‘Einsprache’ – formal objection – when the first buildings were presented. ETH is a federal – not a private – university. This means that the new neighbourhood is also intended to benefit the local residents. We feel obliged to make this their neighbourhood as well.
You then arranged a planning competition?
Yes, the dialogue phase provided the basis for arranging a competition in 2004, which was won by Kees Christiaanse. This gave us a Master Plan – which is not actually a Master Plan, but more like a set of Master Rules. As a result, we have the freedom to allow quite a few aspects to develop further along the way.
How do you convert the result of the competition into concrete work?
We have created a total of 60 modules, which together embrace the focal points of our vision: sports facilities, provisioning, housing, academic activities, etc. Within each module we have defined a number of sub-projects, which are realised in parallel. The sub-projects have different target groups and vary considerably in size, ranging from projects for outdoor lighting and signage to completely new buildings. And thanks to our modular structure, we are able to address many subordinate aspects at the same time.
Which are the essential factors for the success of the project in the realisation phase? How do you maintain the overall commitment and focus?
The fact that we have a – very – lean organisation is essential for the success. We have a small steering group, consisting of the project manager and the Vice Presidents responsible for infrastructure and finances. This means that there are very few people in the ‘inner circle’, and that the Board of ETH Zürich is responsible for ensuring that the project develops. Fortunately, we receive valuable support from our Strategic Advisory Board, which includes representatives from politics, science, local trade and industry.
At the same time we maintain a dialogue with peers from other countries who are dealing with similar issues. They come to see us from different parts of the globe – often from Asia – and we receive visitors from universities all over the world, from Berlin to Singapore, who are interested in the Science City Model. Together we discuss the possibilities and problems presented by this development. This takes place on professional as well as administrative levels, involving inter-university collaboration, and we learn very much from that. Following the planning aspects, I am now responsible for our international relations, and these areas go well together.
How do you address the financing issue?
We have two bodies who are responsible for obtaining financing for the Science City projects. The Board of ETH Zurich has the overall responsibility, and we collaborate with the independent ETH Foundation whose purpose is to support ETH. Members of both bodies talk to their contacts to seek the required financing. Generally, we have to settle the question of financing very quickly so that it does not bring the process to a halt. This is because it is a long and difficult process to obtain the required approvals of a building project. It must be approved by the university and the municipality – and at the level of the Swiss Parliament as well. As a result, we need to concretise the different aspects – including the matter of financing – of the buildings we want to build, at a very early stage in the process.
Is that the reason why you wanted a flexible plan?
The Master Rules played a very important role in relation to the financing. We knew right from the start that we would need external financing to accomplish our vision. This can lead to uncertainties as to what can be accomplished and when, so we needed to have a flexible plan that would allow different things to happen simultaneously. It is essential that things can occur in parallel, so that the entire pro-cess is not interrupted or put on hold, just because a single project has not fallen into place.
Are there any other aspects that help you in your fundraising efforts?
Our focus on sustainability has turned out also to be important for the ability to find external sources of financing. We have set a target stating that our CO2 emissions must be reduced by 50 % within the next decade. Since we have many existing buildings, the practical consequence is that the new buildings must all produce energy over the course of a year. This challenge has clearly helped us raise interest in contributing to the financing of our new energy-efficient buildings.
Mikala Holme Samsøe
ETH Zürich aims to become a ‘Neighbourhood of Thought Culture’ with many and diverse functions. To accomplish this ambition, the university is following a master plan that lays down the primary parameters for its future development. The plan is to ensure that the gradual expansion of the university proceeds with the maximum amount of freedom while at the same time ensuring a perfectly coherent result. Together with her team, Architect Ute Schneider from KCAP, is responsible for implementing the master plan she originally took part in designing
Since 2005, the new master plan has served as the basis of a project to restructure and expand the mono-functional ETH Hönggerberg campus from the 1960s. The new Science City at Hönggerberg is to become a modern, sustainable, academic neighbourhood of ‘Thought Culture’. The objective is to transform the campus from a place of mere learning and research, to a place where you live, shop, practise sports and attend cultural events.
The plan focuses on densification and sees the Science City as a compact system of mutually interacting, interdependent spaces. A system of atriums, courtyards and passageways ensures a convergence of private, semi-public and public spaces. The plan focuses more on the individual functions than on the constructed form.
The master plan you created for Science City consists of a set of guidelines for the creation of Our guidelines cover aspects of urban planning as well as exterior spaces. The urban planning rules define the acceptable building ratio for a given site as well as the building lines that must be observed in order to create streets and spaces to enable people to find their bearings. They define the maximum height and density of the buildings, and determine where passageways or perforations should be located.
The rules work well in practice, even though it took a while before they were fully accepted. There is a preference towards avoiding such rules, as building projects usually imply a certain financial pressure to maximise utilisation. For this reason alone, the urban planner has to fight for and explain the purpose of the rules. This applies primarily to the rules that deal with maximum building ratios or determine the appropriate street layouts and building heights to ensure the required light incident, as the purpose of such rules is not always clear.
The master plan aims to create a multitude of different functions on campus. Are there any practical barriers to creating this level of diversity? The objective of scattering residences around campus has been difficult to achieve, even though it is essential if you wish to bring some life into the area. It seems that there is a tendency to group similar functions together – even if that is not the way a city works. Also, the clients themselves tend to minimise the functional diversity.
You need to be persuasive to be allowed to implement service and shopping functions on campus. In connection with our plans for arranging a competition, for instance, the building department expressed certain reservations, asking which functions it would be sensible to have on campus in the first place, and arguing that in reality all that was needed was the kindergarten, which had already been proposed. Here, as a planner, you can exert a lot of influence in the planning phase and present proposals for functions like launderettes, shopping facilities or other facilities, which the students themselves may influence and take ownership for. Proposals that could also be reflected in the competition programmes.
We won an urban development test competition in 2004 [in which four companies participated], and on that basis were asked to design a master plan, which we worked on for nine months. We then prepared the legal basis [for a new local area plan] in collaboration with ETH and the city of Zürich. As a result, the building regulations now permit the Hönggerberg area to include residential functions as well, which was not possible under the city’s previous plan for the area.Leith Sharp, founding Director of HGCI, Harvard University
We then prepared a plan for the public spaces on campus, and we have made a number of smaller studies of additional functions and prepared competition material. We also took part in evaluating competitions on e.g. signage or the lighting concepts for Science City.
Most of this work falls under the category of supervision or builder consultancy. In several projects, we have found this to be a very positive way of following a planning process. Especially when the supervision is combined with the preparation of a plan for the public space, which in effect is the plan for the rug on which everything will be placed.
Which sorts of experience did you gather from the supervision process?
When the planner acts as a supervisor, the overall objectives of the master plan can be integrated intensively in any sub-project or building task. And the often very complex structures in a master plan can be integrated naturally in the further planning. We see that as having a very positive impact on the end result.
However, if the master planner is involved only as a supervisor without at the same time being involved in preparing the planning basis, the supervision will most often be reduced to simply proposing rectifying interventions. In the case of ETH, KCAP had great influence on the planning, as we participated both in the area and function strategy development and in preparing and evaluating competitions. We also designed the plan for the public spaces.
The plans are implemented in very close collaboration with both the strategic project management of Science City and the ETH department in charge of the implementation of the building projects. Before the master plan, each building project was treated and planned as an independent object. In order to align the individual building projects with the overall planning, it was necessary to have a transition period to make it possible to adapt to the new guidelines. In this context, it was important to ensure that the objectives of the master plan were communicated clearly and unequivocally. It was necessary to have a broad backing and understanding of the new plan. Therefore, the strategic project management communicated the objectives of the master plan to a broad audience, which included university staff, students and the local population.
You have also made campus plans for other European universities. What, in your opinion, should universities generally emphasise if they wish to embark on a major campus planning project?
In very general terms you might say that it is important to establish a good and comprehensive holistic concept that includes everyone affected by the project. It will be difficult to implement a project like that without the acceptance of all participants and users.
It is very important for the university to appoint a single person to represent and manage the project. A person who has been delegated the necessary responsibility and has been assigned staff to follow up on and co-ordinate the project. Experience also shows that it is essential for the strategic and conceptual project management to have close collaboration with the executing side, i.e. the partner in charge of the actual construction work.
Finally, it is really important for the whole project to have a master plan that lays down the most important framework conditions – while leaving enough freedom of action to ensure that diversity can develop within the coherent whole. It must offer enough flexibility to allow the concept to change dynamically to reflect any changes in the relevant conditions, such as political or commercial changes or changes in the academic structures or types of learning.
In order for the project to get out of its academic enclave and develop as a true academic neighbourhood, it is crucial to integrate the local residents and open up the campus to them during the project implementation. You could for instance have “Open day” at the individual institutes, spare time arrangements and open lectures. The ‘Treffpunkt’ (Meeting place) project, which invites local residents to attend academic arrangements during the weekends, began as a test project at ETH, as at the time the university was not even sure if the local residents would be interested. However, the programme was continuously extended, as it proved extremely popular. A positive side effect of the project was that the campus has been brought to life during weekends, and furthermore, it has resulted in the establishment of highly valuable exchanges between ETH’s local and academic populations.
Harvard University is the oldest and probably best known university in the USA. It was founded at the same time as the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1636 and is an integral part of the city. Since then, Harvard has expanded step by step. Today, the university is planning a major extension in Allston, which is part of the city of Boston. The new neighbourhood will be built in accordance with sustainable principles
| Harvard University, Boston, USA | |
|---|---|
| Established | 1636 |
| Status | Privately owned university |
| Campus population | Approx. 35,000 people: 6,650 Bachelor’s degree students, 11,900 Master’s degree/diploma students, 2,800 academic staff and 12,500 other employees |
| Distance from the city | 4 km from downtown Boston (4 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area) |
| Subject areas | Business, Design, Government, Arts & Sciences, Law, Medicine, Engineering, Divinity and Education |
| Annual study fee | DKK 210,000 |
| Number of beds on campus | 7.800 |
Harvard is privately owned and mainly financed through donations and the university’s own revenue. The university consists of 14 different schools and institutes that function independently of each other, each with their own administration and finance department. Two thirds of the students receive some form of financial support e.g. loans or grants or have income from part-time jobs.
The university owns and runs several museums and art exhibitions, which are open to the public. However, the many libraries are primarily reserved for people associated with Harvard, and the public has limited access to the buildings.
Harvard consists of three campus areas: Allston, Longwood and Cambridge, the oldest, all located in the immediate vicinity of each other. Cambridge Campus is the best known. It dates back to 1636 and is the centre of the area. Harvard’s Cambridge Campus primarily consists of small and medium-sized buildings, which have been built in stages and form an integral part of the surrounding city area. The university’s different functions are located in between residences and shops.
Harvard’s oldest and best known part is the commercial centre around ‘Harvard Square’. The square is in the centre of the area and has a subway station and many restaurants, cafés and shops. This is where the neighbourhood’s fashion shops as well as ‘Harvard Bookstore’ and ‘Harvard Shopping Mall’ are found.
The university’s oldest buildings from 1720 are located in the famous ‘Harvard Yard’, an inward-looking green park space just around the corner from the pulsating Harvard Square.
Harvard’s Cambridge Campus primarily consists of buildings in a classical style with historic components and references. The university has retained this expression in connection with reconstruction and extensions, and new buildings also blend in with the existing structure of many small, detached buildings. The buildings create inward-looking green parks surrounded by residences, institutes or libraries. The characteristic Yard thus creates small worlds on campus, each with its own character and user groups. Some gardens look private and are used by students who live in the area. Others are of a more public nature and attract large numbers of tourists. The building and yard structure makes Cambridge Campus appear as a small town that invites exploration.
The university offers a number of sports and leisure activities across the three campus areas. Many of these are of a professional standard. Allston, for instance, is home to the large Harvard Sports Stadium with room for 30,000 spectators.
Harvard offers a multitude of on-site facilities and also has a rich commercial life in and around the university campus. Students and employees can easily spend several weeks on campus without needing to visit surrounding areas. The students live on campus during the first year but some subsequently choose to move to neighbouring areas. In total, approx. 60 % of all students live on campus. There are 13 different ‘Houses’ that function as colleges, each with their own traditions, library, dining hall and common room.
Harvard has a strong tradition of involving students in voluntary student groups. The university has several hundred groups covering areas within the media, politics, sports, music, theatre, dance and charity as well as academic subjects in general. Many of these groups are more than 100 years old. ‘The Harvard Crimson’ from 1873 is one of USA’s oldest daily university newspapers; The Harvard University Choir is the oldest university choir in the country and the ‘Phillips Brooks House Association’ is a student organisation that works closely with the local Boston environment.
The social and academic activities on campus primarily target the students and the faculty but in some cases also reach out to the local society. For instance, the university operates several museums with rare collections. These collections are typically open to all interested parties in addition to being used in teaching contexts.
The campus at Allston, which is within walking distance from the original Cambridge Campus, is in the process of a major expansion. Building complexes are being constructed on a large scale and with a more modern expression than in the oldest part of Harvard. The area is on the south side of the river.
Today, Allston is a run-down industrial area with long and short-term parking for lorries. Its central location and low degree of utilisation provides a unique opportunity for the university to expand. Two important activities – the Harvard Business School and the large sports stadium – are already located in the area.
The plan covers the next 50 years and outlines flexible guidelines for projects in the area. Over the next 20 years, the campus will be extended by 370,000-450,000 m2, and the plan is for the campus to be extended by a similar area over the following 30 years.
The plan focuses on four themes: Interdisciplinary teaching and research, which aims to ensure that many disciplines, including science, finance and art, can work together in a multidisciplinary manner. This will be visible in the way university buildings are structured. Place Making is the second theme, and it looks at creating identity and anchoring in the run-down area. Here, the university’s functions are mixed with public and cultural functions to create a lively and distinctive environment. At the same time, a road with heavy traffic, which has so far prevented access to the river, will be covered to create a recreational area for the neighbourhood. Sustainability is the third theme, placed on the agenda by a group called ‘Harvard Green Campus Initiative’. Allston has to be planned, constructed and run in a sustainable manner. The extension of Allston is an example of Harvard making it a strategic goal to become the leading university within sustainability, and Harvard has been working towards this goal since the turn of the millennium. Economic development is the last theme. The project is meant to create development and economic growth in the neighbourhood, and the aim is to generate an average of 500 new jobs and 15 new companies per year in the area over the next 50 years.
Research: Julia Anshelm og Mikala Holme Samsøe
Zach Arnold is the student coordinator of Harvard’s Green Campus Initiative's peer-to-peer programme. He informs Harvard students about energy and the environment and tries to persuade them to act in a more sustainable manner
What is Harvard’s peer-to-peer programme?The aim of the programme is to get students to lower their energy and water consumption and recycle more, and to promote increased environmental awareness among the students. We talk about how the individual’s behaviour affects the campus and thereby the global environment. It’s all about the individual’s environmental footprint. The university sponsors prizes for our environmental competitions and pays a salary to a number of student representatives, a permanent employee from the university and the three of us student coordinators.
What does your and the student representatives’ day-to-day work involve? We plan a student activity programme for the entire year. We are available to answer questions from the students and advise on how to improve the environment at Harvard. The university is not the most transparent organisation, you see. A simple thing such as installing energy-saving light bulbs in the dining hall involved three different offices. One of my tasks is to improve the contact between students and the employees who administer and handle the running of the university.
Our student representatives help students who have individual green projects they would like to implement. They work with the different residential Houses and student groups to organise green competitions or launch campaigns where students can commit to acting sustainably in their daily lives.
Anabela Pappas is a kitchen assistant at Harvard University. She has participated in Harvard’s courses on sustainability and works to make the kitchen more sustainable
What is your motivation for participating in Harvard’s Green Initiative, first as a student representative and later as a student coordinator?I have always been involved in environmental issues. I also continue working at the political level where we have made Harvard commit to reducing its contribution to greenhouse gases. Previously, I worked on a system that could measure the energy consumption of the individual House here and now.
I find it exciting to help increase awareness of the consequences of our consumption; to communicate the relationship between what appears to be abstract global environmental issues and the behaviour of the individual. It creates a chain reaction, as our students will end up in very different jobs that will impact on the world around them.
What have you learnt from your courses about a greener Harvard?A lot of people just couldn’t see the problem. We work with the students and I saw how much of the grilled food was left uneaten because the students changed their mind or had to hurry off for lessons. So much food was wasted and the grills used a lot of energy. We started a campaign with signs saying, ‘Take only the food you can eat’. In that way, we can create awareness of how to save energy.
Why did you start telling others about how to save energy and reduce waste? A lot of people just couldn’t see the problem. We work with the students and I saw how much of the grilled food was left uneaten because the students changed their mind or had to hurry off for lessons. So much food was wasted and the grills used a lot of energy. We started a campaign with signs saying, ‘Take only the food you can eat’. In that way, we can create awareness of how to save energy.
Previously, our cookers were switched on 10 hours a day. Now we switch them off between meals. It makes a huge difference! We can also save water when cleaning. Instead of using a lot of water when rinsing the food containers, we fill a sink and rinse them in turn before washing them.
‘Bring your own cup’ is another way of saving paper cups. I actually jumped into one of the waste containers and took pictures of all the used paper and plastic cups. That really helped open the eyes of students and faculty employees.
How could the green campaign be improved?I have suggested that ideas about how to save energy should be introduced in Harvard’s bridge-building courses. During these courses, people learn to speak English as their second language. Harvard is good at supporting diversity and we have many people working here who don’t speak English. Pictures speak more than a thousand words and they can be used to spread information across campus and the workplaces.
Each year, Harvard University employs 30-40 students to promote sustainable behaviour among their fellow students. Their efforts have led to a 15 % reduction in the university’s energy consumption. The students are systematically taught how to use games and competitions to draw attention to water consumption or standby electricity consumption at the residential Houses. The training takes place within the framework of the ‘Harvard Green Campus Initiative’ (HGCI), which is an academic and administrative initiative that aims at making Harvard University a global model for sustainable campus management
InterviewHGCI combines a strategic project with work of a more practical nature. They report directly to the university’s top management and create organisational changes in response to the challenges to sustainability. At the same time, they act as a kind of handymen ‘in the field’ who make sure e.g. that all showerheads in the Houses are replaced with water-saving models. As a result, the group is in daily contact with both the top and the bottom of the organisation. Within this framework, HGCI’s employees exert their influence in two ways: they make people change their behaviour, and at the same time they act as consultants in all construction projects at Harvard.
HGCI was set up in 2000 with one temporary project employee, and today, 8 years later, 24 full-time employees and 40 part-time employees are promoting the project. The manager of HGCI, Leith Sharp, explains that the project began as a one-man project that had to convince the university of its relevance. “The fact that I was responsible for the initiative means that I did everything myself until I was able to obtain funding for staff. Consequently, it has been very much a hands-on job with participation in construction projects, a role as adviser on green construction methods and meetings with students to encourage them to adopt green behaviour. I have made people realise the economic and environmental savings that can be obtained by investing in our group and over time, we have grown to 24 employees. This has allowed me to focus on more strategic activities such as implementing green construction guidelines all over campus and ensuring long-term funding.”
HGCI’s staff participate in the university’s construction projects and make sure that the buildings can attain LEED certification, which is the American rating system for green buildings. The LEED label is associated with considerable prestige in the USA, and you can achieve silver, gold or platinum certification. At Harvard, all buildings must, as a minimum, be LEED silver certified, and Harvard is the American university with the largest number of certified buildings. Harvard has a growing number of ongoing construction projects, currently 50 major buildings of which the majority will achieve LEED gold certification.
HGCI’s other field of activity is to create behavioural changes. This is achieved not only by means of appointing students as green ambassadors but also by training e.g. technical staff and kitchen staff who typically have influence on a considerable amount of the energy and resource consumption on campus.
Rather than teaching students and employees, HGCI uses the peer-to-peer principle, in which they primarily let the participants talk to each other, exchanging experiences in order to find solutions. HGCI has had success using this method, as it creates positive competition between participants. The competition is constructive because all participants share a common goal and everyone wins. For instance, the participants compete with each other as to which House can achieve the largest reduction in water consumption during the coming period. The winner acquires social status.
The argument for using the peer-to-peer method is based on psychology and the often unconscious strive for social recognition. The manager, Leith Sharp, who has studied psychology and human development, says: “The desire to maintain status in the peer groups to which we belong, is a powerful human need. It can be used strategically to break down barriers to effective adult learning. People are busy, and it is normally difficult to get them to focus on learning. However, if you make learning essential for their social status, people have a tendency to give it higher priority. The beauty of the peer-to-peer model is that it is a process between equals, which involves mutual learning while the participants at the same time are rewarded socially for their commitment. When we began using these models, we discovered that they presented many other advantages. For instance, it all became more fun and it created good relationships between people.”
HGCI supports the process and mainly serves to create a forum where these issues are discussed and subsequently followed up. The students are paid USD 11-17 per hour to participate once every fortnight. They subsequently have to use games and activities to highlight a chosen aspect of sustainability at the House during the coming period.
The students who participate in the training typically find it a very positive experience. Some call it their best. The students see it as part of their learning and time at the university. They can personally identify problems in their local environment at campus or in the House – and with the assistance of HGCI, it is easier for them to implement solutions, which can also be of a structural or organisational nature. As a general rule, the themes are also used in the students’ academic work, and in this context, HGCI assists with data and information.
When students and faculty become involved in the local sustainability debate, it contributes to a greater understanding of the university as an organisation. According to HGCI, the students and the academic staff generally have very little knowledge of how the buildings are managed. The management of the buildings is intuitively considered dirty work that should be easy to perform. Students and staff from the faculties help break down these barriers by using cases from the building management at Harvard in their teaching.
This creates another problem, however, in that the administrative staff are seldom able to provide structured information for the students’ learning projects. It is simply too difficult to get access to data about the management of buildings and transportation at Harvard, which is probably equally true of many other universities. HGCI finds that this happens because the administrative staff do not have the necessary time to structure the information so that it can be used. “The faculty often does not have the time to find out how a campus operates. Students cannot get access to information and are also dependent on having to submit their projects on time. The university’s employees already have a huge workload and do not have the time to drop everything to help students or the faculty. Our universities therefore need to bridge the gap between staff, faculty and students so that together they can use the campus creatively as a learning tool. The result is not directly measureable, and therefore, only a few universities have introduced such initiatives despite the fact that this form of practice-orientated teaching is essential for a degree related to sustainability,” Leith Sharp points out.
Harvard markets itself on its commitment to sustainability, which is realised through HGCI, and many perceive the university as one of the leaders in this field. However, this kind of involvement does not always have to involve additional costs. The way HGCI is structured ensures that most of the costs are covered.
All HGCI staff are employed by Harvard and actually function as consultants paid by the individual Harvard Schools, which are independent financial entities. They purchase HGCI’s assistance to ensure that sustainability is implemented in construction projects and in everyday life. The cost involved is easily offset by the savings obtained in the running of the school. In the same way, the company that runs the canteens pays for the training of the kitchen staff, as they experience a considerable reduction in the kitchen’s resource consumption and waste following each session.
Leith Sharp explains: “It presents many advantages to Harvard: financial savings, positive press, pride in the local community, improved development opportunities for staff and improved relationships with the public authorities for the area. Of course, it also gives us a pleasant feeling of acting pro-actively in relation to these enormous issues. Conversely, it would also present a risk if Harvard were not a leader in this field. The university would be attacked by frustrated students and alumni or be given bad press. I think the advantages go hand in hand with the fear of the risks of not acting and that both have contributed to people’s involvement.”
HGCI has established a Loan Fund from which the individual schools at Harvard can borrow money for sustainable projects in connection with renovations or new buildings. There are different types of loans e.g. corresponding to the additional cost of introducing components that can result in financial savings of at least 9 % per year. Leith Sharp explains that the possibility of borrowing money in a non-bureaucratic manner has been decisive for the schools’ ability to and interest in making sustainable improvements to their buildings. “The Loan Fund was created to eliminate an excuse – e.g. a lack of finance – for not incorporating green initiatives, with a repayment period of five to perhaps ten years.”
HGCI’s goal is to change Harvard University so that it becomes not just a teaching and research institution but also a learning institution. A fundamental change in the institution’s organisation is required to enable it to handle today’s huge challenges, e.g. the sustainability issue. In concrete terms, this means that HGCI is implementing ‘University-wide Sustainability Principles’.
“The idea is that each semester, a growing number of teachers and students should have an opportunity to use their campus as a learning tool for a myriad of topics: from sustainable building design, green accounts and energy systems to management and decision processes. For the time being, this is more of a vision than a reality at Harvard. We have certainly seen excellent examples in recent years: engineering students studying the energy consumption in buildings, or courses in public administration where students examine Harvard’s CO2 emissions. However, this is not yet a routine phenomenon. In order to realise this vision on the scale proposed in the Principles, Harvard must find a way of financing the additional employees required to support this work. As mentioned previously, in order to create the right opportunities for developing a sustainable campus, students, faculty and staff must be given the right support,” Leith Sharp concludes.
| Harvard Green Campus Initiative (HGCI) | |
|---|---|
| The mission of the Harvard Green Campus Initiative (HGCI) is to make Harvard University a living laboratory and learning organisation for the pursuit of campus sustainability. The business model is fundamentally entrepreneurial in its approach as it continuously develops and sells new services to schools and departments that want to both save money and reduce their environmental impact. HGCI is a service organisation consisting of 24 professional staff and 40 part-time students who have been trained and managed to work on building upgrades, building construction and design and behavioral change |
Frederiksberg Campus is a green and almost rural sanctuary in the Frederiksberg neighbourhood, 2 km from the centre of Copenhagen. This is the location of the Faculty of Life Sciences (LIFE), which deals with people, plants and animal life. The surrounding world knows LIFE for its popular garden, which is used for recreational purposes by people living nearby. With a new vision plan, LIFE now wishes to make the academic activities and aspects of the campus area more visible
| Det biovidenskabelige fakultet, LIFE, Frederiksberg Campus, København | ||
|---|---|---|
| Established | 1858 when the faculty’s garden was established. | |
| Status | Public university | |
| Campus population | 5,300 people: 3,500 enrolled students (of whom 10 % are foreign students) and 1,800 full-time employees. | |
| Distance from the city | 2 km from the centre of Copenhagen (1 million inhabitants) | |
| Subject areas | Food, natural resources and veterinary medicine | |
| Annual study fee | DKK 0 | |
The University of Copenhagen is a public university. The university leases most of its buildings from the Danish University and Property Agency, which owns the buildings and the campus areas.
In 2007, the University of Copenhagen merged with a number of other universities, including the Royal Danish Veterinary and Agricultural University, now called the Faculty of Life Sciences (LIFE). The University of Copenhagen has ambitious plans for combining its activities in the four new campus areas: North Campus, City Campus, South Campus and Frederiksberg Campus. In addition to Frederiksberg Campus, the Faculty of Life Sciences also has campus areas in the towns of Taastrup and Hørsholm. This is where activities that require a lot of space are located, e.g. test fields and houses with large farm animals.
Frederiksberg Campus consists of three areas located end to end, separated by roads with heavy traffic. The areas differ considerably. The best known area is the original area consisting of a garden now listed as a protected area with distinctive buildings by architect Gottlieb Bindesbøll. An old greenhouse in this area has acquired a new role as a café – nominated the best café in Copenhagen in 2008. The menu includes the university’s own beer. .
A number of historical and preservation-worthy buildings from 1770 and 1858 are located in the northernmost area, which was included as the years went by. In 1968-70, the distinctive multi-storey building was built because of the growth in the faculty’s degree programmes. Today, it is considered the main complex. The eight-storey functionalistic laboratory and teaching building was designed by the architects Steen Eiler Rasmussen and Mogens Koch. The building creates an internal walkway and is a lively area full of activities. New lecture theatres and laboratory and foyer buildings were erected by architectural firms like Erik Møllers Tegne-stue in 1995 and Dissing+Weitling in 1996.
There is an active student environment at the Faculty of Life Sciences. The studies and experiments in the degree programmes typically revolve around the greenhouses and gardens around the campus area. Many students enjoy the campus area and also spend some of their spare time here.
Some students even have an opportunity to live nearby.
The campus covers a large area and as a researcher, you typically spend most of your time at your own faculty. However, students from different subject areas like to meet in the popular Gimle canteen located in a square just outside the original campus area. Gimle thus functions as a social centre where all students drop in from time to time.
The campus has meeting places both indoors and outdoors. The central corridor with tables and chairs creates an opportunity for both academic and social interaction. The campus’ outdoor plant collections are gathered in parks where employees, students and outsiders can go for walks or lie in the sun. Tours are offered by the university, giving information about plant life.
LIFE faces major construction work in the form of new teaching and research facilities as well as guest residences. The faculty has therefore just prepared a development plan. Students and researchers from LIFE, together with external experts, were involved in the preparation of this development plan. The plan combines visions for sustainability, traffic, social life and plant life on campus.
A special art plan shows the possibilities for including art in the future Frederiksberg Campus. At the Faculty of Life Sciences campus in Taastrup, the artist Camilla Berner has prepared an art plan that turns the entire area into one major work of art.
The relationship between the university and the city is an important part of the University of Copenhagen’s campus planning. Today, Frederiksberg Campus is already an attraction in the local area, in part due to its garden. In future, the faculty wishes to offer even more green spaces and experiences such as concerts or open lectures for the city’s inhabitants and people at the university. The vision plan includes a ‘rambla’ that connects the different parts of the campus and forms part of an existing green bike path in the municipality.
Select walls around campus will be demolished to open up and create views. At the same time, the vision plan includes new locations such as the House of Gastronomy. The purpose of these new initiatives is to strengthen the university’s communication of knowledge about e.g. the journey of our food from earth to table. Today, the university already sells plants from the greenhouses to private individuals – and in that way attracts more visitors to the campus area.
Research: Cathrine Schmidt
Per Holten-Andersen is Dean of the Faculty of Life Sciences
Can you describe what the initiation and implementation of a vision requires of management?As chairman of the steering group, I followed the process closely. We needed an operational plan and not just beautiful architectural drawings. We therefore made it quite clear what we prioritised – e.g. that practical aspects like parking had to be solved in the vision plan.
Has the involvement of Frederiksberg Municipality facilitated the work?The involvement has allowed us to influence the municipality’s thoughts about the area and vice versa. We wanted to ensure that the vision plans were incorporated into the municipality’s local plans and the traffic plans for Frederiksberg. The municipality’s planning manager was a member of the steering group. The decision about what should happen to the two roads crossing the campus area from east to west will be made in the next couple of years. We know that from our joint meetings.
