Issue link: http://digital.corporatepress.com/i/344186
For most of its history, higher education in America was an experience that only the elite could enjoy. As a result, throughout the 19th century, higher education institutions became in- creasingly steeped in tradition and resistant to change. Things stayed about the same until World War II, which forced colleges and universities to face some huge challenges. For example, in 1944 the G.I. Bill enabled more than two million returning veterans to enter the higher education system. "Higher education became more accessible and was no longer entirely the domain of the elite or the upper echelon," says Persis C. Rickes, president and principal with Rickes Associates, a higher education planning firm in Attleboro, Massachusetts. "Instead, it became the golden ticket to achieving the American Dream." The nation's higher educa- tion system was greatly challenged by this surge of students— in response, many institutions expanded facilities quickly, cheaply, and with minimal planning. "Universities that had catered to a relatively small popula- tion, with a fixed curriculum that had been taught the same for 100 years, were suddenly forced to adapt to a larger and more varied student body, including married students," adds Fred Mayer, retired university planner for the University of Michigan. "Dorms had to be built. There was also a dramatic increase in the amount of research being done on campus—a result of the war effort—so research facilities had to be built to accommodate this expanding role." Social, cultural, and socio-economic changes soon fol- lowed. Brown vs. Board of Education eliminated segregated educational institutions in 1954, opening doors that were pre- viously closed to disenfranchised groups. "The feminization of higher education, starting in the 1980s, also contributed to the great enrollment expansion of higher education," adds Ira Fink, president of Ira Fink and Associates, a university plan- ning consulting firm in Emeryville, California. In the early 1960s the typical college student was white and male—today the majority of college students are female. "Pro- jected enrollment patterns are also tied to increasing numbers of non-white students—populations that have historically been underserved by higher education," says Michael Haggans, an independent scholar and architect studying the impacts of digital technology on higher education. All these changes resulted in the physical expansion of facilities at many existing colleges and universities, as well as the creation of many entirely new institutions. The Higher Education Act of 1964 opened access to higher education even further, especially through its endorsement of com- munity colleges. "Although the first community college was established in 1901, the Carnegie Commission in 1964 called for the establishment of community colleges that were within easy access of all," states Rickes. "The consequence is that almost half of today's higher education students are enrolled in community colleges." WHEN BIGGER WAS BETTER In general, over the last 100 years, campuses have grown fairly slowly. "It is likely that the change in total amount of space on campuses, when added together, might average one to two percent per year," says Fink. "It could take 50 to 100 years to build what already exists. Most campuses spend as much rehabilitating and renovating as they do on new buildings. Facilities on campuses have long life spans." However, with the wave of students funded by the G.I. Bill, followed by the influx of students during the 1950s through 1970s, class sizes expanded, larger residence halls were re- quired, and the physical size of the campus grew dramatically. "All these changes produced much of the physical environ- ment we see today—bigger was consistently seen as better," says Haggans. Higher education institutions today—especially research universities—continue to build bigger and more impressive buildings. Obsolete or run-down buildings won't attract top faculty, the best students, or research money. "Universities must be up to date on technology and have plenty of re- search space, with the latest equipment, in order to compete successfully for research grants and to carry out that work," says Mayer. Other campus construction is driven by the fact that exist- ing buildings can no longer support the way faculty and stu- dents work together. "Colleges and universities need to pro- vide appropriate facilities for changing technology, pedagogy, and instrumentation," says Arthur J. Lidsky, president of Dober Lidsky Mathey, a campus-planning firm in Belmont, Massachusetts. "Many campuses are also serious about sup- porting sustainability and creating a carbon-neutral campus. Theoretically the addition of new square feet then requires the demolition of a comparable amount of square feet." This trend of developing new facilities is often at the expense of fixing up the buildings that campuses already have. As a result, "many schools are faced with terrible deferred maintenance costs that must be addressed, if these campus buildings are able to be really functional in a 21st century learning environment," says Rod Rose, a retired University Facilities Manager | july/august 2014 | 25 By Mark Crawford