Why call it a campus?

Gates Foundation eyes huge new campus in Seattle.

The term "campus" concerns me --- when it comes to building one within a city. It seems to be inappropriate imagery if one is in the process of city-building. And initial imagery influences ultimate design.

Several years ago I wrote about this subject in the specific context of the University of Washington and I think the ideas I set forth there might apply to the Gates Foundation as well. Read this article from The Seattle Times about "Urban" or "Campus". Here is an excerpt:

Campuses are inward-looking, as pastoral as possible and remote from the hustle-bustle of the market. Nonprofit institutions such as colleges, universities and hospitals are inner-directed and prefer to control their own space.

The campus approach calls for buildings set back from the surrounding streets; there is usually limited access, often through a guarded gate. A city's streets have usually been vacated within the campus proper and there is little sense of being in a city, which of course is the whole point. (The word campus derives from a Latin word meaning field.)

Likewise, when an institution seeks to expand, it typically does so by carrying this approach further: spreading out its campus and creating an area of broad lawns, paths and limited auto traffic.

Read the whole thing; I offer some specific advice on how to do it right i.e. how an institution can contribute to a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Obviously this is an important project. The Gates is huge and a bell-weather (I suspect) for other foundations so how it presents itself physically will be extremely influential. More personally, I live in Seattle, and I would like to see Seattle continue to evolve as an urban place; The Gates can have an enormous beneficial impact if it does it right. If it does a suburban office park — your typical campus — plunked down in the middle of a city it will be negative.

Comments

[john tindall]

Two exceptions that I can think of, although you may disagree are the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and Depaul University. One other thing. Universities should and do have unique thinkers; diversity if you may. There would seem to be a natural symbiotic relationship between cities and students. That's one of the reason Boston is such a great town

[David Sucher]

I don't know the ones you mention, but there are probably many exceptions where for whatever reason -- chance or design -- the institution is knit into the community.

But as you say, they are exceptions. Most institutional builders don't care a whit about city building; in fact it is the farthest thing from their mind -- they like the separation implied by "campus." So we should seize on exceptions which offer excellence in urban design and make them the basis for new rules.

[Dale]

Can't agree about Michigan (where I go). There's definitely a "campus" mentality and though the campus is very accessible to the downtown in terms of distance (right across the street, in some cases), few campus buildings or blocks maintain continuity with walkable, vibrant parts of town. North Campus, where planning and architecture are, was designed by Eero Saarinen, and is totally auto-oriented. The new urbanist-leaning planners are advocating for more density of use and pedestrian-orientation, but it's an uphill battle.