University of Arkansas Projects

[zman9810]

I think removing a few trees (gasp!) in the campus core might rejuvenate that area visually. Those old buildings are actually quite nice, and they've been hidden by trees in some instances. I'm all for trees, but hopefully they will be replanted a little further from the buildings in a more strategic way so they don't "hide" the buildings themselves. As the university re-vamps those old buildings and replaces those awful dark modern windows, those buildings take on a new signifcance and beauty. I never noticed how nice some of those old buildings were until the Chemistry Building was put back to its original exterior appearance.

I don't think most people are against removing trees when it is necessary for a major project but if it is posible to save mature trees it is in our best interests to do so. To take out a 100 year old tree and replace it with a sapling isn't replacing that tree - it is bandaiding a scar on the landscape. Fayettevile's tree ordinance is frustraing at times and doesn't apply to the university's property but serves the city well. In the case of trees in the central part of campus IMO most were planted and have grown into their intended role. i will say that there are a few that were so badly damaged by the ice storm that even though they are still alive they should be removed and replaced.

[wmr]

The U of A is going to break ground on "Founders Hal" which will be a five-story mixed-use building attached to the SE side of Brough. The upper floors will be housing, while he middle floor will expand Brough, and the first floor is going to be retail.

Anybody heard about this?

[thewizard16]

The U of A is going to break ground on "Founders Hal" which will be a five-story mixed-use building attached to the SE side of Brough. The upper floors will be housing, while he middle floor will expand Brough, and the first floor is going to be retail.

Anybody heard about this?

Yes, it was mentioned to me in passing when I was visiting friends at the UofA in December. I saw a prospective plan of it at one point but I honestly don't recall many details about it. I do think it's a good idea and a great location for a project like that, but as I told them, five stories is probably too short for such prime real estate.

[wmr]

I think the focus is going to be on keeping buildings lower in order to respect the dominance of the historic core. The news release I read about the building somewhere said it will "resemble Gregson Lodge" which is a good thing, IMO. We need more architectural cohesion on the campus. 5-stories at least isn't two or three. So there's that.

[thewizard16]

I think the focus is going to be on keeping buildings lower in order to respect the dominance of the historic core. The news release I read about the building somewhere said it will "resemble Gregson Lodge" which is a good thing, IMO. We need more architectural cohesion on the campus. 5-stories at least isn't two or three. So there's that.

True. And it is nice that they're finally paying some attention to blending architectural styles on campus and respecting the look of the historic core (well, except the addition to Vol Walker, but we'll see how that turns out). What makes less sense is being worried about height in a spot that's adjacent to two 9/10 story buildings and a 7 story building to where you'll only build a five story structure. It's at least better than the inefficient waste of land that Maple Hill is, which is a decision I believe they're already kicking themselves for a bit.

[Mith242]

True. And it is nice that they're finally paying some attention to blending architectural styles on campus and respecting the look of the historic core (well, except the addition to Vol Walker, but we'll see how that turns out). What makes less sense is being worried about height in a spot that's adjacent to two 9/10 story buildings and a 7 story building to where you'll only build a five story structure. It's at least better than the inefficient waste of land that Maple Hill is, which is a decision I believe they're already kicking themselves for a bit.

Yeah I guess I have to admit it's an improvement over some of their other decisions. But I'm with you, I think they could have gone higher with this project without causing too many problems.

[wmr]

5-stories there makes for good, human-scaled infill, IMO. Its preferable for there to be some transition between the high rises and the historic buildings in that area. I don't think a college campus needs to be a high-rise urban canyon. In fact, I hate the thought of that.

[zman9810]

]I'm not trying to argumentative but I do not understand the use of the term human scale as applied to the height of buildings. That term has been used by many people in Fayetteville when advocating for the very restrictive height limitations in place in the city. It seems to me anything over 1 story is not human scaled- anything over 2 stories certainly could not be termed human scaled. The idea that nothing should rise above the horizon just doesn't work in an area of dense development. If people want to feel like they live in the country they should move to the country- not live in a growing city with a growing university. Vertical development is the most efficient use the very limited space available in the city center and university core. It helps preserve the limited green space available and increases the density thus making more efficient use of the habitable space in the area. It also makes more efficient use of public utillties and transit.