Do you have any good advice for others in a similar situation?I don’t have any cure-all solutions but I think it’s important that the university’s management takes control of the campus environment. Universities are not just about research and teaching. The environment is an important component in attracting students, and it affects the extent to which the employees enjoy going to work. In total, I probably spend about 10 % of my time at work on outdoor areas and buildings. I see it as an integral part of the university management’s task to follow up on and develop the environment through extensive plans for the future in addition to minor maintenance work.
The universities should stand out with visible campus areas that lift the rest of the neighbourhood and the spirit of the university. We already have a good framework and we are trying to make it even better. As an example, we have gone to great lengths to make the outdoor areas more usable. Today, our wireless network, for instance, also covers the entire park, which is always open. Contrary to what was the case two years ago, we have no signs saying: ‘Don’t walk on the grass’. We receive a lot of very positive feedback to these measures in our teaching environment assessments.
Trine Sofie Nielsen studies Natural Resources at LIFE and is the Chairman of the Students' Council. Trine Sofie Nielsen participated in both the Advisory Board and the Steering Group for the LIFE development plan
What do you think of the vision plan process and what was your focus as a student?The workshop [dialogue days, ed.] worked very well. Our focus as students was, of course, to improve the study environment and get better facilities, such as a larger student house.
Do you think the students have had an influence on the vision plans?Yes, the social aspects of the campus area were important. The ‘rambla’ connects the students better, and whereas some facilities currently exist at one end of the campus area only, we have made sure that there is a canteen or cafés in all three parts of the campus in the vision plan. In that way, students also have something to contribute. While employees at LIFE obviously have specific interests relating to their place of work, we as students are perhaps able to see things in a broader perspective. We don’t have any specific places where we belong. We come and go throughout the campus area.
Have other students shown any interest in the vision plans?At the beginning, it was difficult to capture the students’ interest. Many of the people I talked to only became aware that the students had an opportunity to be involved in the process after the workshop had taken place. The information had not reached everybody. If we should do it all over again, we could perhaps hold the workshop over two days to attract more attention to the project and get more people involved.
In hindsight, is there anything else you would wish had happened?It would have been logical to include students from the landscape architecture line. I have heard several students say that they regretted not being involved in the process.
Marina Bergen Jensen is a researcher at Forest & Landscape.
How were you involved in the work with the vision plan?I presented ideas for different ways of working with water on campus at one of the meetings of the Advisory Board. The idea is to take some of the load off the Frederiksberg Municipality sewage system by retaining the rain water on the campus area. The sewage systems will come under pressure in the years to come, as climate changes will result in more and heavier rain.
The water could be used to create an inte-resting campus with special beds for plants that prefer a moist soil. It would be an excellent task for students in our landscape architecture degree programme. The water could also be used for our greenhouses, toilet flushing or other purposes that don’t require drinking water quality.
What do you think of the vision plan process?It was not until the first meeting that I really understood the context of the campus plan. As I experienced it, my role was to provide inspiration for the working group. Now I would like to know what is happening with the vision plan.
What do you think of the result?I didn’t hear any further about the result until the rector presented it at our staff meeting. The ‘rambla’ sounds great. It’s a good idea that all the different parts of campus are to be connected. I don’t know if anything is going to happen with the water plans.
What are you looking forward to most in the future development as outlined?The Greenhouse, our student-run café, will be located centrally on the ‘rambla’. That’s a great idea! I’m looking forward to seeing that.
The new development plan for Frederiksberg Campus aims to ensure that the general principles have been well thought through so that future initiatives will become part of a whole. Subsequently, the plan should help raise funds for the implementation of the initiatives. Experience shows that it is necessary to involve all levels of the university and at the same time keep in mind that the finished product should be easy to implement
Interview“You have to get actively involved in the work with the consultants. The work with the development plan requires thorough knowledge of the area and the buildings. It has been an advantage that the project has been anchored centrally in the organisation. The Dean of the Faculty of Life Sciences, Per Holten-Andersen was involved in the project from the very beginning,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen, and she continues: “The collaboration in our small working group was excellent and very flexible. It was an advantage to have so many participants in the dialogue meetings. We wanted as much input as possible and at the same time we wanted to create a network as well as ownership of future decisions.”
The working group had only four members: the consultants from the Kjær & Richter architectural firm and Schønherr Landskab, the building manager and the project manager. Input to the working group came from an Advisory Board, among others. The working group was established at the beginning of the process. Internal and external sparring partners from the Advisory Board were invited to participate in dialogue meetings throughout the working process. The thoughts and visions that emerged at the meetings with the Advisory Board were subsequently processed and presented to the steering group, which was responsible for prioritising the proposals.
A process in which many parties are involved requires a clear framework, according to Anette Persson: “The dialogue meetings were primarily used to communicate information and in hindsight could have involved more active participation. The dialogue meetings require clear statements about what you expect from the members of the Advisory Board representing the different academic environments. Some of the members of the Advisory Board probably felt that they contributed with their academic knowledge and interest merely by participating in the meetings. They were not inclined to act as ambassadors by spreading the debate to colleagues at the institutes. That was, however, what we had in mind when we asked the institutes to appoint representatives from each academic area.”
“We wanted to create ownership of the process amongst our students and employees,” says Anette Persson. “That is why we wanted to get them involved. We wanted to create commitment to – and ownership of – the process and the area as well as the subsequent result. We wanted employees and students to consider what could be improved about the surroundings. We wanted to demonstrate that LIFE has some very special qualities.”
The development plan is also a checklist. It highlights the things you have to consider before carrying out the actual physical mea-sures. The answers to those issues vary from area to area and may also vary in the future. The basis for decision-making therefore has to be transparent. “By explaining why certain measures have been adapted rather than just mentioning what has been decided, we give the process legitimacy and motivate users and collaboration partners to commit to the process,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen. By way of example Frederiksberg Municipality was involved at an early stage of the vision process.
“We had meetings with the municipality where we talked about our plans and they told us about their traffic plans, etc. We were interested in changing the traffic conditions around campus, especially as regards the two roads that cut through the campus area. Our future collaboration is off to a good start, because they know what we want and why and because they have been able to influence the plan,” says Anette Persson.
“Naturally, all the academic skills present at LIFE place us in a privileged position. I nevertheless think that other university faculties could also benefit from involving their academic skills in a similar way,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen. Thanks to the academic skills in landscape architecture, urban spaces and vegetation, researchers at LIFE could contribute specific proposals to the vision plan. One researcher at the Centre for Forest & Landscape, for instance, worked with a seepage system that can prevent flooding in connection with heavy downpours.
Students and employees can also contribute with their knowledge of the area. At one of the dialogue meetings, they were given the task of noting the different qualities, potentials and problems of the campus area on individual maps. These maps were later combined into one. This made it clear to the working group what they needed to focus on. It was a pleasant surprise to the working group that the students and employees identified such a wealth of opportunities for the campus and were open to change.
Free beer on tap and hot dogs attract students. That was what the working group handed out to attract the students at LIFE to the open dialogue meetings. Flyers and emails, on the other hand, were not the way to draw attention to the dialogue meetings in this project. To ensure considerable student participation, the meetings should not take place too close to the exams either, but preferably be scheduled immediately before the Friday bar, Marianne Vejen Hansen and Anette Persson agree. To involve the students further through their teaching requires even more planning. “We wanted to involve a group of students in a project about campus access for the disabled, but the teaching plan for the year was already in place. On top of that, it is a bit of a challenge to get the students involved in the work to develop the campus area. Their lessons are quite spread out and with their strong academic focus, the students often end up wearing ‘blinkers’,” says Marianne Vejen Hansen. It is easier to involve the student organisations, which can formulate and represent clear interests. Student groups in support of sustainability, for instance, had an opportunity to present their ideas at one of the Advisory Board meetings. The same representative from the Student’s Council was a member of both the Advisory Board and the steering group, which ensured a good knowledge flow.
The development plan should not be allowed to gather dust on a shelf, so a lot of work remains to be done. The development plan does not contain specific measures or guidelines. These now have to be defined in the middle of our busy daily lives. The working group is therefore in the process of preparing an action plan, which will contain both the overall long-term visions and the minor quick successes such as establishing a jogging track on the campus area. The difference between the development plan and the action plan can be described by means of the theme ‘Outdoor lighting’. The action plan must specify guidelines for what correct outdoor lighting is at a number of places based on the considerations outlined in the development plan. These considerations relate to orientation, safety, atmosphere and staging. As part of more specific guidelines, the working group would like a common set of rules for new physical initiatives. The aim is not to create uniformity but to ensure a kind of diversity where several different players can take initiatives and the projects can be implemented on an ongoing basis. The group will take stock of the work done every six months and establish guidelines for future activities.
The communication work has yet to be completed, too. It is important to make earlier initiatives visible so that both internal and external users of the campus area can see the results of their efforts. “Once the signs are up for the new jogging track, or the deck chairs are put out around the campus area, it must be clear that this is just a small part of the overall development plan,” Anette Persson concludes.
Cathrine SchmidtCampus planning has major financial and political consequences. It requires major decisions and a broad perspective. What is the role of the planner in this context? Schønherr Landskab and Kjaer & Richter worked closely with LIFE for one year to prepare the new development plan
For a year, we worked closely with staff at the faculty. It was an open process, and we had to define on an ongoing basis how it was to unfold. Many entities in the developer’s organisation had to ask themselves and each other: what kind of life should be accommodated at campus, how do we want to be perceived by the surrounding world and what kind of development are we aiming at?
The users were to play a key role in defining the content of the plan, and as consultants we were to play a key role in giving the plan a physical expression. In that way, the users’ knowledge of the area influenced the project while we achieved peace and quiet to create a plan as a synthesis. This turned out to be a sensible and understandable distinction, which also highlighted the difference between architects and users.
The working group consisted of architects from the faculty and the consultants. This was productive and absolutely necessary. The architects at the faculty had an insight into the campus environment that was vital to both the product and the process. Their knowledge of the organisation ensured that the plan was understood, approved and given credibility internally. This close collaboration was a positive experience and prevented mistakes and unrealistic proposals.
We presented the project on an ongoing basis at the Advisory Board meetings and received constructive criticism. For example, one participant came up with the idea of the so-called ‘rambla’ – a network of paths and activities within the campus area. It is difficult to determine whether or not the members of the panel actually brought something back from the meetings and shared it with the rest of the faculty. What we have learned is that the purpose of an Advisory Board should be determined early in the process. The composition of the panel and the members’ understanding of their roles are decisive.
We emphasised the preparation of a programme for the plan. The aim of the programme was to pinpoint the shared intentions and goals for the plan. The developer’s proposal was far-reaching and ambitious. The area is large and there are many inte-rested parties. The programme helped us identify values, problems and potentials and created a focus and a hierarchy.
The programme was an excellent tool to get both users and decision makers involved. The focus was on the substance of the plan and we avoided idle talk about odd pet projects. It was an advantage for both the academic content of the plan and the benefits of user involvement that we were able to develop the programme and the proposal for the plan in one continuous process. By becoming a basis for the plan, large parts of the programme were incorporated directly into the final development plan. The development of the programme made all parties more aware of the content of the plan and promoted a common understanding of the background for the plan’s physical expression.
Why did the project end up taking 10 1/2 months when it was meant to take about six? We have a confession to make: The steering group’s approval of the programme and the final work to communicate the plan in connection with the faculty’s 150 years’ anniversary turned out to take a lot longer than anybody in the working group had expected.
A programme is a commitment with huge consequences, and the approval process should not be underestimated. The approval of the programme made everybody aware of the seriousness of the project, and this resulted in a one month gap and additional meetings with e.g. Frederiksberg Municipality. We have discovered that the approval of a programme has to be planned. All decision makers must commit to a timetable in advance and they must all fully understand what a programme is. In addition, the work to clarify the final shape of the project is huge in its own right. The shape depends on the receiver and the way in which the project is handed over.
In order to come to grips with the complexity of the task, we prepared a matrix. In three scales, we focused on 1) the relationship between the campus area and the city, 2) the area as a whole, and 3) the individual spaces and buildings. At the same time, we worked with three tracks representing the three dimensions of the campus environment. The mental track was about aspects like branding and identity. The social track involved e.g. life and communities on campus. The physical track involved the area’s materiality.
The connection between the tracks and the scales created a system that made widely differing aspects visible, from the lack of individual parking spaces to the reputation of the campus area in the rest of the city. Everybody quickly understood the model, with their own comments and points of view fitting into a context. The model turned out to be very useful until the programme had been developed; after that it became more a way of thinking.
It makes a difference whether users contribute by means of e.g. words, drawings or photos. The media encourage one thing and complicate others. Our experience is that words and talk easily become too non-committal and do not challenge users to choose or see new contexts. When the users had to draw on maps, they automatically placed their ‘own corners’ in a context. When we asked the users to contribute three photos of ‘the best’, it gave us an opportunity to capture moods and situations. Other aspects are of course best described in words.
It should be emphasised that the involvement of users should not blur the lines between the players. The users know best what their dreams are, what qualities and problems they have experienced in a place, and the architects know best how to place everything in a context and give it a physical expression.
Another important question is: Which communication strategy has the desired effect in the organisation? This must be discussed at an early stage. The project was published on the faculty’s own website where students and employees could add comments. The fact that relatively few comments were posted could be due to the poor exposure of the project on the faculty’s website. Everybody was invited to the dialogue day – a joint workshop with the participation of users and working group. The event and the website were advertised by means of flyers and posters all over the campus area. The many flyers and posters created awareness but the faculty’s design template seemed to have a neutralising effect. It would have been better to give the project its own graphical profile and in that way attract more attention.
The study trip to campus environments in New York and Connecticut was planned to take place in the early stages. On account of the large amount of coordination work, however, the tour took place later on during the programme approval period. This turned out to be good timing.
A large delegation with representatives from a number of the parties involved participated in the trip. Especially the meetings with the universities’ own planners provided a lot of inspiration. During the trip, everyone became aware that the plan had to be a dynamic tool. Actual decisions were also made during the trip. The idea about a specific main entrance to the campus, for instance, was eliminated. The study trip acted as a catalyst to modify expectations and assess what was realistic. In our experience, the optimum timing of a study trip is halfway through the programme preparation, as this makes it possible to test whether a number of provisional aspects about the programme are likely to work out.
There were a number of surprises during the project. The possibility of simultaneously commencing work with an art plan for Frederiksberg Campus led to a general consolidation of the development plan but also to further coordination and detailing of the relationship between the two plans. Frederiksberg Municipality was also given an unexpected role when it turned out that a sub-area was subject to the Danish Act on Nature Preservation to an extent that was difficult to clarify within the given time frame.
So what was the result of this process? The main substance in the plan is a number of guidelines and principles – to maintain the values in the area, unfold its potential and resolve main issues. Layouts and visualisations show how physical space could but not how it should be ensured within the given framework. The development plan is a planning tool. It will therefore remain relevant for many years if the action plan is anchored broadly beyond the physical framework.
The physical environments of universities should not only be safe and healthy but also aesthetic, according to the Danish Act on Teaching Environments. The universities can therefore obtain assistance from the Danish University and Property Agency for both art decorations and an overall art plan for the physical surroundings, indoors as well as outdoors. The Faculty of Life Sciences (LIFE) avails itself of this opportunity
InterviewAt LIFE in Taastrup, the land-art artist Camilla Berner has prepared an art plan in which the landscape is the work of art. She explains how a number of paths in the landscape not only create an opportunity to enjoy the beautiful surroundings on campus, but also make daily life on campus visible by telling a story about the academic knowledge behind what is seen and sensed.
‘White Route’ is the title of a work about ‘shortcuts’. According to the plan, a number of white slabs will lead to the different research activities on campus: climate station, tree collection and water balance station. In addition to the white slabs, the test fields are cut to create paths. The paths include those already created by students and employees, as well as others that would make it possible to walk through the blooming rape and lupin fields laid out as test fields. The intention is therefore to make white wellington boots available in all sizes so that visitors can walk through the landscape regardless of the weather.
“You normally structure and embellish a landscape in a particular design. However, after a while, human use will have made a mess of it. People have created their own paths. Those paths will be my starting point – the use of the place and the importance of the things that exist on campus,” says Camilla Berner, and she continues: “When driving to LIFE’s Højbakkegård farm in Taastrup, you pass the fields and the beautiful apple orchard called ‘Pometet’. However, on the actual site, the history is not immediately apparent. The first time I was there, it was autumn. There were no leaves on the trees and apart from a red Virginia creeper, all I saw was the grey aerated concrete buildings. There were no signs of the interesting life that takes place there. As a visitor, you missed signage that could guide you around to what actually happens on the campus.”
To integrate art into campus development requires a close dialogue between developer, consultants and users. An art committee with two art consultants and two government officials support the work to prepare an art plan. Normally, the educational institution is asked to set up an art committee with which the art consultants can discuss how to establish guidelines for expression, location, maintenance and compliance with specific requirements and wishes. During this process, the academic skills of the researchers and the current use of the area can generate new ideas for ways of making the art visible on the campus.
At LIFE in Taastrup, the artist Camilla Berner has involved researchers and employees from the area. She has gained insight into the use of the area by asking employees and students to enter their shortcuts on a map of the area. All in all, Camilla Berner spent 3-4 months on the preparatory work of learning about the place and investigating possible routes. “I went down there and said hello!,” says Camilla Berner with a laugh. “Then I have asked: How do you get here? They may answer: By bus, and then tell me what route they walk to get here. They might actually prefer to take another route because they would save five minutes but they don’t like walking across the lawn. Then I take them up on it and draw a path in exactly that spot.”
In that way, the work was created around the wishes of the daily users. Camilla Berner elaborates: “The veterinarians and the students like to go for a walk and clear their heads after major operations that may take several hours. That is what Susanne Nautrup Olsen, the head of the new large veterinary hospital, told me. The owners of large animals also like to take a walk and think about whether to pay for a major operation or have the animal put down. Also in other contexts, researchers and students like to walk around and ponder ideas.”
The aim of the art plan is to ensure that the art supports the campus area, the university’s identity and history and its academic profile. It is, in fact, possible to combine aesthetics and academic skills, and it is important to include art as early as possible in the planning stage.
LIFE hopes that the art plan will also generate funds for the campus area and has prepared a folder about the artwork to apply for sponsorship money to establish the paths. At a later stage, LIFE plans to make a folder for visitors that tells the stories of the landscape. The folder should be available along the main routes. There you will be able to read about the plant ‘wall cress’, which can detect landmines. (The green plant becomes red if it grows on top of a landmine). You can also read about the ‘Pometet’, the old apple orchard, which serves as a Nordic gene bank for apples. The folder was prepared by Camilla Berner and Hanne Lipczak Jakobsen, Technical Manager at LIFE’s campus area in Taastrup. The two have worked closely together, which has been of great benefit to the project.
“There are many activities in the landscape that nobody knows of, except those who work with it. I went for a walk with Hanne, for example, and we stopped near the hillocks with corn. Architecturally, they seemed to frame the landscape. As an aesthete, I exclaimed how fantastic it looked, but Hanne replied: “Yes, it is a great success!” “Success – how?” I then discovered that the researchers at LIFE have been experimenting with corn that gives a greater yield if cultivated on small mounds rather than on flat ground. They could do a lot more to communicate that.” The universities do not commit themselves to using the art plans, but in addition to helping with communication and fundraising, the art plans are also a useful frame of reference when the universities assess their aesthetic teaching environment once every three years.
The art in the campus development creates both new opportunities and new challenges, especially when the work of art is a landscape with many functions. How do you handle the more fluid form of the work of art? Should the defined shortcuts, slabs and maps of the area be changed when new activities are added? Or should the work of art be a frozen picture of current activities? It has also been important to coordinate the artistic decoration with production and research at LIFE as well as with the objectives for health, sustainability and accessibility that apply to campus areas open to the public.
As far as the art plan for Taastrup Campus is concerned, this means that it must be possible to rearrange the harvested paths to prevent them from getting in the way of the test fields, which are planted on an ongoing basis. In addition, other important planning considerations such as access for the disabled must be included in the plan for the surrounding area. Should the white walkways and the down-trodden paths be made accessible to wheelchair users? So far, Camilla Berner’s answer to this question has been “no”. She argues: “Obviously, we must make allowance for the disabled, but I am not a landscape architect in the traditional sense, and what I have created is not landscape design but a work of art. That sometimes means more emphasis on aesthetics than on function. There is a certain finesse about the white line created by a row of white slabs. It creates the impression of a walking trail. A double row of slabs would resemble a wide pavement. However, collaboration with a new landscape architect could make it possible to open up a combined route in which my paths can be connected to new asphalt and gravel paths that allow access for the disabled.”
Once a new landscape architect has been found, the Faculty of Life Sciences will start applying for funds to implement the art plan, which includes everything from the purchase of wellington boots to the establishment of paths. The art plan prepared by Camilla Berner thus has the specific goal of incorporating art into the campus.
The art funding is based on a government circular, which states that 1.5 % of labour costs in connection with new construction work or restructuring must be spent on decoration¹. This scheme has been in operation since 2004, and during that period, approx. DKK 5 million have been allocated per year. On the website of the Danish University and Property Agency, you will soon be able to see the approximately 40 decorations financed by the agency since the start of the scheme. The art plans for the campus areas will also be available on the website.
Cathrine Schmidt¹ The art funding is calculated on the basis of normal construction costs. As a result, additional costs e.g. in connection with the establishment of laboratories, would not result in additional funding for decoration.
Lancaster University from 1964 is located in the countryside, approx. 5 km outside the city of Lancaster. The university has 6,000 beds on campus and a total of 15,000 students and employees. Because of its location in the countryside and the many boarding students, the university has to provide for the many needs associated with the students’ everyday life
| Det biovidenskabelige fakultet, LIFE, Frederiksberg Campus, København | ||
|---|---|---|
| Established | 1964, the year it was built | |
| Status | Public university | |
| Campus population | Campus population: 15,000 people: 8,500 Bachelor's degree students, 3,000 Master's degree students, 800 PhD students, 1,200 academic staff and 1,500 technical and administrative staff | |
| Distance from the city | 5 km from the centre of Lancaster (46,000 inhabitants) | |
| Subject areas | 3 faculties: Management, Art/Social Science and Science/Technology | |
| Annual study fee | Approx. DKK 35,000 (Standard for British universities) | |
| Number of beds on campus | Approx. 6,000 | |
Lancaster University is a public university, financed in part by the British Government and in part by the university’s own revenue. The university owns its buildings and land. As a result, it can lease premises to different commercial enterprises and benefit from the profits. The university takes part in several public/private partnerships, including the recent ‘graduate housing’ partnership. The planned new science park is to be financed jointly with Lancaster city, which is extremely interested in maintaining a good relationship with the university, as the university is the main employer in the city and the region.
Lancaster University is an isolated campus located 5 km from the city of Lancaster. The campus area has a wide range of facilities – academic as well as social – which makes it a lively area that can be compared with a small town.
The campus is designed as one long street – commonly called ‘The Spine’ – which connects all classrooms, shops and social functions. The student residences often have a bar or a café on the ground floor facing the street, whereas classrooms and accommodation can be found on the first and second floors. The result is a lively street scene with shop fronts or learning facades on the ground floor. The central ‘spine’ is partially covered so you can walk from building to building without getting wet. At the same time, the covering creates shelter and nice places for informal meetings.
The building structure is compact and non-hierarchical, and pedestrians are kept apart from other traffic. This dense structure means that all distances can easily be covered on foot. Nothing is more than a 10-minute walk away. This concentration of campus life in a small area creates a feeling of closeness.
‘Alexander Square’ is the central square on campus from which the streets lead to the rest of the campus and other smaller squares. The square is a kind of ‘Town hall square’ with an underground terminal for the bus to Lancaster city as well as key functions such as a library, the university administration, a bookshop and a baker’s. Alexander Square is flanked by buildings on all sides and is both sunny and sheltered. One side of the square is elevated with steps to sit on, which creates an intimate and relaxed atmosphere. Students gather here for meetings or for no apparent reason and people constantly cross the square on their way from one end of campus to the other.
More than half of the students live at one of the nine colleges on campus. To meet the needs of the 6,000 students who live here, the university offers a wide range of urban facilities on campus and almost all are located in the main thoroughfare: cinema, second-hand shop, bookshop, newsagent, baker’s, coffee shops, eating places, church, bank, florist, theatre, dentist, doctor, pharmacy, post office, etc. Some eating places are managed by the university but most are private enterprises that lease the premises from the university. Leasing is handled by the university, which thus has an opportunity to generate income from the presence of the retailers.
The university generally uses the premises around the clock by e.g. having a café that is operated commercially during the daytime while students are allowed to run a non-profit café in the evening.
With its focus on holistic campus planning, Lancaster has gone to great lengths also to meet the non-academic requirements. Informal meeting places have high priority – also in buildings mainly used for teaching and research. The InfoLab 21, for instance, a new research centre, contains incubator environments, research facilities as well as an attractive café with a roof terrace and a view that attract visitors who do not otherwise use the building.
Since 2007, Lancaster University has worked according to a new 10-year master plan, which, contrary to the previous plan, tries to keep the campus within the original construction area. The new strategy therefore emphasises the central thoroughfare created in the original plan from 1966, shifting the focus away from the outer areas and back to the centre of the campus. The aim of the new plan is to upgrade the public space and reintroduce green corridors with views to the surrounding landscape. This plan involves demolition of select buildings inappropriately located. New urban squares are to be created and existing squares upgraded to add new destinations to the street, including a culture square at the northern end of campus in connection with the theatre and the concert hall. At the central Alexander Square, the intention is to establish a new exposed learning hub to make ‘independent studies and autonomous study groups’ more attractive to the students.
Joe Rigby studies Sociology at Lancaster University. He is about to complete his first year of a combination degree programme consisting of a Master’s degree and a PhD after completing his Bachelor’s degree at Oxford University
How much time do you spend on campus?I live in the city, as I tried living on campus during my BA studies. This time, I preferred to live in an environment where I wasn’t surrounded by students alone. The thought of student isolation didn’t really appeal to me, but that said, I go to campus every day to study.
What made you change university between your Bachelor’s degree and your advanced studies?When choosing a university for my advanced studies, I had to consider my finances, among other things. I went for an interview at Lancaster because I am very impressed by the professors who teach at the Department of Sociology. They wrote the books I studied during my Bachelor’s degree. During the interview, they offered me an attractive package with a combined Master’s and PhD degree, which was hard to refuse. They also made it feasible financially, so I accepted the offer. I changed because of the academic profile and not so much because of the social life.
In your opinion, what are the differences between Oxford and Lancaster Universities?The atmosphere at Lancaster is definitely quite different from Oxford. Lancaster is almost anti-elitist. I don’t see the class barriers that were very obvious at Oxford. On the contrary, I often run into my professors and teachers in the campus area. They have their feet firmly planted on the ground and like to stop and chat. At Oxford there was a lot of pressure both my own and from the surroundings: I had been given the privilege of being accepted at Oxford, so I had to give it everything I had. It became a bit of a disincentive and I am actually happier here at Lancaster where I have unlimited room to find my own feet.
Lianne Robinson is currently on leave from her Bachelor’s degree in Film Studies and has a paid job as the person responsible for ‘education and welfare’ in Lancaster University’s Student Union, LUSU
How much time do you spend on campus?I spend almost all my time here in that I live, work and socialise here. I live at one of the colleges but spend most of my time here at the student union. Most of my friends are here and we are more or less like one big family. So even though I am on study leave, most of my life, both mental and physical, still revolves around campus.
Why did you choose to work for the LUSU and what do you do there?There are many reasons why I chose to become active in LUSU. First of all, the union has given me some great times as a student and made my time on campus much easier. LUSU has a film club located in one of the university’s lecture halls. I frequented it a lot, as the cinema is much cheaper than cinemas in the city.
Through the film club, I became aware of the many other clubs and societies connected with LUSU. They cover everything: political, ethnic, academic as well as social issues. When I was in need of a break from my studies last summer, working at LUSU was a logical choice for me and I therefore ran for election as one of the six students who get paid for their work. I was elected, and I am now responsible for general welfare and education on campus. It’s an excellent combination, as I gain relevant work experience without losing my contact with the university.
What are you trying to improve at the university?At Lancaster University, the needs of the students are generally well looked after, so fortunately there are many things I don’t need to worry about. One thing that keeps us busy at the moment is the upgrading of the physical study areas. The Lancaster University area has a wealth of informal places where you can study but many of them are connected with either cafés or our many bars. We have many students who would like to sit together informally without getting crumbs, crumbled chips or spilt beer on their laptops, and it’s important that we make room for them, too. Many of them are often advanced students who don’t participate much in the social life at the university, and it’s important that their needs are met.
Patricia Russo is an exchange student from Italy. She is studying for one year at the Institute of English Literature as part of her Italian Bachelor’s degree
How much time do you spend on campus?I spend all my time here. I was a bit nervous about moving to the north of England all on my own so I was very pleased when I finally arrived. I live at a college with students of different subjects and it has been very easy to settle in. I had only been here two days when one of my fellow students from the same floor dragged me down to the bar for the first time. I enjoy studying and living at such an intense place. When I wake up in the morning, I’m a student; when I have lunch, I’m a student, and when I party at night, I’m also a student. I have entered a ‘complete’ student life!
What facilities do you use on campus?It would be easier to say what I don’t use because I live my entire life here. I do my shopping at the local supermarket; I draw my money from one of the many cash points on campus; I drink my pints at one of the many bars on campus and I do yoga at the sports centre. I really can’t think of any need that’s not being met here – except maybe for clothes shopping – but it’s also good to be forced to go into town every now and then.
Which places do you prefer on campus?I love sitting here in the square, looking at people passing by. It’s a place where you can both see and be seen. It’s a bit quiet here today, but sometimes really strange things happen. People create happenings to collect money or sell their old books, and the many societies often recruit members here. It may be due to my Italian background, but if I should complain about something, I would say that it would be nice to have a café here in the square that sold proper coffee and perhaps had a couple of tables where you could sit in the sun. And well, I don’t want to insult anybody, but the quality of the food here on campus isn’t exactly up to Italian standards.
