Notable Project Timeline
Observatory Hill Dining Hall
Historic Preservation FrameWork Plan This plan evaluated over 140 buildings and landscapes, setting the framework for the continued preservation and study of the University’s post-Jefferson built history.
Claude Moore Nursing Education Building
Claude Moore Medical Education Building
Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center
2011 and beyond
Rugby Administrative Building
The 1990 Master Plan for the University set forth several themes, most of which pertained to the nature of physical development on the Grounds. Two primary notions were that University holdings east of the 29/250 Bypass would be sufficient to accommodate the expected growth needs of the academy, and that Observatory Hill should be preserved. Given that this plan called for development east of the 250 Bypass, it did not consider the value of integrated, multi-disciplinary facilities as a way to encourage academic connections and conserve resources within the existing development on Grounds. As well, the recommendation to protect the environments on Observatory Hill lacked the scientific analysis provided with the current Grounds Plan’s conservation value study, which further reinforces the need to protect both Observatory Hill and the remaining North Grounds forest.
The 1990 Master Plan called for unification of the disparate parts of Grounds, strengthening the axial order of formal green spaces, and creating better bicycle and pedestrian linkages. It proposed development of additional housing as well, beyond the location of existing residence halls. In contrast, the current Grounds Plan proposes the creation of greater unity and connectivity throughout Grounds, in order to establish lasting, fitting linkages between buildings, green spaces and precincts. As well, the concurrent development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan with the 2008 Grounds Plan ensures that bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit facilities are improved to provide the best access for all travel modes throughout the Grounds. While housing capacity is again in need of expansion, the present Plan proposes redevelopment of existing housing sites to increase density without displacing residential uses from their surrounding supportive uses, green spaces, and academic connections.
While there are naturally differences between the present Grounds Plan and previous campus planning efforts, the concepts of the 1990 Master Plan and the 1998 Landscape Master Plan have indeed given rise to several successful projects embodying the goals of the Grounds Plan. The following case studies highlight three such projects. While these projects are different in purpose and use, they have in common their dual successes of meeting specific needs while improving the larger University community through the establishment of benefits and connections beyond the boundary of each project’s site. The 1990 Master Plan stated that selective infill was needed in West Grounds and that buildings should consider the effects of their location on adjacent green spaces, a goal most certainly accomplished by the Wilsdorf Hall project. The 1990 and 1998 plans also recommended that natural green spaces be preserved and used to promote pedestrian connections throughout Grounds; this has been accomplished by the Dell project. Finally, the plan recommended that measures be taken to weave the Grounds together with greater clarity and spatial continuity. Siting new buildings should bridge the gaps between precincts, a task which has been undertaken by the ambitious South Lawn project.