It just seems that the use of the word human when referring to the scale of buildings is a play on people's emotions and not a legitimate reason to not approve the most efficient use of property. It isn't reasonable to have all buildings stair step up to the structures next to them- that is a restriction that makes no economic sense at all.

[wmr]

When discussing building heights, "human-scaled" actually refers to not creating a "canyon" effect as far as I'm concerned. Its one of those terms that probably means something different depending on who is using it.

There are people who obsess over skylines and how buildings look from afar. I'm a person who is more interested in how buildings function and relate to people at the street-level, because that is how most people encounter them and use them.

A college campus is not Wall Street. Its not Manhattan, and I just don't enjoy the idea of a campus of tall, towering buildings.

"Efficiency" is not and should not be the primary driver of construction on a college campus, IMO. If that were the primary concern, then we wouldn't have any of the beautiful older buildings, because it would be more efficient in many cases to knock them down and build generic high-rises in their place.

I personally think a 5-story building is quite tall for a college campus, and I'm glad its not going to be any higher.

[wmr]

There are many locations on the campus where there are one and two story buildings, and I wouldn't mind seeing those replaced in the future with something in the 4-5 story range. I think that's a good density and should be the goal.

I'd rather see a campus full of 4-5 story buildings than a campus with a few 10-story buildings surrounded by empty space and one story buildings.

[wmr]

I've thought about my position on this a little more today and here's a better explanation of what I think about it.

The master plan that the University is going for is one that gets back to the principles of the original master plan. The buildings will form quadrangles, and define space on campus. They will enclose lawns and small courtyard areas. That is a good, traditional plan for a university campus. It will also provide more density to the campus.

I really think that if you pursue this kind of density, you can't go higher than 4-5 stories and achieve the desired result. It will just be very overwhelming to people at ground level, to look up and be surrounded by 10+ story buildings.

The kind of planning that took place in the 60s that gave us the high-rise dorms pursued a different kind of density. That density was high-rise buildings, surrounded by large areas of open space.

I really think you have to choose one or the other for either to work well. Given the small footprint of the campus, the buildings are, and will continue to be, tightly packed. If you combine that with high-rise structures everywhere you could put one, it would make for an overwhelming landscape, IMO. That is the classic canyon type of environment that I don't consider to be "human scale".

There are many opportunities for greater density. The original law building is a good example. It is a 2 or 2 1/2 story building. That building would be better replaced by a 4-5 story building.

The buildings along Dickson across from the Greek theater. All of those are single-story buildings. I think for good scale and transition, as well as good density, those need to be replaced with 4-5 story buildings.

I think of good infill along the lines of how most of San Francisco or London are built. Those cities have huge areas that consist of tightly-packed 3-6 story buildings. Only particular districts of those cities contain true high-rise structures.

[Mith242]

I've thought about my position on this a little more today and here's a better explanation of what I think about it.

The master plan that the University is going for is one that gets back to the principles of the original master plan. The buildings will form quadrangles, and define space on campus. They will enclose lawns and small courtyard areas. That is a good, traditional plan for a university campus. It will also provide more density to the campus.

I really think that if you pursue this kind of density, you can't go higher than 4-5 stories and achieve the desired result. It will just be very overwhelming to people at ground level, to look up and be surrounded by 10+ story buildings.

The kind of planning that took place in the 60s that gave us the high-rise dorms pursued a different kind of density. That density was high-rise buildings, surrounded by large areas of open space.

I really think you have to choose one or the other for either to work well. Given the small footprint of the campus, the buildings are, and will continue to be, tightly packed. If you combine that with high-rise structures everywhere you could put one, it would make for an overwhelming landscape, IMO. That is the classic canyon type of environment that I don't consider to be "human scale".