Lancaster University recently improved its national ranking after four years of massive efforts to physically improve its campus. The university, located in the north western corner of England, devotes particular attention to creating an attractive physical and social environment. The strategy is to create space for ‘the good student life’. To Lancaster University this concept includes shops, banks, restaurants and a theatre. And perhaps also soon a residential area for over-55-year-olds who may act as mentors to the students
You have recently improved your position in the British ranking lists for universities. Did the physical environment contribute to the improvement – and if so, which particular aspects of the physical environment? We have found that the physical environment plays an important role when students are choosing their future university. I think that two things are essential here: the range of available facilities and the quality of the facilities. We try to create diversity and a broad range of offers on campus. By this, I mean for instance sports facilities, shops, supermarkets, banks, leisure facilities. And the quality of it all must be in order. In addition, we focus a lot on creating safe environments for our students. The campus must be a comfortable, secure place to stay, live, and study.
So, you take responsibility for the youngsters by considering security as part of your campus planning. How do you do that?
When you live on campus, you have all the possibilities you find in an ordinary city. But unlike the city, we have the possibility of providing a higher level of security. Some students prefer that. The British police have a special award: The Secure by Design award which is given to building complexes whose design includes considerations of security, for instance in terms of lighting or general visibility. We have been given this award for all the building projects we have implemented in the past two years. Security is important to us, so we are very pleased with our Secure by Design award.
You have 6-7,000 residences on campus, which means that half your students live here, making the area a lively place all 24 hours of the day. The campus is surrounded by green fields, and the nearest town is 5 kilometres away. As a visitor, you may experience the campus as an isolated, but lively youth town. You have built residences for students with children, thereby achieving a more differentiated population of residents. Have you also thought about building residences for other age groups than students?
Yes, we are currently considering whether to offer housing to over-55-year-olds on campus. This has been tested in Australia as a concept where older newcomers get sort of a parental status in relation to the students, acting as a kind of mentors. We can of course offer further education and adult training for people who decide to move in here. Naturally, they can also use the university’s sports and leisure facilities. So, it is not exactly what you would call retirement to a quiet life! We are currently applying for permission to use some of the university’s areas for residential purposes, and once we get the permission, we will decide whether to use them as residential areas for over-55-year-olds. We consider this an exciting prospect.
You aim at utilising the available areas efficiently, seeking to establish dual functions with added social benefits. For instance you have established cafés which are privately run during the daytime and transform into student-driven non-profit facilities during the night-time. So, the room and the kitchen are the same, and only the financial set-ups differ. Do you have any other examples of areas which are used for multiple purposes like that?
Yes, at the moment we are rebuilding the academic accommodation for the scientific staff around campus. We are also introducing Breakouts or Mixing Hubs in the office areas which may be used by both students and staff. Breakouts are a supplement to the workplaces – which may be used for formal meetings with students, but also for informal conversations or other interaction with colleagues. We typically place these meeting places in the corners with the best view of the premises. In this way, they serve as a sort of link between the different functions and people in the building.
We follow our 10-year master plan which was completed last year – and proceed project by project. For instance we will be performing a complete overhaul of all older buildings over the next 9 years. As a result, we will replace windows, installations, cables and pipework in all buildings to ensure sustainable operation. At the same time, the overhaul enables us to refurbish and restructure the office and study areas.
Sustainability is generally important to us, and we have received several awards for our efforts in this field. One of the initiatives we have implemented makes it possible for students to log on and monitor the energy consumption in their own house. The house with the lowest energy consumption in a term can win a £600 prize. Each house has just 12 residents, and the prospect of making an extra £50 each has proved a strong motivator in encouraging the students to improve their habits!
Other than the overhauls, you are also busy implementing several new building projects as well as an upgrade of many areas and street sections on campus. How do you finance all these initiatives? The university has made a strategic decision to spend a part of its annual profits on upgrading its buildings. In addition, the university can apply for both national and regional funding. Finally, we use PPP, Public Private Partnering, for all accommodation. Without PPP, we could not afford to build the new residences.
In the longer term we wish to leave the ownership and operation of the student residences that we own already to private operators. By focusing on owning and operating the teaching buildings and leaving operation of the residences to others, we can minimise the associated operational and building risks. Ownership of buildings per se is not important to us. As long as the contracts are in order, we have no problem disposing of them under a PPP model. This enables us to spend the money on other things that we also care about.
Mikala Holme Samsøe
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) is located in an industrial quarter in the city of Cambridge only a few kilometres from the centre of Boston. The campus area was founded in 1916 and has gradually been extended since then. The university uses distinctive iconographic architecture to market its multidisciplinary and innovative approach. They do not use master plans but rely on ongoing planning processes
| MIT with Boston on the opposite side of the Charles River. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Established | 1861, campus commenced in 1916 | |
| Status | Private university | |
| Campus population | 18,000 people: 4,000 Bachelor’s degree students, 2,400 Master’s degree/diploma students, 3,700 PhD students/doctors, 1,800 academic staff and 6,100 technical and administrative staff | |
| Distance from the city | 2 km from the centre of Boston (4 million inhabitants in the Boston metropolitan area) | |
| Subject areas | Engineering (45 %), Architecture (8 %), Humanities (5 %), Business (12 %) and Science (29 %) | |
| Annual study fee | Approx. DKK 185,000 | |
| Number of beds on campus | 5.000 | |
MIT is a private university and considered amongst the best in the world. The university places considerable emphasis on theoretical, applied and interdisciplinary research as well as high-tech development work. MIT is a private company that owns all its buildings, although the university does receive public funding via grants for research projects. MIT leases premises to independent service companies while sports facilities and residence halls or ‘houses’ are financed and managed by the university.
MIT is a concentrated city university with an extensive campus area in the city of Cambridge a couple of kilometres from the centre of Boston. The campus area is divided into two parts, as Massachusetts Avenue, which connects Boston and Cambridge, cuts straight through the campus. On the one side are all the academic buildings, while the other side of campus contains residences, sports grounds, cultural facilities and a small number of retailers.
The buildings in the academic area are dominated by the university’s earliest building, a structure consisting of long connected corridors. The central corridor connects completely different academic areas and is MIT’s ‘catwalk’ where you go to see and be seen.
Both parts of campus are graced with a number of buildings designed by world-famous architects. MIT has a long-standing tradition for attracting such architects, as innovative architecture is seen as part of the university’s profile. However, the iconographic and at times expressive buildings such as Frank Gehrys ‘Stata Center’ lend a fragmented character to the campus.
There is no focus on the space between the buildings, and at present the number of inviting city spaces is limited. There are exceptions, however, such as the monumental lawn by the river, which is transformed into the school’s ceremonial hall in connection with diploma ceremonies in addition to the more informal and intimate everyday use. The slogan: ‘At MIT we don’t walk – we run’ indicates that the MIT user does not walk aimlessly around campus but moves with a purpose. The experience between arrival and departure then becomes meaningful, which can be a possible explanation for the limited focus on the space between the buildings.
As a result of MIT’s unusually strong academic profile, the university has had no major need to interact with its surroundings. This may explain why the extensions of the last 90 years barely interact with the rest of the city. MIT does not make its knowledge visible in the urban surroundings and does not offer any programmes that invite outsiders to participate.
The area around MIT primarily consists of industrial buildings and office areas and appears lifeless. The city of Cambridge does not want much retail business in the area, as it gives higher priority to research companies that pay more tax. This prioritisation of research companies and the large number of incubator environments in MIT’s immediate vicinity contribute to making the Cambridge/Boston area a knowledge city, par excellence. From this point of view, MIT coexists perfectly with the rest of the city.
It is a major challenge for MIT to provide a social environment in an academic climate characterised by elite students and high ambitions. MIT offers all new Bachelor’s degree students accommodation in a residence hall to help them become well integrated in the MIT environment. The residence halls/houses that characterise the western side of campus are generally designed to create a universe of rooms and nooks that facilitate both learning and social interaction. In that way, they combine a home atmosphere with academic life. The university’s emphasis on residence halls built by famous architects should thus be seen as a strengthening of the academic environment.
‘Simmons Hall’ is the most recent residence hall designed by Steven Holl and is the most expensive residence hall in the USA to date. The building further elaborates on work by the Finnish architect Alvar Aalto’s canonised MIT college ‘Baker House’. The residence house also accommodates a host family with a member of the teaching staff, and offers accommodation for guest researchers.
‘Learning by doing’ is MIT’s academic motto. The teaching is of an experimental nature and students and researchers consistently work in a multidisciplinary manner and often construct and test ideas in one of the many workshops or laboratories.
Despite their dreary appearance, the long corridors and the ‘catwalk’ at MIT form the basis of MIT’s special entrepreneurial culture. In the corridors, people from different academic areas meet and share their knowledge despite the fact that no special effort has been made to create informal meeting places. This multidisciplinary exchange is supported by the fact that several subjects are located in the same corridor as opposed to a structure where the subjects are based in separate buildings.
MIT is the only university in this survey that does not have a master plan but focuses on ‘Real-time planning’. It is a less structured planning tool aimed at short-term action, and it has to make allowance for a complex and changing world.
Throughout the most recent decade, MIT has used ‘real-time planning’ to focus on building new unique and iconic buildings for research and accommodation and has also made various individual attempts at revitalising the outdoor spaces on campus. MIT’s next development phase ‘Evolving Campus’ aims to ensure that the university remains a leader within knowledge, innovation, research and education and at the same time becomes a neighbourhood that can provide for many diverse needs.
As the global classroom has become the norm at MIT, the university now wishes to give higher priority to the local campus and immediate neighbourhood in order to continue attracting international researchers, students and investors.
Future projects should therefore contribute to a positive development of the surrounding neighbourhoods, especially a run-down industrial area between the university and the city. The area is already partially developed, as over the years MIT has purchased large tracts of land it now wishes to develop.
The chapter is an edited summary of the working paper ‘The campus area of the future’ by the Danish University and Property Agency and Juul Frost Arkitekter.
Kaitlyn Becker is in her second year of a mechanical engineering degree. The prescribed duration of the Bachelor’s degree is four years
How much time do you spend on campus?All my time, more or less. I live at the Simmons Hall residence hall, which is located on the western side of campus, and I study on the eastern side. Now and then, I leave campus to do some shopping – but that’s about it. Otherwise, I divide my time evenly between my room and my teaching. MIT is my world.
Why do you live at Simmons Hall?As a Bachelor’s degree student, you are guaranteed a room in one of the university’s residence halls. You choose which residence hall you prefer to stay at and then hope to be allocated your first choice. I chose Simmons Hall because it’s the newest and therefore, if I may say so, the least run down. Simmons Hall may be the most expensive of the residence halls but I really fancied living in this amazing new building. In fact, I like the building so much that I ran for election to become a guide to the building. I don’t get paid but that doesn’t matter, as I also have a student job at the residence hall reception. On the contrary, it shows that I’m committed when I write it in my CV. The job at the reception means that I get free accommodation, and at the same time I get to know a lot of the other residents at the hall. As if that wasn’t enough, I also have a summer job as part of an ‘undergraduate research programme’. That job gives me laboratory experience, which is essential for my future.
What made you choose MIT as your university?I actually didn’t consider MIT until my science teacher grabbed hold of me and encouraged me to apply. My parents and I therefore paid a visit to check the physical facilities. My first thought was: “Oh my god, I never want to study here,” because what I saw was a barren and cold campus that wasn’t particularly appealing. However, then we did a tour guided by one of the students. He was amazing and in him I met a student who was just like me: interested in mechanics and a passionate user of all technical terms; in fact he was probably a bit of a nerd, in a positive sense, that is. It was definitely the feeling that I would find ‘soul mates’ at MIT that made me apply.
Phoebe Putnam is in the process of completing a PhD dissertation in literature at Harvard University
What brings you to MIT when you study at Harvard?I live halfway between the two universities, although I'm closest to Harvard. However, Harvard shuts down many of its facilities over the summer whereas MIT remains open. Today I’m here because I like to sit in the reading room on the top floor of the student centre, which is where the ‘non-academic facilities’ are based. That makes it easy for me when I need a break: All I have to is go down a couple of floors to buy a cup of coffee, eat my lunch or go for a swim in the pool.
How would you compare MIT and Harvard?At Harvard, it is, so to speak, your teacher who has the keys to the classroom. When there is no teaching, you have to sit elsewhere and study. At MIT, the environment is much more social and informal. You can sit in any classroom that is not being used. It doesn’t even matter whether you are enrolled at MIT or not. MIT is also much more isolated from the city than Harvard and they’ve therefore had to provide ‘support functions’ like the student centre that offers everything from food and coffee to photocopying, merchandise and sports facilities under one roof. So even if the design and architecture may not be the most attractive, one area can meet most of my requirements. That’s practical when you are busy writing, like I am, but it’s also easy to get distracted. In this building, I have peace and quiet, more or less!
Do you use any other university facilities?The reason why I began using the reading room at MIT was my boyfriend who has studied chemical engineering here at the university. Before I met him, I had never been to MIT although I was born and grew up in Boston. My interest in literature means that I am far removed from the ‘nerds’ at MIT. I later found out that MIT has an excellent library that also has textbooks and academic material that I can use, so I now use the library a lot. Perhaps students of literature aren’t that different from engineering students, after all.
Talent and the right people engaged in a collaborative process is what it takes when MIT considers campus planning. It is done in a real-time planning process that seeks to challenge intellectual partners and allow architectural innovation to happen. Adèle Santos is a member of the Building Committee at MIT and thus involved in giving advice to the President of the university about architectural planning
InterviewReal-time planning is a less structured planning process that allows multiple viewpoints in order to reach architectural innovation. It is an example of a rather different approach to campus planning. This approach has guided MIT for a while, and it has created a rich variety of architectural masterpieces on campus. The challenge, however, is the idiosyncrasy and ad-hocism it can cause.
You don’t use master plans at MIT – but more what you call real-time planning...? Oh yes, we haven’t had a master plan forever to be honest! We had a previous planner who made master plans but these were considered too rigid. His contract was not renewed and we have not had a formal planning process since. Instead of having a master plan we are trying to look at the process of engagement that can give us more choices for the future.
What is the advantage of real-time planning in your opinion?I think it is very pragmatic. You have to have a framework, of course. So you know the general destination. But you need the flexibility in the process that you get from real-time planning.
And the disadvantage?It can be quite ad hoc. There really has to be an overall ‘framework’ to guide development. We need to have that idea of relative centrality and what can be put in the periphery. Otherwise things will end up in the wrong places. For example, we built a dormitory in a poor location just because the land was available. And, frankly, that is really the history of MIT. The way we exploited space is quite idiosyncratic.
I think you have to go and find the best talents. What you need is the ‘best thinkers’ and you need a really collaborate process. With people from inside the university, and from both the faculty side and the planning department. In that way, we can make the best product and think it into the larger context of this university. We try to explore the potential of the context with the most talented architects, urban designers and landscape architects
It is more a matter of the right people than the right process?Yes, as long as it is collaborative. There still has to be an overall ‘framework’ to guide us.
| ”Real-Time Planning” | |
|---|---|
Real-time planning’ is a less formalised approach, which can be used in complex planning processes aimed at creating innovative construction projects such as iconic buildings. In ‘real-time planning’, neither master plans nor guidelines are used, as is seen in local development planning. Instead, the internationally most talented people are found, and their skills are matched with the possible problems expected in the assignment, and then you set off on an open journey together. Here, you must be able to read the changing surroundings rapidly in order to make quick choices that will send the project off in the right direction. The direction in this case is a number of social and urban objectives. This approach should make it possible to interpret the forces at play in connection with a construction project in a large and complex organisation such as a university. Each individual construction project is treated as an opportunity both to take a critical look back and to explore the future. The advantage of the ‘real-time planning’ process is the flexibility it provides in every phase of the project. Mechanical repetitions are avoided and new ideas are allowed. The disadvantage is that without passionate commitment, strong leadership and high architectural aspirations, the project will not succeed. Source: Mitchell (2007) |
Yes, a lot of buildings were build during the previous administration and now we don’t really have a lot of resources to do a lot of that right now. So the easiest thing is to take a look at all the pieces of landscape that bring this campus together. Landscaped spaces and pathways that join with the indoor networks can make the built campus more coherent. Our existing landscape is mostly quite ordinary. To be honest.
If the space in between the buildings has been neglected so far does it have something to do with the ad hoc process of real-time planning?I think it is more a matter of landscape plans that did not go anywhere. MIT was more focused on the buildings. The landscape architects who are working with us now are very user-orientated. I think they are extremely user-sensitive and they are trying to pick up the important features of the past. Obviously, Killian Court, which is the green lawn between the main building and the river, is a really nice space. A lot of our open spaces are not really useful because they are not user-friendly.
I sit down with the designers before the Building Committee meetings and have a professional critique, you know professional to professional. I can identify the issues that will be of concern and help reach the best solution. In a way, I am an advocate for good design, improving everything we do at MIT.
On the other hand, I also have to be a bit of an activist. Our university is very spread out and we are in a series of interconnected buildings. It is very difficult to know what research is taking place behind the closed doors in our hallways. Right now, I am involved in an effort to create spaces where we can reveal what we are creating. One idea is to have an ‘innovation gallery’ where all five schools can display their work. This would facilitate discussion and reveal MIT to MIT.
I am sure it applies to every place, but MIT does not reveal itself to the world. There is a unique culture here, and when you drive down Massachusetts Avenue, you should know that you are passing through MIT. For example, I have been recommending that the bus stops close to our main entrance be designed by our faculty members who know how to design digitally interactive structures. These would contain screens that announce events taking place on campus and show the innovations that are taking place at MIT. People should see the innovations we make, just by passing by. I think that the public would find this very exciting!
This section allows three voices from three user groups to make themselves heard. Here, students, teachers and researchers talk about their visions for a good physical study and research environment. What is common to them all is that they think in terms of cross and multidisciplinary collaboration, and they also indicate that knowledge is something that is created in interaction with others.
The students are represented by the 1st and 2nd prize-winning proposals in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s essay competition for students about the good study environment. The competition focused on the physical frameworks at Danish universities. The 1st prize winner describes how she visits different places when she is looking for a good study environment, e.g. university libraries. The 2nd prize winner describes qualities such as in-depth studying and connectedness as they are exemplified in everyday scenarios from an optimum future.
The teachers are represented by two teachers who are both experienced in working with different learning forms. Both experiment with the use of space in the learning situation. One of them reflects on how learning spaces have developed through the ages, starting with the ideals of the past. He describes how learning is only possible if the framework in which the learning is to unfold is established. The other talks about the importance of integrating pedagogies and design in the teaching spaces.
The researchers are represented by one researcher from the ’dry’ social studies subjects and another from the ’wet’ scientific subjects, which have laboratories as a part of their everyday workplace. One of them would like architecture to invite disruptions that can break the loneliness that a researcher might often experience in his or her office. The other describes the potential that exists in upgrading laboratories in order to achieve scientific breakthroughs.
My physical study environment has always been elsewhere. It has never been my institute on the island of Amager. And I do not think the institute alone is to be blamed. In fact, it is not really an issue of blame. I think it is more a question of temperament. I was not looking for an ‘environment’. I actually didn’t expect there to be an environment. When the new KUA (University of Copenhagen at Amager, ed.) was set up, I was deeply grateful for the inflow of light in the classrooms and the Internet access in the corridors. However, my sense of being a student still did not correspond with the mental space created by the institute’s framework. It would be more accurate to say that I was looking to create my own study environment. I think the concept of study environment is flexible, as mobile as modern man. And it is not necessarily tied to one specific physical space. Ideally, it is tied to several spaces.
The ‘other’ places I have gone to when I didn’t have classes at KUA, have certain things in common. I went to the Diamond (The Royal Library), and I went to the library at Copenhagen Business School (CBS). I studied for a year in New York, and there, I typically used the gigantic library at New York University (NYU). First of all, the three places are characterised by the diverse composition of the student groups. Not only do the students come from different institutes, they also come from very different schools. I feel that I need this diversity to gain an identity as a student, which is not only determined by my institute. Secondly, all three places offer a good framework for studying. What do I mean by ‘good framework’? A lot of things, as it happens, but first and foremost something as simple as peace and quiet and the allocation of an individual, autonomous little island, a table, one’s own lamp; a framework that emanates partly that it is there for the students, partly that as a group you figure as a factor. This strengthens one’s identity and in the end, one’s motivation. Additionally, the libraries of CBS and NYU excel by being there to an even higher degree for the students. The library at CBS is open not only during the week and on Saturdays, but also every Sunday until 5 pm, and it is crammed full of people, a living island in an otherwise dead Copenhagen. In New York, they have gone one step further: here, you can use the reading rooms until midnight every single day of the week, and there are hundreds of computers with Internet access available to the students, a wireless network across the building, gigantic reading rooms as well as individual rooms if you want complete quiet. It may well be that the institute library’s Monday to Friday opening hours are one of many reasons that I have not used it even once. In other words, the three libra-ries offer a level of accessibility that suits me – and many others, I’m sure – because it matches perfectly the desire to manage your own time across weekends and the Act on Closing Hours. Just think of podcasts, which are an expression of the same phenomenon.
Thirdly, all three places contain a duality of community and individualism. You sit together with a lot of people, who are in principle busy with the same thing – acquiring knowledge – in long rows, but you do so at your own table, just as your own project remains your very own, usually completely different from that of the person at the next table. The duality of community and individualism is strengthened by the physical framework in all three places. At the Diamond, for instance, the long rows of tables offer a view to students both in front of you and behind you. I think this spacious view is crucial. It strengthens the sense of community, and in the end the identity as a student, that you are able to see others engrossed in the same activity as yourself.
Fourthly, in all three places, thanks to the glass facades, there’s plenty of natural light in the reading rooms. From the Diamond, for instance, you have a view across the harbour of Copenhagen. The building opens up instead of closing in, which gives you the impression that you have not shut yourself off to the world, but that you are still a part of it. At the same time, the inflow of light simply provides energy and a chance to lift your eyes from the books or the computer towards a place of life and movement – a ship sailing by, people standing around chatting, etc. In this way, the break is integrated to a much higher degree, while you remain in your seat. And this, I believe, is more productive in the long run, because the contrast between break and work is more blurred.
In terms of the physical location of a campus, I think that ‘proximity’ is essential to the sense of belonging to an actual study environment. The relative proximity among different university functions enhances the sense of a true identity-creating space. Again, in this respect, I experienced the campus at NYU as something close to the ideal. The university’s administration, institutes, training centres and dorms are all located around a park, Washington Square Park, which in turn is surrounded by New York City. And whereas on the one hand you might say that it is impossible to compare Denmark and the USA, as the structure in Denmark is significantly different – for instance, in the USA, typically the universities are privately owned with a much more widespread campus culture – on the other hand, you might say that not everything has to be comparable for you to be inspired. New York University is unique, because campus is the city, not a delimited area outside the city, as you see it in practically all other American universities and certain Da-nish ones. And this makes it obvious to make a comparison with e.g. Copenhagen. What I mean is that at NYU, they have succeeded in creating a study environment that is not forced. It is a study environment that on the one hand features the relative proximity between the various NYU buildings, which contributes to removing any doubt that you belong, and where your identity as a student is never questioned, whilst on the other hand, the framework is never too restrictive or dictating. After all, you find yourself in the midst of diversity, the city is right there, existing as a contrast to your identity as merely a ‘student’. NYU’s dominance, for instance, is not completely overpowering Washington Square Park. The area also includes cafés, restaurants and clothes shops. Apart from the fact that personally I thrived with this dual identity as a student and ‘myself’ in the knowledge that the study identity had holes through which I could escape if it grew too restrictive, I believe that this is a study environment form that suits many young people today. Modern man needs several identity-creating options – I think that having just one would quickly seem limiting. On the other hand, I also feel that an identity with ‘holes’ is beneficial in relation to one’s understanding of the surrounding world. The world is changing constantly, and in order to understand this changeability, I think it is important that you yourself are flexible and have the ability to accept other people’s terms. Especially in the light of growing globalisation, I think that the greater the interplay between different physical spaces, and ultimately, identities, the better the developed ability for empathy and understanding.
And finally, it is of course essential that oases exist where you can meet up and relax from studying. New York University is privileged because of the way it is located, as already mentioned, around Washington Square Park, a park that is used for recreation and which is populated by many other people apart from students. At the centre of the park, there’s a circular fountain where people sit and eat their lunch, students, tourists and working New Yorkers alike. Scattered around the place are street performers or musical bands, and street vendors selling their goods around the park. In one corner there’s a small park within the park, where dogs are walked. In another corner, people play chess, there’s a playground, a replica of the Arc de Triomphe, and among the many paths that lead to the fountain are green areas where some sit alone and read, whilst others sit and talk together, and some play Frisbee or football. Again, it is the diversity of the people who feel that this is their park, and the diversity of the park’s offers that inspire. The park may be full of students, but it is not their park alone, it is everybody’s park, or the city’s park. If future planning involves enhancing the sense of campus in Denmark, I think it is important not to create too claustrophobic a framework. Ideally, the city to which the campus is attached, should seep in and mingle. As is so often the case, the way of thinking in a study environment may become too uniform, if you never come across people who are unlike yourself and speak a different academic lingo. Here, the physical framework is decisive when it comes to creating this kind of openness.
One of the alternative spaces that can be included in the interaction with other spaces is cyberspace. As I said at the beginning, I consider the study environment a flexible entity. The concept is not necessarily related to a specific physical space. Neither is it necessarily connected to a physical space at all. As Jakob Linaa Jensen writes in his article, ‘Offentligheden i de digitale mediers tidsalder’ (The public in the age of the digital media) on the website Turbulens.net, the public is no longer determined by a physical space. “As in cyberspace, social interaction in public is not physical. Physical presence is not a prerequisite. The individuals who interact online or in public (or in the online public) are themselves placed in a physical space while the interaction takes place. At New York University, the Internet served as an alternative – and dominant – space to the physical. This was where texts to be read were ‘posted’, and both academic discussions and dissemination of information took place by email. Just as a concrete physical space, cyberspace becomes a space that intensifies the identity as a student. Again, I think that this space is ideal for mobile, modern man; you are not dependent on your own physical presence, in principle you can be anywhere and still follow the teaching. I also believe that physical space and cyberspace work best in interplay. The contrast between the two types of space inspires and allows more types of identity to be created.
I think that it is in the interplay between several spaces that the optimum study environment of the future will be found. A duality of a physical acknowledgement that the students are important via a basic, good framework, and openness towards the surrounding world. Ultimately, it is the surrounding world, life, that inspires academic considerations.
Much too often, the debate about the physical study environment is reduced to a discussion of the number of student facilities and services. Should we have more computers, more reading places, more thesis places, more party facilities, a canteen? And although such discussions are important, we think that the development of the physical framework should take its starting point in a wider discussion of which qualities the university of the future as a knowledge institution should inspire and provide room for. The physical framework is the starting point for the university’s architectural and material set-up. But the significance goes beyond bricks and buildings. The physical framework determines, facilitates and stimulates different forms of study life.
Our basis for writing this essay is thus that the physical framework ‘creates space’. However, to create space is more than just creating places. Consequently, we have chosen to combine concrete ideas for the physical design and interior decoration with a discussion of the qualities that we believe to be central to the study life of the future. We have selected four qualities, which we think a physical framework should allow space for: in-depth studies, knowledge, connectedness and inspiration. Basically, students differ. We study diffe-rent subjects. We study in different ways, at different times, and we develop differently in the course of our studies. It is therefore a success criterion to us to create a lively and flexible physical framework that does not dictate which activities can unfold in the space. The perfect study environment emerges in interaction between people, activities and the physical place. Material and social aspects are closely related. In other words, the physical framework cannot be separated from the life that unfolds within it.
The design of the physical framework must consider local conditions at the individual educational institution and the individual subjects. This essay is written on the basis of our own student life at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Copenhagen. We are the special type of students whose education is characterised by a high degree of independent study. A large part of our study life is spent either in a classroom or with our heads buried in a book or our fingers on a keyboard. Although the concrete design of the physical study environment necessarily will and must vary, we still believe that the qualities we describe can be applied to the work with physical frameworks at all institutions of higher education.
I enter the room where I and four other students have our workstations. The room is seething with activity and atmosphere – knowledge is created here. I have constructed my workstation of four elements, which I have been able to combine myself. My choice includes small bookcases for my books, a locker, a height-adjustable table and a couple of mobile partitions, so that I can adjust my contact to the rest of the room. The desk and the partition walls also serve as interactive surfaces, on which I jot down my ideas, make mind maps and drafts for outlines, which I can transfer directly to my computer. I am able to unfold my knowledge in several media, forms and dimensions. The room is arranged as a decentralised working environment. This means, that close to my workstation, I have everything I need: photocopier and printer, tea and coffee and a small room where I can take a power-nap..
Life as a student is a nomad’s life. We constantly move around between classrooms, with books and laptops under our arm. This constant mobility is essential to student life, but there is also a need for spaces where in-depth studies are the focus. Spaces created for peace and quiet, where we can have a private sphere and work with a concentrated effort. One way of making this possible is by providing us with a personal workstation. A workstation that we can compose individually, adjusting its boundaries both in space and sound. A base, where we are anchored and do not need to worry about practical issues such as, where can I find a socket for my computer, a network connection or a place to put my stuff?
A workstation provides the basic conditions for in-depth studies, but at times, it may be necessary to have the opportunity to withdraw completely into absolute silence. We imagine that small physical spaces be created within the space. Little cocoons or dens where you can find perfect quiet and a different atmosphere. A door that opens onto a haven, where we can read or simply gather our thoughts, find new energy and strength.
We imagine that the workstations be gathered in little work communities in small rooms, as otherwise noise would be inevitable. Despite the advantage of mobile partition walls, large office spaces or other rooms of passage are not a good solution when room needs to be created for in-depth studies. We do not want to fight against the conditions dictated by the room’s limitations. Students and study assignments differ. A personal workstation is therefore just one type of work space among many. We suggest that the design should take into account lighting conditions, different degrees of silence and graduations between private and public. As a student at today’s university you often have just two options: the Friday bar with all its noise and beer-drinking, or the reading room where the dictatorship of silence reigns. We miss environments between these two extremes, where you can concentrate and still experience the presence of other students and their chit-chat. They could take the form of chill-out zones with green plants and soft chairs, or work- stations where you could quickly hook up your computer.
Today, I am meeting my group to prepare an analysis strategy for our project work. We have booked ourselves into one of the university’s knowledge workshops. This is an interactive group room, which not only offers us the opportunity to exchange ideas without being disturbed, but also stimulates our creativity because of its interior design. The room has online access to reference works and literature search facililities. When we have an idea, we can follow up on it immediately. We start by drawing our analysis model on the interactive surfaces of the walls and on the ceiling. While we draw, we transfer our work directly to our laptops. We withdraw a little, sit in the flexible furniture, rock backwards and forwards a little, while we discuss the model, get up again and continue our work on the walls of the room.
The university is primarily a knowledge institution – a place where knowledge is created and acquired. However, often the university’s knowledge space is limited to classrooms or individual workstations. In this way, current university buildings reflect a classical concept of knowledge as a thing that should merely be transferred from a teacher to a student, or be taken from a book. In contrast, we understand knowledge as something that can be learnt, exchanged, created and developed through many different contexts and activities. Knowledge is not produced in the individual alone, but in relationships. This versatile knowledge and learning concept should be reflected in the design of the university’s spaces.
We think the physical framework plays a central role in the stimulation of knowledge and learning. As a minimum, this implies that as a student you should have unlimited access to knowledge environments and sources, e.g. easily accessible libraries and electronic resources. We also suggest that a number of knowledge environments be created at the university, where knowledge can be exchanged and developed outside the classroom. Physical knowledge environments – knowledge workshops.
We imagine rooms where academic networks can be formed and maintained. Rooms that facilitate in-depth studies and group work debates. These could be a sort of labs, where students and researchers can book a place and work. Such knowledge workshops could be multi-functional and flexible depending on the group’s size and the work to be carried out. Additionally, rooms could be set up specifically adapted to certain functions and forms of knowledge exchange. Idea rooms, where project groups or research networks could brainstorm and develop ideas. Exchange rooms where small lectures could be given and workshops could be held.
After the lecture, some of my classmates go to the café. A festive room with music, bar and table football. I often go there to socialise with students from both my own and other subjects. It gives me a sense of being part of a large community at the university. However, today, I don’t feel like going there. Today’s lecture was difficult, and I am feeling frustrated. Instead, I head for the lounge along with two fellow students. It’s nice here, light, cosy, homely. I relax in one of the sofas and enjoy a cup of coffee. The room is fitted out with little comfortable islands where you can sit together in small groups and talk relatively privately. I have been hanging out with these two fellow students the last three study years. We have collaborated on several assignments and draw on each other’s strength when student life gets tough. Being able to discuss the issues of today’s lecture with them gives me the courage to once again throw myself into new academic challenges.
In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about the university’s transformation into a service institution, where education is becoming a commodity and the students are becoming consumers. But we do not want to attend a university where we are like customers in a supermarket – a place without identity, history and relationships. To us, connectedness to the place and the people here is a driving force in our personal and academic development. We do not want to be customers, but co-producers of knowledge. Being connected to the university as students creates commitment and a sense of security that enable us to seek out new knowledge, new thoughts and new relationships.
The physical expression is an important part of the way in which the university is present as an institution in our student life. When we walk along the corridors or sit in a lecture hall, we would like to sense the place’s history, visions, values and the people who have helped shape them through the years.
It is important that the university creates space for not only physical but also social anchoring. The sort that we establish in communities of students, teachers and other employees. Conversations at lunch, over a cup of coffee or the Friday beer are not merely a question of meeting a social need. Networks are a resource on which we can continually draw – also after graduation. Relationships created in one context can be updated in another. Therefore, it is necessary that the physical framework encourages people to meet. That space for fellowship is incorporated into the plans. Places where you can gather on different scales: one-on-one, work groups, as a class, degree programme, faculty, campus area and university.
When I walk through the university’s corridors, it feels like I am walking through new knowledge and ideas. Research is present in the space around me. I stop in front of the board by the library to read this week’s book reviews. On the interactive notice boards by the researchers’, PhD students’ and teachers’ offices I can see news and input about their research. I come across photos from people’s fieldwork, publication lists and extracts from scientific articles. On large virtual information boards along the corridors by the classrooms, I can read news from the different subjects on campus, about different debate events, conferences, workshops. On one of the boards, I find an invitation to a meeting, which I think I will attend. It is in a network for students and researchers who work with Eastern Europe.
In its architectural and aesthetic design, the university’s spaces should inspire us, challenge us, engender a desire for learning, innovation and creativity. The space should be bright, sumptuous and surprising. It should be playful and changeable. It should encourage us to expand our imaginative horizon and shift our perceptual limits – it should question the known and predictable.
The university should be more than just rooms separated by function and connected by empty corridors void of identity. When we are in the corridor areas, we should not be met by clinically empty walls and closed doors. The academic identities should be visibly present. When we are exposed to each other’s points of view and notions of the world, we are prompted into interdisciplinary collaboration. The research that takes place behind the university’s many closed doors, should be communicated into the space. This could, for instance, be done by means of an interactive noticeboard in front of each office, on which the research is communicated.
The university should not be an ivory tower. The physical framework should reflect that the institution is an active and living part of society. The university must turn itself inside out and invite the surrounding world in.
The relations to society contextualise our studies and provide inspiration for our future professional lives. This adds an entirely new dimension to the academic swotting. It gives new meaning and direction.
Relationships can be created, e.g. via a project exchange or a careers advice service where students can meet future employers both through notices and booklets and face to face. But also by making the university’s physical space available to potential partners, e.g. for lectures, workshops, debate evenings, meetings and conferences, where students, researchers and invited guests can meet and inspire each other.
Today, there is hardly any connection between space and the knowledge about what learning is. Instead, space for learning has its roots in the ideals of society of the past. E.g. introverted monasteries, gaudy manor houses, efficient factories or decentralised housing estates. It affects the way in which we consider learning spaces today. Maybe we should reconsider them! In order to do so, we have to understand what has happened and work on an interpretation of this. This is why I am attempting a minor outline of our collective historical experience with learning spaces.
We all know the cosy word, ‘schoolroom’. It evokes a completely different mood in comparison to ‘classroom’ or the more formal-sounding ‘lecture hall’. All three are examples of learning spaces. The schoolroom is the familiar sitting room simply transferred to the school where learning takes place – as opposed to what takes place at home in the sitting room. The classroom is probably lighter and more airy, but here, tables and chairs are placed in rows. It is a room that forms part of a large organisation – otherwise there would be no mention of ‘class’. The lecture hall is a place for listening. Lectures are given, and people listen to them. It is like a sort of Greek theatre with the lecturer at the centre, and row upon row of students, who, however, are not watching a show, but rather listening to a radio play. Behind the lecturer, there will often be several boards, which will be filled with signs and drawings. Maybe we picture the schoolroom in a building that resembles an old farmhouse, the classroom in a building, which might just as well be a factory, and the lecture hall as part of a large building complex, in which a lot of other learning also takes place. It contains laboratories and libraries, offices and canteens. The three learning spaces are also associated with very different notions of social structures and organisation. In the schoolroom, the teacher helps the individual pupil; in the classroom, pupils are heard and given ‘homework’ assignments, and in the lecture hall, maybe the student comes and goes almost independently of the lecturer.“ I am just off to listen to a lecture.”
Through the ages, school and learning have taken place in very different spaces. Ancient Greek sophists held school in connection to the market place – the ‘agora’. We have unearthed a school – a villa – from the time around Caesar in Antiquity’s Rome, where rhetoric was practised. The remains can be seen in the digs under southern Naples – Herculanum. The classical spaces are lost. All that remains are sparse ruins and the words left behind, such as ‘academy’ derived from the hillock where Plato had his school, and ‘lyceum’ (‘lycee’ in French) derived from Aristotle’s ‘Lyceum’. It was not until the emergence of early medieval monasteries that the learning tradition started that we have lived with continuously ever since. The monks would meet in the monastery ‘chapter house’ for a reading of a chapter of Bernhard’s monastic rule. The monks sat in a ‘schoolroom’ and were read the text. Bernhard’s text was divided into chapters of suitable length, which could be spread out over a prolonged period of readings. We still call a section of a book a ‘chapter’. With the appearance of the large cathedrals from around the beginning of the 12th century, the need for educated personnel arose, and the first cathedral schools emerged. They probably looked like monasteries and most definitely featured rooms for lecturing similar to the chapter room, but also rooms where books were written – the ‘scriptorium’ – after the lectures. If you have seen the film based on the book ‘The Name of the Rose’, you have probably seen what it looked like. And just as in the book/film, the library with its few books was a central element. The books had to be read in the room. They were often chained to it. So, the library was not merely a place for book storage, but a place for reading and learning. Around 1200, the university came into being, and it was given lecture rooms – ‘auditoriums’. And small theatrical performances actually took place in the form of defences, where theses were attacked and defended on the basis of a lecture on a text – via a ‘lector’, a reader. And disputes were settled by a professor, who could ‘profess’ something, i.e. claim it as applicable knowledge or dogma. A professor who sat in his ‘chair’ and could speak ‘ex cathedra’, from an elevated place. The academic discussion was quite similar to what later on became the model for the courtroom. The professor became the judge, and the prosecutor and the counsel for the defence took over the roles of the ones who gave the critique and defended, respectively.
Thus there is space for reading, space for listening, space for discussion. Later on, two completely new types of learning space emerged. With the advent of the Renaissance, the anatomic theatre, as it is known, came into being. This is a place where the researcher and the medical doctor can carry out a dissection whilst demonstrating it. Students sit around the dissection table and observe and experience a new world unfolding. Then when it is the student’s turn to practise, the learning space is converted from a place of watching and listening into a place of action. It becomes a ‘laboratory’ – a place of labour. The work can be on animals and plants, human parts or chemical and physical phenomena. Then, towards the end of the 20th century, the computer laboratory surfaced with its row upon row of screens and keyboards.
The monastery as a learning space is characterised by a ‘cloister’, i.e. an enclosed space. There is a boundary between the world and the monastic world. Life is shielded, and learning is based on in-depth study or meditation. Learning is directed inwards. It is a sort of refuge. However, other forms of learning exist. In the Renaissance palace, learning takes on a completely different nature. Here, the humanist is both educator and teacher, and in the nursery, the walls are clad with didactic pictures, which are to transfer their contents of virtues, as if by magic, to the children as they grow up. Just as it was intended in several of Botticelli’s paintings. The humanist becomes courtier, and learning equals acquiring the right ability to do well, not only in conversation, but in behaviour in general. It is focused on the ability to dress well, to comport oneself, to participate in dance and games, in arts and sports. An apt expression is ‘sprezzatura’, the ability to make that which is very difficult and has been hard to learn look easy and effortless – to hide what you really want behind a ‘mask’ of vaguely defensive irony. A learning ideal that would mark later centuries’ notion of luxury and upper class. Unlike the monasteries’ fervent in-depth studies, this is more learning as an outwards physical performance. Oddly enough, the Renaissance palaces would become the architectural role model for the schools and universities of the 19th century.
The end of the 18th century saw the dawn of the first factories. The factory quickly became a model for a modern, rational institution. Learning was to take place in rooms resembling those of the factory. In reality, a school or a university was a sort of learning factory.
Karl Marx considered the factory a model for learning. Schools for the children of ordinary people had started emerging, and learning had to be organised. Slowly, most industrialised societies saw the birth of school systems with an open and free offer of teaching and learning. Schoolrooms became classrooms, and with the advent of democracies, the population at large started stressing the need to complete schooling, even compulsory education and learning. The great Victorian institutions were established: hospitals, museums, schools and universities. Often, they were built as huge Gothic castles or as Renaissance palaces. Those were the two eras that were held in highest esteem. As Functionalism arrived after World War I, the focus on the factory as an ideal grew even greater. The home was a factory of living and the school was a factory of learning. The most famous example of a learning space built in the deep shadow of the factory is the Bauhaus in Dessau by the architect Walter Gropius. The ideal here was for learning to take place in workshops, and these were manned by both theorists and practicians. Study equalled work, and work equalled learning. The buildings might as well have been used for a machinery factory. When the Bauhaus due to Nazism and the end of World Word II ended up in the USA, it was established south of the centre of Chicago on a campus of learning buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe. The shielded yard of the monastery and its cloister are replaced by transparent pavilions spread across a park-like landscape. They reflect openness towards the world and towards each other. Light and air in the home of the 1930s have become light and air in learning. Learning is not the in-depth studies of the individual but associated with a busy network of people in ongoing interaction.
From the middle of the 1960s, universities came into being based on a combination of problem-based learning and project work. This required completely new ways of planning buildings. A space for each project group. Learning happened in a village of small learning spaces, each a framework for all the processes connected to the project organisation: formulation of purpose and the problem to be studied, division of labour, research and writing, production of a report, and finally the exam as a conversation between group, supervisor and examiner. Still others were inspired by the brand new technological possibilities. Buildings can be large, open and flexible, as we know it from trade fair and congress centres, and they can be equipped with advanced types of technological infrastructure, first and foremost connected to information and communication technology.
Today, new learning forms are surfacing. Listening, reading and discussing remain incredibly important, but can take place in new ways. New forms based on games may be introduced and supported by the vast possibilities offered by technology. The learners now have to create their own learning space. They are given options and tools, and the idea of ‘learning by doing’ takes on a completely new dimension. You only learn, if you can create the framework and the content within which your own learning is to unfold. The central aspect of learning may even become the establishment and breaking of this framework. This may even be the case in the first job you get after graduation. The requirement for innovation in the work is on the increase, and learning is now seen as an essential form of value-creation. Learning is a sort of curriculum to be mastered but also transcended. Work takes on the character of learning and is associated with ever more reflection and conceptualisation of the experience gained, just as learning happens through interaction with others. It is crucial to the learning spaces of the future that they allow space for both personal in-depth study and intense social interaction.
So, what can we learn from history? We can see that there have been many forms, and that we have a wide selection, which can stimulate our pedagogical imagination. We have to both transcend what has taken place until now and take something with us. The learning spaces of the future may be a combination of monastery, manor house and factory. We must make tradition and vision interact, turn identity, in-depth study, flexibility and interaction into living, pedagogical opportunities.
Today, there is no connection between space and the knowledge about what learning is. Instead, the universities’ spaces are based on societal ideals. E.g. introverted monasteries, gaudy manor houses, efficient factories or decentralised housing estates.
Pedagogy and design have to be planned together. Aesthetics and process-orientated design should further learning that breaks with old ways of thinking, encourages collaboration and interdisciplinarity and creates commitment. The relationship between learning and space has changed in recent years, but it remains important.
Information and communication technology (ICT) is still in the making, but even now, ICT is in many ways making knowledge acquisition and learning processes independent of both time and space. They take place everywhere: on the train, at the dinner table, in airports, in companies, in fieldwork, in laboratories, at cafés through the laptop and other mobile appliances. While we work on our projects, we are constantly in touch with fellow students, supervisors, external partners and participants, while simultaneously we participate in other online activities, Skype, Facebook, Google etc. You can learn and participate in teaching and the common learning processes wherever you are. This is the reality for most researchers and students today. Consequently, the physical university is under pressure. This trend is particularly evident to adult professionals who attend our Master’s programmes. They only visit the university four or five times a year for intensive seminars. The rest is done via the Internet. The sense of belonging is therefore not anchored in the buildings but in the virtual environment created by the participants through their activities and traditions. But even here, the physical university and the spaces play an important role. It is during the physical seminars that personal relations between participants are maintained and developed, just as the physical gatherings facilitate planning of other experiences and learning processes than the virtual ones, as we utilise that which is tangible, the fact that we can experiment, experience and wonder together. The challenge is then to do so and to have some places that support this.
As teachers, we can offer students different forms of guidance. The Norwegian learning and classroom researcher Olga Dysthe has developed a model that embraces the different guidance forms that make up modern day university education:
The three forms of guidance are all significant. However, whereas the first form dominated the classical university, my message is that the modern university, which is to act as an engine in the knowledge society, needs to focus on the last form. We have to design for the practice community and the network, both the physical-concrete and the virtual. The important thing is to plan binding and productive collaboration between students, and between students and researchers. At the same time, we need to ensure that these groups do not close in on themselves and become self-sufficient. They should continually be challenged through contact to the surrounding world and other networks.
Aalborg University and Roskilde University both did away with the conventional teaching concept and based themselves on contemporary pedagogical principles about problem and project orientated learning. The layout was designed with project rooms, rooms for workshops, seminar rooms and a common kitchen. In Aalborg, the site was old factory facilities, which had become available when the cigar production moved out of the city. The buildings were not custom-designed, but rooms were made available, which could be put into use, i.e. which students, researchers and teachers could make their own place. Each group of students was given a large project room, which they fitted out with the advanced study tools of the day: typewriters, book cupboards, books, blackboards, noticeboards, coffee machines, refrigerators, spirit duplicators etc. The rooms and the pedagogy fitted together. The students and the teachers owned the rooms and were provided with the necessary resources and tools to support the project work. Even a bit of art was added, so that the students’ ideas of life and the world could be challenged.
The project work form still exists, but today, building design and pedagogical form have grown apart. In many ways, the project room is too narrow. It shuts the students in – and shuts them out, away from the world. At Humanities, we do not even have the resources to provide every project group with a room. For a number of years now, we have experimented with group rooms, which the students can borrow: empty rooms without tools, resources or art on the walls. Some students have used them, but most of them have been left as a gaping void.
The solution is instead to bring design and pedagogical practice back together again in the form of common group rooms, flexible furniture and ICT equipment. This is happening at some degree programmes at Aalborg University. Here, project work has taken on a new form: less closed in on itself, and through ICT still in touch with the surrounding world. The workshop and the laboratory are supplements in which the students can experiment and test their theories before testing them in ‘real life’ or ‘second life’. Both students and researchers are very pleased with these environments. The problem may be to find peace and quiet for in-depth studies, which are also a part of the learning processes, but then we use earplugs or withdraw to rooms that are functionally dedicated to this.
The challenge of the network university is both to design a place where students, researchers and teachers feel at home, are drawn in, challenged and like coming, and at the same time to support that large parts of communication and collaboration will be conveyed by ICT. On the one hand, design should ensure that everybody has a place to belong to, e.g. an open project environment. On the other hand, ICT provides great flexibility in terms of how to design learning spaces. At times, it is most practical and comfortable to be able to lie down on beanbags whilst listening to the latest podcast from the lecturer. At other times, it might be nice to follow the lecture whilst using an exercise bicycle, so as to get a bit of exercise at the same time. In the joint meeting, you sometimes need to sit at small café tables or in soft sofas, whilst at other times, you need formal meeting and collaboration tools, such as a projector, a flip chart and common modelling tools, so that everybody has the same basis for the discussions.
Some rooms are individual or belong to the project group, while other rooms are multi-user rooms. This calls for organisational solutions. Who looks after the rooms? How are joint ownership and responsibility established? How can we give a study year their own room for project and course activities and create joint ownership and commitment to handle this? In contrast to all other spaces, which mainly serve as a backdrop to the teaching. However, it takes time for a room to be put to use, and it takes resources to equip the rooms with the necessary tools and artwork. When pedagogy and design are to work together to a higher degree, we therefore need to take a much deeper interest in understanding pedagogical practice as a starting point for design. Practice is not even predetermined, it unfolds and develops. This is why it is crucial that funds be allocated to adapting architecture to the specific practices that take place. That there is enough money to buy a ladder, so that the books on the top shelves can be reached. That extra soundproofing can be provided, when the noise level has not been considered efficiently. That the furniture is light and flexible, so that it can be moved around, and that the portable walls can actually and are allowed to be moved without a lot of additional cost. Turid H. Horgen and colleagues (1999) have suggested an approach to design, which they call ‘process architecture’. The essence in this approach is that designers and users in collaboration should create and redesign their spaces and artefacts to support and work together with the working and learning forms that are under development, and which it is desirable to further. They indicate a series of principles for this, such as incomplete rooms, which invite the users to fill out the missing part; blurred territorial boundaries and ambiguity that support interdisciplinary communication and collaboration; flexibility and cheap adaptations to the ever changing constellations and work forms; different sizes and shapes to support and delimit special functions; mutual visibility and transparency to ensure that you can follow each other’s work processes and further the chance of meeting spontaneously, and access to artefacts and technology that support work and learning. Our spaces are thus not merely a framework for work and learning processes: they work with these dynamically and contribute actively to their realisation.
I work at Kilen (the Wedge) at CBS, an award-winning¹ university building designed by Lundgaard and Tranberg Architects. This is the best place I have ever worked in my entire career. However, to say that I work at Kilen is only a qualified truth! In fact, I work anywhere else but at Kilen. The computer I have at my disposal there is switched on far less hours than my computer at home and my laptop. All of my teaching, dissemination and research activities draw me away from my office. Often I feel that I do not have the time to go to work, because I have to do my job. Even so, I steal the time to do so once in a while!
My work habits probably do not differ all that much from that of most other researchers. This I gather from the fact that research environments in general have a very low utilisation rate. My experience from both Danish and foreign universities is that on a normal working day, institutes are only thinly populated by researchers. And those who are present, are often visiting from other universities – from which they in turn are absent.
The low utilisation rate is partly due to the fact that a researcher position in Denmark only facilitates research during a small proportion of the working hours. But it is also due to the fact that technological development has made research less confined to one place. We used to have to go to the library, whereas today, we can download articles from anywhere around the globe. And whilst we used to have to collaborate with people who we could meet with physically, today, we often work and correspond more with researchers on the other side of the world than with those sitting in the office next door.
In a certain sense, in relation to new university construction, we have to accept the fact that researchers no longer ‘go to the office’ to do their job. In jest, you might say that the office has become the place where we leave our coats and dump our bags when we have to teach or attend a meeting, and an archive for the books and papers that we are not currently working with.
It would seem that the functional need for offices has eroded, but this has not changed the requirements. Frank Gehry explains that when he asks professors how they would like their new offices designed, they describe what they have already got! My experience is that the large majority would like a large, soundproof one-man office, where they can shut the door and concentrate on their studies and writing. In practice, of course, the door is shut from the outside most of the time, and it might seem paradoxical that we fight with such determination for something we use so little! Perhaps the explanation is simply that the office has great symbolic importance.
Having your own office is a sign that you are employed! And not only employed, but also appreciated! Any suggestion that individual researcher cells may not be the solution, immediately sparks a revolt. We find this symbolic significance in all organisations. The office is a status symbol and an indication of your place in the social hierarchy. The higher up you are in the social hierarchy, the larger and better an office you occupy, and ironically, the less time you spend there! This goes for ministers and directors as much as for professors. Were it not for this symbolism, it would be hard to explain why the employees who come here every day should have the worst and smallest offices: the technical and administrative staff, because it is their duty to be present, and the PhD students because they do not have a desk at home.
A lot has been written about how companies build and how they seek to avoid this expensive and complicated way of symbolising social hierarchies, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has succeeded in this. Although open-plan offices have been introduced in many places, managers still sit on their own in the majority of cases, and competition remains focused on the corner office. Nobody wants to admit that it is about symbolism, and hence the interior design is always rationalised with a reference to functional needs. Open-plan offices are said to further knowledge sharing, and managers have confidential conversations. However, these are probably no better rationalisations than saying that researchers need their own offices so that they are not disturbed and lose their concentration on their intellectual work – a work which to a great extent they carry out away from the office.
In my opinion, neither functional nor symbolic needs should constitute the decisive design terms for the researcher workplaces of the future. The Social needs should. In order to explain what I mean by this, I will refer to an example from the world of studies.
At CBS, we have a library at Solbjerg Plads square, which was designed by Vilhelm Lauritzen Architects. From early morning, queues form here for the workplaces. Not only CBS students study there, but also students from all the other universities – in fact, even self-employed business people come there regularly. People do not turn up because of the library’s books and computers – they work with their own stuff which they bring along. Neither do they come to do something together – they are not allowed to talk or share knowledge. They come to sit together – to break the isolation and boredom of their room at the residence hall or at the one-man company. An isolation and boredom which in itself can be very disruptive. My interpretation is that the library reading rooms are full, because isolation is more interruptive than the presence of others.
A researcher career is potentially a very lonely and individual life. Even when you collaborate, you often do so sequentially, because four-handed writing is impossible. The physical design cannot contribute much to changing these circumstances. But it can help break down the social isolation instead of enhancing it by building closed offices. What exactly is it that is supposed to seem tempting to new candidates, if the sight that meets them is long corridors with closed doors? What is it that would make anyone venture out into early morning traffic, if it is as lonely at work as it is at home? It might be architecture’s most important task in the future to create disruptions that would break down the social isolation.
In the beginning, I was worried whether there would be too much noise at Kilen, considering that it is built around a large, open atrium space. Now, I consider it one of the attractions of the building that you always have a sense of life. I also worried about the many glass facades, which made it possible for people to look in. Now, I consider it an attraction that it is possible to look out! As a consequence, today I am based in a large centre office with 12 workstations. I come to be interrupted – not so that it prevents me from working, but in order to sense the community, experience a social fellowship and facilitate spontaneous knowledge sharing. This type of disruption is far more constructive and productive than the one caused by isolation behind closed doors, which leads to useless Internet surfing and generally wandering thoughts. Whether the employees appreciate having ‘the boss’ in their midst, and whether the employees at the centre all dream of having their own, closed office, remains an open question.
The most attractive thing about Kilen is the sense that there are people present – active people. It is the sound of students, the sight of them when they take possession of the open areas for group work. It is the smile from a colleague passing by the conference office. Yes, it interrupts, but it interrupts just sufficiently for you to stay awake and concentrate on your business.
Not everybody agrees with me. Some of the empty tables have signs reserving them for the employees. There are bookcases against the glass walls, and there are closed doors. And naturally, it is a management task to control the disruptions, but in all honesty, the solution is not to remove them. The challenge is to turn disruptions into something positive when we know that they could easily have negative consequences. Maybe all it takes is the introduction of a few behavioural regulations. Maybe, in our open-plan workplace, we need to learn to isolate ourselves when we are worried that we might disturb others inappropriately, rather than isolating ourselves, as before, because we worry that others might disturb us. This is the social norm of the reading room, and it might be equally applicable outside.
We are talking about the difference between the physical ‘space’ and the significant ‘place’. The researcher’s workplace is less interesting as the first than as the latter. We need to talk less about square metres, access and rights, and more about the social sense, inspiration and proximity – an inspiring workplace for researchers. Architecture cannot create this, but it can help us and others do so.
¹ RIBA European Award 2006
When the great French encyclopaedia was written in the 18th century, its 28 volumes contained practically all the scientific knowledge that was recognised at the time. In other words, the combined knowledge was reasonably easy to grasp! This is not the case anymore. The growth in knowledge and the division into the classical sciences has made this an impossible task for just one person.
And that’s not all: Just as it is the case with mobile phones, science has reached its 3rd generation: Technically speaking, we are reaching an ever higher level, and the possibilities for communicating across hitherto unknown boundaries keep growing. The same goes for science version 3.0, where collaboration and academic breakthroughs happen across known scientific borders – and where technology to an increasing degree is becoming a common tool.
Seeds have already been sown for that development, e.g. at Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen. Here, scientists, geologists, biologists and chemists collaborate across subjects and sciences, each taking their starting point in their own solid academic basis in order to expand their combined knowledge of everything from oil research in the North Sea to medical diagnostics.
We will see a lot more of this in years to come, because the answer to many of the future’s challenges will be found precisely in the multidisciplinary melting pot, e.g. in the fields of energy supply, climate change and lifestyle issues. So, the road towards the research environment of the future involves a showdown with the old-fashioned thinking that cements the division between sciences – both physically and in terms of content. In the research environment of the future, the challenges and the projects will be the physical pivot point. This should have a knock-on effect on the buildings that constitute the framework for research and education.
It would be natural to gather the subjects, dissolving the rigid academic division we know today. This would create fertile soil for collaboration and idea exchanging between both students and researchers across traditional subject boundaries. And it is precisely by increasing collaboration between the different disciplines that the university expects to have more scientific breakthroughs in years to come. The laboratories and work rooms of the future should thus facilitate extensive, multidisciplinary collaboration. The exciting but demanding challenge consists in creating buildings and a physical framework that not only further cross-disciplinary research collaboration, but also create space for researchers to retain and develop their own academic discipline.
In Denmark, research and education are closely related, and what is special about the Danish education system is the anchoring in inter-nationally recognised research environments. This means that teaching is managed and handled within the research environments, and that the development of the educational programmes’ academic profiles to a large extent is driven by research. I.e. when students within scientific programmes carry out projects, write their Bachelor’s or Master’s theses, they do so in close collaboration with the research group with which they are associated.
We will see more of this in the future. Students will no longer sit in reading rooms or special rooms for people writing their theses, as it is seen at the so-called ‘dry’ degree programmes, e.g. within humanities and social sciences. Students will physically be placed in laboratories and offices, with a strong emphasis on the fact that they are being educated within the research groups. Therefore, when planning the interior design of new laboratories and buildings for science disciplines, it is necessary to incorporate space for the students, who are to sit side by side with the researchers.
The way in which we teach has also changed significantly over time. A high level of technology, cross-disciplinary collaboration, increased openness, joint communication, inter-subject synergy etc. are all keywords in modern teaching. In the future, teaching will take place in many different ways: on the Internet, in working groups, in laboratories, in classes of e.g. 30 or 60 students or through lectures, where several hundred students are taught simultaneously. Consequently, flexible learning environments and rooms that can be adapted according to the teaching need are essential. This will also provide new opportunities for a more rational utilisation of the buildings and rooms available to the university.
If Denmark is to do well in the competition about attracting the smartest thinkers, we also need to be able to offer a flexible research environment with an optimum technical infrastructure – including a quick start-up phase and highly specialised instrument platforms. This is the case because the best researchers in the world will go where the best researchers are already found, where the facilities are excellent, and where the chan-ces of gaining financing is greatest. These are the terms, if Danish degree programmes and Danish graduates are to have the quality that is in demand, and which is attractive in the global labour market.
One example of the significance of a technical infrastructure is the weighting of infrastructure in applications to the European Research Council, ERC, which allocates DKK 56 billion over a period of six years. The first priority is the quality and the idea of the application and the researchers’ performance so far. Second in importance is access to state-of-the-art technology, equipment and infrastructure. Considering that an increasing proportion of Danish research has to be financed externally, the research environment of the future needs to have an up-to-date infrastructure and a framework to support it. We therefore need a research environment with flexible layout options.
As research environments are run on the basis of grants, the demand for flexibility is huge, because in step with grants being given and expiring, it will be necessary to close or open all or parts of a research group’s activities.
The buildings’ flexibility should also make it possible for researchers to get on with their work as soon as their grant applications are approved. To researchers who are dependent on laboratory facilities, this is a decisive factor. To them, the laboratory has the same crucial function as the engine has to any car. Without the engine, the car will go nowhere – and it goes without saying that whoever has the best and most well-tuned-up car, will reach the goal first.
The same applies in the world of research. Without a laboratory that can be geared and adapted to the researcher’s needs and grants, the researcher will be unable to work to the optimum. And without a laboratory with cutting-edge technical specifications you neither reach the goal first nor do you come up with new ideas or attract the very finest talents.