There are many opportunities for greater density. The original law building is a good example. It is a 2 or 2 1/2 story building. That building would be better replaced by a 4-5 story building.

The buildings along Dickson across from the Greek theater. All of those are single-story buildings. I think for good scale and transition, as well as good density, those need to be replaced with 4-5 story buildings.

I think of good infill along the lines of how most of San Francisco or London are built. Those cities have huge areas that consist of tightly-packed 3-6 story buildings. Only particular districts of those cities contain true high-rise structures.

I certainly see where you're coming from. If the U of A was more consistent I wouldn't have any problems with most of the campus made of mainly 4-6 story buildings. But I guess I tend to push for higher buildings on the campus because they've had a tendency to still put in some lower buildings. So I guess I'm wanting them to make up for some of those.

[zman9810]

I see your point although I don't fully agree with it. I don't think anyone is looking to create a skyline of 60 story buildings like NYC and certainly not put a 10 story building in the historic core of campus. It is missing the opportunity to maximize available space by not building up in spots where it could be done without disturbing the sense of place. The Garland Ave. parking deck could have been 6 levels easily. The new business college buildings could have had 2 stories added to them. The new health center as well as the law building could have additional levels. The nanotech building is a special case because of it's requirements but even it could have been taller. I think the planning is short- sighted and will come back to haunt the planners in the future.

[wmr]

Yeah, Manhattan isn't a good comparison at all.

I have to say that I prefer what they are doing. Right now the campus can be viewed as being in transition. I actually expect some of the high-rise buildings in place right now to come down at some point. Kimpel and Humphries in particular. I know Humphries was up for renovation at one point but those plans have at the least been delayed, if not scrapped.

Garland was the first parking garage, and so it was a sort of experiment in itself. it also sought to bridge the slope between Walton and Garland ave at grade. Part of the funding for that garage, I think, was a federal grant that required it be integrated into the public transportation network, and so it was designed to have a bus drop off and turn-around point on top of it.

The plans I've seen for the area around where Brough and Humphries sit are for multiple 4-5 story buildings, tightly packed, with courtyards in between. I think thats a pretty efficient use of space, and I think there's something to be gained aesthetically by not going higher. I don't know anybody who appreciates Kimpel as a building. Its an eyesore in my opinion.

I have always thought the University needed some kind of tower, maybe in keeping with the collegiate gothic style, a sort of castle tower, with an overlook so people could go up into it and take in all the beautiful mountain views. I like Texas' tower in Austin, although I admit, one of the things that pops into my mind is "how would we keep a crazy from climbing it and shooting people".

[thewizard16]

Kimpel is hideous in my opinion, but a good example of the style that architects briefly loved in that time period. When I get annoyed about density it's not because I think every building on campus should be a tower, but because they have been notoriously bad about building sprawling complexes (housing particularly) that take up a lot of land for as few units as they get overall. I do think they need a couple large academic buildings (JB Hunt's location would have been a good spot to put an academic tower, it practically butts up against Kimpel and no one would complain if you saw less of the side of Kimpel) to make the campus a bit more efficient and allow for classes and research labs to be closer together, but they haven't built anything reasonably tall at all in quite some time, or even planned ahead by building 4-5 story buildings that could be built up to 6,8, or 10 story buildings if needed in the future. As far as housing... They could have built two good sized six story buildings around a courtyard where Maple Hill is and had room left for a future building or dining hall. instead of taking up the space with Maple Hill South. The NW Quad and the health center could have been designed much more efficiently from a land use perspective and allowed for an academic building (possibly for Bumpers) at the corner where the health center sits. I am glad they're moving back towards the master plan overall, but they've been really bad about not planning in a way that preserves space for future expansions and buildings and placing a focus on quality of green spaces and landscaping instead of just having chunks of patchy grass spread around. With that said, I am excited to see how the hillside auditorium turns out and I hope they do a good job with that new greenspace.

[wmr]

In general, I agree. I have some problems with the planning at U of A. One of my biggest problems is one particular structure. The Harmon Garage.

Standing at the top of the Greek Theater, you used to be able to see off into the mountains. It was a priceless view, that most college campuses do not have. Now, rather than an idyllic mountain scene off into the distance, you see concrete parking levels. Its a real shame, IMO.

I think that garage should have been made about 2-3 levels shorter, just to preserve that view.

I also have an issue with the constant mixture of styles. Even when standardizing light fixtures for the campus, the insisted on having a "modern" fixture and a "traditional" lamp post. The campus just isn't large enough to require two differing styles of lamp post, IMO. And how do you choose? Now, you have a situation where they could have just standardized the lamp posts, but instead, you have traditional lamp posts along Dickson, which are intersected by "modern" lamp posts at the JB Hunt building.

I think the JB hunt building was an opportunity to remodel that area of campus to resemble Gregson and Gibson more. Instead, they chose to emulate Kimpel, which blows my mind.

I believe they overthink some of these planning issues, and don't recognize or appreciate how compact the campus really is. I know there are past mistakes that could not be easily remedied. But over time, a real overhaul can take place.

As for the landscaping and green space, the master plan calls for a simple landscape of trees and lawn and ivy. I don't know of any ivy on campus, which might actually dress up some of the more bland structures. Of all the things they neglect and forget in the master plan, it seems they are dead set on keeping landscaping to a minimum, which is also a shame, IMO.

[wmr]

They have finally started placing some of the masonry work on the Centennial Gate at Maple and Campus Walk. If I were a photog, I would think it would be very cool to have pictures of the gate being built, to show people in the future what it looked like.

This is going to an impressive addition to campus. I read that it is going to be almost 30 feet tall.

[wmr]

I am really intrigued watching the progress on the Hillside Auditorium on the webcam. They are building a building, and burying it as they go.

[wmr]

I really wish the University of Arkansas planning people would consider some ivy. I know that it is non-native, but it can be maintained in a nice way. Here's an example how great it can look on a parking structure. I've attached a picture of the Harmon Garage so you can imagine how it might improve the look of that structure.

[Mith242]

I really wish the University of Arkansas planning people would consider some ivy. I know that it is non-native, but it can be maintained in a nice way. Here's an example how great it can look on a parking structure. I've attached a picture of the Harmon Garage so you can imagine how it might improve the look of that structure.

Guess I've never really thought about it. I don't really have a problem looking the way it does now personally. But I wouldn't object to some sort of greenery either. I guess my question is how would it do in our climate. Would cold winters cause any problems for something like ivy? Not that this past winter would have caused any problems.

[wmr]

There are varieties of "climbing" ivy that do well in cold climates. Many northeastern universities are draped in the stuff.

[zman9810]

Yikes- that one deck looks like it has a fungus problem. It reminds me of hillsides that have been overtaken by kudzu- not a very atttractive look imo. Like most people I do like some greenery but so often people seem to want to hide attractive buildings behind trees and shrubs. In the case of Harmon I wouldn't call it attractive if it were a classrom building but as a functional park deck it isn't that bad. it is mostly hidden and serves it purpose well.

[wmr]

I knew not everyone would share my opinion.

My main problem with the Harmon Garage as I've stated before is that it is dead center in the line of sight from Greek Theater. The trees they've planted behind it are deciduous, and so it will forever be the view from Greek Theater, unless they build something more attractive between the two.

Here's another couple of examples:

Providing a screen on which the ivy can climb creates a more uniform look:

[thewizard16]

I don't love the drown it in ivy look (although that is exactly what I'm trying to do with the concrete retaining wall and fence at my house ), but I do wish they had done something to make the sides of Harmon more attractive or less imposing. Maybe if Mechanical Engineering is replaced with a larger building in the future it will have a green roof or attractive enough design to help ease my complaints, but I don't think ME is going to be replaced in the very near future.

[zman9810]

Here's pic of the new football center site. This angle includes the skycrane at the Vol Walker addition site- quite exciting to see the progress on campus.