The research environment of the future is also a limitless size. For centuries, researchers have studied, tested and continued to build on peers’ results, regardless of where in the world they were born. As a result, in the course of the past 100 years, natural science has developed into a thoroughly international science. You might say that it has been globalised. This means that our knowledge increasingly crosses borders, and this will influence everyday life at the laboratories of the future. A university should have international campus environments as its role model and provide inspiring study environments, housing for researchers, cafés, confe-rence centres and IT facilities.
The campus environment – the environment in the immediate vicinity of the university – is becoming more and more international and is characterised by students and researchers from very different parts of the world staying there for short or long periods of time. Housing, residence halls and guest researcher accommodation in the immediate university environment are therefore a natural extension of the idea of an open university where people meet and boundaries are broken.
The doors to the university should be like open swing doors to an innovation and growth power centre, which stimulates innovative environments and strengthens the interplay between public and private companies. Researchers should live next door to entrepreneurs, and the university campus should be the place of preference when new technical companies are to be launched. Research results should be converted into new products and into companies that quickly start implementing the result of groundbreaking research. Increased connections between students, researchers and public and private companies are the focal point in this development – and this should be reflected in the way in which the research environment of the future is planned together with the surroundings.
Our knowledge may have become borderless, but the financial framework has not. If Denmark is to prepare for the competition in a globalised society, it is necessary to invest in new powerful campus areas, which can produce qualified graduates, create research results of a high international standard and contribute to socio-economic growth.
The need for a new framework is evident at the Faculty of Science at the University of Copenhagen, where we work. Facilities for researchers and students have, quite simply, been overtaken on the inside by technological development. To coin a phrase, the problem is found under the bonnet. The bodywork is solid, but the engine stems from the last century. The incredibly accurate measuring equipment and fantastic research apparatus that make up some of the researchers’ most important tools, pose very strict requirements for e.g. vibration-free zones, temperature adjustment and high air quality. Naturally, these requirements were not considered when the buildings were built in the 1960s, more than forty years ago, when the foundation for the majority of the science laboratories was laid. It is inefficient and costly for the Danish society that as a result, researchers have to carry out experiments during the night in order to reduce the inaccuracies in their research results caused by the outdoor traffic that makes the building shake. Another example is the lack of ventilation capacity, which means that the university has to consider turning down groundbreaking research projects, because it is not possible to build more exhaust into the buildings.
If at the universities we are to contribute positively to educating a qualified labour force, creating new knowledge heavy workplaces and socio-economic growth, it is necessary to invest in a future-orientated framework for research and education. This will shift the limits for our knowledge growth, and it will allow our knowledge to grow across national borders, sciences and companies. All of this to the benefit of the socio-economic development in an ever increasingly globalised world.
This section pinpoints the question of how physical frameworks can contribute to creating world-class study and research environments. This is done by means of examples from studies of international and Danish environments.
The section refers to universities that strategically use the physical environment to become even more efficient. They all strive to open up towards the surrounding world and use researcher and student workstations, ICT, laboratories and learning spaces to achieve this.
Examples demonstrate how students are given permanent workstations in the professor’s office, how large lecture halls are being rebuilt into dialogue-based classrooms, and how students are used as a resource that develops the physical environment. It also shows how universities extend their opening hours by creating more activities and attractive places.
As a whole, the material points to some of the challenges that the universities encounter when working with the physical study and research environment. How, for instance, can teachers be backed in experimenting with space and ICT? And what does it take to create space for both peace and quiet and interaction in the researcher’s workplace? And how can students be involved appropriately in the physical planning? The section outlines an answer and a strategy for the future. The examples may serve as a contribution to inspire further debate.
How can the physical framework contribute to creating an optimum study and research environment for modern world-class universities? The Danish University and Property Agency has found examples of a number of universities in Denmark and abroad that can inspire further debate
The modern university is open when people need to use it. This book provides examples of foreign universities that consider themselves pulsating knowledge centres with activities spread out across every hour of the day and every day of the week. It would seem unthinkable to them that students should not have access to book collections, printers and food 24/7. This openness supports a modern lifestyle in which you can also choose to study and work during weekends, evenings and holidays.
Open doors, keycards and sandwich vending machines, however, are no guarantee that the universities will buzz with life every hour of the day. The universities realistically focus their efforts on the times where they have a real chance of affecting the number of visitors. ETH Zürich, Hönggerberg, is located on the edge of the city, and they have realised that as yet, it is not attractive to stay on campus late at night. Instead, they have exploited the weekend by inviting the locals to attend academic activities such as tours of the laboratories, chess club for children and parents and ‘ScienceTalk’¹ – a series of science lectures, which may be of general interest. To ETH, this is the first step towards making it more attractive to come to the campus during weekends.
Other universities are placed closer to the city centre, or the majority of the students live on campus, which naturally increases opening hours. In many cases, the result is special buildings that function as meeting places, concentrating life and activities during the evenings and at night as well as during weekends. This is the case at e.g. Columbia University and MIT, which both have a ‘Student Center’ which is open 24 hours a day. In both cases, an independent building has been constructed, visually distinct from the rest of the area. The buildings offer facilities such as study workstations, cafés, student political activities, information search, printing and basic book collections. Such places concentrate a multiplicity of activities and it feels safe and inspiring to come there, because they are full of life. Also at night.
Several universities are currently working on creating buildings that will be ‘light towers’, ‘students’ hubs’ or ‘student and faculty clubs’. Common to all of them is their visibility, openness and differentiated functions, which are to attract different user groups.
Recently, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation held a student essay competition about the good study environment, and the 1st and 2nd prize winners are included in this book. A common theme among the contributors was the desire for extended access to the university libraries in the cities. It would seem that CBS’s reading room has the longest opening hours in Denmark, typically from 7.30 am to 10.30 pm every day of the week. It is used by students from all fields of study and institutions in Copenhagen. They consider the place an inspiring place to come during weekends and in the evening, because the place is vibrating with student activity. The library’s long opening hours also make it possible for people with normal working hours to use the university’s facilities.
In order to target the resources, the University of Copenhagen’s library at the Panum Institute has introduced flexible working hours. Week by week, opening hours are adapted to the exams of the semester, so that during periods leading up to exams, access is also granted during evenings and weekends.
The challenge when extending opening hours is to both be able to open up and invite the surrounding world in and at the same time to prioritise resources for staffing and handling of security requirements. The risk of theft, assault, vandalism – and within certain research areas also the fear of espionage – is real. However, this should not stop universities from acting as accessible knowledge centres that are open 24 hours a day and thus making it possible for students, researchers and other interested parties to make use of the facilities.
Examples in the survey indicate the need to consider which activities and facilities could be combined with the open doors – e.g. a café, academic assistance with assignments, workshops, lectures and tours.
The long opening hours as such are a practical measure signalling in a very direct way how the university perceives itself: Are you met by a locked door, or should the university be experienced as an accessible knowledge centre?
The modern university offers a variety of learning spaces, which naturally include modern technology and facilities for ICT-supported learning. Neither the use of ICT nor the layout of the room are an object as such, they are merely tools to support and challenge the teaching. It is still necessary to actively decide when and how to make use of them.
In his article in this book, Hans Siggaard describes how there is no connection between space and the knowledge we have about what learning is. We build learning spaces in accordance with ideals of the past, he writes. Should we then change and renovate all our classrooms? Probably not. But maybe we should experiment more?
MIT has taken a significant step in this direction. At a time where many would like large lecture halls in order to be able to present lectures to a lot of people in one go, the university has done away with one of its two large lecture halls. It used to seat 300 people in a traditional set-up with folding seats. The lecture hall has now been transformed to accommodate 100 students seated in groups around round tables with enough space for the group members’ laptop computers. The teacher is placed in the centre by a mixing desk from which he/she can pick out relevant work from the groups. The room still supports traditional lectures, but primarily problem-solving in group work. MIT has used this room for a couple of years, and experience shows that this layout and teaching form can pull particularly weak students up to a higher level.
It is far from all ICT-supported learning activities that require new physical room types. Interchanges between students from several parts of the world at the same time only require mobile equipment and easily take place in flexible workshop-like rooms.
In other situations, a more stationary set-up is needed to ensure reliability. MIT transmits lectures live to the University of Singapore and vice versa several times a day. This happens from three minor lecture halls, equipped especially for transmissions, i.e. they are better soundproofed and without daylight. These three rooms in the basement below the university make it possible for MIT’s teaching staff to be heard across the world, just as students can easily collaborate. MIT is now adding more rooms like this in keeping with an increasing demand. It seems to be a quick and cheap way for the university to establish itself and create visibility in other countries or continents.
Studies indicate that although ICT can be integrated into many existing spaces, new teaching types and ICT possibilities will emerge that will require new spaces. Design and fitting out of classrooms will change and supplement the types we know already. Maybe the traditional lecture hall will become an arena characterised by not having a hierarchy, and in which you collaborate and perform for each other. The corridors will develop into an academic landscape in which you disseminate knowledge and perhaps involve passers-by in the academic work.
One of the challenges when using new room types and incorporating ICT is to get the teachers interested in the room and the technology. The use of ICT and new types of space requires more planning and choreography on the teacher’s part. Typically, the students have no reservations and are already accomplished users. Danish universities have not yet utilised the full potential of thinking pedagogy and academic needs into the rooms. The development of new room types for learning and collaboration is not very pronounced in university construction today. In recent years, Danish upper secondary schools, on the other hand, have developed and built spaces that support pedagogy and academic principles. In this way, the upper secondary schools are challenging the traditional teaching situation. The Ørestad upper secondary school may be one of the clearest examples: classrooms without walls and with zones for academic experiments and games.
The modern university offers attractive study and collaboration environments to students. The issue is different types of fixed or flexible study workstations, which can be anywhere across the university. Rooms or spaces can help push, further or simply overcome a challenge, just as the layout of a physical framework can strengthen academic and social relations across study years and degree programmes.
At Lancaster University, a large number of lounge and reading environments have been established for students, similar to what is known from modern office workplaces. Furthermore, they are currently building a ‘Students’ Hub’, a modern student house with reading places, learning lounge and café open 24/7, which is to gather student activities and render them more visible. The students are to inspire each other by buzzing together. The same type of student house is found at several American universities² and the same trend is seen on other continents, too. The University of Tokyo recently opened a prestigious centre with differentiated types of learning environment, which are used by different degree programmes within one faculty. The place is so physically attractive that the centre earns money by leasing the facilities to other faculties. Despite the fact that traditional Japanese architecture favours introverted buildings, this centre deliberately opens up for people to look in.
What characterises the examples mentioned above is that they often occupy a prominent place on campus because of their modern design and interactive and transparent working environments. Attractive workplaces that support contemporary work forms, transmitting a positive signal to the users and the surrounding world.
The survey of a number of Danish study workstations, as referred to in this publication, indicate that they can help students complete in particular their first study year. The universities have accepted the challenge and are now establishing flexible workstations in existing buildings. The future building for Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Southern Denmark in Kolding, however, is an example of a building in which study workstations have been incorporated into the design from the beginning, and therefore they have been given a more prominent place.
The modern university offers attractive study and collaboration environments to researchers and teachers. The issue here is the way in which institutes are designed, and the way in which they form part of the whole, but it is also about the researchers’ workplace at the university. The spaces can challenge customary workflows and strengthen knowledge sharing and academic relations across different subjects.
Whilst the focus is directed at study workstations and learning environments for the students, far less planners look at the researchers’ workplaces. In Danish university traditions, each researcher has his/her own office, which provides the setting for in-depth studies as well as private conversations and meetings in the same room. This tradition is only a few decades old and was introduced at a time where all researchers typically worked at home. Researchers were allocated permanent offices to encourage them to man the institutes.
Today, the issue is quite different. Many researchers have to stay in many other places rather than at their offices in order to carry out their work, as Kristian Kreiner describes in his article in this book.
The offices are left empty most of the time. Kristian Kreiner describes how he as a researcher, just as the students in the essay competition express it, wants the workplace to create disruptions and social interaction. It should buzz with researcher life. This inspires both the researcher and not least the students.
However, this buzz does not emerge when the corridor with researcher offices is long and shut off, and the researcher is not present. Maybe the researcher’s right to his/her own private office needs to be reconsidered. Might there be better ways of using the space and each other’s resources?
There are examples of a few places where they experiment with the design of the researcher workplace and attempt to create differentiated environments with multifunctional rooms in which more people can work at the same time. 10 VIPs from Humanities now have their permanent workstations in one open-plan room along with PhD students and students writing their theses at E-learning Lab, Aalborg University. The common office strengthens the academic environment and renders activities visible to passers-by. Each semester, 1-2 students writing their thesis are offered a workstation in the room, and thus they work in the same room as the institute’s professor. This gives the students an equal contact to teachers and researchers and a taste of working life and rules of conduct applicable to a workplace. To E-learning Lab, the advantage is that they are increasing their chances of attaching potential PhD students to the set-up. Thinking along the same lines, Aalborg University has established a growth house where PhD students and students writing their theses work in the same room. It is worth noticing that all of the above workstations are equipped with the same furniture. I.e. there is no difference between what is offered to a student or a researcher.
A little anecdote illustrates another aspect of the value of creating equality: It is said that the first rector at Roskilde University decided that he only needed a 12 m2 office. Naturally, this set standards for what researchers and other employees at the university could demand.
At the University of Southern Denmark in Kolding, users and management have decided that researcher workstations in a future large new building are to support the researchers’ request for visibility and collaboration. The competition programme emphasises a greater differentiation of workstations than what is traditional. The office is not considered the permanent property of the researcher – it can be shared or lent out for periods of time. This makes it possible to introduce more spacious spatialities, which can support some of the other work tasks that researchers have apart from the actual research.
The challenges in creating attractive environments for students and researchers are found in the schism that on the one hand, users require peace and quiet for in-depth studies, whilst on the other hand, they also need exposure and a framework that supports collaboration.
This applies to both student reading places and researcher workplaces. It is striking that while students request new measures and frameworks that support their learning and lifestyle, researchers are conspicuously silent and typically do not want spatial changes.
The researchers’ reluctance when it comes to changing the traditional one-man office seems to be a fear of noise, limitations in private conversations, and for some the fear of losing status or a sense of belonging. Even so, an increasing number of Danish researchers see³ more advantages than disadvantages in choosing solutions where they share the areas with others to a higher degree. They opt for arranging the workplace so that they have differentiated possibilities that support the specific work situation. The researcher can both seek out space for quiet in-depth studies and find a place for exposure and collaboration. All according to his or her need.
The modern university has up-to-date facilities available to its researchers and students. This means that the laboratories have to make it possible for students and researchers to experiment by means of modern facilities and technology. And at the same time ensure that this happens in a way that stimulates collaboration and knowledge sharing.
In Denmark, we are facing modernisation of many university laboratory buildings. Most of them were built during the 1960s and 1970s and have to be upgraded in order to meet new needs. This applies to requirements about environment and sustainability, the need for more specialised equipment and for physical flexibility in the layout in order to accommodate changing grants and research projects. Apart from the technical needs, there is also a need for new spaces for collaboration, as traditionally, the focus has been on the conventional workflow in the laboratory without any particular consideration being given to an informal and cross-disciplinary environment.
The Blizard Building at Queen Mary’s in London is an example of a laboratory building that works with space for collaboration and desires to make this visible. The building has a large room from which there is a view to both laboratories and meeting rooms floating like cells and DNA strings, clearly indicating the academic subject area of the house. Naturally, the open laboratories cannot be classified or live up to strict safety requirements that differ from country to country. However, the house does suggest a way in which laboratories can be planned to disseminate knowledge and facilitate collaboration.
The future ‘Protein Center’ (The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research) at the University of Copenhagen is an example of a laboratory that also incorporates space, which will stimulate the contact between the leading researchers who are to use it. The project, which will be ready for use in 2009, also accommodates many new technical focus areas. The project involves a thorough modernisation of a section of the existing Panum building, which has conventional wiring in the floor. The new design does away with this by moving wiring to the ceiling and also by removing heavy installations from the laboratory tables. This ensures flexibility for continual rearranging in step with changing projects and grants.
The challenges in creating up-to-date laboratories are first of all financial, as significant costs are involved, and there are also structural limitations in the existing buildings that are to be modernised. However, the challenges also involve strategically thinking laboratory planning into a larger plan for the entire university. A laboratory ‘locks’ an area because of the expensive installations, and the question is e.g. whether to choose decentralised teaching laboratories with general equipment or to opt for centralised specialist laboratories? It is also interesting to consider whether laboratories are to be built and modernised in a robust way that makes it possible to continually upgrade them over a century. Or should we choose solutions that will probably need replacing within a shorter period of time? Regardless of the chosen laboratory strategy, it must be seen in the context of complete campus planning.
The modern university actively involves its students in the issues concerning campus development. Universities have several issues that can be used in connection with teaching. This increases the students’ insight and understanding of the complex institution of which they are a part. The involvement may both engage students and achieve a better quality result.
This happens in many different ways: MIT allows IT students to solve infrastructural problems, e.g. by programming a new information and news system, which is shown throughout the entire campus. The task is not merely to create the software but particularly to solve the organisational part, which will ensure that the system can live on also after the students have left the university. A minor, but important detail.
Another model can be seen at Lancaster University, where students are employed to find voluntary work in the local community. In the United Kingdom, there is a tradition for students to do voluntary work to enhance their CV. Three students are employed by the university, but in practice they fundraise their own salaries, so that they are cost neutral, and at the same time, the university achieves goodwill in the local community.
Harvard strategically uses its students as ambassadors for sustainable initiatives. They are paid on an hourly basis to teach their fellow students how to save water and electricity. Students following the course ‘Environmental Design’ are also involved in analysing consumption at Harvard – information which has proved useful to the university’s operations department.
One of the challenges when involving students in issues concerning university operations and organisation is that as a starting point, they do not have any means of understanding the complex structure and decision processes of the university. In the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s student essay competition about the good study environment, many students called for opportunities to be included and heard in connection with development of the physical framework. “Where should we take a good idea?” or “How can I contribute?” – these are questions from students full of initiative. Many students would like to get involved, but they are unable to act in relation to the organisation and naturally end up frustrated.
The example from Harvard shows that students need induction in order to be able to act constructively within the university structure. It often takes a serious amount of preparatory work before students can be involved in the development of study environments. For instance, administrative personnel will have to allocate time to finding data about consumption or planning. However, one positive effect is that it links the administrative personnel closer to the teaching, and this may contribute to an increased level of respect between teachers and administration.
It may seem more manageable to involve students in concrete projects that are not related to the daily operation of the university. The examples in this book show that universities involve students more and more. They are asked about interior design, decoration and environmental measures, and they contribute with ideas and sketches, often in workshop form. This is a process that can create an inclusive commitment, but which should never replace professional advisers. The challenge is that students as well as employees may be caught up in very down-to-earth issues and therefore do not develop visionary ideas that can actually be put into practice. At worst, this will be obvious from the outset – and then students are only involved for the sake of involvement.
One or two universities reply – when pushed – that the students who are asked today will not be here in four years’ time when the plan is implemented. So why involve them? The answer is that the physical framework of the universities also needs to suit student activities and practices. Involvement is therefore not merely a question of asking students what they want, but also a question of continually considering the development in what it means to be a university student. Similarly, changes in researchers’ work and knowledge dissemination must be reflected in the physical framework.
There is no doubt, however, that students constitute a potential resource for the physical development of the study environment. There are typically two different reasons for involving them: either to engage and inform students or to develop ideas together. Regardless of the intention, the examples show that resources are required along with frameworks and objectives that are clear to all parties, if students are to be involved in the development of campus environments in a constructive way.
What does a world-class study environment look like, then? The conditions concerning opening hours, study and learning environments, ICT-supported spaces, laboratories and the involvement of students have been discussed here, outlining an answer and a strategy for the future. You might also mention libraries, lecture halls, canteens, collections or meeting places, after all – where and how are we to store and exchange knowledge? The overall question has not been answered conclusively and will require increased attention in the coming years.
¹ See the programme for Science Talk at www.sciencecity.ethz.ch/treffpunkt/
² E.g. ITT’s McCormick Tribune Campus Center designed by Rem Koolhaas.
³ In connection with renovation and new construction carried out by the Danish University and Property Agency.
This section shows how Danish and international universities have chosen to handle current and global challenges in relation to three chosen themes: Study workstations, learning spaces supported by information and communication technology and laboratories.
The themes were chosen on the basis of their topicality: Study workstations are required by various parties at different universities. The focus on the need to include ICT in teaching is increasing, and university laboratories are facing extensive modernisation.
The three themes also focus on general challenges facing the universities: floating subject boundaries, new learning forms and a demand for physical flexibility, sustainability and knowledge sharing all add to a change in the way we consider study and research environments.
The theme ’study workstations’ is illustrated on the basis of a study of workstations at a number of Danish universities.
The examples were chosen because they each represent a ’good story’, which describes how the study workstation is used strategically in the effort to create a good study environment. They are, for instance, used as a ’battering ram’ for extending opening hours, as team spaces that reduce the rate of drop-out, and as a method of transferring students into apprenticeships at the professor’s office!
The section includes excerpts from the study from Aalborg University, the University of Aarhus, Copenhagen Business School, the Danish School of Education, the University of Copenhagen and the University of Southern Denmark. It includes both old and newly established places and represents different learning forms and teaching programmes. The study’s target group is practitioners and users at universities and consultants who establish study workstations.
Further to the examples, the section first describes the background for placing study workstations on the agenda. The theme then closes with an article that points to the challenges that face the universities when they establish and run study workstations. The article also provides examples of how universities have tackled the challenges.
Attractive study environments and workstations at the university support modern learning methods, create social and academic networks and reduce the drop-out rate. It goes without saying that all universities wish to have attractive study environments, but which planning tools and strategies are effective when creating and operating the workstations and the environment? How are the initiatives financed and organised? A survey of Danish universities gives an idea and at the same time provides a picture of current trends in the design of the physical study environment
Students demand more and better workstations. In 2007, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation held a competition in which students had to write an essay about the physical framework at Danish universities. Almost all 63 entries mentioned the need for more and better workstations with longer opening hours. Regardless of the year of study, the study pattern and the subject, all students – for different reasons – emphasise this requirement.
In the past, workstations were something that was made available at the university libraries. Apart from that, there were generally only a few places where the students could read and study. Environments based on project groups, like the group rooms and project buildings with permanent workstations that were introduced at Roskilde and Aalborg Universities in Denmark, changed the picture of the type of facilities made available by the university.
Until recently, we were discussing what the introduction of technology would do to the need for physical universities. However, the virtual university with E-learning and podcast lectures does not seem to have reduced the need for a place where students can meet. Quite the opposite.
Now all universities in Denmark make facilities and areas available as a matter of course so that students have an opportunity – and the inclination – to remain at the university to learn. The universities are investing in additional furniture. Workstations can now be found in corridors and abound in library corners. The emphasis has changed, however, from fixed workstations, allocated to students for a period of time, to flexible arrangements where several students take turn to use the workstations.
The university buildings we build today differ from earlier buildings in the sense that the workstation – the place where social and academic aspects of the studies come together – are included in the original architectural drawings. Some of these buildings are on the drawing board and we will be able to visit them before long. Other buildings have already been inaugurated. The common feature of all these buildings is that they incorporate a new approach to learning. Learning is not something poured into the students’ heads in the lecture hall but something that happens in an exchange between people. The workstation is therefore the physical meeting place and a platform for learning. This is where students meet each other, the researchers and the surrounding world. The student meets the university’s environment and spirit.
In Denmark, workstations and the physical study environment have been placed on the agenda for several reasons. Of these, three stand out:
Learning method: The study environment and the offer of a desk or a room at the university to study support modern learning methods based on collaboration. Learning is the result of dialogues and exchanges with others. Even individual work requires sparring and close collaboration with other people.
Competition: A good study environment and attractive workstations for the students give the university a competitive advantage. They create a sense of belonging, which helps retain students and ensure that they complete their studies. This, in turn, has a major impact on university funding. Another aspect of competition is that private companies in certain cases start offering workstations outside the university to e.g. students who are working on their thesis. This removes both activities and knowledge from the university area and raises questions about the university’s obligations towards its students.
Area usage: The university areas must be put to optimum use, an issue that has become more important for the universities today than it used to be, in part because of the introduction of a government rent scheme that allows the universities to reallocate money saved on rent to other activities such as teaching. The result is an increased focus on the value of the way each m2 is being used. The workstations are an excellent way of using facilities for dual purposes e.g. canteens and libraries, etc. In other words, the workstations and the physical study environment are a strategic tool, which the universities use to handle current challenges.
How do the universities then handle these challenges? Which tools are effective for developing and operating the physical study en-vironment? We asked eight Danish universities this question in a survey of Danish workstations for students.
The survey ‘Strategic use of workstations for students’ is based on the recording and analysis of 16 select workstations for students at eight Danish universities. The survey shows how the study environment, including the creation of workstations for students, can be used as a strategic tool: Study environment and workstations can contribute to reducing the drop-out rate and support learning as well as academic and social relations.
The purpose of the survey is to create a knowledge base that can be used in connection with the establishment of future study environments. It provides information about the factors that are relevant for establishing and operating workstations for students. In the survey, we describe the universities’ experience with the establishment, use and operation of workstations. The survey also describes practical aspects such as the choice of furniture, work methods and support facilities.
It gives a general picture of the types of workstations currently found at Danish universities and indicates general trends and challenges that many Danish universities face when establishing new workstations and study environments.
| The following examples are an extract from the survey ‘Strategic use of workstations’, prepared by SIGNAL Arkitekter in collaboration with the Danish University and Property Agency. |
At Aalborg University (AAU), the individual institutes are responsible for providing workstations for the students. The decentralised planning of the workstations means that the individual institutes have been allocated funds for the purchase of furniture and equipment. However, ordering and purchasing is a centralised function handled by the technical administration, where a design consultant recommends different types of furniture to maintain a uniform design at the university.
The university chooses furniture of good quality in a simple classic design to ensure a long, useful life. For example, they have had the same office chairs for many decades and used defective furniture as spare parts for the remaining chairs.
As a result of the decentralised structure, initiatives flourish from the bottom up. The E-learning Lab research unit is an example of enthusiastic people who over the years have experimented with their interior design. They began with open offices in a so-called ‘garage’ and are now based in a building where the students work in the same room as the professor.
| Specialepladser i E-learning lab | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
E-learning Lab is a research unit under the Dept. of Communication. Here, the students have their own workstations in the same room as the researchers and the professor. The aim of this setup is to promote knowledge sharing and benefit from each other’s competences. | |
|
Users:
The room is the daily workplace for one or more students writing their thesis, a number of PhD students as well as assistant research professors and administrative staff. | |
|
Furniture:
The furniture for the room was purchased new when the building was constructed. The institute purchased the lounge furniture with funds acquired through research projects. Most of the furniture is fitted with castors for mobility to make it easy to change the layout of the room. | |
|
Access:
The buildings are open from 8.00 am to 5.30 pm. After that time, access requires a keycard. E-learning Lab, however, is always locked |
E-learning Lab aims to create an environment where the students are given special opportunities for professional development. That is why workstations have been set aside in the research unit for students writing their thesis. One of the advantages is that the students work in a professional environment where they have an opportunity to discuss their projects with researchers and PhD students, among others, while at the same time gaining an insight into the business community. Professor at AAU, Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeldt, who developed the ideas for the multidisciplinary environment at E-learning Lab, describes this form of working as a type of apprenticeship. The students are typically employed to do 10 hours of work per week while writing their thesis, during which they carry out different tasks for the other employees at the research unit. The result is a mutual exchange of competences, which helps strengthen the academic environment.
The layout of the room as an open landscape supports the mutual knowledge exchange between employees and students. It is worth noting that the furniture is the same for everyone, as the intention was to break down the hierarchy between the different users of the office. The mobile furniture makes it easy to quickly modify the room to suit the work function. AAU has successfully introduced similar offices elsewhere on campus where groups of 10-12 students writing their thesis and PhD students work in the same room.
The strategy for the creation of workstations for students was incorporated from the start when Aarhus University established the iNANO nanotechnology degree programme in 2002. Special group rooms have therefore been created for first-year students at iNANO. They function as a type of classroom where groups of 20 students have all their group lessons. In addition, the rooms are used as a student café and for social activities to promote a sense of belonging.
The underlying idea is that a good start to the degree programme gives students a reason to stay and in that way reduces the drop-out rate. The iNANO centre therefore places special emphasis on workstations for students in the first year of their degree programme.
The centre management wishes to create synergy between researchers and students by making sure they work in close proximity. The group rooms are therefore located along the same corridor where the iNANO administration and associate professors have their offices. This solution presents the additional advantage that the administration is in close contact with the students and therefore has its finger on the pulse as to how the study environment functions.
The degree programme in nanotechnology is of a multidisciplinary nature, and the students therefore attend lectures at different parts of campus. This was the reason why we made a special effort to create a sense of belonging for the students in the degree programme by allocating a special work area to them," says Signe Osbahr, Academic Coordinator at iNANO.
| Group rooms for first-year students at iNANO | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
At iNANO, the Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center, three group rooms have been allocated to first-year students. | |
|
Users:
Each group of 20 students has one room at its disposal. The workstations are used for teaching, group work, lunch and social interaction. | |
|
Furniture:
Each group room has 20 standard desks and chairs, in addition to nine purpose-made computer desks with room for two students per desk. This saves both space and computers and means that students work together on their assignments. The desks were designed by the person responsible for the teaching and manufactured by a furniture company. The funds for establishing the group rooms were provided by a special grant from the Danish Ministry of Education earmarked for the establishment of nanotechnology degree programmes. | |
|
Access:
Standard opening hours are 7.00 am – 5.00 pm. After that time, the students gain access to the buildings by means of a keycard. |
The group rooms at iNANO are very popular among the students and are pictured on the Internet to attract new students. The rooms have been fitted out so they support several functions such as group lessons and group work, which presents many advantages. On the one hand, it saves space and money, as one workstation replaces two, and on the other, the group gets a physical and social ‘home’ during their degree programme, which clearly reduces the drop-out rate.
The interior design combines standard and purpose-made furniture, which has resulted in a solution that is completely customised to suit the users. To minimise the overall budget, the centre chose to allocate some of the funds to purpose-made furniture: a computer desk where several students can work together at one stationary PC, with the rest being standard furniture.
The DPU has adopted the principle that all individual workstations should be placed in the library, whereas group workstations and group rooms should be distributed in other buildings. In addition to these formally established workstations, the DPU has a large number of lounge and café environments with wireless Internet access, power plugs and places where food is sold. The canteen is one of them. This ensures optimum utilisation of the facilities and creates a lively study environment, which is very popular among the students. Study, discussions, collaboration, lunch and breaks all happen in the same environment.
The DPU experiments with different types of furniture and has, for instance, chosen to purchase a very short and narrow desk used all over the DPU in different contexts. The students complained that the distance to the teacher was too great in teaching situations and the new desk, which is 60 cm wide, has considerably reduced this feeling of distance, according to a survey carried out by the DPU. The desk is 130 cm long, which is just enough room for two students. This creates a certain closeness, which the students like. Any length less than 130 cm would mean that the desk would accommodate only one student.
During the fitting-out process, the DPU chose to collaborate with the architectural advisers, who are also responsible for the reconstruction in general. The result is a clear visual identity created by the coherence between building, rooms and furniture.
The workstations at the DPU were established with a general and long-term strategy in mind, which has resulted in a uniform and consistent visual expression throughout the campus.
| Individual workstations at the library | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
At the DPU, individual workstations are only available at the library. | |
|
Users:
The workstations are mainly used by students writing their thesis. They use the workstations for difficult, concentrated work, writing and research. | |
|
Furniture:
The workstations consist of standard equipment. Approx. half of the workstations have stationary PCs. The students would like the number of PCs to be increased, as many do not have their own laptop. | |
|
Access:
The library is open from 9.00 am – 7.00 pm. The library has just extended its opening hours by one hour following a growing demand from the students. |
It is the vision of the DPU that the library should be open around the clock, and the workstations are being used as an argument in favour of this change. That is why all ‘quiet’ workstations are located at the library. The library is experiencing a massive demand for an extension of the opening hours, as the students also need to use the workstations during evenings and weekends.
Recently, the library extended its opening hours by one additional hour in the morning and now opens at the same time as the rest of the DPU at 9.00 am This extension of the opening hours is being handled by student assistants and on an annual basis, the cost of this additional hour is DKK 150,000.
“Additional staff costs should of course be expected if the library is to remain open 24/7, but we see this as a minor problem compared with a solution in which individual sections of the library are locked off, e.g. with grated doors. Telling the students that they have to study ‘behind bars’ would also send a wrong message," says Thomas Møller Kristensen, Senior Consultant.
At SDU, the job of providing workstations for the students is a centralised function. The overall vision is to create functional and viable solutions in which the physical surroundings are given high priority. An aesthetically pleasing study environment and good workstations are regarded as an important parameter in the competition to attract new students.
The selection and purchase of furniture is handled by the Buildings Department. The building manager spends a lot of time walking around campus and initiates both minor and major improvements of the aesthetic environment.
The Buildings Department has set up a working group to select the furniture. The department is responsible for the design of minor components, whereas the architects associated with the university under a framework agreement are used for major projects. The individual solutions are assessed on an ongoing basis and the Buildings Department independently tests the different furniture components to be able to offer the students the best furniture.
| Study cube | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
The study cube is a space-saving individual workstation. Study cubes are available at different parts of SDU. The cubes can be installed individually or in different combinations. | |
|
Users:
All types of students use the cubes for concentrated work. | |
|
Furniture:
The study cube has been purpose-made. It is accompanied by a lamp that can be integrated and an adjustable office chair. The desk can be adjusted individually to different working heights. The total price is approx. DKK 6,000 for all the components. | |
|
Access:
At Kilen, only students associated with CBS have access. The opening hours are from 8.00 am to 10.30 pm, and after that time there is no access to the building. CBS is currently working on a solution that will allow the students extended access during weekends and evenings by means of a keycard. |
The SDU wanted to be able to establish workstations for concentrated and in-depth work in open spaces at short notice. An architectural student, Stinne Bjerre, who had developed the workstation in connection with her graduation project, introduced SDU to the study cube. SDU was open to the idea, as the university was keen to optimise the individual workstation, and worked with the student and a well-known furniture company to complete the development of the product.
The study cube is a success among the students, and the dept. of medicine, where it was first installed, would like more of the cubes to replace traditional workstations. The cube was developed on the basis of an extensive survey of individual study requirements and is therefore ideally suited to its purpose. The study cube functions as a visual barrier as well as a sound barrier. It provides maximum leg room. The cube is module-based and can be placed in different constellations in many types of rooms, which SDU has done e.g. at Alsion in Sønderborg where the cubes have been used to furnish a very large room.
The latest CBS building, Kilen (the Wedge) at Solbjerg Plads square, has both customised furniture in café and lounge style and designer furniture with a young look. Today, the line between studies and spare time has become increasingly blurred and at Kilen, CBS has created an environment that appeals to CBS students; furniture they recognise and can relate to.
The workstations cover different types: formal, informal and an in-between type for short-term work, which gives the students an opportunity to change workstation depending on the nature of their work. All workstations are equipped with Internet connection, power and various other support facilities. The combination of the visual expression, the streamlining of the functions and the informal but fully serviced student environment makes CBS an attractive place to study.
In several places, CBS has chosen specialised solutions in the form of customised furniture for its workstations. The purpose was to support the work function in the modern and elegant style that characterises CBS.
As a general rule, CBS establishes its workstations in connection with new construction projects. Their own Campus Service works closely with both architects and furniture manufacturers to ensure optimum utilisation and to be able to offer an attractive study environment in which the aesthetic expression is just as important as functionality.
| Group workstations at Kilen | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
The group workstations are located near the atrium at Kilen and consist of tall bar counters and stools. Perfect for ad hoc meetings or short-term work. | |
|
Users:
The group workstations are available for all students associated with CBS but are primarily used by students in the first part of their degree programme. They use the workstations for informal group work. | |
|
Furniture:
The wave-shaped bar counters are custom-designed and developed specifically for Kilen. The counter is module-based and can be used in different contexts depending on the size of the room. | |
|
Access:
At Kilen, only students associated with CBS have access. The opening hours are from 8.00 am to 10.30 pm, and after that time there is no access to the building. CBS is currently working on a solution that will allow the students extended access during weekends and evenings by means of a keycard. |
CBS wanted to create an alternative to the traditional workstation, and the form and function of their chosen solutions set the trend for future study environments. The vision was to create different types of workstations, which could supplement each other in both formal and informal environments.
The areas with tall, wave-shaped bar counters are informal in character and are placed in an open environment where the users have plenty of contact with other students. The wave-shaped form means that the counter is suitable for both group work and individual work and that several groups can use a counter at the same time.
The design is modern and inspired by a typical café environment. The counters have built-in cable trays to make it easy to connect laptop computers, and in that way, the counters can function as proper workstations. It is important to note that the counters are intended as a supplement to the other workstations at CBS but meet a need for informal and accessible places for short-term work.
Within a short period of time, the University of Copenhagen has established a large number of workstations all over the university. The workstations were established as part of a large strategy based on the ‘Mærk suset’ (‘Feel the rush’) report. The report describes the university’s vision for a better study environment and contains a prioritised list of the 10 most important focus areas. ‘Action Workstation’ is one of the top items on the list, focusing on the creation of workstations and wireless Internet access.
‘Action Workstation’ set aside a pool of funds, which the individual faculties can apply for. The money is earmarked for the establishment of student workstations, and the faculties can choose between four pre-defined types. These four types are: a tall desk, low lounge furniture and desks with either an adjustable or a standard chair. To begin with, furniture has been purchased for 1,000 new workstations.
The principle behind the allocation of the funds is ‘the maximum amount of study environment for the money as quickly as possible’.
To meet the acute need for more workstations, KU chose to purchase a large amount of standard furniture under a framework agreement with National Procurement Ltd. – Denmark, which guaranteed a high bulk discount and prompt delivery. During the process of creating the workstations, the faculties worked with interior designers and design consultants from the chosen furniture company who prepared a proposal for the interior design based on the four furniture types. The choice of furniture was approved by the individual faculties and purchased by the central administration on behalf of everyone.
An important aspect of the choice of furniture was the design, as the furniture will be used in many different contexts all over the university.
| Special workstations at KUA for students writing their thesis | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
The workstations at KUA consist of redesigns of existing offices. The rooms can accommodate five to eight students. | |
|
Users:
The rooms are earmarked for students writing their thesis. | |
|
Furniture:
The room is equipped with standard furniture. One workstation consists of a fixed desk, an office chair with a flexible back and a number of shelves in a common shelf system. | |
|
Access:
The rooms are accessible around the clock for students with keycards. The students have expressed a wish to have locks fitted to the doors because of the risk of theft. |
KUA wanted to improve the conditions for students writing their thesis as quickly as possible. They wanted to offer them a place to work on campus and a multidisciplinary and social study environment to motivate the students to write their thesis at the university rather than e.g. rent rooms in the city or work at home.
KU wanted to find a quick solution and did so by purchasing a large amount of standard furniture. To begin with, the university purchased 1,000 desks and chairs intended for other parts of the university as well. The faculty applied for funds and in that way was able to establish a new autonomous section with 122 new workstations, of which 83 are dedicated to students writing their thesis. The workstations have just been put into use, and just under half of those reserved for students writing their thesis are occupied.
The students regard it as a great advantage that the workstations are located in a special section, as this supports their need to concentrate in peace and quiet.
The examples indicate some of the challenges the universities face when establishing and operating workstations for students. The way the eight universities in this survey have tackled these challenges is a source of inspiration
Study at any time
A possibility for studying 24/7
A university open 24/7 signals its accessibility and meets the needs of the users for flexibility. Regardless of whether or not the students distinguish clearly between studies, spare time and work, there are valid arguments for giving them the option to study evenings and weekends. The challenge of access 24/7 is the increased risk of theft and malicious damage.
Safety: The Panum building at the University of Copenhagen has extremely strict safety requirements, in part because of its collection of dead bodies that must not be misused. They have positive experience with a scheme in which the students are security screened before being given a keycard that provides access around the clock. CBS, with its new designer furniture, currently works on a similar solution.
Flexible opening hours: The library at Panum adjusts its opening hours to the rhythms of the semesters and examination periods. This solution saves money for staff and ensures good conditions for the students who feel that the library accommodates their needs. Booking systems can help students secure a workstation and at the same time create a sense of belonging.
Booking: At RUC, some students only go to the university if they have secured a place beforehand. Conversely, bookings can also block an otherwise flexible system and create the risk that the workstation remains unused. In some places, the universities protect themselves against this phenomenon by releasing the workstation if it has not been used within 15 minutes from the time booked.
Lever for opening hours: The Danish School of Education (DPU) purposely places all its individual workstations at the library and uses this as an argument for extending the library’s opening and lending hours. If the library is closed, no workstations are available!
Study work on laptop computers and wireless Internet access make it possible to study anywhere. This option is popular in the places where it has been introduced. The examples also show – with one exception – that the need for fixed PC workstations is on the decline. Many of these workstations are being abolished and many educational institutions try instead to create a physical framework that supports study on laptop computers.
Power plugs in the steps of the staircase: In the Kilen building at CBS, power plugs have been installed in the steps of the staircase in the atrium, which makes it possible for students to sit and work here for short periods of time, an option that is frequently being used. The power supply is an important aspect if study activities are to take place everywhere.
Wireless Internet access: RUC and DPU have used wireless Internet access to utilise rooms that are not being used during the day. These rooms now take the pressure off the canteens, which are already being used for studying, by providing workstations with wireless Internet access and furniture suitable for work situations.
EA workstation must be accompanied by a number of support functions and other services to be attractive. The core services are access to the Internet and electricity, good opening hours and ergonomic furniture. In many places, these services cannot be taken for granted. In addition, this survey highlights a wish and a need for a number of other services:
Italian sandwich vending machine: DPU used a remotely located room for an Italian coffee and sandwich vending machine. The machine was relatively cheap and is restocked by the canteen. Its presence suddenly made the remotely located room with its soft furniture very attractive for group work.
Aesthetics: At all the locations surveyed – except for one IT degree programme – the students and the staff attached importance to the aesthetic environment. The aesthetics have a direct impact on how much they enjoy using the room and how valued they feel.
Good solutions require a needs analysis and a prioritisation of the funds available. This can result in both standard and customised solutions. The survey shows good examples of both.
1,000 identical chairs: KU has purchased 1,000 chairs and desks as standard furniture to meet an immediate need for more workstations. The furniture was purchased under a framework agreement with National Procurement Ltd. Denmark, which resulted in a considerable bulk discount. The joint purchase made it possible to act quickly and buy cheaply. The challenge to this solution is that the furniture does not necessarily fit in aesthetically in all the different buildings at the university. The same chair may look cosy in one building and cold and flimsy in another. In addition, the right lighting is required to create a pleasant environment, and lighting was not part of the concept.
Customised computer desk:iNANO, Aarhus University (AU) chose a mixed solution with standard desks and customised computer desks. They were designed so the students could sit in groups around the computer desk, as this is important for the teaching methods.
Study cube at DKK 6,000: In collaboration with a student of architecture and a furniture manufacturer, the University of Southern Denmark has set the production of a ‘study cube’ in motion. As a result, the university can now, at the cost of approx. DKK 6,000, quickly establish a complete workstation with adjustable desk, chair and lamp as well as partitions. In addition to being a fully customisable workstation, the study cube also functions as a shield, a room divider and a sculpture. The university uses this solution in several new buildings.
A lack of space is a general challenge according to representatives from the universities that took part in the survey. Nevertheless, many of the study environments were empty when we dropped in without warning. Densification is one way of creating a good environment and visible life at the university.
Classroom reduces drop-out rate: iNANO, AU, and the Department of Information Technology at AAU, among others, have established multi-functional group rooms, a type of classroom in which many different functions such as teaching, homework and Friday bar are combined. Experience shows that it promotes a sense of belonging among the students and reduces the drop-out rate.
The new types of furniture are flexible and mobile and require limited space. The standard dimensions of tables and chairs have been reviewed in many places.
Close to the teacher: The DPU uses 60 cm wide desks because they reduce the distance to the teacher, which has a positive effect, according to experience. They also order standard desks that are 10 cm higher than normal because they realised that desk heights of 80 cm are better suited for tall students. At the same time, this reduces the need for the somewhat more expensive adjustable chairs in the seminar rooms.
A table for two: KU and DPU purchase 130 cm long desks because they provide just enough room for two students. Any length less than 130 cm would mean the desk would accommodate only one student.
Wave-shaped counters for several students: Kilen at CBS is one of the places that experiments with new types of workstations suited for something between formal and informal learning. The wave-shaped bar counters, for instance, accommodate students working individually as well as several groups of students working at one counter at the same time.
Mobile furniture: The survey shows several examples of flexible furniture that can be adapted to different functions. The DPU, for instance, purchases small, light desks that can easily be used for both seminars and group work. It is not unusual that students and teachers quickly shift the furniture around in the middle of a lesson – and later put it back in place.
The visual expression can also be used strategically to create a brand for the educational institution, with which the students can identify. The universities in this survey work more or less strategically with aesthetics and the visual impression. They are aware that it is not enough to base decisions on quantity, functionality and durability. Design and architecture create value.
Expression matching the target group: Via the interior design, furniture and colours, the educational institution can demonstrate that it recognises modern values and the modern society in which we live. Kilen, for instance, has chosen furniture in a young design that matches the target group.
Aesthetic eyes: The presence of professional aesthetic eyes is evident in the study environment, according to the survey. These eyes may belong to staff members, e.g. architects employed in the administration who make time for regular walks around campus. They correct minor and major details: the right lighting, a piece of matching furniture, or they may notice areas that have been left out and can be developed.
Purchase framework agreement: Many universities point out that future purchases through National Procurement Ltd. Denmark (SKI) could impose limitations on the choice of furniture, as SKI suppliers have a strong focus on traditional workstations consisting of a desk, a chair and a filing cabinet.
The survey shows examples of very different creative processes. In most places, the workstation is the result of an overall strategy and a vision on the part of management. In a couple of cases, the initiative grew from the bottom up and is the result of the efforts of individuals. The most holistic examples are those where management allocated resources for the project.
The survey also shows that the universities are aware that rooms can push, facilitate or simply overcome challenges. In many cases, they use the design of the physical framework to strengthen academic and social relations across different years and subjects.
Workstations for students at the professor’s office: At E-learning Lab at AAU, rooms are being used to create a synergistic effect between the teacher and the students. Here, a total of approx. 10 academic staff members from Humanities work in an open-plan office together with Master’s degree students writing their thesis and PhD students. The professor therefore works in the same open space as a couple of students.
Creating a sense of belonging: ‘Lysningen’ (The clearing) at the Department of Humanities at SDU in Odense was created to give the students a sense of social belonging and reduce the drop-out rate. The clearing is a room with high ceilings and soft furniture where you have visual contact with a large amount of the department’s teaching facilities and staff. At KUA, the newly established workstations for the students writing their thesis were created to retain the students and create a sense of belonging at the educational institution, both academically and socially. Previously, the students largely worked at home.
Mikala Holme Samsøe The examples are an extract from the survey ‘Strategic use of workstations’, prepared by SIGNAL Arkitekter in collaboration with the Danish University and Property Agency.The theme ‘ICT-supported learning spaces’ takes its starting point in a study of six international examples of how information and communication technology has been implemented in university learning environments.
The examples stem from Singapore Management University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Strathclyde and University of Leeds, and they were chosen because they all use as their starting point the pedagogical perspectives inherent in the use of technology in the learning space for furthering learning through interaction. This means that the starting point is the interplay between pedagogy, technology and space rather than just technology as such.
The purpose of the study is to inspire the universities’ management, technical staff and teachers through good international examples.
In addition to the international cases, the section first describes the potential found in thinking ICT-supported learning spaces into the physical framework of the study environment. In closing, an interview is included with one of the people behind a project at Stanford University, where an ICT-supported exploratorium has been created for students and teachers.
The rows of seats in the lecture rooms are being replaced by round workstations for group work and the podium is discarded in favour of the mixer desk. When the door is closed, the lecture room is ‘switched on’. The topic is projected onto the walls and the lecture room is connected to the surrounding world. The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has examined best practice within international ICT-supported learning environments
How does technology affect the classroom? In most cases, the universities have installed the technology in existing rooms, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. New technology changes our perceptions of the lecture room or the classroom and creates a new picture of the way we learn. From that platform, we may be able to make the leap to new radically different rooms; new physical learning frameworks that in turn can create a new understanding of the way we learn.
The computer screen allows us to see a stream, city life or another study object in its natural surroundings. External professors or other experts can give guest lectures or hold workshops at the university without being physically present. Collaboration between students can also take place across different time zones and borders.
Involving new information and communication technology does not lead to uniform ways of teaching; quite the contrary: technology makes it possible to experiment with different forms of teaching and learning styles.
On the classroom screen, students can quickly demonstrate their ideas visually. Statistics, poems, pictures and films combine to create a better understanding of the subject. While the teacher places the next presentation on the university’s Intranet, the students look for more information on the Internet. Better use is made of lesson time, both in group and individual work. Technology-based teaching programmes allow the students to work with the material at their own speed. Teleconference equipment or electronic boards do not affect the room to any major extent but create different ways of using technology.
The advantage of working with a subject in different ways – by listening, acting and asking questions – is that the students remember the material better and become able to use it. Several universities therefore now try to mix different teaching methods but it can be difficult to apply different methods in the same room. It also takes time to move from lecture room to group room and back again. Technology helps mix the teaching methods at MIT. Students can quickly and easily change between different teaching methods, as the lecture room has been done away with and the students sit at round tables and work in groups. The teacher can walk around and supervise or display examples of group work on large screens on the walls. Pre-sentations, group work and summing up for the more than 100 students can easily succeed one another in the same room.
The teacher is more of a supervisor in the technology-supported learning environment than in the traditional lecture room. The teacher’s desk has perhaps been replaced by the mixer desk since subject-specific knowledge is available at a click of the mouse. It is the responsibility of the teacher to place all the bits of information in a context. Whereas in the past, the students had fixed seats in the classrooms, both students and teacher can now move around. The teacher can therefore mingle with the students and help them navigate and find information, create hypotheses and test them. Whereas, in the past, the classrooms were hierarchically structured, today’s classroom allows collaboration between the students and the teacher. The teacher and the students stand at the electronic board when exploring an issue together to develop their own – and preferably brand new – solutions.
In that way, technology and the newly fitted rooms create an optimum framework for problem-orientated teaching. The teaching is based on the knowledge the students already possess and constantly generate new questions that expand the students’ understanding of the material.
Technology can be used for different educational purposes, and the survey provides some examples. At the University of Strathclyde, the students are equipped with an electronic voice; much like a normal remote control. They can use this voice, to give quick and anonymous answers to the teacher’s questions about facts or opinions about a topic. This gives the teacher a quick overview. In this way, technology can be used to measure the level of the class. However, the main advantage is that the answers provide a good basis for a discussion in class. The feedback system does not affect the room in the above example, but in the future, the students could also become physically involved. Today, school pupils in Aarhus move around electronically generated maps or simulated environments as part of knowledge games. Light and images are projected up through the floor, and the floor is equipped with sensors, which react to the way the students physically move across it. The question is whether we will see the same technological knowledge game environment at the university in the future.
To develop learning, rooms and technology is a field of knowledge in its own right. Foreign universities use virtual and physical rooms not only to improve their teaching. The teaching concepts are also a source of income for international universities and therefore given high priority in the universities’ development strategies. Collaboration between Stanford University and manufacturers of IT products results in new technological products and learning environments adapted to the wishes of the university’s own teachers, which can also inspire and be purchased by others. Danish universities are well placed to contribute to this development, as Danish universities and other educational institutions have been working with different teaching and collaboration methods for a long time. To abandon lectures in favour of teaching methods that involve the students is nothing new to the Danes. The challenge is to support these new working methods with the new technology. The university students of the future will, however, be familiar with technology and diffe-rent forms of learning from primary, secondary and upper secondary school.
The Danish ‘Folkeskole’ (primary and secondary school) has experimented with the combination of technology and rooms that create new possibilities for learning through movement. These experiments have not yet been introduced at the universities. It therefore remains an open question what the future integrated virtual and physical rooms will look like at university level. Perhaps technology will result in a more effective use of the rooms with nomadic project rooms; rooms covered with interactive boards and scanners that transmit and store data directly on the computer. Here, project groups can perhaps quickly surround themselves with mind maps, notes and outlines for assignments. The tabs on the computer screen will be displayed in the room, and after finishing, the group will switch off the equipment and leave the room for the next group to develop its own projects. Especially in science and health science subjects, rooms for computer-generated simulation could help make issues less theoretical and training more realistic. Perhaps games and role-play will no longer be limited to primary and secondary school. Perhaps virtual and physical rooms will help students assume different roles when working with learning scenarios and cases.
The technology has to be adapted to the planned collaboration, whether you wish to combine different university subjects and campuses or collaborate with other universities or companies at home or abroad.
Another barrier could be that the strategic use of technology requires human resources for guidance, research and dissemination of information. Stanford University offers teachers guidelines that go beyond mere instructions in the use of technology. This work with education and technology takes place in a building called Wallenberg Hall. Here, teachers can test rooms with information and communication technology. The teachers can contact one of the academic technology specialists for guidelines or brainstorming based on the specific issues the teacher wishes to resolve. The internal consultants gather and share their experience and thereby directly implement the development at the university.
The third barrier could be money for new rooms and new technology but the universities can start by using the technology they already have at their disposal. This can be done in normal classrooms or study areas using standard software. The survey of best practices at international universities shows that dedicating special rooms to the initiatives promotes focus and commitment amongst students and teachers.
Cathrine Schmidt
The teacher does not have to adapt to diffe-rent technology in different rooms. The technology must be the same everywhere and be adapted to suit the teacher. Therefore, Singapore Management University has implemented the same standard design throughout the campus. This is a practical and safe solution that gives the teacher an incentive to use the technology. At the same time, the stan-dardised design means fewer restrictions in the planning of the timetable and allows the university to maximise the use of classrooms. The challenge is that the technological design must support different subjects and the teachers’ different teaching methods.
The solution chosen by the university was to establish collaboration between two professors from each faculty and the university’s IT department. The group worked closely together about the technological development. As a result, the design was modified throughout the development process to take into account the input of the teachers.
Over the course of a year, teachers and students tested the new technologies in an ‘experimental teaching classroom’. The final model was subsequently implemented throughout the campus. The room and the collaboration between teachers and IT department now ensure ongoing development of the technology in the classrooms.
One year after the introduction of the technology in the classrooms, 96 % of the teachers think the technology is easy to use with little or no training.
The challenge to Stanford University was to convince the teachers to use the new technological facilities. It involved a shift from a teaching-based information transfer to a more group-based and interactive form of teaching.
The solution was a centre that gathers and develops knowledge and technology that support collaboration. This centre is called Wallenberg Hall. Here, academic technology specialists give advice about the use of the technology. They share their experience, and the teacher can call for technical assistance before and after lessons.
Each room has 20 laptops with wireless connection and equipped with open source software. The students can share files between computers and project images or documents onto a common screen. They sit at joint workstations that connect the laptops of the individual students, and each workstation is equipped with a plasma screen. In that way, it becomes easy to share the work within the group and present it to the class. Of course, the laptops can also be used for individual work.
Wallenberg Hall has stationary equipment for video conferences, but the same effect can be better achieved with mobile equipment. External presenters such as researchers and business people with little spare time can be involved in the teaching without having to be physically present at Stanford University. Classes at Stanford University can also be linked up with classes abroad. The technology in the rooms is controlled by means of standardised control panels.
The students use lightweight, portable whiteboards to visually demonstrate their ideas. The material is converted into digital images using wall-mounted scanners, is shared with others, stored on websites or in files or printed out. This is useful, if the presentation has not been completed by the end of the lesson. The classrooms are also equipped with light furniture that can easily be placed in different constellations.
The technology makes it easy to combine sources. Images and documents can be projected onto large digital screens. Special software allows the screens to be used as digital whiteboards, and you can ‘write’ directly on documents and pictures. With several of these screens in the classroom, you can show a number of projections at the same time – text, photos and paintings produce a varied context for analysis and discussion.
Stanford University points out that the Wallenberg Hall model does not necessarily have to be copied in its entirety to the rest of the university or other institutions. However, new ideas can be tested at Wallenberg Hall and subsequently used elsewhere, also in more low-tech classrooms.
Today, the university has two rooms, each with a capacity for 117 people. One of the rooms used to be a traditional lecture room seating 300 people. Each room has 13 round tables seating 9 people. Three groups of three people each can work at these tables.
Laptops and whiteboards are placed along the walls and are at the disposal of the students. The students can use the technology for computer simulations and experiments. The work at the whiteboard is filmed and can be projected onto the three screens, which are also placed along the classroom walls.
The teacher has a desk in the middle of the room. The computer on his desk is connected to the groups as well as the screens. In that way, the teacher can show presentations, examples of group work or the like. Equipped with a wireless microphone, the teacher can walk around among the students, assist groups or facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing. The teacher can also interact electronically with the students, e.g. by sending out multiple choice questions that require immediate answers. The teacher quickly gets a general overview of the nature of the replies from the students, which allows him/her to assess whether further explanation of the subject is required.
After four years of use in science teaching, language courses, engineering subjects and at conferences, evaluations show that struggling students do much better than with traditional teaching methods, whereas strong students do as well as before. The average learning outcome was twice that of traditional teaching. These results are supported by studies from other universities, as is evident from other examples described below.
MIT now plans to establish similar classrooms on a smaller scale for teaching of 20-40 people.
One second separates the teaching in Massachusetts and Singapore. Several times a day, teaching is beamed across 15,000 km and 12 time zones with a sound delay of less than a second. MIT has three global classrooms. Due to requirements for reliability of operation, the distance teaching cannot be carried out using portable equipment. The university therefore plans to increase the number of classrooms equipped with technology for distance teaching.
Cameras film the teacher, the students, the board and documents from several angles, and a computer link ensures the display of the digital material used by the teacher. This material can include PowerPoint slides, animations or simulations. As a result of the way the information from the video and the computer is split, the written presentations of the teacher and the students can be displayed during their verbal presentations.
The technology has given students at the two Singaporean universities access to seminars with Nobel Prize winners and other renowned members of MIT’s teaching staff. The majority of the students who complete a degree within this collaboration have an opportunity to obtain two degrees, one from MIT and another from one of the two universities in Singapore. The candidates are therefore popular and in demand by large, multinational companies in Singapore and the surrounding area such as Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Phillips Electronics, Singapore Airlines, Apple Computer and Dell.
An alarming drop-out rate and declining attendance at lectures was the challenge faced by the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. The solution was new technology and different fitting out. Today, the teacher can ask a question and get immediate answers from the entire class by means of an electronic personal response system. The answers stimulate discussion in class, and the teacher gets an idea of whether the topic has been covered or needs further elaboration. This teaching method also prepares the students for their exams. The feedback equipment costs approx. DKK 10,000 per 100 students.
The solution requires the classroom to be fitted out differently. Banana-shaped desks create opportunities for discussion in small groups while still facing the teacher. Computers behind each office chair make it easy for the students to alternate between independent study, group work and lectures.
Anonymous feedback gets students involved who normally do not speak out in large groups. Anonymity is important. Even students in their last semester who know their fellow students well and are only 30 in their class say so.
A barrier to using the personal response system is that a lesson must be two hours long to allow the discussions to unfold. In addition, the room must be fitted out in such a way that many small groups can be formed within a large lecture room. The teacher must also accept that it is impossible to go through the syllabus in detail when some of the time is spent on discussions.
Mobile phones are normally not allowed during lessons, but at the University of Leeds, they form the basis of academic discussions. The students can answer questions by texting. The incoming messages are projected onto a screen and used to discuss the material in class.
The answer categories are not defined beforehand. The students reply using free text, as this improves the dynamics. On the other hand, it means that it is impossible to easily display statistics of the answers from the students, even if the teacher actually wants answers within specific categories.
Compared with other feedback systems, it is easy and quick to include mobile phones in the teaching. If all students have mobile phones, no special remote controls have to be handed out and no advanced equipment has to be set up.
It is up to the students whether they wish to answer, as the university does not cover the students’ text costs. However, the teachers have not experienced this as a problem, as no students have complained about the costs.
Edited extract of the survey ‘IKT-støttet læringsmiljø – det gode eksempel’ (ICT-supported learning envi-ronments – a good example) prepared by the Danish University and Property Agency.Wallenberg Hall is a teaching, classroom and technology exploratorium. Here, Stanford University offers optimum physical surroundings, the latest technology and experts to inspire the teachers
InterviewAt Wallenberg Hall, teachers can try out and gain experience with ICT and new forms of learning. Wallenberg Hall has five classrooms. All have video conference equipment, furniture that can be moved around as required and digital screens that can be connected to laptop computers. This also creates optimum conditions for dialogues with the teacher, as the best solutions are often found when you stop thinking in terms of what you believe is possible.
At Stanford University, technology specialists cover the topic of ICT-supported learning and learning environments in their instructions to the teachers, but how does this dialogue take place?One question that can open the dialogue is: What would you like your students to be able to do if we forget about finances and current technology? Perhaps the teachers would like their students to be able to search for information in the best possible databases, be able to work with other students around the world or that they would just keep quiet and listen. Once we know that, we can look at suitable ICT solutions and at how we can best coordinate the teaching.
How do you do that then?Fundamentally, it is a question of being open to a new teacher role. The teacher is not just a knowledge transmitter but the person who directs the conversation and draws attention to the most interesting comparisons or models. He or she guides the students on how to find information and how to derive knowledge from the information, because the teacher’s role is to place the information in a context. The ICT facilities open the eyes of the teachers to new ways of getting the students more involved and increasing the collaboration, both between students and between the students and the teacher.
If the dialogue plays the main role, it is essential that you can make your ideas visible. A visual display of the ideas is the quickest way to exchange knowledge. Electronic boards create new ways in which to instantly display, store and distribute ideas. Light and flexible furniture is another fundamental component for a good learning environment. Both the classroom and the furniture should be suitable for the teaching method. The light furniture makes it easier to alternate between different forms of teaching, as you can shift the furniture around as required.
Does this flexibility not have the drawback that you waste a lot of energy on rearranging the room and defining a new situation?It does. It takes some time to prepare mentally and physically for new situations. What our teachers do is to start the lesson by creating a place that supports the type of teaching that is going to take place that day. The students quickly take responsibility for shifting things around like each taking a chair if suggested by the teacher. However, it is not only the furniture that has to be flexible. The flexibility also has to be incorporated in the design of the rooms.
What advice do you give to the teachers who wish to change their teaching?We encourage the teacher to focus on one issue, e.g. a topic the students find difficult to grasp. The teachers should identify one specific topic for which they want to change their teaching. That creates a good starting point for development and one focus always leads to a lot of other new ideas.
What are the things you should never do when technology is involved?First of all, it is important not to use the ICT equipment as a starting point. There are many examples of universities that have purchased technology without thinking through whether it will actually allow them to carry out some of the activities they need. In the USA, the government has placed great emphasis on the possibility of automatically recording a lesson on video. However, nobody has thought about how much time it takes to view or edit the recording. Therefore, this method is hardly being used. Only a few of our teachers use it. Instead, the equipment has been used by the students to show their university presentations to future employers.
It is not at all the intention that all classrooms should have the facilities you see at Wallenberg Hall. The advice is therefore also about how to practise the teaching methods outside Wallenberg. The purchase of IT equipment is a heavy investment for some universities, but you can easily implement the teaching methods without Wallenberg Hall’s technical facilities.
Cathrine SchmidtThis section takes a look at laboratories at Danish universities, and outlines a picture of the challenges that universities and developers encounter when the universities are to be modernised.
The theme is based on a study of a selection of natural, health, veterinary and engineering science laboratories at five Danish universities. The study is ongoing, and the first excerpt is shown here.
The section first introduces the background for and the new requirements to the laboratories: sustainability, subject specialisation, flexibility and, not least, new collaboration forms.
Subsequently, a researcher and a head of operations at a university offer their view of what the future holds. The researcher explains how glass rather than plaster strengthens collaboration, whilst the head of operations describes how aesthetics provide a more secure working environment.
The section presents archetypical typologies for the laboratories we come across today, followed by a draft proposal for how they can be modernised and thought out in the future to meet current challenges.
New forms of collaboration and increased awareness of the influence of the buildings and their management on the environment are among the main challenges when Danish universities in the future modernise and build new laboratories
The fitting out and development of research and teaching laboratories are an extremely complex issue, and developers and consultants at Danish universities are facing a huge challenge, as most of the existing laboratories were planned and built about 30-40 years ago. The laboratories comply with government requirements to work environments but most of them were built for a different way of working than what is the norm today.
When we talk about laboratories today, we no longer think of a single room but of a complete research complex. A research complex includes weighing and storage rooms, offices, study rooms, recreation rooms with lunch facilities, lounge areas as well as hotels and residences for researchers and students, both Danish and foreign. The research complexes are part of the university’s infrastructure and physical planning.
To be equipped for development in this area, the Danish University and Property Agency has initiated the drawing up of an inventory and a survey of most Danish university laboratories. They make up approx. 40 % of total university floor space, and the inventory covers approx. 425,000 net m2. The survey aims to analyse current standards in order to prepare an estimate of the expected costs of upgrading. The inventory comprises representative facilities within science, health, veterinary and engineering laboratories at five Danish universities. The inventory, which is followed by an analysis and an action plan, will provide a general overview of the area and the possibility for prioritising the efforts of the coming years.
So what are the issues that should be incorporated into the planning of research and teaching frameworks at the universities? How do we make sure that the project planning in this field can attract and support the best researchers, teachers and students? How do we develop a framework that is sufficiently robust to accommodate the accelerated development of the coming decades? There are no simple answers to these questions but we can point out a number of areas that will be of key importance in future planning.
One area is the need for a multidisciplinary approach. Elsewhere in this book, Robert Feidenhans’l and Jette Miller from the Niels Bohr Institute and the Faculty of Science, the University of Copenhagen, describe how new scientific breakthroughs will be the product of a multidisciplinary melting pot. The focus will be on the projects, and the physical and academic separation of the subjects is out of date. Such a reality requires room sequences that both promote multidisciplinary collaboration and support the individual subject areas of the researchers to allow them to maintain and develop their individual fields. In his interview in this book, Søren Brunak, Professor at the University of Copenhagen and the Technical University of Denmark, describes how essential it is to create open work environments that break down hierarchies and promote an exchange between different academic areas.
Another issue that will be of key importance is flexibility. Collaboration across different subject areas, international collaboration and collaboration between universities and the business community highlight the need for new forms of generic and centrally located laboratories with both special technical equipment and more stan-dardised equipment. Such laboratories could be used by many diffe-rent people and ensure better utilisation of the facilities because they would meet the varying needs of different researcher teams.
However, flexibility must also be incorporated in the fitting out of the individual research complexes. Which facilities can be fitted out generically? Can the building structure and layout be changed? Does the layout allow for ICT-supported teaching and multidisciplinary collaboration? If these questions are answered during the planning of the layout, they can help make the laboratories more flexible.
Today, there is an increased need for specialisation. Previously, laboratories were expected to contain everything in one place, but today researchers move from one laboratory to another in search for the right equipment. This requires strategic considerations by the universities about the type of equipment and its location, as Lene Hjerrild, Work Environment Manager at the Technical University of Denmark, mentions in her interview in this book. If a researcher stays for two weeks in one place, carries out experiments and returns home to analyse the results, it could also be relevant to think in terms of hotels for researchers and facilities that support such brief stays.
The focus on sustainability is a new area. If sustainability is included in the project planning for the operation of the laboratories, the possibilities of reducing the overall resource consumption and protecting the environment are maximised. Sustainable construction and renovation can support behaviour-changing measures and become part of the university’s strategy. Several universities are currently thinking along those lines.
Finally, the actual structure of the building is a key issue in connection with modernisation and new buildings. Should we continue to modernise and build laboratories that last for many decades if the fitting out of the laboratories has to be renewed much more frequently? One alternative could be buildings that last for shorter periods of time and are made of recyclable materials. Another alternative could be a load-bearing structure that is robust and has a long lifespan, and light, new laboratory units of recyclable materials that can be replaced on an ongoing basis, i.e. a form of Plug & Play.
The many core issues require long-term planning that gives the developer of the building an opportunity to support the university’s strategy and prioritise the process. It is important that the laboratory facilities are incorporated into the overall plan and infrastructure of the university in order to fully utilise the potential. The main task is likely to be the incorporation and modernisation of the many existing laboratories including decisions about classification, work environment and operation.
The inventory of the Danish laboratory facilities will be followed up by analyses, a catalogue of ideas and an action plan with suggestions for ways to face the challenges. Even now, we can look at existing typologies and learn about the challenges ahead. We can also study the first sketches of what the future will look like. This will primarily involve reconstruction and modernisation of the many existing laboratories, supplemented by new construction when more appropriate or profitable.
Lene SchaumburgHierarchical structures must be broken down and there should be more glass than plaster in future research centres
InterviewResearch environments face two important challenges: firstly, to create research environments that break down hierarchies rather than create them, and, secondly, to create a physical framework that promotes knowledge exchange between different academic areas.
Research traditions vary considerably, especially internationally. The UK, for instance, traditionally has a very flat structure in which visibility depends on results, and this structure is supported by many new laboratory environments. France, on the other hand, has a more hierarchical structure in which the researchers at the top of the hierarchy ‘take up all the space’ and have the best conditions. In Denmark, the structure has traditionally been a compromise between the structures we see in these two countries. In my opinion, we ought to have a generic, physical framework that creates scope for the individual to develop, as is the case in the UK.
The researchers who take the initiative to study topics at the interface between different research areas are often young researchers at the bottom of the ladder. Initiatives are encouraged by factors such as open, transparent environments that support collaboration; traditions that break down the borders between different research areas; communication and IT facilities that are integrated in the research environment, and a framework that encourages interaction with the surrounding world. The research centres of the future should be made of glass rather than plaster. What is the optimum framework for a research centre with research and teaching facilities, including laboratories?
The optimum framework is a matrix-inspired organisation with considerable flexibility, which can handle ongoing and rapid changes in requirements.
One of the most important aspects is to get people to meet, prefe-rably in new ways. The challenge of bringing researchers together has grown concurrently with the trend for many researchers to work from home and travel a lot.
It is a problem that many research environments have few meeting facilities. There are no kitchens with decent coffee machines, cookers and microwave ovens where informal contact occurs naturally. Good meeting rooms and other informal meeting places for researchers as well as areas for brainstorming with small comfortable seating arrangements in the corridors are therefore essential.
It is characteristic of research-based teaching that we have a lot of contact in connection with project work. For this purpose, it would be ideal to have lounge areas, offices with communication screens and cameras as well as corridors and similar areas that can also be used for other purposes. Research environments should not be designed to function from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. Employees should have the opportunity to cook their meals and work there at any time. It is also important to plan the research centres in such a way that there is room for the students to work at the research centres and not only in centralised student centres.
At the Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, of which I am the Center Director, we have organised large lounge areas with seating arrangements consisting of modular couches, which can be combined in many different ways. These seating arrangements are very effective and are used for project work, informal meetings and social gatherings.
What is your experience with virtual equipment and ICT-supported teaching?Our experience with virtual equipment is that it must be an integral part of the research environment in order to be used. If it is too complicated to use the equipment, nobody uses it. If there is an opportunity for ICT-supported teaching in classrooms and laboratories, it will become an integral part of the teaching. Making the same opportunities available to everyone also helps break down the traditional, hierarchical structure. MSN Messenger is also a good example of uncomplicated technology, and we have written many scientific articles with the help of this tool although the people who work closely together are physically based in Lyngby, Heidelberg and Boston.
Are there any examples of research centres with the qualities you mention? The new biochemistry centre at Oxford University in the UK is a good example of a research environment with many of the qualities I am looking for – i.e. flexible, open rooms that support collaboration and multidisciplinary work.
Lene SchaumburgThe operation of the building must be taken into consideration in the design phase. We should use a larger number of centralised buildings for teaching and specialised laboratories to improve indoor climate and ergonomics
InterviewFor a number of years, Lene Hjerrild has been responsible for the work environment at DTU, and she participates in the planning of all major building work, whether renovations or new constructions. The aim is to promote and implement a high work environment standard that takes into account the university’s interests in the subsequent use and operation of the areas.
What do you consider the most important aspects of work environment in research and teaching laboratories?I think the most important aspects are indoor climate and ergonomics. Researchers should work in adjustable, closed systems to prevent them from being affected by the substances they work with. We need protected workstations that can be adapted to the physiology of the individual.
In teaching laboratories, a good layout is also important for effective teaching. In addition, it is important to have sufficient support functions for the students such as locker rooms for coats and bags that would otherwise be dumped on the floor and present a security problem. The students do not have offices or other places where they can leave their things.
What are the optimum conditions for a research centre with research and teaching activities?Flexibility is also essential when it comes to the connection of equipment in our laboratories. It should be possible to move the equipment and change the layout. It would be best if the furniture could also be moved and the working height adjusted. This is rarely seen in laboratories but is just as important here as in offices where adjustable desks and chairs have gradually been installed throughout. The lack of desks and chairs that can be raised and lowered in the laboratories causes a lot of back and neck problems.
It is a good idea if support functions are located near the laboratories so offices, kitchens, locker rooms, etc. are nearby. Social aspects are very important for a well-functioning work environment.
I suggest that teaching laboratories be established as centralised teaching laboratories for large groups of Bachelor’s degree students, which the different institutes can book. This would ensure much better utilisation of resources and therefore make it easier to provide good facilities. The solution is also very flexible and it provides the same opportunities for everyone. Today, we have special rooms for inorganic chem-istry, organic chemistry and technical chemistry as well as special rooms for biology courses. These rooms are not being fully utilised, as they only accommodate courses within the specific subject areas. Centralised teaching laboratories could be fully utilised – the only requirement is that the laboratory should be flexible, as mentioned above.
Are there any specific technical conditions that create optimum laboratories?One thing that does not work well at many research centres is the access to support functions and transport between one laboratory and another. This aspect has to be considered when modernisation and new buildings are planned so that the work with the different substances is always carried out in a classified area.
Sustainability and operation must be included in the planning from the very beginning. Functions like goods delivery are often forgotten and such a relatively simple function then becomes a problem if later on, you have to construct a loading ramp, gates, etc. or if the goods delivery area is placed right next to the air intake for the ventilation system!
The waste disposal issue should also be taken into consideration in the planning, and the amount of dangerous waste should be minimised. It should be possible to destroy as much waste as possible on site, e.g. by autoclavation of infectious waste, chemical destruction, etc. Proper waste collection should also be in place as well as easily accessible facilities for storing the waste until collected.
In my opinion, all laboratory areas should be equipped with adjustable sun screens and be made of robust materials. In fact, today all laboratories should, as a minimum, comply with the GMO Class 1 criteria [reference to the Danish Working Environment Agency’s guidelines on the classification of laboratories for genetic technological work, ed.], to be sufficiently easy to clean. A more uniform level at all laboratories would also contribute to the flexibility.
People in the construction industry discuss what type of buildings should be built for laboratories in the coming years. They distinguish between buildings made of heavy materials that can last for many years and buildings made of light materials with a limited useful life. A third variant is a heavy, durable main structure combined with light laboratory elements that can be replaced as the need arises. You have been involved in many construction and renovation projects at DTU. What do you think of the above scenarios?I think a combination of a durable main structure and light, replaceable laboratory elements that can be adapted to changing needs is a brilliant idea. However, it is important that the building is of a high aesthetic standard. In my experience, if the rooms are attractive, the users look after them much better and work in a more responsible manner. This also improves security in the laboratories.
What kind of challenges do you think future laboratories will present?I think we will be working with centralised, specialised laboratories that can be used by everyone, i.e. laboratories with costly specialised equipment that can be updated as the need arises. This would also encourage collaboration. In this context, it is also interesting to consider laboratory hotels where you can rent premises for short periods of time so that not just the university but also other universities and private companies can use the facilities.
Lene SchaumburgThe way researchers work has changed and traditional teaching has been supplemented by new teaching methods. This requires modernisation of today’s laboratories. A look at existing buildings gives an idea of what the plans for future buildings need to take into account to meet future needs
A large part of the existing laboratories at Danish universities can be divided into three types. They typically have one or two central corridors that provide access to laboratories, offices and support facilities.
A large part of these laboratories were planned and fitted out in another era when conditions were different; a time when almost all research and collaboration took place in laboratories and offices at the university. Research material was forwarded by snail mail or occasionally exchanged at conferences, and the research was traditionally divided by subject area.
The fitting out of the laboratories therefore mainly caters for quiet in-depth study and research in small teams consisting of researchers from the same subject area. There are few or no shared facilities such as meeting rooms, kitchens or lounge areas that encourage informal conversation and new forms of collaboration. The buildings appear closed with long corridors without light or views into the many cubicles, laboratories and offices. The stairwells and corridors are the central areas, and recreational areas and open meeting places for researchers were traditionally not included in the planning of the building.
The Danish University and Property Agency has just completed an assessment of the structural quality of the laboratories at the University of Copenhagen, Roskilde University, University of Southern Denmark, Aarhus University and Aalborg University. In addition to the assessment of the quality of the fitting out, the survey also recorded which type of building was most common within the 425,000 net m2 surveyed. The survey includes teaching laboratories (5 %), research laboratories (32 %) and support facilities such as offices, corridors and service areas (63 %).
One major difference between teaching and research laboratories is that the teaching laboratories typically are large rooms intended for 20-40 students. At the older universities, teaching laboratories are located in separate buildings whereas they are placed in connection with the research laboratories in more recent universities. In terms of the physical framework, the teaching and research laboratories can be divided into three basic types, which appear repeatedly in the survey. A closer look at the archetypes helps give a general idea of what the challenges are and how to tackle them.
The oldest laboratories typically built during the 1960s or earlier have a long central corridor with two rows of equally large cubicles on either side of the corridor, in which the laboratories and offices are located. Researchers typically have their own office, whereas assistants and PhD students have workstations in the actual laboratory. Often, the only access to the laboratories and offices is from the corridor. 15 % of the surveyed laboratories are of type 1.
This structure is not particularly flexible and does not support collaboration and multidisciplinary work. Shared facilities such as large meeting rooms and recreational areas have not been taken into account. The small uniform cubicles separated by a corridor make it difficult to create large, inter-connected laboratories and recreational areas across the corridor in connection with renovations. One advantage of this type of building is that it is often possible to move partitions and change the size of the cubicles.
Laboratories of this type typically date back to the 1970s and 1980s and have a long corridor with offices on both sides. The corridor has been asymmetrically placed and room sizes vary. There are small cubicles for offices on one side of the corridor and larger cubicles for laboratories on the other side. It is estimated that 45 % of the surveyed laboratories are of this type. This type presents similar problems as type 1 with a lack of flexibility. A special problem with type 2 is that the buildings involved are often relatively small.
In more recent buildings built from the 1970s onwards, the laboratories have been placed around two parallel corridors. 20 % of the surveyed laboratories are of this type.
Access is typically from the corridor or via an internal, secondary corridor leading from one laboratory to another. This creates a better flow in the building and can help prevent contamination, as the researchers are not forced to use corridors in unclassified areas. The secondary corridors can also help support communication and multidisciplinary work.
More recent types present some of the same problems as the previous types with a lack of flexibility. Also in these buildings, the fitting out can be restricted by the location of load-bearing structures in the relatively rigid design. The advantage of this type of building is its relative depth, which makes it possible to create a variety of small and large rooms. It is possible to do away with one of the central corridors and create deep laboratories or lecture halls. However, to do that, the buildings must have large windows to allow daylight to enter the centre of the building.
The purpose of the survey is to assess the need for modernisation in Danish university laboratories. It therefore examines technical aspects such as how worn the wall surfaces and the furniture of the rooms are, how old the installations are and whether the buildings contain any asbestos. The survey looks at whether the buildings regenerate heat from the ventilation systems and the number of storeys of each building. The survey therefore does not reveal whether the buildings have been fitted out appropriately, whether the fitting out is suitable for the work carried out or whether there is still a need for the function in question. Neither does the survey look at the risk classification level of the laboratories in relation to the type of research being carried out.
The survey and the analysis have not yet been finalised but already point to several important focus areas such as structural layout, installations, surfaces and the division between teaching and research laboratories.
A fundamental problem in many buildings is the low ceiling height and insufficient room for new equipment. This makes it both difficult and costly to modernise the areas.
Many of the installations are old and worn and the ventilation systems do not have heat recovery facilities. There is therefore a potential for energy savings. Some surfaces and furniture items are also worn down. The planning must look at how the requirements of the Danish Working Environment Authority regarding classification and working environment can be incorporated into future modernisations.
The survey also points out that many teaching laboratories are no longer sufficiently well fitted out and equipped to support the teaching. This has the unfortunate consequence that research laboratories that are not equipped for teaching are used for teaching purposes. This indicates that there is a need to upgrade many of the teaching laboratories to prevent research laboratories from being used for teaching. Alternatively, new research laboratories and some of the existing research laboratories can be fitted out for teaching purposes in the future.
The survey indicates a number of challenges in the work with laboratories in the coming years. If multidisciplinary work as well as academic and social interaction are to be core values, laboratory planning must be done differently in the future. Instead of using the building and a fixed structure as the starting point, man and collaboration must be at the centre of the planning process.
Lene SchaumburgHow can you plan future laboratories so they meet new requirements to e.g. flexibility and environment as well as collaboration and teaching methods? A visualisation model sketches a scenario and can also serve as a checklist for the functions and contexts that should be taken into account in the initial work to plan the laboratory areas of the future
As part of its ‘Project Campus’ survey of laboratory conditions at Danish universities, the Danish University and Property Agency has held workshops for researchers and consultants to discuss the problems relating to laboratory construction and develop new solutions. The development work has not yet been finalised but the workshops have so far resulted in a model that incorporates the functions and contexts that must be part of the initial work to design the laboratories of the future.
The model has five levels and is a visualisation of the many factors to be taken into account in the design of laboratories – whether modernisations or new buildings. The model forms part of an idea catalogue, which is the result of the development work.
Traditionally, the planning of a building starts from the top with general structures, construction principles and main supplies, and the individual workstation is only taken into account at a late stage of the process. By working from the bottom up, the practices of the users become central to the planning process.
Traditionally, the planning of a building starts from the top with general structures, construction principles and main supplies, and the individual workstation is only taken into account at a late stage of the process. By working from the bottom up, the practices of the users become central to the planning process.
The model involves five levels covering everything from laboratory furniture to the entire university. The five levels are: ‘the workstation’, ‘the arena’, ‘the unit’, ‘the centre’ and ‘the university’.
Several ‘workstations’ can be put together in the ‘arena’ like a fractal structure, which begins with the tiniest atoms that through mutation become one large, living organism. The ‘arena’, combined with support functions and laboratories, becomes a ‘unit’, which in turn becomes a ‘centre’ and then an entire ‘university’.
The model should be used from the bottom up and a similar process should be completed from the top down in which general functions as well as urban and architectural considerations are outlined. The two models should subsequently be combined.
It should be possible to adapt the individual workstation in the laboratory to the changing needs and physiology of the individual researcher or student. In addition to a height-adjustable desk, the workstation consists of shared basic equipment (fume cupboards, scales, etc.). The workstation is allocated to a specific subject area and should be fitted out accordingly.
Traditionally, the reconstruction or redesign of a laboratory begins with a project involving the individual building components: installations, furniture and surfaces. Each laboratory is fitted out in accordance with the specific wishes of the users. The need for more versatile use and rapid conversion favours a departure from the traditional subject-based planning to be replaced by work aimed at configuring consistent equipment and installation systems, the so-called Plug and Play systems.
Projects can be planned on a multidisciplinary basis, but discoveries can also happen more or less accidentally when researchers with different backgrounds inspire each other and discover new perspectives.
The arena is a central place in the research unit where new knowledge is created and shared with others. In the past, research took place in small, closed laboratories where the individual researcher carefully guarded his project. The laboratories of the future will consist of an arena where researchers work and display their knowledge and experiments. Here, they can expect to receive comments and suggestions for changes, new approaches or new projects on an ongoing basis. Research will become transparent.
Results must be exhibited and communicated. An arena can, for instance, comprise a mock set-up behind glass walls. The mock set-up must remain in place during the six months’ duration of the research project. Not far from the mock set-up, a group of researchers are having a video conference with participants in Japan and the USA.
The arena can be used by researchers and students from different subject areas. It is fitted out with the described laboratory furniture, special set-ups or specialised and expensive equipment that can be used by many different researchers, and also has room for social gatherings. The room may be large and open or it may be sub-divided for different processes, typically shielded by glass walls.
It should be possible to quickly clear the arena or restructure it for new projects. The arena is therefore also based on the Plug and Play principle in which cables link basic installations to connection points.
The ‘arena’ is surrounded by laboratories with basic installation, support laboratories, rooms with appliances, offices, workstations and rooms for in-depth study. These rooms combine to form a ‘laboratory unit’. The focus of attention in this unit is directed towards the many different activities in the arena.
The laboratory unit may consist of 20-40 researchers, assistants, students and administrators. The individual subject areas have specific requirements to basic equipment, e.g. chemists generally need provision for safe work in fume cupboards. Biologists who work with genetically modified material have special requirements to the work surfaces, which must be easy to clean, and in some cases LAF benches are required to protect the product or safety benches to protect the staff. Researchers from many subject areas need to be able to place scales on stable surfaces with local exhaust systems. In addition, the researchers need support functions such as laboratory dishwashers, cold rooms and darkrooms.
However, a laboratory is not an 8.00 am – 5.00 pm workplace but a facility that is open around the clock. The subject-specific basic design should therefore be available in the unit, but to utilise the laboratory capacity and its equipment to the maximum, the equipment should not be dedicated to individual users. The researcher or the student books a workstation or an experiment. This is a kind of New Ways of Working principle for laboratories, in which there are no private workrooms and the activity instead defines where each person works.
Depending on the size and subject area, the ‘centre’ may contain 20-30 laboratory units. Projects are completed across these units. Experience shows that the student drop-out rate is lower if the students are closely associated with the research environment and take part in new and exciting activities.
The centre is very transparent and welcoming and everyone has an optimum overview of current projects. At the same time, the centre has small rooms and lounges for in-depth study or relaxation.
Depending on the urban location of the centre, the surrounding landscape can be in the immediate vicinity of the building or even incorporated in it. The technical and social intensity is counterbalanced – an oasis for in-depth study or peace and quiet.
University centres can be spread out over several campus areas or be combined to form one central ‘university’. The number of centres that make up a university can vary depending on its geographical location, the number of fields of study, its history, etc.
The location of the centres and their special equipment is planned strategically, taking into account the campus as a whole. The opening hours, daily rhythms and activity zones at the centre influence the way you experience the academic activities and life on campus as a whole.
There is an ‘interspace’ between each of the five levels. This is perhaps one of the key terms for the interior design of the laboratory of the future. The interspace is a place where different subject areas meet and new knowledge is created. It is where researchers and students meet regardless of their subject and position. The interspaces do not create distance – they unify. Multidisciplinary and social functions are placed in these interspaces
The functions placed in the interspace depend on the functional level. At arena level, the functions may include kitchens with coffee machines where informal contact takes place. At unit level, they may involve project areas with furniture that support collaboration and exchange. At centre level, they may involve main offices with ICT equipment or informal meeting places for researchers. At university level, the interspaces are used for the university’s infrastructure such as service facilities, eating places, centralised student centres, sports facilities and accommodation for teachers, researchers and students.
Tomorrow’s complex challenges to laboratories will require careful planning. The many existing, antiquated laboratory areas must be turned into living organisms in the form of up-to-date laboratory centres. The centres must be based on forward-looking values that can attract and retain researchers and teachers on a par with the best universities in the world.
Lene Schaumburg The section on laboratories is based on material from a survey commissioned by the Danish University and Property Agency, carried out in collaboration with Cowi, NNEpharmaplan, RH Arkitekter and Dalux. The section was edited by Mikala Holme Samsøe.Three articles describe future perspectives. They each look at what the role of universities will be in the future, and they do so each on their own scale. Thus, the articles move from an overall societal story about economy, via the organisational learning of the university to the individual’s transformation inside the university’s buildings.
The first article introduces four scenarios: ‘Open Networking’, ‘Serving Local Communities’, ‘New Public Responsibility’ and ‘Higher Education Inc.’. The scenarios have different approaches to global and national interests as well as market forces and government regulation, as seen in e.g. the way in which they handle teaching and research buildings.
The second article argues that sustainability can be used as a tool for turning universities into learning organisations, which thereby become even better at researching, teaching and disseminating knowledge.
The third article pinpoints the potential of thinking in terms of transformations and university architecture. Whilst experience economy suggests icons, the more recent transformation economy focuses on experiences that transform the user. This way of thinking may influence the way in which we build universities.
All three articles focus on how the physical framework plays a significant role in relation to the universities of the future. In doing so, they point to the enormous potential found in professionally and strategically thinking physical planning into the future work of universities.
Four scenarios for the future of higher education have been developed by the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. The four scenarios imply different ways of dealing with buildings and educational space for the universities of tomorrow. This paper sketches these scenarios and their possible implications
Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin is a senior analyst in the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), leading the CERI project on the future of higher education. The views expressed are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the OECD and its member countries
Some noteworthy trends in tertiary education point to different possible futures for tertiary education systems and for the design and management of education facilities in the OECD area. In a nutshell, these important trends for the future of buildings are: 1) continued expansion of tertiary education systems; 2) further internationalisation; 3) shifts in governance implying more competition for funds and more student contribution to the cost of tertiary education; 4) increasing use of technology.
The political will and individual interest that can fuel the further expansion of higher education systems are present in most countries. Should past trends in access rates continue, the enrolments would continue to increase in most OECD countries, in spite of the general ageing of society in many countries. On average, an OECD country could see the size of its tertiary education system increase by 16 % by 2025. This implies that the need for university places will probably not decrease in the near future.
The three other trends point to a different use of university space that will need to be taken into account in its design. The international mobility of students and academics has grown significantly in the past decade. The number of foreign students within the OECD area has tripled since 1980, and doubled between 2000 and 2006. While this may not last forever, this is likely to continue in the coming decades. The increasing use of online learning as part of university teaching may also change the use of space and the time of on-campus presence. Finally, recent shifts in cost-sharing point to an increased financial contribution of students to the cost of their studies, which generally results in more part-time enrolments. All these trends point to a different use of physical facilities, induced by a more temporary presence of students on campus and by new needs created by visiting scholars and students. This may profoundly change the patterns of socialisation on and outside campuses.
Finally, the increasing competition and concentration of funding in tertiary education may lead to different needs in terms of an ideal location for universities. The location of institutions as part of innovation clusters or as part of big metropolitan areas might become one important dimension of this competition for international visibility (and for funding). Examples of innovation clusters are the Knowledge Village in Dubai, the Education City in Qatar, or the Kuala Lumpur Education City in Malaysia.
The four scenarios below bring together some of the ongoing trends and emerging changes and imagine what the future could look like if the changes became more radical. Each scenario could bring different prospects for the design and management of educational buildings.
In this scenario, higher education is internationalised and involves intensive networking among institutions, scholars, students and with other players such as industry. It is a model based more on collaboration than on competition.
Students choose their courses from the global post-secondary education network and design their own curricula and degrees. Students have a great deal of autonomy. They often study abroad and take courses offered exclusively online. New technologies have brought changes in approaches to teaching, especially at undergraduate level, with standardised courses often delivered online, and different use of classroom time with more small seminars and interactive discussions. International collaborative research has been strengthened by the dense networking between institutions, driven by the availability of free and open knowledge.
This scenario could be driven by voluntary co-operation between and among countries and institutions leading to the gradual harmonisation of higher education systems as in the Bologna process.
Such a scenario could have many implications for the design and use of the buildings. Housing for students and academic visitors would become an important feature. The large number of international visitors and students might imply that campuses located close to cultural sites or capitals become more attractive as tourism and studies become intertwined. International networking could possibly lead to the development of multi-campuses in several countries. The access to electronic resources will allow for different uses and missions of libraries. In most cases, the management of the buildings would remain very traditional – either done by universities when they own their buildings or by public authorities when they do not.
In this scenario, higher education institutions are focused (or refocused) on national and local missions. They are embedded in their local and regional communities, and are dedicated to addressing local economic and community needs in their teaching and research.
As is currently the case, higher education is mainly publicly funded and administered. Academics are treated as trusted professionals with control over education and research processes. A small number of ‘elite’ institutions are linked to international networks (although there are now some barriers to internationalisation). The average institution, however, responds to its local communities. It works more closely with industry to design relevant initial and lifelong training. It also offers more recreational education for elderly people.
This scenario could be driven by a backlash against globalisation. There is a growing scepticism in regard to internationalisation for a variety of reasons including recent terror attacks and wars, economic crises, concerns about the growth in immigration, frustration about outsourcing and the feeling that national identity is threatened by foreign influences.
In this scenario, institutions would need less student housing since they would be closer to the students’ homes. This would mean smaller educational buildings, with smaller and less comprehensive libraries, and better accessibility for older students – both working and retired people. Some services, such as baby care, would become a standard offer. Their location would need to be easily accessible to all, including to possible industry partners. One could imagine part of the courses actually being relocated to different sites, either within companies for training needs, or close to communities. The management of the buildings would in most cases be done by the local communities, but one could imagine a bigger interest of local economic players to build educational buildings that would service their needs.
In this scenario, higher education is primarily publicly funded, as is currently the case, but there is a greater focus on the use of ‘New Public Management’ tools, including market forces and financial incentives.
The institutions are autonomous (or legally private). They still depend on public funds for a significant share of their budget. However, institutions have taken advantage of foreign education markets, the deregulation of tuition fees, the patenting of their academic research and their growing financial links with industry to diversify their funding sources. The boundaries between public and private higher education have blurred, as most resources of universities are private, coming from student tuition fees, and support from business and private foundations. The division of labour between (or within) institutions is more marked, most of them specialising in different missions in teaching and research – a differentiation that does not necessarily prevent all of them from continuing to carry out both research and teaching.
In this scenario, the shift in public governance could be based on mounting budget pressures created by the ageing society. Rising public debt has shifted a significant part of the cost of education from government to students and their families. The cost of health care and pensions are now the primary government spending priorities.
The autonomy given to the institutions would mean that they own their facilities. They would probably try to rent rather than own them if they had to expand. They would try to intensify their use to create room for more paying students. They would also start moving into facilities that better fit their increasing specialisation and probably hire space managers to optimise the use of their buildings (and its derived revenue). Gradually, education buildings would become much more diverse due to the different needs of each institution.
In this scenario, higher education institutions compete globally to provide education and research services on a commercial basis.
Research and teaching are increasingly disconnected and institutions concentrate on what they consider to be their core business. Research universities thus hardly teach, if they teach at all, whereas general institutions concentrate almost exclusively on teaching. Most segments of the market are now demand-driven, with business-like methods (responsiveness to customer needs, attention to effective management and administration of the institution etc.), while the most prestigious institutions continue to be more supply-driven and managed through peer assessment.
There is fierce competition for students. Many universities are opening new institutions or branch campuses abroad and franchising educational programmes. An international division of labour is emerging, with some countries earning reputations for high-quality undergraduate education, while others are competitive in training postgraduate students and conducting research.
This scenario could be driven by some form of trade liberalisation in education. Originally pioneered by a few countries, trade in higher education has gained ground and become more pervasive.
As for buildings, there would be an even greater variety of facilities than in the previous one. The mainstreaming of for-profit education would possibly translate into a smaller size of institutions, smaller size of classes and less amphitheatres. Libraries would not necessarily belong to the institutions but become a business selling their services to the institutions – the researchers and/or the students. Some companies would specialise in constructing and renting tertiary education buildings with a business-like management. Most educational buildings would also be used as conference centres or even wedding places. Some institutions may continue to own their buildings and turn their design into an international logo, immediately associated with their brand, so that every student can live the same campus experience globally.
Students do not only want to learn, they also want to be transformed as people. The experience economy’s focus on consumption and experiences is now being replaced by transformation economy, which seeks a more lasting value creation. This way of thinking may inspire the way in which we build universities
Rune Thorbjørn Clausen, is an industrial PhD student with PLH architects and attached to the Center for Management Studies of the Building Process, CBS. He works with architectural added value in a transformation economy perspectiveUniversities are truly transformation economic suppliers. The student is enrolled at the university with a ‘clean slate’, and three or five years later, he or she has not only acquired knowledge but also transformed into something special, which is marked by a degree. This ‘extra’ that the university supplies, is transformations. A change of condition. It is acquired experience, insight or new skills, which in the situation fundamentally changes the student’s perceptions and expectations of what it means to study. If the university is to transform, however, it is not enough to look at the academic and social offers, it is even more necessary to consider the prerequisites for the academic and social aspects. I.e., the physical context.
In the last decade, experience economy has gained speed, and in step with its development, we are beginning to see the contours of a transformation economy, whose economic dynamics have their origins in the experience economy. Along with transformation economy comes a much more explicit demand for the user’s involvement in value creation. In fact, you can almost say that without involvement, value creations are not possible at all. In a classical economic sense, this means that the user becomes the controlling ‘production factor’ of traditional resources such as labour force, land, capital and technology.
This is pragmatic value creation in the sense that value sprouts from the student’s encounter with and involvement in architecture. And to a very great extent, it is a matter of the student’s ability to participate in the value creation. Value becomes a result of how actively the student gets involved in the architecture. Consequently, university construction should trigger inspiration in the student, so that the student feels tempted to use and interact in the building, and this mobilises the basis for a value creation that can positively transform the student.
At a time where interaction between students and between researchers and teachers is made more and more virtual and non-physical, the physical design only becomes even more important. The campus area or the distinctive university building should act as an agora in the old Greek sense of the word. A square, a gathering place, where you meet, discuss, allow yourself to be inspired and grow wiser. Planning of such an agora must be based on how the physical design, the architecture can mobilise and drive the transformations that are in such high demand. The trend in experience economy has been to give the users a great experience of architecture by focusing on the iconic building design in itself.
With the advent of transformation economy, we are beginning to see a shift in the perception of architecture. Rather than focusing on the object, we now see a greater need for a focus on the recipient’s attention towards the architectural object. When architecture opens up for a space of possibilities that allows the user to create, frame and filter meaning, one consequence is that meaning and value are no longer attached to the building, but inherent in the very attention you direct at the building as a user. This is a fundamental change. Now it is no longer the designed building that gives the user value and meaning, but it is the user who gives the building value and meaning via his encounter with and involvement in the building. Thus, the valuable transformations are driven forward by a mutual tension between building and user.
Generally speaking, we are not particularly conscious of how our physical surroundings affect us, and what architecture represents, which is a paradox, because architecture is a significant resource of a cognitive, symbolic and emotional nature. Consciously and subconsciously, architecture has the ability to affect the users who are physically present in the building or who observe it from the outside. Architecture opens up to an action field, which offers to create value for the individual user. For this very reason many users and developers seem to make buildings useful in other ways than as outright climate screen or physical framework for teaching and research. In transformation economy, the building’s primary function of providing a roof over the head and protecting against rain and wind is no longer decisive. Instead, the building’s secondary function of providing associations and emotional meaning gains central focus to a higher degree.
This means that university buildings’ value is created by architecture’s ability to inspire and facilitate such other ‘projects’ of a more identity-creating and image-signalling nature. It is this utility potential that is the actual value creation of architecture. Architecture should inspire students so that they themselves can create sense and meaning on their own terms. The university building is a resource for this, and as a physical artefact it should not determine a given significance by imposing a meaning on the student. As the agora in the old Greek urban community, the university building should be a space of opportunity, in which the student can acquire experience and insight and be transformed.
”We shape our buildings and afterwards, our buildings shape us.”(Winston Churchill, speech to the British Parliament, 1943)
Then why should architecture do this? Well, for one reason, because architecture with its influencing effect on man’s scope of activity has a great potential for transforming its users. When the British House of Commons was to be rebuilt after the Blitz during World War II, Winston Churchill asked his colleagues to remember that the architecture, which was subsequently to be constructed, would affect and shape them as individuals. This is very good and pertinent advice to give. It is a shame, though, that the fundamental message, i.e. that architecture transforms its users, has been ignored to such an extensive degree. It even seems particularly troubling now when transformation economy is beginning to gain ground. The fact is, that because of its role as an educational institution, the university has a unique opportunity to supply solid and lasting transformations of its students, and architecture is a central tool for doing this.
Decision makers must be aware of this issue, as it is particularly problematic if the building – consciously or subconsciously – is rejected as a tool. In doing so, the opportunity to control and direct the effects implied by architecture are also rejected, and the opportunity to strategically influence the transformation of the students is lost.
The word ‘transformation’ means a change of form – going from one condition to another. But – can a campus area transform? Yes, very much so. It can do so for several reasons, but one essential reason is that architecture facilitates given circumstances and behaviour. Architecture greatly affects our ability to express ourselves. Transformation economy’s view of architecture does, however, create a conflict as the user as controlling production factor of value also affects architecture’s ability to express itself. A brilliant example of this is the CBS’s main building at Solbjerg Plads square. Too few study workstations in the programme ‘reading room’ have resulted in students rewriting the programme ‘canteen area’ converting it into more of a reading room – or, in actual fact, into one large collective group room.
It is thus important to stress that in order to drive a good transformation, the planner has to realise and acknowledge that today’s users are critical, demanding and competent, and at the same time they demand a higher degree of involvement. Transformation economy’s view of architecture is, as mentioned, that it is not the designed building that determines the value and meaning for the user, but rather the user who determines value and meaning for the building via his encounter with and involvement in the building. This change implies that user and architecture should engage in an equal dialogue and exchange. Users move across, forward and backwards in architecture, and value will grow from the multiplicity of interactions they have in the building.
One result of this little reflective article will be that if the shift from experience to transformation is taken seriously, and energy and resources are allocated to meet the challenges, this wonderful tension between user and building will be able to produce social, cultural, economic and professional growth via the architectural design and set-up of the campus area. It requires for us to think in terms of transformations and that we establish a field of connection between sender and recipient, in which transformation can emerge, develop and grow.
This process is complex, and you may ask who it is that supplies the solution. Is it architecture? Yes, it opens up to possibilities, but does not in itself provide the result. Is it the users? Yes, but only if they are inspired by architecture and the possibilities and actions that it allows. Is it the decision makers? Yes, but only if they allow space for architecture that opens up a space of possibility for transformations.
The conclusion is thus that if we start to consider architecture in the light of transformation economy, we will see that architecture creates great potential value creations for the university, because it offers the student more lasting value creations.
Universities can benefit from institutionalising a commitment to sustainable campus operations. Green thinking can be a tool to transform universities into true learning organisations becoming even better at teaching, learning and sharing knowledge. A number of change agent activities can be used
Leith Sharp was the founding Director of Harvard’s Green Campus Initiative and has been working with universities for the last 15 years to achieve organisational change in the pursuit of environmental sustainabilityEnvironmental sustainability is a moving target that requires a rapid and wide-reaching escalation in the pace of organisational change across every university. We must move beyond the era of little victories, in which we make one discrete green project work at a time, to an era of systemic transformation, in which entire processes are reformed, resulting in large-scale environmental impact reductions across the university. At its heart, the challenge posed by the environmental imperative is an organisational change challenge. The road to campus environmental sustainability involves the very difficult work of deep, systemic and continuous reform of all institutional systems, habits, decision-making processes and behaviours that fail to internalise a consciousness of and relationship with the earth’s life support systems.
We must rapidly increase the rate at which our universities are able to transform almost every aspect of their organisational systems and physical operations by becoming learning organisations as well as teaching and research institutions. In order to circumvent the numerous forces that act to prevent change within our organisations, we must directly address the resistance to change by addressing the underlying fear of instability. To do this, we must be able to successfully maintain the stability and continuity of the university organisation while simultaneously changing almost every practice within it. This will involve the dual effort of diagnosing a myriad of organisational characteristics, risks (perceived and real), motivations and interrelationships, and using this knowledge to chart pathways towards innovation that are relatively free of risk and instability while being imbued with the necessary rewards and incentives for the individuals involved.
To achieve this we need a critical mass of individuals both within the university sector and in those external entities that serve universities, to undertake an array of change agent activities. These individuals will have the greatest effect by undertaking a range of change agency activities aimed at removing barriers and resistance to change while stimulating engagement and leadership amongst large numbers of people from all areas of the campus community. Such activities include the following:
Build a wide network of relationships, maintaining mutual trust, effective two-way dialogue, respect and understanding as the basis of engagement and shared learning. Effective and sustained organisational change is highly dependent upon the existence of a culture of trust. Maintaining trust within large and complex hierarchies requires diligence, advanced communication skills, heightened emotional intelligence, a sense of humour and a large investment of time and attention.
Take an active role in the transmission of experience between individuals and projects and use peer-to-peer forums as much as possible to foster engagement, commitment and learning. Adults are most likely to put effort into learning new things when they are engaged in a shared learning process with their peers where they might find themselves as teachers and/or fellow learners. Peer-to-peer approaches can be as wide-ranging as setting up forums, in which university presidents meet with and challenge one another, to running forums of targeted professional staff, in which they teach one another emerging best practices, to setting up student residential programmes that employ students to engage and influence their student peers.
Reform finance and accounting practices to ensure that both capital and operating costs are considered in financial decision-making pro-cesses.
One effective cycle of leadership leveraging involves engaging the grass roots of the organisation (such as building managers, custodial or kitchen staff) to trial new projects that can then be used to gain upper level leadership statements of support, which can then be leveraged to generate middle management support. Middle managers tend to be the gatekeepers of the institutions’ decision-making processes and systems because they often need to know that they have both the support from above and the capacities below before they are ready to buy into a new proposed change. Therefore, they are central to successful institutional transformation. When middle managers in universities across the world finally put their support behind integrated design, life cycle costing and reinvestment in campus sustainability activities, planning and design teams will be able to explore vast new horizons for sustainable campus planning, design and operations.
This reform alone will remove one of the most significant barriers to achieving the optimal energy efficiency performance of campus buildings and onsite campus energy systems. One approach is the adoption of life cycle costing (see www.lifecyclecosting.org) for a definition) in all financial decision-making processes that involve ongoing operating costs. In that way, all significant financial decisions take account of the true cost impact beyond just the up-front cost.
Allow for resource conservation-related cost savings to be tracked and reinvested in additional sustainability staff and campus sustainability activities with long payback periods and carbon offsets. This reform would open the way for significant cost neutral environmental impact reductions across the campus. On the large scale, many campuses would also be able to achieve cost neutral climate neutrality by adopting an accounting and finance framework for tracking and reinvesting conservation savings over long periods of time. Furthermore, the challenge of finding funding for dedicated sustainability staff can be resolved by tracking and reinvesting savings that result from the work of these staff, setting up a positive feedback loop between increased staff capacities and increased conservation savings.
Adopt governance structures and accountability frameworks that institutionalise ongoing reporting responsibilities across the campus.Common accountability frameworks include green building certification systems, greenhouse gas reduction commitments and annual waste and recycling reports. Accountability frameworks are most effective when there is wide scale consultation in their development and adoption. Common governance structures include campus-wide advisory committees of staff, students and faculty and are most effective when there is adequate professional support from sustainability staff with a senior report and adequate resources
Integrate strategies for achieving continuous improvement in all areas of campus planning, design and operations.This may be achieved by institutionalising a commitment to continuously review and expand institutional sustainability goals as current goals are reached, and by fostering an organisational culture that supports continuous learning and exploration. In many regards, this will come down to ensuring that staff are encouraged to spend enough time piloting new approaches, engaging in ongoing professional development and investing in networks of professional peers to allow for continual sharing of best practices between universities.
Formalise the use of the campus as a living lab for the practical exploration of sustainability innovations. Students who wish to pursue sustainability related studies could benefit enormously from participating in campus based sustainability projects that offer practical, interdisciplinary learning experiences. Faculty wanting to expand sustainability related teaching and research could be supported by administrative staff to utilise a variety of campus facilities, data, sites and demonstration projects to enrich related curriculum and research activities. In turn, with enough management support, administrative staff could derive professional satisfaction and timely help from students and faculty in testing and analysing new approaches and opportunities for reducing campus impacts.
Work to bring about a shift towards systems thinking, in which the focus becomes the optimisation of the system over the optimisation of its subcomponents at the expense of the overall system. Many of our greatest opportunities for reducing campus environmental impacts can only be diagnosed, understood and afforded when they involve larger systems than are typically considered. For example, radical improvements in energy efficiency can be achieved at no added cost by investing more in building envelops and then working to right size the mechanical systems to reflect the reduced heating and cooling demands. Similarly, the premium costs associated with shifting to environmentally preferred products such as 100 % recycled paper, green cleaning products or organic food can become a cost neutral proposition if additional opportunities associated with the larger systems of material consumption are also considered. For example, costs can be entirely offset by adopting policies to print all copies double-sided, to use microfibre cloths to reduce cleaning chemical costs, or to work with students to reduce food waste and place greater value on quality over variety. On the campus planning scale, thinking in terms of larger campus systems can open the way for radical improvements in campus utilities.
When we think about the sustainable campus of the future, most of us immediately preoccupy ourselves with the physical transformations. Onsite renewable energy systems and clever building design solutions utilising passive solar and natural daylight, treating and reusing storm water and sewerage onsite, local organic food in dining halls, composting systems turning waste into food for native landscapes, bicycles and quiet electrical vehicles cruising around campus, green chemistry techniques used in labs, and much more. The physical campus we dream of will never come to fruition if we do not first reform the deeply imbedded habits of compartmentalisation, territorialism, silos and institutionalised disconnections between disciplines, professions, tiers of management, capital and operating budgets because these habits will continue to tear apart, water down, compromise and overwhelm the best planning and design ideas. In reality, the world in which the sustainable campus lives or dies is the largely invisible world of people, relationships, power and process, a place in which too few of us have been channelling our revolutionary energies to date.
Damsholt, Tine og Petersen, Morten Krogh (2006):
Det skal summe af liv. Humanistisk studiemiljø ved Københavns Universitet, Center for Kulturanalyse.Elbe, Judith, Wilhelm, Martin m.fl. (2004):
Campus - zur Zukunft deutscher Hochschulräume im internationalen Vergleich. ZITpublik20/04, http://www.campusforschung.de.
Fremtidens Universitet – Vidensindsamling og skitserende programanalyse (2001), Statens Forsknings- og Uddannelsesbygninger (nu UBST).
Höeger, Kerstin (2007): Campus and the City. Urban Design for the Knowledge Society, gta Verlag. Jacobsen, Bo m.fl. (2000): Danske Forskningsmiljøer – En undersøgelse af universitetsforskningens aktuelle situation, Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Mitchell, William (2007): Imagining MIT - Designing a Campus for the Twenty-First Century, The MIT Press.
Löw, Martina (2001): Raumsoziologie. Franfurt/Main. Turner, Paul Venable (1984): Campus. An American Planning Tradition. New York.
Campus casesETH Zürich
http://www.sciencecity.ethz.ch
Harvard University
http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu
Københavns Universitet / University of Copenhagen
Lancaster University
MIT
2. Studie- og forskningsmiljø / 2. Study and research environment
Studiearbejdspladser / study workspaces
Aalborg Universitet / Aalborg University
Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole / The Danish School of Education
Syddansk Universitet / University of Southern Denmark
Aarhus Universitet / Aarhus University
http://www.nat.au.dk/nanoscience
Copenhagen Business School
Københavns Universitet / University of Copenhagen
IKT-støttet læring / ICT-supported learning spaces
http://wallenberg.stanford.edu/
http://scil.stanford.edu/index.html
http://www.oneworkplace.com/images/dynamic/case_studies/Stanford_Wallenberghall.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/edtech/home.html
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm
Draper, S.W. & M. I. Brown (2004): Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 20, s. 81-94.
Dørup, J., J. Gomme, A. Hansen & B. Heiberg (2005): Implementering af e-læring ved danske universiteter, Tidsskrift for universiteternes efter- og videreuddannelse, 2. årgang, nr. 6, 2005.
Hagström, Stig (2004): Blurring Boundaries: A Description and Assessment of the High Performance Learning Spaces in Wallenberg Hall, Stanford University, Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning, Stanford Universitet, October 2004.
Joint Information Systems Committee (2006): Designing Spaces for Effective Learning. A guide to 21st century learning space design, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/eli_learningspaces.html .
Kennedy, G. E. & Q. I. Cutts (2005): The Association between Students’ Use of an Electronic Voting System and Their Learning Outcomes, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, s. 260-268.
Linch, K. (2007): Using Texting Technologies in Teaching History, http://www.hca.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/case_Studies/using_texting_technology_in_teaching_history.pdf .
Scottish Funding Council (2006): Spaces for Learning. A review of learning spaces in further and higher education, http://www.sfc.ac.uk/information/information_learning/spaces_for_learning.html .
Videnskabsministeriet (2007): National strategi for IKT-støttet læring – Indsats for at fremme anvendelsen af IKT-støttet læring 2007-2009, juni 2007.
Forside / Cover: JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Kap. 1 Claes Caldenby
Kap. 1 Illustrationer / illustrations: mwas
Kap. 1 Illustrationer/ illustrations: Hasse Glyng
Kap. 1 Luftfoto / Aerial photo: ETH
Kap. 1 JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Mikala Holme Samsøe
Kap. 1 Camilla Hedegaard Møller, Schønherr Landskab
Kap. 1 JuulIFrost Arkitekter (øverst / top) Tao Lytzen (nederst / bottom) Kap. 1 Adam Mørk, 3xN
Kap. 1 Mikala Holme Samsøe (øverst / top) JuulIFrost Arkitekter (nederst / bottom)
Kap. 1 Mikala Holme Samsøe
Kap. 1 Illustration / illustration: Christensen & Co Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Luftfoto / Aerial photo: ETH
Kap. 1 JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Illustration / Illustration: KCAP Architects & Planners
Kap. 1 JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Heidi Hostettler
Kap. 1 Illustration / illustration: Chau Hua
Kap. 1 Illustrationer / illustrations: KCAP Architects & Planners
Kap. 1 Peter Vanderwarker
Kap. 1 Mikala Holme Samsøe (øverst / top) Illustration / illustration: JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Mikala Holme Samsøe (øverst / top) Harvard Office of News and Public Affairs (nederst / bottom)
Kap. 1 Harvard Office of News and Public Affairs
Kap. 1 Peter Vanderwarker, foto collage / photo collage: Allston Development Group
Kap. 1 HGCI
Kap. 1 Anabela Pappas
Kap. 1 Illustration / illustration: HGCI
Kap. 1 HGCI
Kap. 1 Københavns Universitet
Kap. 1 Illustration / illustration: Hasse Glyng
Kap. 1 Camilla Hedegaard Møller, Schønherr Landskab
Kap. 1 Københavns Universitet
Kap. 1 Camilla Hedegaard Møller, Schønherr Landskab
Kap. 1 Illustrationer / illustrations: Schønherr Landskab
Kap. 1 foto og fotocollage / photos and photocollage: Camilla Berner
Kap. 1 Lancaster University
Kap. 1 Foto og illustration / photos and illustration: JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Illustration / illustration: McAslan and Partners
Kap. 1 JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 Lancaster University
Kap. 1 MIT
Kap. 1 Foto og illustration / photos and illustration: JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 1 MIT Archives, published in Michell (2007), p 119
Kap. 1 JuulIFrost Arkitekter
Kap. 2 Mikala Holme Samsøe
Kap. 2 Jakob Boserup
Kap. 2 Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole
Kap. 2 Illustrationer / illustrations: Hans Siggaard Jensen
Kap. 2 Hans Kiib
Kap. 2 Tao Lytzen
Kap. 2 Nano Science Center, Københavns Universitet
Kap. 2 Mikala Holme Samsøe (venstre / left) Jakob Boserup (højre / right)
Kap. 2 Hanna Sathiapal
Kap. 2 MIT
Kap. 2 Adam Mørk, 3xN,
Kap. 2 Illustration / illustration: Henning Larsen Architects
Kap. 2 Mikala Holme Samsøe
Kap. 2 Signal Arkitekter
Kap. 2 Morely von Sternberg
Kap. 2 Mikala Holme Samsøe (venstre / left) Harvard Office of News and Public Affairs (højre / right)
Kap. 2 Jakob Boserup
Kap. 2 Signal Arkitekter
Kap. 2 Bosch & Fjord, Anders Sune Berg
Kap. 2 Gitte Molbæk
Kap. 2 Singapore Management University
Kap. 2 Wallenberg Hall, Stanford University
Kap. 2 MIT
Kap. 2 aleximarmot.com, www.cetis.ac.uk
Kap. 2 Copyright Steelcase, Stanford University
Kap. 2 Morely von Sternberg
Kap. 2 Keith Collie, Hawkins\Brown Architects
Kap. 2 Adam Mørk, KHR Arkitekter
Kap. 2 RH Arkitekter
Kap. 2 Illustrationer / illustrations: RH Arkitekter
Kap. 2 Reinhard Gorner, Fosters + Partners
Kap. 2 Mikala Holme Samsøe
Kap. 2 Harvard Office of News and Public Affairs
Kap. 3 Illustrationer / illustrations: RH Arkitekter
Kap. 3 Reinhard Gorner, Fosters + Partners
Kap. 3 Mikala Holme Samsøe
Kap. 3 Harvard Office of News and Public Affairs
physical framework for universities of the future
The Danish University and Property Agency
under the auspices of the Danish Ministry
of Science, Technology and Innovation
Bredgade 43
DK - 1260 Copenhagen K
Tlf: (+45) 3395 1200
Fax: (+45) 3395 1300
ubst@ubst.dk
www.ubst.dk
Mikala Holme Samsøe (resp.)
Cathrine Schmidt
Hasse Glyng (photos)
Avanti Gruppen
Layout
Eckardt ApS
Sangill Grafisk
ISBN 87-90797-32-9
ISBN 87-90797-33-7
(Elektronic version)
Printed in Denmark 2009
The publication can be downloaded at
www.ubst.dk
ISBN 87-90797-33-7 (Elektronisk version)
Printed in Denmark 2009
Publikationen kan hentes på www.ubst.dk
All surveys and reports can be downloaded from www.ubst.dk/ under ‘Projekt Campus’.
The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s essay competition about the good study environment for Danish students of higher education, 64 contributions. June 2007. Project group: Kikki Gyldenvang Steffensen and Mikala Holme Samsøe.
Campus Areas of the Future – a survey of campus planning at three foreign campus areas and a mapping of three Danish ones. Carried out by Juul|Frost Architects and the Danish University and Property Agency, January-November 2007. Project group: Helle Juul, Rikke Kristine Larsen, Flemming Birk, Mette Juncker, Gitte Duemose, Klaus Kofod-Hansen and Mikala Holme Samsøe.
Registration of use and organisation of study workstations in 16 places around Danish universities.
Carried out by Signal Architects and the Danish University and Property Agency, April-December 2007. Project group: Gitte Andersen, Marianne Færch and Mikala Holme Samsøe.
Study of six international examples where ICT is incorporated into the physical design of learning environments. Carried out by the Danish University and Property Agency, autumn 2007.
Project group: Mette Juncker and Sune Bechmann Pedersen. Interviews: Cathrine Schmidt.
Presentations of the results of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s ‘Project Campus’ for university managers, advisers and the Danish University and Property Agency. Organised by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technoloy and Innovation, held 8th November 2007.
Project manager on Project Campus: Mikala Holme Samsøe.
Survey of the physical and technical condition of Danish laboratories and ideas catalogue for the design of new laboratories. Carried out by the Danish University and Property Agency, Cowi, Dalux, RH Architects and NNEpharmaplan. Spring 2009.
Project group: Jacob Højbjerre, Bjarke Møller Nielsen, Bent Dalgaard Larsen, Bo Ramlyng, Mette Hanghøj Lech, Jonas Sandstrøm, Arne Hansen and Erik Krøll. Interviews and articles for this chapter: Lene Schaumburg.
Cathrine Schmidt.
Julia Anshelm and Mikala Holme Samsøe.
Titel:
Campus and study environment - fysiske rammer til morgendagens universiteter
Emneord:
Studiemiljø
Resumé:
The universities are being challenged! Learning forms and subject boundaries are changing. New demands for sustainability and flexible building structures have emerged. And we are currently witnessing a different interplay between education, research and the surrounding world. This all combines to make it essential for universities to constantly rethink themselves.
Udgiver:
Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Ansvarlig institution:
Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Copyright:
Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Redaktionsgruppe:
Mikala Holme Samsøe (ansv)
Cathrine Schmidt
Hasse Glyng (billeder)
Oversættelse:
Avanti Gruppen
Layout:
Eckardt ApS
Tryk:
Sangill Grafisk
ISBN:
87-90797-32-9
ISBN(Elektronisk version)
87-90797-33-7
Sprog:
Dansk
URL:
http://www.ubst.dk/
Formater:
html, gif, jpg, pdf, css
Udgiverkategori:
Statslig
Denne side er hele publikationen i HTML til publikationen "Campus and study environment".
© Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling 2009. Teksten må med kildeangivelse frit anvendes.